Issue 10152

Remove inappropriate External links from species page

Reporter: omeyn
Assignee: ahahn
Type: SubTask
Summary: Remove inappropriate External links from species page
Priority: Major
Resolution: Fixed
Status: Closed
Created: 2011-11-07 16:55:19.545
Updated: 2013-08-29 14:46:11.461
Resolved: 2011-11-17 11:44:05.955

Created: 2011-11-07 16:55:57.16
Updated: 2011-11-07 16:55:57.16
Kyle Braak Fri, 23 Sep at 11:04am
We create nub usages species ourselves, and the only original species source page is our own. This type of external link would apply only to name usages.
It will be a bit tough to refine a list of external links... more to come on this.

Markus Döring Sat, 24 Sep at 1:39pm
We could of course manually select a few well known sources.
For example I would imagine if there are pages in IUCN Redlist, Catalogue Of Life, EOL, Wikipedia, NCBI or IPNI we might want to show those links directly in the species page

Andrea Hahn Wed, 28 Sep at 5:05am
The purpose of the "external links" section is to maintain a slot for links to external pages / projects relating to the taxon in focus of of the current species page. It is not the same as "related usages", which point to the other taxonomic sources. The rationale behind that is that the new portal needs to provide much more cross-linking to other existing projects and initiatives than the present one does, and the "External links" is one of the places provided for this. So far, it is not specified how these links will be stored, collected and moderated (implementation phase); if we could start with the projects Markus lists, and could auto-generate links to the corresponding taxon page on their system to start with, that would be great. The examples currently given on the species page are purely placeholders for whatever may come - if they are confusing, just replace with some more plausible placeholder text. Examples for what could go here are "GEO Puma observation project", "ISIS breeding program" (both fictional), or "Encyclopedia of Life" with a link to

Markus Döring Wed, 28 Sep at 5:23am
agree with that Andrea.
I think we should aim at  IUCN Redlist, Catalogue Of Life, EOL & Wikipedia as a start at least as this is a realistic goal.
Technically in CLB we will keep those links as identifiers in the respective source checklist. So the EOL link will come from an identifier with type URL for an EOL usage. Should we use logos for those links instead of pure text?

Comment: This may have been overtaken by implementation already - I am not sure links would work, as they would need to be big enough to recognise and could clutter the layout considerably. I would be in favour of sticking with just a list, though it should be as readable as possible for non-expert users ("Encyclopedia of Life" instead of EoL, etc, if space allows).
Created: 2011-11-17 09:45:30.382
Updated: 2011-11-17 09:45:30.382

Created: 2011-11-17 09:46:13.025
Updated: 2011-11-17 09:46:13.025
Sorry, I meant "not sure _logos_ would work"


Comment: The LSID links that are currently displayed in the same area ( are a rather different category, and rather cryptic/confusing for the normal user. If we want to keep them, can we move them one level deeper behind a "see all" link, so that they are available for more specialist users, but do not fill up the main page?
Created: 2011-11-17 10:01:17.5
Updated: 2011-11-17 10:01:17.5

Comment: transferred to PORWEB-80
Created: 2011-11-17 11:44:05.992
Updated: 2011-11-17 11:44:05.992