Template talk:Cite IUCN

Requested move 13 June 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Unopposed move  buidhe 23:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

– Match name with template (the module is also used by Template:Make cite iucn, but the new name adequately describes that use as well) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Amkgp  💬  17:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Module:Iucn → Module:Cite iucn

I closed as move, but moved it back because apparently redirects don't work in module namespace. I ask you to implement in the move in such a way as to avoid breaking anything. buidhe 23:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 01:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

help at Molina's hog-nosed skunk
Hi. Could somebody give me an example fix of the "old form url" error at Molina's hog-nosed skunk? Thanks. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. I didn't see an error, but have updated the reference to the latest IUCN assessment. The older assessment can be found at 2008 assessment.
 * There was a problem when the IUCN changed their url format and broke the links for a variety of IUCN templates. They left the oldversions at an oldredlist url for a while but then deleted that and added some redirects (but not for all pages). It was all a bit of a mess. This template was created to replace the old templates and provide a suitable link where possible. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I may understand and assume you are showing warnings as well as errors for citation templates. The iucn reference had https://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41630/0 which is the oldstyle link. At least in this case they provided a redirect. The best fix is to use which takes the citation provided at the IUCN cite and converts to to a cite iucn reference that can be substituted. Use   without the ref tags.  This is what I used to update the citation. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That's exactly what I need to know. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Broken error checks, no way of indicating erratas
I believe i have spotted a problem in the template. Usually an error message appears when the doi and the page code don't match. However, these are supposed to not match when an errata version is published - for an example, see this revision of Australian swamp rat (also look at the IUCN page, and compare it with a 'normal' IUCN reference like Brown bear. Currently there is no way of indicating an errata version in references, and therefore no way of making the ugly red error message go away. Could someone take a look at this? The easiest, worst way would be removing the error checks for doi and page mismatches, the best way would be adding new checks and assessments for indicating errata versions, and i guess a middle third way would be adding a new parameter that allowed users to opt out of the doi-page mismatch error check for that single reference. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added support for errata. When that parameter has a year (from the parenthetical portion of the assessment's title), the assessment ID portion of the various identifiers may be different (taxon ID portion must still match),  will convert publication year or date to orig-date and add &lt;errata year>.  I have also adjusted  to extract errata year from the errata note in the assessment title and add &lt;errata year> to the  template that it creates:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is perfect! Thank you very much for your work! YuriNikolai (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is perfect! Thank you very much for your work! YuriNikolai (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is perfect! Thank you very much for your work! YuriNikolai (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

