Template talk:Cite doi/Archive 1

DOI. Huh?
A general rule with acronyms is that you should define them somewhere. This page should say somewhere what DOI stands for. I'm guessing it's "date of" something, but it would help to know for sure. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it should also say what PMID stands for. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I found out. And I added links to the definitions for the Cite DOI and Cite PMID template pages. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

noedit
The "edit" button may be undesirable, therefore I am proposing on adding the new parameter "noedit" to the added the template. The code is available in the following patch:  Demonstration of its functionality.
 * yields:


 * yields:

Thanks. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This function is only useful if there are times when the edit button should be displayed, and others where it shouldn't. Is this the case?  If the edit button isn't useful, it should never be displayed. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  16:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand if you believe that this adding this feature may be unethial, removing the edit button holds strong negative implications against Wikipedia's founding principals. However these templates should rarely be edited, and its removal is not substantially invasive. There is a third option to the two I've explained thus far. I do not advocate it, but I am asking that it be considered. There is a way around the edit button through a method such as this. It'll fit the situation in the two discussions cited above, however on a larger scale it will not. Considering it, this is what I understand. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead up discussion to this proposal is found on my talk page and on Talk:Global warming. The transcluded information should rarely be edited. Sensetive topics do not use this template because of the added burden of tracking each transclusion. While removing the edit button does not necessarily eliminate the risk, it certainly prevents passerbyers from easily manipulating the sources. This places the template in a more protected state, which is more manageable.


 * I think that adding a 'noedit' feature will essentially stop all edits to the Cite Doi templates - I suspect that very few editors are determined enough to work out how to remove the noedit option, follow the link, then re-noedit it. But perhaps, if noedit was only enabled on stable citations, that would be acceptable. I'm (sporadically) working on an improvement on the bot's ability to complete templates, which may make editing entirely unnecessary, except for routine tasks such as updating URLs which may need to be performed manually on a relatively regular basis.  Perhaps a solution would be to have all cite doi subpages semiprotected by default; or perhaps an antivandal bot could keep a close watch on cite doi templates.  Whatever solution you opt for should be easy for editors to understand (which I don't think the anchorencode option is). Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An anti-vandal bot would be nice, semi-protection would be hard to pass, we're looking at a bot request right (WP:BTR)? As for the noedit feature, I think we can write the documentation to tell the editor not to use it unless the circumstances proves necessary. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome change
This new way of creating citations is very welcome. The lack of an edit friendly means of inserting citations is having a negative impact on the potential quality of science articles. Those that in their daily work write papers use Endnote etc and do not expect text cluttered with code. It is hassle to much and I suspect stops both the editing of articles and the creation of new ones.

However, it needs the noedit option as a default as it otherwise creates what looks very much like a "please vandalize me" button. Also for scientific journals the inclusion of any date information other than the year is redundant. It would also seem also inappropriate to include an issn link to the journal and including a statement of "(Free full text)"--this is implied by blue clickable text of the title. On articles with 100+ references the extra letters involves takes space and hinders the ease of locating references in the reference list.

I also note the initials of authors are only capitalized the first letter.--LittleHow (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad you find the template useful. The bot will address the latter point when I finish work on my latest patch.  Many editors link to an abstract where the full text is not available (but the bot is unable to automatically distinguish 'subscription required' from 'abstract only'), which makes the format statement helpful.  (A link need not imply free access.)  Some readers (myself included) have reported finding the month or season information useful when they are locating a copy of a scientific article. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The template is such a wonderful thing that I am wary to make criticism. Some editors may make a link to an abstract but I doubt that many do when the DOI, JSTOR or PMID link already does that and so makes it redundant. Although month and season information can be useful if one is physically trying to find a backcopy in the library, this is increasingly becoming history with online journal access. Even then knowing the issue number is more likely to be more useful. The only journal that is regularly cited in science articles that has a nonvolume paging is the New Scientist and articles in this do not have DOIs.
 * The question is who uses this information? Most such people I suspect will be students using the article as the starting place for finding better sources for essays. The convention in universities and colleges is that when students cite work in their essays that they use academic journal style whether APA, Chicago, Harvard, Vancouver etc. So I suggest citations should follow such conventions closely as possible -- since these only include information about the month when it is needed to specify an article when that is not provided by volume, year and issue number, this I suggest is most appropriate for citations in Wikipedia.--LittleHow (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference with WP is that as an online-only source, space is not limited as it is in print publications - this explains many of the cases where our citations are more verbose than the regular standards. Back in my undergraduate days, my university lacked electronic subscriptions to many of the minor journals, and I did find the month information helpful when finding print copies (Jun 2005 was much easier to recall than vol 347 iss 1135, for example); also, the issue number is sometimes not included in citation databases, making it difficult for the bot to reliably identify it.  However, I don't feel particularly strongly about this; if you want to muster consensus for your viewpoint then you are welcome to do so. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  13:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a balance of issues here. And there is the possibility of doing things so that the problem does not arise. First, what you are doing is very important. Getting it easy to cite could make a big difference to the quality of articles in WP by encouraging those that find the process of citing in articles complex (at present it is easy to make mistakes and get red on the preview screen). I do not deny month dates can be useful--nursing and weekly medical journals tend to identify themselves on their covers by date rather than issue. But there is a balance with the ease of looking through references and this being different form the usual form of referencing in scientific journals.
 * One idea is that with there could also be include a variation < for those references where dates are most useful, or perhaps for where they are not  .--LittleHow (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Any more progress?
This is an important wikipedia project since it will remove an important barrier that stops contributions from people with something to contribute but not enough time to learn the complexities of citation. It would be good if one can add the stop edit button appearing. What is the progress on this? Best wishes--LittleHow (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - please update the documentation. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could someone other than me update the documentation since I have just broken two ribs after a seizure and I am not able to concentrate (pain killers, difficulty with typing one hand).--LittleHow (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to PubMed record
This is a great tool; however, could you please add a link to the PubMed record using the PMID? Currently, the tool is only making a link with the doi. - Thanks - Badgettrg (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try to amend the bot to do this - the difficulty is that the PMID is not listed in the primary database used to expand the citations, so it is possible that in many cases a PMID does not exist for an article. Could you give some examples of articles where a PMID exists but is not found?  Thanks, Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  15:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for name attribute of the ref tag
I suggest that you standardize the name attribute of the ref tag using the pmid or doi. For example, the article with would have the name pmid123456 giving:

