Plants Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This template should not be used unless and until it is corrected to format citations properly.

1. It does not allow a choice between CS1 and CS2 formats, which it must do to allow consistency with existing article formats.
2. The word "at" is incorrectly inserted before the website name; this word isn't used in any of the standard citation formats. (And if it were, it would have to be capitalized in CS1 style, i.e. when after a full stop.)
3. It doesn't correctly distinguish between the website ("World Checklist of Selected Plant Families") and the publisher ("Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew") as it would do if {{cite web}} or {{citation}} were used, as they should be in my view.
4. Because it doesn't use one of the proper citation templates, it doesn't generate metadata, which it needs to.

Peter coxhead (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said on my talk page, this template was not intended to generate citations, although it may end up working out that way.

It is an external link template. External links do not need to follow the citation formats. I will consider switching to citation format but I will not stop using the template simply because its working as intended.--MCEllis (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you have been using it to generate references. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will convert to the citation format per your request. Please be patient.--MCEllis (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine; but get it right, properly tested using a sandbox as is usual for templates, before deploying it. I'm quite happy to help but not to see it appear as it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Let me know if you are okay with the current format. I will need to fix my other templates as well. Please try to appreciate how much work I have put into this. I will make things right with the other templates but it will take time.--MCEllis (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, didn't properly see the changes you made before.) Ok. Needs a few more tweaks; I'm currently working on it at Template:Kew list/sandbox. It should call Module:Citation directly, I think, and needs to provide for switching between CS1/CS2 modes. Ideally I think it should work differently – by outputting a cite template rather than by outputting its result, which makes it easier for editors to maintain citations. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind this is an external link template, not a citation template. I am not sure what you are suggesting still be changed at this point, but if you are suggesting using {{subst:}} to output the cite tag permanently onto the pages, I feel that would be a mistake and I strongly oppose a change like that. I do not want to change the currently functionality of this template much more.

Most importantly, we need to maintain the ability to correct dead links from this template, rather than fixing them on each page because of a change to the output of this template.

Please discuss and explain any future changes to the code before applying them. Thanks.--MCEllis (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template is going to be used for referencing, not just for external links, and indeed should be: what would be the point of having two more-or-less identical templates for the same purpose?

How "special purpose citation templates" should work is a question for the community to decide, and needs a wider discussion, which I'll start elsewhere at some point. However, {{cite EB1911}}, which is widely used, seems to offer support for not substituting. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Peter coxhead: where did you go to verify the 229 families number within WCSP?You added "as of February 2016" but I can't find the 229 number on Kew's website. I originally got the number from commons:Template:Kew_list but haven't been able to find a source.

I'll remove the number altogether. Kew itself says 173 "accepted families" here, but this is dated 2011. It covers more families that are or have been accepted by other sources, which is where the 229 probably came from. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When using the template with no parameters, i.e. {{WCSP}}, in a species article, the generated URL is of the form e.g. http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/qsearch.do?page=quickSearch&plantName=Sagittaria%2Bpygmaea giving an error "The URL is incorrect."

Instead I believe the URL should be of this form: http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/qsearch.do?page=quickSearch&plantName=Sagittaria%20pygmaea

i.e. encoded space character vs. encoded plus character

Thanks, Declangi (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the template produces links only to the main page of Plants of the World Online at Kew. Is there a way to link to specific taxa? 108.18.207.147 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Directly, it seems not – they are using entirely different IDs. Irritating! 12:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Peter coxhead (talk)

There are ways of getting a better link:

• The template checks for a Wikidata item with the same taxon name. If that Wikidata item has an entry for PoWO, then its link could be used.
• The template could generate a search for the taxon name in PoWO.

However, I'm not sure if this would be the right approach; when the WCSP template was used, the information may have been different from the information now in PoWO. Automatically substituting one reference for another doesn't seem quite right to me. What should the access date parameter be set to if a link to PoWO is generated? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have refined the tests for parameters that were resulting in empty output in articles including Oeceoclades decaryana, where the template is used with empty |1= and |2=. In the process I created a testcases page for this template. All of the test cases except one currently work properly, but a similar usage (numeric-only parameter |1=, no other parameters) at Pinus peuce works fine, so I don't know if it is a problem. I checked a random sample of about twenty articles, and they were all rendering correctly. Post here if you notice anything amiss. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]