remove support for |id= parameter
According to this search, there are only a dozen or so article that have templates using id. I think that that parameter should go away. id is not a documented parameter and does not include it when it creates a  template from an IUCN example citation. Unless someone tells me that it is a foolish thing to do, I shall update the dozen or so articles that use id and then remove support for it from Module:Cite iucn.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a legacy parameter used to create the url in my earliest version of the module, before you upgraded it to be fully compliant with the cite templates. Now most additions use so it's redundant. Besides about half those uses had template errors or gave dead links. I've updated them all using . — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're faster than I am. id no longer supported.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Error in DOI check
The check in Module:Cite iucn for a DOI insists on it ending with ".en". However, there are valid DOIs, such as, that do not end in this language code, so generate error messages. See Romeroa. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Odd. I wonder how many there are? The Spanish pages generally seem to use an .en doi. It seems likely to be a mistake at the IUCN end, unless it is new and there more. I've modified the regex to remove the error message. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * According to this search, about 165 articles; some of which, no doubt, use the same doi.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Two issues with
Been encountering a couple of issues... Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) When I attempt to subst: the template and then preview, it doesn't show the result, just the as-is template text.
 * 2) Accessdate is not needed because we are using the doi. Please deprecate this to an optional field or drop it altogether.
 * Can you explain, step-by-step, just what you are doing when you attempt to subst: the template and then preview?
 * Is there discussion elsewhere that has established a consensus that the 'Accessed on' date from the IUCN plain-text citation should not be extracted and rendered as access-date?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When I do, the preview shows the IUCN reference in its final format. When I subst: the template, the preview is just stuff.
 * As far as I understand things, the access date is for websites that can change over time. This is used so that when and if the website changes, we can continue to validate against the "as seen" version of the website. When an IUCN entry changes, it then has a new doi. The doi is what allows us to determine the "as seen" version of the data. The use of access-date in the template seems to be a holdover from when this was treated as a website citation. I do not know of a discussion elsewhere on this. What is the rationale for keeping it? What is it used for other than as I described? Why isn't it used in other citation templates? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On 1: The preview changed with the latest update, which makes sure the reference is readable on the saved page even if not substituted properly. The preview isn't as helpful when substituting (as there is nothing to preview) but the substitution still works as before.
 * On 2: I don't think the IUCN doi is fixed. If I remember correctly, it takes you to an updated (correction) page if there is one, which wouldn't be the one seen by the editor. If this is the case then the access date should be required. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On 1: The preview used to be of the template that would get generated. Perhaps the preview of the subst could be that? Oh... seeing below that it is because of the damned ref-tag bug. Nevermind... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is what you are doing this:
 * does not work inside <ref ></ref> tags (a old bug; see see T4700)
 * If I write this (outside of ref tags):
 * Gobush, K.S., Edwards, C.T.T, Maisels, F., Wittemyer, G., Balfour, D. & Taylor, R.D. 2021. Loxodonta cyclotis (errata version published in 2021). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T181007989A204404464. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-1.RLTS.T181007989A204404464.en. Accessed on 25 April 2023.
 * and preview, I get the properly rendered template:
 * If I write the same thing inside <ref ></ref> tags, I get this:
 * Is that what is happening for you? If it is, drop the   prefix.  Previews work correctly and AnomieBOT will be around in an hour or so to do the actual subtitution.
 * I remember some discussion (perhaps at WT:TOL) about how the IUCN doi doesn't change when assessments are updated(?) or it always redirects to the current assessment(?) It's all fuzzy to me now.  I think that some reason like that was the rationale for having access-date in  renderings.  You might want to dredge the WT:TOL archives and/or raise the topic there.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup... it's that pesky ref-tag bug. On the doi issue, I'll do some research.... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Use NAME to add a named ref tag, e.g.
 * which previews as:
 * and produces:
 * — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that your which previews as: example is flawed? When I preview that form, I get a  rendering, not a display of the raw (unprocessed)  template parameters or a display of the raw IUCN citation inside  (your which previews as: example).
 * There really should be no pressing need to use  with or without NAME.  Drop the   and let AnomieBOT do the substitution.  Yeah it make take an hour or two but so what?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Roger, roger. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Use NAME to add a named ref tag, e.g.
 * which previews as:
 * and produces:
 * — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that your which previews as: example is flawed? When I preview that form, I get a  rendering, not a display of the raw (unprocessed)  template parameters or a display of the raw IUCN citation inside  (your which previews as: example).
 * There really should be no pressing need to use  with or without NAME.  Drop the   and let AnomieBOT do the substitution.  Yeah it make take an hour or two but so what?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Roger, roger. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There really should be no pressing need to use  with or without NAME.  Drop the   and let AnomieBOT do the substitution.  Yeah it make take an hour or two but so what?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Roger, roger. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Formatting changes
In the last couple of weeks I've noticed that the resultant citation deviates from the usual formatting of cite journal. It now puts  first, where it should be nearly last, and it has removed the spaces preceding the pipes, which, given the length of IUCN's page numbers (such as e.T62052925A62052928) leads to a wall of text effect and clunky text wrapping. The resultant citation should look as much as possible like the standard layout shown at. Abductive (reasoning) 08:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * can you give an example? The examples in the documentation section seem to work fine. For example:
 * Are you subst'ing? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Costus woodsonii for example. Plus ones where I put the subst'd text in as I create the article. Check my recent article creations for more. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * if I now understand correctly, you are using ..., i.e. Make cite iucn not Cite iucn. If so, then this is an issue for , because it's caused by the function make_cite_iucn in Module:Cite iucn which I see has been changed recently. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Template talk:Make cite iucn redirects here. I didn't notice that. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed I think.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2023
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Template:Cite iucn → Template:Cite IUCN
 * Template:Make cite iucn → Template:Make cite IUCN
 * Module:Cite iucn → Module:Cite IUCN

– Capitalise abbreviation of proper name. Tol (talk &#124; contribs) @ 04:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh; this seems like yet-another-make-work project without significant benefit to editors.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. An argument that is essentially WP:AINTBROKE is a poor rationale to oppose a move, IMHO. That some of the correct versions are red suggests in fact the situation could use some work, as editors may be astonished to not find these at the correctly capitalized titles. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
This is a nice template that saves a lot of time. Thank you to those who put the work into this. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 16:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Citing IUCN References
Greetings, fellow editors.

I am a fairly new Wikipedia editor and my goal is to help make knowledge on Australian parrots and Proteaceae species (especially the threatened species) more accessible to the general public, as many people rely on this site for information.

I have been making edits to some articles and am currently in the process of adding the IUCN Red List statuses to multiple Proteaceae genera, including Grevillea and Hakea, as well as adding additional information such as on distribution and threats from reliable sources to these articles.

However, after reading other, highly rated Wikipedia articles for advice on how to write, as well as reading the recommended citations for IUCN Red List assessment pages, I have noticed I am not citing my IUCN references correctly. It appears I have missed a lot of key information, such as the DOI number and assessors.

Would anyone please help advise me on how to correctly cite IUCN references for Red List Assessments on Wikipedia species pages?

I have revised one of my IUCN references for my edits to Hakea pulvinifera to fit what I have seen in other articles, but I'm still not sure if it is correct. The revised reference looks like this:

Barker, W.; Keith, D. (2020). "Hakea pulvinifera". The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: e.T113088579A113309795. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T113088579A113309795.en. Retrieved 15 December 2023.

