Template talk:Taxonbar

{{Taxonbar}} (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test)

TaiCOL ids

TaiCOLid is an important East Asian id. I would like it to show automatically on the taxonbar (or at least have the option |TaiCOL=yes. East Asian species are underrepresented in enwiki (and in Western online databases -confused taxonomy) and it is always useful to be able to click on an identifier. (In the case of Amphimenes asahinai it was the only source I found for its being endemic to Taiwan. (In addition to the enwiki taxonbar it would also be great to see it on the Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Russian taxonbars. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I suppose the old flagged 'CoL-Taiwan' (P3088) entries need replacing.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Although perhaps there aren't any. I find none with this search.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Oops. This search returns 16 results.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. @Tom.Reding: MargaretRDonald (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

StaphBase ID

Would folk like to add ‎StaphBase ID (P14477), "Identifier for a taxon of the beetle group Staphyliniformia, in the StaphBase database"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done. See Hydrophiloidea for example.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the first example where I've seen a link to ChecklistBank in the taxonomic ID on Wikidata. There are quite a few other spources which don't have their own sites but use CoL/ChecklistBank. The Global Lepidopters Index comes to mind.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.

I have already started a discussion on Wikidata, at Multiple potential properties for ChecklistBank IDs. Please comment there! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Taxonbar no longer linking to World spider catalogue

The taxonbar seems to be no longer working correctly for WSC entries. See for example Arctosa_chungjooensis and Arctosa. Hoping some clever person can fix this. MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I see the WSC link in the taxonbar, though I've been unable to connect to the WSC links for several months. This doesn't appear to be a taxonbar issue. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The A. chungjooensis WSC record exists here. The LSID shown on that page appears identical to the WSC ID on Wikidata. The whole point of LSIDs is that they should be stable links. I'm not sure what the exact problem is. Plantdrew (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what happened. A get a security warning about the security certificate not matching. The certificate is for wsc.psbrands-services.de which seems to host a mirror of WSC. Suspicious?

The WSC link Plantdrew gives uses wsc.nmbe.ch while the taxonbar link used www.wsc.nmbe.ch. I've changed the URL formatter on Wikidata and it appears to work now.  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

GBIF

Ok, GBIF has totally revamped and is now in alignment with Catalogue of Life. Wikidata has updated and renamed the old GBIF entries, and added new GBIF entry. Can we get the taxonbar updated as well? The existing GBIF should be retitled as "GBIF (old)", and the new one added as "GBIF". See Wikidata items Polygala bonariensis (Q15578908) and Senega bonariensis (Q140273611) for examples of items with the old (former) and new (latter). - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done as GBIF (old) and GBIF (new). However, the old one redirects to the new one. If Wikidata have added the new ones, is the old one still needed?  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I think they are working on a bot to replace the old with the new, but it hasn't been done yet. Who knows when that will happen... - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I misread your original comment to say Wikidata had updated the GBIF statements, which is why I queried the need for the old GBIF ID. I don't know how many wikidata items include GBID ID statements (definitely >10000, probably >100000), but only 280 use the new one.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)