The rationale is that with long articles, two editors may cite the same article twice at different times. If the name attribute is not standardized, the article will show in the bibliography twice. Thanks - Badgettrg (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would recommend using the standard format "author2000" to refer to the reference. This has the advantage of identifying the citation, of being possible to type from memory, of making errors obvious to correct, and of being a consistently readable length (soem DOIs exceed 40 characters).  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  15:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Countering vandalism
With the actual citation on an unwatched page, this makes it easy for vandalism to go unnoticed. Discussed before, it there an anti-vandal bot? Or how do we respond or prevent vandalism? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Very convenient
This is probably the nicest citation technique I've ever seen (in any text editing environment, not just Wikipedia). Great work! Vesal (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Automatic citations aren't working anymore
I noticed recently that automatically expanding citations no longer works. I'm not sure if this is a Citation Bot bug, or a bug in my browser, but this seems like the best place to ask. Every time I click on "automatically expand", it goes to the auto update page and apparently tries to expand the citation, but aborts quickly with some non-descriptive error (something about blank pages) and does not create the template page. This used to work in the past; any ideas what might be wrong?&mdash;Tetracube (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed a similar bug recently; is this still broken? If so, could you paste the full output in here, including which DOI you were trying with?  Thanks, Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  19:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I just added another citation, and it seems to be working again now. I'll drop a note here if I run into this problem again. (Or is there a way to test an existing citation? Is it safe to temporarily rename a template just for testing purposes?)&mdash;Tetracube (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that I found a problem in the script that would have led to its not working; I thought that I had fixed this a couple of hours ago, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Citation_bot_2 suggests that there is still a problem somewhere. I'll take a deeper look later in the week.  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

clueless
I'm afraid I'm a bit clueless. I'm trying to use cite google book and not getting anywhere, is this the place to ask? --Muhandes (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, that's not implemented as of yet... Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  14:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

a bug with
Somehow this is not working:

This is a correct number, check: http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=pubmed_id&id=15824366&dont_use_etal=1

Others are working fine. N6n (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like the DOI is listed in the PubMed database, but is not currently functional at 10.1212/01.WNL.0000156906.84165.C0. I hope that this is a rare case but I certainly need to program the bot to handle it; I'll do so in my next free evening.  Thanks for the report! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  14:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I must say that the system is "mind blowing". Thanks! N6n (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ref
Is it possible to implement harv? CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not selectively; is there any disadvantage in all cite doi references containing this parameter? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. (Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing -- I mean that ref operates exactly like it does in cite journal: if ref is not set, then cite doi creates no anchor.) CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to say I would also like to have this feature! I find myself editing most of the cite doi templates by hand to add harv. I don't think there would be any disadvantage to this. If you want to use a different parameter for ref you have to set it by hand anyway, and all it does is change the name of the html anchor. (Not that I'm a programmer...) — Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 23:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The one possible disadvantage is that this may cause a page transcluding a cite doi template to have multiple identical anchors, which breaks HTML validation. What I think we should do is have the bot add  to every new cite doi (and possibly to all old ones too), and program this template so that   will remove the anchor (not difficult). Ucucha 10:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also miss this functionality. Probably better to keep the usage of ref consistent with, thus adding  to newly generated citations and passing the parameter: the user will say   for non-Harvard refs,   for default Harvard refs and   for an article-specific ref. The documentation should be updated to say what is needed if ref=harv is used with an older generated template, unless the bot could be clever enough to add the new parameter to older citations when necessary.
 * We cannot I think add |ref=harv mercilessly to the generated templates: checking scripts will report spurious errors.--Mirokado (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly support this feature request for !  ylloh (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also support this feature. – Maky  « talk » 18:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this working?
I used Cite doi for the first time to add a bunch of references to Red (the paragraph beginning "Red is associated dominance in a number of animal species...") but all of them have been reported as broken. Now, more than likely I screwed something up – but I was wondering because the external doi: links are actually all functioning, and looking at Citation bot 2's recent contributions there are far more broken edits than successful ones. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 13:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Temporary downtime; working to fix it now. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  01:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be back in service now. Let me know if problems recur.  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

PMC
The PMC url should be changed from

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=XXXXX

to

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMCXXXXX/

where XXXXX is the PMC ID

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've modified Template:PMC accordingly. Hope that fixes it? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  22:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Character escaping issue?
In the Ernst Mayr article, I noticed this reference: where I (at least) see a 'black question mark' before the "O" of "Vuilleumier, F. O." Possibly an issue of an accented capital letter needing escaping, although if you look at the original, actually the first author doesn't have an initial. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never used the template in earnest, but I note that (on my browser/platform anyway) there are other problems with non-ASCII characters, e.g. in the first author's name should be "K&auml;llersj&ouml;" and isn't for me. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears this has been fixed. &mdash;innotata 00:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

broken
They all seem to say "This citation will be automatically completed in the next few minutes. etc" right now. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Making this change to escape the slash embeded in the doi id fixes the message, though it should not be needed. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that this is because MediaWiki 1.17 changes the default bahaviour of {urlencode:} - see m:Help:Magic_words. Can't hurt to fiddle with the template to see if I can make a fix, I guess, given the breaking change. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  05:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Example: Compare

LeadSongDog come howl!  05:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * which renders as
 * which renders as
 * which renders as


 * The problem is that {urlencode:/} used to return, but now returns one of:


 * I suggest raising this issue somewhere (techincal village pump?) as it affects thousands of articles. The upgrade has already been reverted once.
 * I will have to re-code the bot to create new pages using the new URL-encoding... but this will have to wait, as it's already gone midnight and I've an early start tomorrow! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  05:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. done LeadSongDog come howl!  05:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's working again. What did you change? LeadSongDog come howl!  20:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see: LeadSongDog  come howl!  21:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an issue again in DOIs containing special characters (e.g. <>[]; see these edits). Alas I don't have time to investigate.  Any ideas?  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  19:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These involve, which I think were always broken. See the section directly below this one. Ucucha 21:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It used to work okay - I checked that all special characters were handled when I first set up the template.  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  21:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Error in auto-creation
The DOI "10.1002/(SICI)1098-2345(1997)43:2<159::AID-AJP5>3.0.CO;2-W" managed to generate some interesting behavior from the bot that automatically creates these citation templates. Apparently it sat in the queue for days, and if you selected the option to "jump the queue", it directed you to Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F.28SICI.291098-2345.281997.2943:2.3C159::AID-AJP5.3E3.0.CO.3B2-W, which was already created. If you selected the option to manually create it, it sent you to Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F.28SICI.291098-2345.281997.2943:23.0.CO.3B2-W, which did not exist. I initially fixed the first one, but this did not make the citation appear in the article (Sunda Slow Loris), so I then created the second one, which fixed the problem. I'm not sure what happened here. –  VisionHolder « talk » 20:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also noticed this, and found the underlying issue: 28212. The problem is with MediaWiki itself, not with this template or the bot. However, I think there is a chance the developers will say cite doi is misusing anchorencode, and that we should urlencode instead—something to consider. Ucucha 22:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

aargh...how do I get rid of the edit thing hanging out in my beautiful citation?
edit thingie? why there and how to get rid of?TCO (talk)
 * By using (which is undocumented, so I don't blame you for not finding out about it). However, why would you want to get rid of it? Ucucha 10:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Examples:
 * Code:
 * Result:
 * Code:
 * Result:
 * Ucucha 10:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Cause it is showing up in the article and none of the other refs have it. And it looks like crap hanging out there in the citation. :( TCO (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Do I have to go back and recreate it all from scratch? TCO (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I figured it out. Tantrum over.TCO (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Continuing on this, it might be a good idea to add a CSS class to the span wrapped around the edit link, so people can play with it with CSS if they want. If we do this, you could add to Special:MyPage/common.css:
 * to hide the link, or:
 * if you really like the links. Ucucha 02:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * if you really like the links. Ucucha 02:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * if you really like the links. Ucucha 02:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

authorlinks????
I've spent 20 minutes trying to add an authorlink. The documentation here doesn't help. I found this within this template at Euler–Maclaurin formula:
 * cite doi|10.2307/2589145

I changed it to this:
 * cite doi|author1-link=Tom Apostol|10.2307/2589145

That seems to be what the documentation says I should do in such cases.

