Template talk:Cite arXiv/Archive 1

Merge with Template:Cite journal?
I'm a bit confused as to why this template exists - is it not better to use Template:Cite journal, with Template:Arxiv in the ID field? Mike Peel 12:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I imagine so that one can cite papers that exist on the arxiv but have not (yet) appeared in journals. —David Eppstein 06:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My point was that it is easy to do something like:
 * ... which cites arXiv on its own, with no reference to a journal location, while leaving the option open to add in a full journal reference in later. I've agreed with User:Hillman (the creator of this template) to not do anything with this for at least a few months, so that he can sort through other problems he's having with Wikipedia first. Mike Peel 07:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ... which cites arXiv on its own, with no reference to a journal location, while leaving the option open to add in a full journal reference in later. I've agreed with User:Hillman (the creator of this template) to not do anything with this for at least a few months, so that he can sort through other problems he's having with Wikipedia first. Mike Peel 07:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That does look better. I didn't know about that id trick — maybe it deserves more prominent mention earlier on this talk page? —David Eppstein 14:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with cite paper? — Omegatron 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Show as arxiv cite; no version?
I'd like it if the cite arxiv template looked something like
 * Marathe, Madhav V., Breu, Heinz, Hunt, Harry B., III, Ravi, S. S., and Rosenkrantz, Daniel J. (1994). "Geometry based heuristics for unit disk graphs". arXiv:math.CO/9409226.

instead of
 * Marathe, Madhav V., Breu, Heinz, Hunt, Harry B., III, Ravi, S. S., and Rosenkrantz, Daniel J. (1994). "Geometry based heuristics for unit disk graphs.".

For one thing, the doubled period looks bad. For a second, unless I hover over the link I can't tell the first kind of cite apart from a random web page anywhere else. We include publishers of other kinds of sources; why should we slight the arxiv in this way?

On an unrelated issue, it's not obvious how or why to fill in the "version =" part of the template for a paper that doesn't have multiple versions. Omitting it doesn't work correctly. The cite above was generated with a blank version. The examples on this page seem to indicate that the version should be filled in with the upload date, but arxiv uses a different numbering scheme in which versions are like "v1", "v2", etc. The year is already visible elsewhere, but if you want a date as well, why not call it a date? And why not allow the "16 Dec 2005" style format appearing on arxiv pages for easier copy and pasting?

—David Eppstein 06:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Modernisation
Hi,

I've upgraded the template so it uses Template:Citation/core. I've been careful to retain current functionality; in addition, I've integrated the template with User:Citation bot. Therefore it is now only necessary to add an eprint parameter to the template, and you can sit back and watch as the bot automatically fills in the rest for you.

Hope that doesn't cause any problems!

Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple author input
In other citation formats, there is a preference for using a separate parameter for each author. I am aware of two main benefits: firstly, metadata is more readily extracted and more usefully presented; secondly; there is improved compatability with the Harvard style of inline referencing. The template already supports this behaviour, and I consider it non-controversial to update the template documentation accordingly. Please dissent below! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  19:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalised documentation page
See Template_talk:Cite_web. Debresser (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

arXiv is good
I commented out the suggestion that citations be migrated to cite journal and the published journal, to "help the bots", firstly that's not a good reason, secondly there is or was a bot doing the actual moving, which suggests that it can deal with either format, thirdly arXiv is freely accessible, whereas many journals charge, WP prefers the free link, and fourthly if there is any difference between the journal version and the arΧiv version, we are citing the wrong source. Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC).


 * I reverted your commenting, but clarified what was meant by "switch to cite journal". Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We should definitely encourage keeping the arXiv link in place after formal peer-review acceptance. If authors make important corrections that are only present in the non-open-access version, then they take the risk that they will get cited only for their erroneous, open-access version. Scientists (1) in poor countries and/or (2) outside of a specialty (e.g. astronomy vs particle physics vs a field of mathematics) and/or (3) in a not-so-poor country institution with a low budget tend not to make the special/costly effort required to get non-open-access articles.


 * i've tried to clarify the wording a little - IMHO we need to be clear that we recommend retaining the arXiv link. Even for old articles in journals that are open-access-for-old-articles, there is still a higher chance of long-term perennity (e.g. 50 years? 100 years?) in arXiv than in individual journals - arXiv is efficient and has dozens of mirrors, while at least some journals claim to delete the original LaTeX source after a short period (2 years or so?), or do not even store it themselves, leaving that to the publisher. In 20 years' time, converting arXiv sources (LaTeX + postscript) to some future format would probably be cleaner than converting html (with files all over the place) to that future format. Boud (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add page and pages parameters
So we can cite to pages. Paradoctor (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am against this for arxivs. If you need to reference a particular page, it is better to write See page 10 in. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but for a single use it needlessly clutters up the article. There is no need to argue, I'm asking for optional behavior, not a default. If you don't like it, and don't want to do it, I have no problem with that. Just means I'll have to do the work myself. Is there a reason I shouldn't? Paradoctor (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC on identifiers
There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

class parameter
In this version of a Wikipedia article the class parameter of this template is used. The resulting reference (number 1) has an external link to the desired source material, followed by a generic second external link to the part of the archive that is associated with the class. This second link does not seem very useful to me. The documentation for this template states that the class parameter is optional and should be used only with new-style eprint identifiers that do not include the class. Is there some reason why the class parameter should be used in that situation? Can we add some usage guidance to the documentation? Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)