Template talk:FishBase

WikiProject iconFishes Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Bullets question

I was taking a look at Nursehound and noticed the bullet before the FishBase entry in the references section was missing. I was going to fix it, but it seems the needed asterisk was already there. Could it be a result of this template's coding? --Gnome Economics 16:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Never mind, the problem seems to have rectified itself. --Gnome Economics 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

I think the template would be better if species names were in italics, in line with its analogue on the Commons and Wikispecies. I would also suggest removing the quote marks at the same time. Does anyone disagree? --Stemonitis (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I'd also like to propose that the format be changed to
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds). species name. FishBase. February 2009 version.
This would bring it more in line with our own {{cite web}} template, and be closer to how FishBase recommends that it be cited at the bottom of the page here. -- Yzx (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about:

"Barus barus" in Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds). FishBase. February 2009 version.

innotata (TalkContribs) 18:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the templates {{FishBase order}}, {{FishBase family}}, {{FishBase genus}}, {{FishBase subspecies}}, {{FishBase species alt}} need to updated if this one is. —innotata (TalkContribs) 19:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FishBase vs. FishBase

I've boldly changed "FishBase" to "FishBase" in this and related templates. I can't see any reason for FishBase to be italicised- our article on the site does not italicise, and there seems to be nothing in the MoS suggesting it should be. I'd be inclined to think that this is a hangover from the ridiculous "work" parameter in {{cite web}}, which is a formatting nightmare. If you disagree with my actions, please explain why- I'm sure we can work something out. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but work remains italicised in cite web, so why should this be different currently? This makes sense to me; I was just about to directly add cite web. —innotata 14:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see the MoS says that "Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis". So basically we have no guideline either way here; I don't think any discussions of this will go anywhere in this situation. And if the websites that are italicised are those like books, newspapers, or encyclopaedias, it's rather hard to say which side FishBase is on. —innotata 14:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was added very recently, and seems to be completely contrary to how it has been dealt with in the past... How annoying... J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How annoying? Hard to disagree. Maybe this needs to be brought up at the MoS talk page again already then. —innotata 19:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is ongoing- I have left my thoughts. It seems to be completely contrary to how it has always been done, and how it is still done- that's why I said "how annoying". J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlinks

At least in some cases this template produces dead links when there are live links on Fishbase. See, for example, the citation on this page for Psilorhynchus robustus before the template was replaced with a straight link, or this one for Sinocyclocheilus robustus, again the template version was replaced with a direct link. Can the template be updated or can a newer template be created which actually accesses the data? --Bejnar (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provided are not to the actual species accounts, but to subpages of some sort. It's probably a technical problem with FishBase we can't solve (I'll look more later) —innotata 02:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

change author text

I think we should change

  • Froese, Rainer, and Daniel Pauly, eds.

to

to match the output from the "cite" templates. Any objections? Jason Quinn (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 12 December 2021

In the template please change

{{{species|{{{2}}}}}}''"]

to

{{{species|{{{2}}}}}}''{{-"}}]

so that the close quotation mark is spaced versus the species name. (See Template:-".) —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 08:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:FishBase&oldid=1059895265"