It didn't work. This shouldn't be a big puzzle; it should take a few seconds. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You should edit Template:Cite doi/10.2307/2589145 instead, using the "edit" link in the reference. Ucucha 00:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Odd DOI/Jstor creation
For some reason, when I used, the bot couldn't create the template. Instead, I used the jstor ID (4602191) with cite jstor, and the bot created Template:Cite doi/10.2307.2F4602191 instead. Anyway, I've populated the template and put it to use, but the fact that the DOI in the template name doesn't match the actual DOI bothers me a little. What's going on here? –  VisionHolder « talk » 21:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That DOI apparently has no entry in the CrossRef database, though it does resolve to the correct paper. I suppose something is wrong somewhere in CrossRef. Ucucha 21:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Another request
Is there a way that this template (as well as cite jstor and others) could allow an option to append a letter to the year parameter through a passed variable, rather than editing the template version? For example, if you have two DOIs in the same article that have the same authors and are published the same year (but different titles, etc.) then technically we should list the years as (for example) 2003a and 2003b. This is particularly important if we use Sfn. Another option is to allow us to pass an alternative year, such as an "altyear" parameter. That way we can use both  and. –  VisionHolder « talk » 22:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

cite pmid|noedit
Could someone add the  option to the cite pmid template, thanks. Template programming is unfortunately not one of my abilities - Meewam (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

et. al. vs giant lists of authors
It is not usual practice, when citing, to list every single author. It's usual to stop at three, and then say "et. al.", is it not? How can we encourage either the bot, or template editors NOT to name every single author?

If that's not possible, can we add a Cite doi parameter called numauth= which restricts to the first n authors, and adds "et. al."? I'm specifically referring to abominations such as

That's just silly - this template should not be used to wallpaper theentire front page of the journal article. --Lexein (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The template doc already insists that the first# and last# parameters are used, which will set the maximum number of authors listed to 9. So feel free to edit that template. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  01:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made this citation show the standard maximum number of authors for cite templates. &mdash;innotata 00:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not working properly on a Rubidium Telluride doi.
doesn't appear to be researching correctly. All it grabs is the title without anything else. And entering that doi at crossref.org definitely goes to a place containing more information than that. I presume that this has to do with a symbol, just not sure if it is the paren, the angle bracket/less than or the semi colon. Any ideas?Naraht (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the angle brackets. Try section encoding those ( for < and for >); that might fix it. Ucucha (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The anchorencode gives a . before the hex rather than a %, is that correct?Naraht (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Character encoding in paper titles
The bot has just generated the template for DOI 10.1111.2Fj.1469-7610.1960.tb01979.x, and the title has a "?" in place of "–" (hex e2 80 93, UTF-8 EN DASH). --Mirokado (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is also a problem with "\" instead of "[" in the citation for --Mirokado (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem with the template. Most likely errors in the database used by the bot. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

First name last name
Is it possible to create an alternate version (or at least add a parameter) that enables names to be rendered first names/initials first? e.g. John Doe (1986) instead of Doe, John (1986)? -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  17:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just edit the relevant cite doi/10.xxxx template, and use John Doe instead of Doe John. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thanks. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  18:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Add doi-check
If an admin could put cite doi/sandbox into cite doi, that would be peachy. What it does is check if the DOI starts with '10.Foobar'. If not, it throws an error message and populates Category:Pages with DOI errors. It's tested and everything. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How about a Template:cite isbn?
Is it possible to create a template that uses the isbn number instead of the doi to automatically retrieve biblio metadata? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the ISBN databases limit access, meaning that after a few use of Cite ISBN, the bot couldn't fill them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I ran into similar issues with database access when I looked into this ages ago. I started a manual version at User:Gadget850/Template/cite isbn, but it is probably no more useable than the standard tempaltes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * (rm old comment) On the contrary that is exactly what we should be using - assuming that it can be set up to automatically fill in the feilds. Have a read of my comments at [Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Citation_bot_and_expanding_citations]. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Annoying. I use Zotero and I think it does ISBN lookups from http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway . Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation should have its own database that is kept up-to-date?  WP relies heavily on refs and good refs come from books, journals etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There's also the problem of ISBN 10 vs ISBN 13 (ISBN 0-74325-356-7 vs ISBN 978-0-7432-7356-5), standard (ISBN 978-0-7432-7356-5), compressed (ISBN 9780743273565), semi-compressed (ISBN 978-0743273565), and spaced (ISBN 978 0 7432 7356 5) variants. All that makes it complete hell to maintain. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Zotero pulls in both the ISBN 10 and ISBN 13. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WorldCat allows 1000 accesses for ISBNs per day. See . That may be sufficient in the interim for a Cite ISBN? We only need one access per number and we will build up a collection of ISBNs similar to the ones for the doi numbers at Category:Cite doi templates. A bot that does the retrievals can easily have a limitation of 1000 per day placed on it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