Whereas the old reference looks like this, and was written in website format instead of the recommended journal format

"Hakea pulvinifera". The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2020. Retrieved 14 December 2023.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Lord.of.the.Proterozoic (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The easiest way is to use . Just copy the recommended citation from the IUCN page (click the two squares icon to the left), e.g.
 * You write:
 * It produces:
 * A bot will then automatically substitute the citations with the cite iucn wikitext.— <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 12:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your best bet is to copy the IUCN reference from the link provided on the IUCN page and use make cite iucn. That will do everything for you. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As Jts just said. XD - UtherSRG (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much everyone, I will use the make cite IUCN method to go back and correct my previous errors, as well as add IUCN citations to additional articles. If I have any trouble with it, I will let you know here. Lord.of.the.Proterozoic (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Category for missing doi?
Can we have this template place the article in a hidden category (maybe call it Category:IUCN cites missing doi) if the doi field is missing/empty? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Justification?
 * I would guess that most instances of the template that are missing doi are listed in ; particularly those that are using the old-form url. Here is a search of articles listed in that category:
 * ~990 articles use the old-form url
 * a ctrl-f search of the results looking for  gets ~30 hits, many duplicated, some not relevant which suggests that use of old-form url tends to go hand-in-hand with omission of the doi.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Use case is for new-form missing doi means either the user did something wrong, or the reference is very new and no doi was yet assigned. The latter is the case for such like Narrow-headed shrew where the IUCN has recently updated. I want to be able to track those in particular so that when a doi gets assigned, I can add it to the ref. I care less for the old-form usage, though probably those should be converted, eh? (So maybe as a subcat of the existing maint cat? And that maint cat probably needs other subcats to make maintenance easier.) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Module:Cite IUCN uses the values from page (preferred) or from doi when it constructs a IUCN url for title. doi is not required and in some cases can cause confusion for reasons described at.
 * So long as the template has either of page or doi, nothing is wrong so this template is not in need of maintenance:
 * Now that you have me thinking about it, I wonder if the time has come for us to convert some of the maintenance messaging to error messaging for templates that:
 * use old-form urls – many of these are dead
 * have unknown urls – I've seen some urls that point to non-IUCN sources
 * do not have any of url, page, doi – without these, the module cannot construct a url for title
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they are wrong. I said I want to have an easy way to keep track of those missing the doi so that when the doi is created, I can add it. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I heard you the first time. A maintenance category suggests the need for maintenance.  For templates like your example, maintenance is  needed so it is inappropriate to add a category suggesting otherwise.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Category:Taxonbar_cleanup has three levels of maintenance: failed Error-checks, routine Maintenance, and Tracking purposes only (no error). I posit that what I'm asking for would fall in the tracking level. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * . I leave it to you to document the category on the template's ~/doc page.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Can you take a look at Acestrorhynchus maculipinna? Why is this in the category? The template has a valid doi parameter. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a large category. I noted this morning that Iberian lynx was updated without a  . The new IUCN citation (on their page) is:
 * Rodríguez, A. 2024. Lynx pardinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2024: e.T12520A218695618. Accessed on 30 June 2024.
 * Have they stopped adding a  or do they get added later, possibly due to a registration delay? I find it strange that they would drop the.
 * As an aside, do you think we should do something with the new IUCN Green status in the taxobox? — <span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882  &#124; talk 08:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that because they updated so many statuses, the dois couldn't be added all at once and that they will roll out. And yeah, the category is large. It should probably be limited to only the new form of url citations, as all the old form url citations will already be tagged or called out in some way. As for the Green status, I tried to get something going on that when they first rolled it out, but it saw no traction. Maybe now that it is a bit more prevalent it can be revisited. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With a bit of tweaking, Module:Cite IUCN (in particular ) is able to create a template from an IUCN green status citation.  This from IUCN's Iberian Lynx page:
 * The tweaks account for the missing space character between the page and the accessed date and moves 'Green Status assessment' into type.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did try constructing the doi from the electronic page number, e.g. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2024-1.RLTS.T12520A218695618.en, but it isn't registered. — <span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882  &#124; talk 16:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. I don't know the process of registering a doi, but I speculate that it takes some amount of time, so multiply that by the number of pages the IUCN is updating/creating.... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As of this writing, has 1551 articles.  Of those:
 * 47 are there because title has extraneous text
 * 20 are there because no identifier
 * 15 are there because unknown url
 * 975 use old form urls
 * 449 are there because
 * 47 are there because
 * 38 are there because
 * Some overlap should be expected.
 * Also, as of this writing, has 5379 articles so the claim that old-form url citations make up the bulk of the new category's content does not appear to be supported.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but when I wrote that, w/o doi had ~2200 as it was still processing and I hadn't realized. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 975 use old form urls
 * 449 are there because
 * 47 are there because
 * 38 are there because
 * Some overlap should be expected.
 * Also, as of this writing, has 5379 articles so the claim that old-form url citations make up the bulk of the new category's content does not appear to be supported.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but when I wrote that, w/o doi had ~2200 as it was still processing and I hadn't realized. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but when I wrote that, w/o doi had ~2200 as it was still processing and I hadn't realized. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)