Template talk:FishBase

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bullets question 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FishBase vs. ''FishBase'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Deadlinks

message: I think we should change
*Froese, Rainer, and Daniel Pauly, eds.
to
*Froese, Rainer; Pauly, Daniel, eds.
to match the output from the "cite" templates. Any objections? Jason Quinn (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  change author text 

message: In the template please change
 "]
to
 ]
so that the close quotation mark is spaced versus the species name.  (See Template:-".) —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 08:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 12 December 2021