edit link
Is the template set up to default to not having the edit link? If not can this please be done? There is a previous discussion further up this page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Examples on the doc page are working. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 22:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that instead of defaulting to having to turn the edit link off with the "noedit" parameter I would prefer to see it having to be turned on with an "edit" parameter. I would be very rare that the collection of cite doi templates would need edited so there is no reason to have all of these edit links scattered though article ref lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah. I am disabling the edit request, as you first need to gain consensus for such a change. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 00:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Really? he-he... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Read the fine print. When you use edit protected, the message box states: "This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." You are asking to change an established feature. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 00:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Default to not edit link
I would like to see this template default to not having the edit link after the doi rather than default to being present as currently implemented. As previously discussed it is unnecessary clutter, it is a function that is rarely needed, and it yet another target for vandals. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd rather see the feature added, defaulting to "on", to all the Citation/core templates. It would make citation cleanup much easier (and we need a lot of that; there are innumerable halfassed citations on this site missing crucial data). I'm unaware of anywhere else we've made misc. features more difficult rather than easier to use simply because vandals might abuse them. There really isn't anything vandals can't abuse here.  If a particular page's citations keep getting hit, that's a reason for semi-protecting the article. I.e., we have general anti-vandal solutions, and making it more difficult for legit editors to do things on a template-specific basis is a road we don't want to go down for Pandora and worm can reasons. An editfilter should be added to specifically note when a citation is changed this way, so our watchlists alert us in much the same way they specifically note deleted references or page blanking. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  10:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If all the templates got such an [edit] link, what would be the target of that link? For a DOI it's simple, because each different DOI is held in its own template, so the edit link is targetted to edit that one template. For example, I could put this into an article:  - which produces
 * and the edit link is to Template:Cite doi/10.1038.2Fnature02043 which contains a single . But the ordinary uses of are in articles, where they may be listed with several other such templates in a dedicated section; or they may be enclosed in  tags. What should that edit link actually edit? Unlike a DOI, there is no special subtemplate, so the link has to be one which will target the whole article section, which may well contain other material irrelevant to the citation which needs editing. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * and the edit link is to Template:Cite doi/10.1038.2Fnature02043 which contains a single . But the ordinary uses of are in articles, where they may be listed with several other such templates in a dedicated section; or they may be enclosed in  tags. What should that edit link actually edit? Unlike a DOI, there is no special subtemplate, so the link has to be one which will target the whole article section, which may well contain other material irrelevant to the citation which needs editing. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Initially I thought that was a good idea and I wanted it used for ISBN as well, but I have now gone off the idea completely. One thing that put me off is that COinS biblio metadata is not able to pulled out of the article. As with SMcCandlish I am also concerned about the quality of WP refs and I am looking into getting a bot to help with sorting them out. See Bot requests/Archive 46. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * How serious is the DOI vandalism problem? Now that I think about it, it would be nice if every time I generated a new DOI page it were automatically put on my watchlist, or if there were some way that I could be watching thousands of DOI pages easily. I would imagine that most of them are never changed at all, and if vandalism is a problem, it would not be hard to fix if only I had a few thousand pages on my watchlist. I am guessing that no more than 3-4 in a 1000 would change in a day.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any vandalism yet, and I put every citation I create (whether I need to clean it up or not) on my watchlist. That's not to say it won't happen.  However, I do favor an option to disable the edit link if the editor chooses. –  Maky  « talk » 18:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

*Chinese*(?) DOI?
In trying to clean up Category:Pages with DOI errors, I ran into something odd at Ch (computer programming), two of the entries had DOIs that didn't start with "10." but it appears that the documents they reference to do indeed say that they have non "10." "doi"s. See http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-WOLF200905018.htm, that paper says : "【DOI】： CNKI:SUN:WOLF.0.2009-05-018" and  http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-JYJS200907016.htm , that paper says "【DOI】： CNKI:SUN:JYJS.0.2009-07-016" Any ideas?Naraht (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like those are not DOIs as managed by the International DOI Foundation, but rather by the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Regardless of the error check, the template will never resolve these. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 22:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Any chance that we can look them up? I know they don't fall into the 10. format, but can they be looked up in the same place or even someplace else?Naraht (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * http://en.cnki.com.cn Just don't use the doi parameter. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 00:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, further research. It looks like DOI's that are of the form CNKI:SUN:whatever can be looked found at http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-(whatever stripped of dots and dashes). so CNKI:SUN:WOLF.0.2009-05-018 becomes http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-WOLF200905018.htm . Is there any way that we can use this?


 * Regardless of what the web page shows, these are not IDF DOIs, thus they should not use doi. We could develop a CNKI template and/or parameter. Converting the CNKI doi to a URL would be a bit nasty. If you want this automated like cite doi, then citation bot would need to be updated. There are currently 127 CNKI links . ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 02:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that they aren't IDF DOI's, but it looks like there is agreement between the two groups, at least enough to make them use completely identifiably different structures. Having said that, I can see why we might want to separate them and theoretically have a bot convery any doi=CNKI:... parameter to a cnki=CNKI:... parameter. So as I see it there are two things that should be done next. 1) Propose a cnki= parameter to cite journal and 2) figure out what a cite cnki would look like and how to automate it.Naraht (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm all up for a cnki. As for the non 10.xxxx/ dois, that seems to be on account of certain DOI that starts with 100.xxxx/ . Error checking should be updated to handle those. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is what needs to be done:
 * Query citation bot on automatically updating cite cnki
 * Develop CNKI, to match doi, PMID, ISSN, et. al.
 * Add CNKI to citation/identifier
 * Add CNKI to citation/core
 * Add CNKI to each template and to citation
 * Create cite cnki
 * ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So the first thing to find out is whether there is any place to enter the CNKI value and get back the fields that the querybot would use to fill things out, right? Does that need to be a place where it is all spelled out, or can we essentially tell it to go to this page and scrape in this manner and take everything on the line after QQQ as this value, etc.Naraht (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Created CNKI. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 11:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, fixed the template (pieces 1 & 3 don't go in the URL). The next step will be to figure out if there is enough information in the URLs for a bot to "scrape" what is needed into a sub page like for doi. Note we may also need to consider cnki vs cnki-zh templates. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-JYJS200907016.htm and http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JYJS200907016.htm have the same cnki number and there appear to be articles which have zh versions but not en versions. Naraht (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

DOI bot not working?
DOI bot does not appear to be working today:

http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/doibot.php


 * 403: User account expired
 * The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user verisimilus, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block requests to expired content.
 * If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document: verisimilus [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)

Anyone able to check? kashmiri (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is almost certainly the same issue as reported at User talk:Citation bot/Archive1. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

... for the time being... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Centralized talk
Per Help talk:Citation Style 1, I have centralized the talk pages. There was discussion about centralizing the bot-filled template here, so I put these pages on hold.


 * Cite arXiv
 * Cite doi
 * Cite jstor
 * Cite pmid
 * Cite pmc

I am open to centralizing either here or to Help talk:Citation Style 1. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ??? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Centralize here.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

✅ ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Objection by Headbomb. All centralized talk pages reverted. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 02:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
While this template is interesting and potentially space-saving, it does seem like an invitation for subtle vandalism. Who is going to put every template on their watch list? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2012
There are two minor errors in the template's output. First, the wikilinked "doi" should be "DOI", and second, "et al" should be "et al." since "al" is an abbreviation of "alii". Example of both:




