Template talk:Repository link

Requesting option to alter how link is rendered

It would be nice to be able to add an extra attribute for formatting how the link is rendered, in order to avoid ending up on disambiguation pages. For example, right now the code string {{Repository link|ZMH}} points to the disambiguation page ZMH. Since both museums listed there use "ZMH" as an alternative acronym the user will not know whether the repository of the type material at hand is the Zoological Museum of Helsinki (FMNHH) or the Zoological Museum of the University of Hamburg (ZMUH). A possibility to format the template for example as {{Repository link|ZMUH|ZMH}} (equivalent to [[ZMUH|ZMH]] using standard wiki syntax) would eliminate this problem.

That would also help with categorizing the taxa for which the template is used. Today {{Repository link|ZMH}} will add the taxon to Category:ZMH which states in bold type that "This acronym is ambiguous and should not be used". Again, adding the possibility to format the link would eliminate the problem – while still showing the acronym used in the original citation! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Done. Please update the documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Done. Thank you for your help. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC).

Requesting option to add parameter for not adding category

How about we add an optional parameter like for example |cat=no for those few cases when we don't want the template to automatically add a page to a Repository category? For example, while not common there are pages that inlude information such as e.g.

Holotype: unknown. Not in SMNH, see Jones 1988: 41

where this could be useful. If we do this we should add a yes attribute as well: not necessary but good for the sake of consequence. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC).

I can update so though I usually use plain linking (e.g. [[SMNH]]) in a such case and this way seems sufficient. Do we really need the optional parameter? --Eryk Kij (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)