 * —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * cite doi calls cite journal, which invokes citation/core, which is where both issues lie. Please start a discussion on doi there. I will look into the missing period— I made a fix for double periods after et al. a few months ago, and I might have borked something. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 10:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you on both counts, and done. ^_^—DocWatson42 (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Overriding display-authors?
It would be useful if this template could locally override the 'display-authors' parameter of the transcluded cite journal template generated by bot. That would allow for consistent author lists within an article. Perhaps this could be done by passing the 'display-authors' setting as an override variable (e.g. override-display-authors=) to the transcluded template? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue at hand is that this template only transcludes templates from subpages of the template. For an example of this, see Template:Cite doi/10.1001.2Farchinte.159.11.1185. Because parser functions are limited in functionality, it would likely be impossible to map the author= field of the various cite templates to a display-authors= field that'd be introduced in ...and even then, it may require more extensive of functionality of parser functions than we currently have. Even if I'm misunderstanding, and even if it's otherwise possible to do, I have to mark this as ❌, because there's no clear example of the edit you wish to make. -- slakr \ talk / 01:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Only way I see to do this is to edit each individual subtemplate. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 02:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well that limits the usefulness of this approach. I suppose the template contents will instead need to be merged back into the article in order to apply a custom display-authors. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Initially, line 4 of this template would need to be amended from:
 * to
 * This provides the pass-through which is essential for anything else to work. Then, you would amend those subtemplates where this feature is desired in two ways: (i) make sure that the authors are not all listed together in a single parameter, but placed individually in lastnfirstn parameter pairs (or in separate authorn parameters where the last/first approach is inappropriate, such as some non-English names); (ii) add one line inside the of that template:
 * Finally, in the article where the DOI is used, add one parameter to the relevant so that it specifies 3 or whatever figure is desired. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is much like what I was hoping to see implemented. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks like quite a straight-forward change to me: is there any particular reason why it hasn't been made? Am I missing something thunderingly obvious (wouldn't be the first time ;-)? I can see that it would also be useful to add to the related templates, is that the problem? In the meantime, is it going to cause hassle if I apply this fix manually to cite doi sub-templates where necessary? No, wait, I can see why that wouldn't work: if this template doesn't pass the parameter through, it won't make any odds…bah, humbug! TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 12:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally, in the article where the DOI is used, add one parameter to the relevant so that it specifies 3 or whatever figure is desired. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is much like what I was hoping to see implemented. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks like quite a straight-forward change to me: is there any particular reason why it hasn't been made? Am I missing something thunderingly obvious (wouldn't be the first time ;-)? I can see that it would also be useful to add to the related templates, is that the problem? In the meantime, is it going to cause hassle if I apply this fix manually to cite doi sub-templates where necessary? No, wait, I can see why that wouldn't work: if this template doesn't pass the parameter through, it won't make any odds…bah, humbug! TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 12:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

How to specify DOI with characters not allowed in page titles
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990115)18:1<93::AID-SIM992>3.0.CO;2-8 is a valid DOI, and points to.

But

generates

Template:Cite doi/10.1002.2F.28SICI.291097-0258.2819990115.2918:1.3C93::AID-SIM992.3E3.0.CO.3B2-8, with the invalid characters replaced with hex codes.

Is there any way to point the call to  to the template without (a) knowing which characters are invalid in titles and (b) knowing the hex code for those characters?

Thanks in advance--Illia Connell (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what your question is. cite doi takes care of the encoding for you, so you don't have to know. If you take a look at that template (ie Cite doi/10.1002.2F.28SICI.291097-0258.2819990115.2918:1.3C93::AID-SIM992.3E3.0.CO.3B2-8) the citation is fine and the DOI link is also. Where were you intending to use it (since I see it isn't yet used anywhere)? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You're right, I haven't used it yet because although

generates the template, it doesn't link to the template because the page name of the generated template doesn't match the exact DOI. It just shows this:

It should show the actual citation.

For example,  shows this: .

It can do this because the page name Template:Cite doi/10.1001.2Farchinte.117.2.273 matches the exact DOI.

Thanks for your help Illia Connell (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, I can indeed help you there. You need to click the "jump the queue" link to prompt the bot to create the citation: it currently doesn't run automatically because of some unspecified "bug" (it probably ought to say this, I do not know why it doesn't). Once it has created the new template, you are then given the option of editing it to add any tweaks you want: you can check my recent contributions if you want to see the kind of thing I like to do (not compulsory!). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks again for your reply. I'm not explaining my problem too well. Let me try with a fictitious example.
 * I call the template  the first time, and the bot generates the subpage  .  The second call to   simply displays the reference.  However, in my actual problem, the DOI contains characters that cannot be used in a wiki page name, so the bot generates something like:  .  Then, subsequent calls to   don't recognize   because the name is not the actual DOI.  My question is how do we get a call to   to "know" that    is the correct corresponding citation?
 * Thanks--Illia Connell (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been raised before, but apparently there's a bug that has not been fixed: Template_talk:Cite_doi/Archive_1 and Template_talk:Cite_doi/Archive_1 Illia Connell (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist
Would it be possible to automatically add templates that the bot creates at my request to my watchlist? Although as I write this, I doubt that the bot knows who clicked the "jump the queue" link, but it never hurts to ask Illia Connell (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Add notice to template doc?
Sometimes (often?) templates are listed for speedy deletion becuase "they are not used anywhere". See, for example, Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.actaastro.2007.01.052 and Template:Cite doi/10.1007.2Fs11263-006-0002-3. I'd like to suggest replacing Template:Cite doi/subpage with User:Illia Connell/template cite doi subpage doc. --Illia Connell (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Do we still need Template:Cite_doi/editintro2
Template:Cite_doi/editintro2 was emptied by a bot in December 2011. If this was a mistake, then the bot's edit should be reverted and Template:Cite_doi/editintro2 should be protected to prevent the bot making the same edit later. If the bot's edit was not a mistake, I suggest deleting the now empty Template:Cite_doi/editintro2, and changing  to. --Illia Connell (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
In two places, please replace  with. This will prevent the template adding non-articles to Category:Pages with DOI errors. Thanks    --Illia Connell (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Is it really advisable to remove non-articles from this category? This sounds like the kind of thing that might be controversial - has it been discussed anywhere? My immediate thought is that it might be better to create two sub-categories: one for articles, and one for other pages. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 08:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is more complicated than I thought. The cat is populated by other templates, doi for example. So fixing this one template won't solve the problem of having a bunch of user talk pages in the cat. In retrospect, best to leave well alone.  Illia Connell (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Author Formatting
This needs clarification: does this template require abbreviation of surnames? If so, it is a stupid policy (because it decreases informational content, introduces ambiguity in some cases, and generally increases entropy), and will force some editors to systematically avoid using this template's sub-entries. Scanning the Wikipedia Manual of Style, I did not find such an abbreviation requirement anywhere.

I think that section should be omitted entirely, as it is handled by simply setting the first/last parameters of the citation templates. Urhixidur (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The only way I can see to square that circle is to have separate templates: one for forenames, another for forenames. Of course, some bibliographic source databases do not consistently have published forenames, so initials are the more universal approach, to avoid mixing full with abbreviated. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Initials are also more practical for papers with lots of authors. I (personally) don't see any problem having journals with initials and other refs, for example books, with full names. I think we should at present "require" initials in the stated format so that usages of these templates are consistent and portable. Otherwise we would not know what to expect when we write one, would somehow have to tell the bot what to do and a clash between what we want now and what has already been prepared would need to be handled. A lot of complication for a not-very-serious issue. --Mirokado (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that a  sub-template typically just uses cite journal or cite book or some such, and none of those templates mandate abbreviation. In fact, the manual of style does not mandate abbreviation. Why introduce this requirement here?
 * The technical solution would be to add, to all citation templates, a family of parameters alongside the  family, something like  . The   invocation would then use a parameter to pick between one style and the other. But retrofitting this would be a Herculean task. Urhixidur (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's another potential technical solution, albeit a clunky one. Using something like this for the  field would allow abbreviation control from the Cite doi invocation:


 * first =
 * An author wanting the abbreviation would need do nothing special (it is the default), while another not wanting it would need only call the  sub-template with an   argument. The only change needed for Cite doi would be to have it pass the   argument through. Urhixidur (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Author names
Cross-posted from Talk:Fluorescence/Archives/2015: Somehow the citation of  produces

in which the last author's name appears as "RodríGuez" instead of "Rodríguez". —DIV (138.194.12.224 (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC))

Cite doi and harvnb/sfn
As far as I know, to make cite doi style references work with harvnb and sfn you have to manually edit the template reference to add |ref=harv (e.g.). Is there anyway to automate this? joe&bull;roet&bull;c 15:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not unless we change cite doi to add harv when creating a citation, but that won't add it to current citations. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Garbled URL in clickable title.
Following on this talk page discussion, I took a look at Category:Pages_with_URL_errors. The first article listed there, Anosy mouse lemur cites one source using this template:

This renders as

with "Check url= scheme" and a garbled link for the clickable title. I thought I would mention that here in case it's a problem here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 'laysummary' included content other than a URL. --  Gadget850talk 00:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Help fix a DOI error
Hopefully someone understand DOI's better than I do. I noticed several errors regarding a reference on Fringe_science then tried to fix it but the error seems to be in the DOI. Can somebody fix this please? Thanks. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 08:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the end of the doi citation, you will see a small edit link. There were a bunch of duplicate parameters for some reason. There is no longer a limit on the number of authors, so I filled in the rest.
 * Looking at the rest of the references, I filled in the first names. If you just want initials, set vanc. --  Gadget850talk 11:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the rest of the references, I filled in the first names. If you just want initials, set vanc. --  Gadget850talk 11:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

doix?
I am going through Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters and fixing the bad parameters in the cites. I came across the page Template:Cite doi/10.1.1.112.9508 which has the red text "Unknown parameter |doix= ignored". It is used in the article Shared Risk Resource Group, but the red text does not appear. My question is, is this x there for a reason and why does it not show in the article? I would like to fix these, as it would literally fix two articles at once.-- Auric    talk  21:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have changed the parameter ino doi. doix is not documented; maybe it is a typo in the preloaded text. Strange that noone took care: the preload does not have para doi. -DePiep (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

doi was changed into doix by User:Smith609. at that time, it had the effect of commenting out the doi input (doix did and does not exist in CS1). Today with the new CS1 in LUA, the parameter is marked as an error, as the OP here notes. I have changed it into doi. -DePiep (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, does that mean I can go ahead and change these back?-- Auric    talk  10:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also come across cites that have the unused_data [auml]. ex. Template:Cite doi/10.1038.2Fnphys1341. What was that for?-- Auric    talk  11:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean change in existing cite doi subtemplates in articles: yes. Afterwards, in the article page, first the error should be gone and second the doi-link should work correctly. If all is fine, no (cite) bot should interfere (they might actstrance since we use LUA).
 * The [auml] was written by a bot to "park" a lone data-value that missed a parameter. The value [auml] has this history (knowing that &amp;auml; is an HTML-shortcut for &auml; (a-umlaut): : &auml; added with the name Fäustlin, but done wrongly (the symbol | (pipe) was added too???). Then next edit another bot (same family) changed the lone-data error into [auml] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1038.2Fnphys1341&diff=next&oldid=312107473] what you discovered. So the sulution is: write the name correctly, and then delete the whole unused_data you have found unneeded. In general, unused_data can find other input value that may or may not contain useful data (it was not visible earlier). Per case, you can decide what to do with it. If it makes no sense to the citation, deletion is OK. -DePiep (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help!-- Auric    talk  15:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * doix is the URL-ENCODED version of the DOI, which is corrected by Citation Bot. So when switching it for doi, be sure to replace url-encoded parameters such as %2F with / (or as necessary). Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  20:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is not documented, it is void. You did not even provide a single link. And trust me: I'll check any bot for applying your statement correctly -- or shut it down. -DePiep (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2013
I propose to add two four pass-through parameters to cite doi: |displayauthors= |displayeditors= |authorformat= |editorformat= as is done in the Cite doi/sandbox.

Background: The new module:Citation/CS1 (in Lua) adds the new parameters displayauthors and displayeditors. They can limit the number of authors shown to n plus et al., while all authors are entered (to keep good metadata for COinS). Formerly, this number was set to a maximum of 8+et al. See Help:CS1_errors. When using the cite doi template we want be able to set this number in the article page. Since the specific template can receive and apply the para value (as the example does), it would function if the value is passed through. Then, to have the template page itself show all names always, we add the template other switch. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, for the editors, authorformat, editorformat.

Example future usage: Cite doi/10.1140.2Fepja.2Fi2006-10091-y as is used on page Seaborgium.

Testcases: See Cite doi/testcases, using the Cite doi/sandbox. Note that we need to transclude the testpage to a page outside template space for effect. -DePiep (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Would 'authorformat' and 'editorformat' be desired? If the citation is entered with full first names, then setting vanc will truncate it to initials. --  Gadget850talk 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with these, but I suggest you add them to this edit proposal + sandbox. similar usage, right? -DePiep (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Added. --  Gadget850talk 16:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

When done, I'll add the the four parameters to Cite doi/preload, latest position: |displayauthors= |displayeditors= |authorformat= |editorformat= -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * While we are at it, there are a number of parameters such as "author-separator" and "author-name-separator" that should also be included as pass-through parameters. Boghog (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then please add them to this edit proposal, in the sandbox. I am not familiar enough with the params you mention. If they are straight pass-through values indeed, they can join. OTOH, this possible expansion is not a reason to halt the edit. -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Related discussion at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 7.
 * While the edit request would take care of future uses, current subtemplates would need the markup added. --  Gadget850talk 12:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have made the requested change. (Although I'm really not sure why template other is required here.) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You may very well be right about the template other remark. Assume it is my leftover thing from the "no idle parameter" thing I learned from the new CS1. Actually, current (Lua) CS1 does not error-mark an empty displayauthors. So let's drop it, next important protected-edit. -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reopening this edit request, since template other causes problems, as outlined in the next section. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have created a new edit request below. The bug is located and corrected in the sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 May 2013
Request: Please copy paste all cite doi/sandbox code into the live template. Background: The last edit introduced a bug (brackets were placed wrong). I have corrected it in the cite doi/sandbox. Also I removed the useless template other that was added (4 times).

DePiep (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I doing it wrong or is there an error?
I'm trying to create a citation for 10.1017/S0021853712000473 so I enter. All that comes out though is authorformat=

I was expecting something like cite pmid where a job is set up that goes and populates the citation, so I don't quite understand the admonitions about formatting. I note that seemingly the internal "/" is converted to "2F" in the subpage name.

Am I doing it right? - is it broken? John of Cromer in Philippines transit (talk) mytime= Sun 01:42, wikitime=  00:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a bug. I reported it in the section above. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Create through sandbox:
 * sandbox:

Is it going to be fixed as I have several other cites I want to submit? John of Cromer in Philippines transit (talk) mytime= Sun 23:09, wikitime=  22:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was fixed already when you asked this. The test & example doi is fine. Anything wrong left? -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, except bot doesn't run, so nothing is created. Your talk of sandbox is a red herring, John of Cromer in Philippines transit  (talk) mytime= Sun 23:58, wikitime=  22:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with : &rarr;

? -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The bot is hosted on the Toolserver, which is largely inaccessible these days, so even though Cite doi now displays correctly, it's a matter of chance as to whether the bot will actually act on it or not (even if you hit "jump the queue"). Example:.
 * -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked: What is wrong with .... Your answer? -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with it, after I edited it a few times. What is wrong though is that other citations can't be generated because toolserver is offline.   John of Cromer in Philippines transit  (talk) mytime= Mon 00:39, wikitime=  23:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the toolserver is down. But over here: I recognised the bug, I solved it, Martin (MSGJ) implied it quickly, and the doi is OK (after I edited a few times: does it have to do with this here, or are you jerking?). I'm fine. -DePiep (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching and fixing the bug. Now let's enjoy some cup of tea. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am reporting a problem and answering your questions. Which one of us is "jerking" is a matter of opinion.  John of Cromer in transit  (talk) mytime= Mon 17:31, wikitime=  16:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Chloroplast
Does anyone have any idea why the ref (right now #45) in Chloroplast over near the image shows up as a cite doi= error?Naraht (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There are hidden characters in the doi field, probably from a cust & paste. Fixed:

--  Gadget850talk 17:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanx, wierd.Naraht (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

bug?
Alexander Watt cites DOI 10.2307/3236412, and gets an error that "More than one of |author1= and |last1= specified". --j⚛e deckertalk 20:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep. As the help page notes: "For example, |author=, |last=, and |last1= are all synonyms of each other, so no more than one of these parameters should ever be used in a single citation." Use the edit link at the end of the citation to edit. --  Gadget850talk 20:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm working on cleaning up the affected DOIs, but it's slow going as I can only handle so much at a time. Looking at the various histories, Citation bot created most of the errors, by adding author1 when last1 was already present.-- Auric    talk  21:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm working on cleaning up the affected DOIs, but it's slow going as I can only handle so much at a time. Looking at the various histories, Citation bot created most of the errors, by adding author1 when last1 was already present.-- Auric    talk  21:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Expandable / collapsible Version of footnotes / cite doi possible?
Hi, I would like to discuss whether something like this would be feasible.

I think it would lead to a clearer look while encouraging some authors to include valuable information (like quotations or sourcing of the funds..ISSN) and even specify what exactly in the section is referenced by the paper (the last sentence, or more, the whole section?). Ok, I enriched this reference rather a bit much to make a clear example.

It should be just optional in case an author thinks, it´s a bit much text in this specific footnote, because it contains quotes, comments and so on.

Technical details
By the way: In browsers without js it would be displayed expanded.

My technical question is, how to extract everything but quotation (and maybe the doi) for the unexpanded text from the cite doi template (which I did manually as preventative a mock up version in this example). In the expanded version we also would have more space for the seventh.. and so on authors, that are otherwise only referred to as et Al. Further ideas like displaying the issue, volume and page information (only) in the expanded part for articles with a link to the soft copy might be controversial, right?

Looking forward to getting your input,

--Saimondo (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Tranfer of Data sets of 'Cite doi' to commons or Wikidata?
Hi there, a transfer of the 'Cite doi' data sets to commons would be linkable on all other wikipedias. What do you think? What would be necessary for a transfer? Dearest Greetings, --Ghilt (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You meant Wikidata, did'nt you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomT0m (talk • contribs) 16:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, thanks for the hint, --Ghilt (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 November 2013
I propose to add two additional pass-through parameters to cite doi: |author-separator= |author-name-separator= and an additional "master" van(couver) parameter that in turn sets the following default values for the following parameters: as is done in the Cite doi/sandbox.

Background: See this and this for previous related discussions. The cite doi template is hard wired to render the citations in a way that may not be consistent with previously established citation styles used in Wikipedia articles and therefore often conflicts with WP:CITEVAR. One solution is to substitute cite doi templates in these articles. The requested change will allow some flexibility in the way authors are rendered by cite doi and hence will allow compatibility with a wider range of citation styles. In particular, setting the "van = yes" parameter will render the citations in the Vancouver system which is widely used in biomedical and scientific articles and will make the rendered cite doi citations match those produced by the Diberri template filling tool.

Test cases: See Cite doi/testcases, using the Cite doi/sandbox. See in particular the examples in the Vancouver style section.

Documentation: I have boldly documented these new parameters here. Boghog (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Related template: I have made analogous changes to cite pmid/sandbox and cite pmid/testcases. I will hold off on that edit request to first see how this one goes. Boghog (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really familiar with the template or the previous discussions about this. Are there any comments from other editors? If not I will implement shortly. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good idea that adds flexibility to the cite doi template and will help editors format citations more consistently and completely. I think it might need some additional test cases to ensure that the new code works without errors. I added one test case to the page linked above. The cite doi template is transcluded in at least 14,000 articles. In most of those articles, it is used multiple times.


 * If the new code works in this template, it would make sense to add it to cite pmid, which is a parallel template to cite doi and which is, like cite doi, automatically filled out and formatted by CitationBot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. I agree that we should implement this change only after thorough testing and allowing time for other editors to comments. I have added another example to the test cases showing that if authorformat, author-separator, and author-name-separator are defined, these over ride the "master" van parameter as expected. I will working on adding some additional tests. Boghog (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like the blank authorformat overrides yes, which should not happen. Blank parameters should be completely ignored. If van=yes and authorformat is blank or missing, the authors' initials should not have periods after them.


 * Here's the example I'm talking about:


 * Cite doi template with van, authorformat, author-separator, and author-name-separator all defined showing that the later three override the first:


 * &rarr;




 * Compare this (authorformat omitted, which should render the same as the above citation but does not):


 * &rarr;




 * Also, why does "authorformat" have no hyphen, but the other "author" parameters have a hyphen? Can we be consistent? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The default authorformat state is blank. Hence the only way to set it back to its default state is to set it to blank.  That is the way the underlying  ParserFunctions work.  Hence I would argue that the above is both the expected and desired behavior.  It might be possible to distinguish between
 * (completely ignored, equivalent to not including parameter)
 * and
 * (reinitialize parameter to the default blank state)
 * but adding the ability to distinguish between these two possibilities would make the template code more complicated and hence more likely to contain bugs. Furthermore "authorformat = vanc"  is a partial implementation of the Vancouver style.  In the vast majority of cases, if one specifies "authorformat = vanc", one would also very likely specify "  ".  Therefore I think it is very unlikely that an editor would want to set the "van" parameter to "yes" and then disable parts of it.


 * The parameter name "authorformat" without hyphen is also used by the underlying cite journal and Module:Citation/CS1 (i.e., it is a pass through parameter). While the parameter name could easily be changed at this top level, I don't think that is a good idea.  It is more important to maintain consistency in parameter names between cite doi, cite journal and Module:Citation/CS1.  If you want to pursue this parameter name change, then the same request needs to be made at cite journal and Module:Citation/CS1. Boghog (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: url, format, maybe accessdate parameters?
One of the most common additions I make to a standard DOI link is to add url= with a url of where a journal article can be accessed, and format=PDF if it's in PDF format. Many times the DOI link will have a link to a pay-walled version an article's full text, but the article is available free elsewhere on the web (e.g. on an author's university page). Scholar.google.com is pretty good at associating links to free versions that it finds with DOI citations. I can edit a "cite doi" into a "cite journal" to manually add the parameters, but I think it would be nice to add url, format, and possibly accessdate as pass-through parameters. (Accessdate isn't encouraged for unchanging journal articles, but it doesn't have a strictly defined purpose and isn't discouraged either; someone may wish to include it just to indicate when that link was working.)

That would allow a more compact

“cite doi=10.1093/jhered/est073 | url=http://www.landislab.ent.msu.edu/publications/Hamm%20MS%20Natural%20History%202013%20final.pdf | format=PDF”

rather than

“cite journal|last1=Hamm|first1=C. A.|last2=Rademacher|first2=V.|last3=Landis|first3=D. A.|last4=Williams|first4=B. L.|title=Conservation Genetics and the Implication for Recovery of the Endangered Mitchell's Satyr Butterfly, Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii|journal=Journal of Heredity|volume=105|issue=1|year=2013|pages=19–27|issn=0022-1503|doi=10.1093/jhered/est073 | url=http://www.landislab.ent.msu.edu/publications/Hamm%20MS%20Natural%20History%202013%20final.pdf | format=PDF”

--Agyle (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are using a cite doi template, simply click the "edit" link at the end of the rendered citation (at the bottom of the article, in "Read" mode) to add the url parameter. That will add it to the cite journal template that cite doi uses. Doing it this way is clean in the original article and allows all articles that transclude that particular cite doi template to see the URL. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Title complaints
Please have a look at the Resistive random-access memory article – why is Cite doi complaining about missing or empty title parameters? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason is that the template has not been completed as the BOT that does this, User:Citation bot, is currently blocked. You can fill-in the details yourself, wait until the BOT can complete the detail or not use the cite doi template. Keith D (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation! Any chances, please, for providing a pointer to a description of how the details are to be filled in, which (for some reason) I'm unable to find myself? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can get to the template to edit using the edit link at the end of the line in the article. The details of the Cite journal template are in the documentation there. Keith D (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it now, thank you! &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

cite doi vs Harvard style
Using the Harvard style of referencing, it's frequently necessary to insert a letter after the year to distinguish multiple papers written by the same author within the same year. For example:



displays as



The problem is that for this to work the year=1844a had to be added in the cite doi template. But this is silly! Another article using the same reference will need a different suffix letter or no suffix at all. So how about


 * Adding "|ref = harv" when the template is created.
 * Allowing the user of the template to override the year with a date+suffix appropriate for the article in questoin.

cffk (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the template is compatible with what you want to do. You are better off simply copying or substing the content of the template, then adding a letter to the end of the year value. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that this is an option. However this negates the chief advantage of the cite doi template.  So I'm asking "can cite doi be modified to let the year field be overridden?" cffk (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not compatible as is, but it's certainly not hard to make it compatible with something like . Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be ideal if such a construct could be made to work (it doesn't at present). How do I get this into the queue of changes needed for cite doi? Thanks! cffk (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Vancouver
FYI: Vancite doi and Vcite doi use Cite doi as meta-templates. I don't see they are used anywhere though. --  Gadget850talk 12:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All these templates should really be deprecated and merged into cite journal. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They are used and use the same sub-templates that have been ported to allow such use. I do not think cite journal is a good idea as the point of the sub-templates was to organized citations of the same source. The real solution is to use Wikidata (this would take some work to organize/setup and port to) and then make a cite doi/whatever that uses data from there (instead of the large number of simplistic sub-templates). 192.55.55.41 (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Vancite doi and Vcite doi are the Vancouver equivalents of Cite doi and the first two templates are currently not used whereas the last is extensively used. Cite doi in turn triggers Citation Bot to create subtemplates containing the citation data. As far as I am aware, Citation Bot never supported Vancite doi and Vcite doi and therefore these two templates have never been extensively used. Boghog (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Should the cite doi template call to individual subtemplates for each doi listing?
Should the template Template:cite doi continue to work by pulling the details from a separate subtemplate of which there are approximately 55k in Category:Cite doi templates at the moment? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove all these subtemplates and put the information back on the article pages

 * Support -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support And than change the bot so it automatically put the info in the article using "cite journal" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment: I sort of forgot we discussed this six months ago at Template_talk:Cite_doi/Archive_1. If people feel that it's too soon to bring up again, I'll drop it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My view is that we should move the data from these subpages back to the article pages. There are a couple of concerns. First, I'm assuming (and it looks like) the vast, vast majority of these subtemplates are used in a single article. Second, while using these subtemplates are helpful for ensuring consistency in citations that are used in various places, the problem is it's very unlikely that people will have these individual subtemplates on their watchlists and thus see the vandalism. Finally, I think this heavily discourages new users to the website because this makes it so complicated to add in a source that I think we will drive people away. It's particularly concerning because we will be driving people away who are trying to provide with material sourced to reputable journals that is of the highest quality source material. This follows from this one subtemplate discussion: that template was orphaned (so I listed it) but one editor 'helpfully' unorphaned it by this edit which adds to 'inside baseball' knowledge requirement to be here. I think that making it so people have to know the doi number (and only usable if they know the doi number) makes editing a page just bizarrely more complicated for very, very little gain. To get the numbers in perspective, we're using 55k out of about 72 million dois in existence. The last database report said we had about 574k templates six months ago so this would be about 10% of all templatespace for these individual references. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This RFC is a duplicate and is not necessary. The current consensus is these templates should NOT be used. I have file a request here that User:Citation bot should substitute (citation data in article space) rather than transclude (citation data in template space). Per this consensus I am substituting existing cite doi, etc. templates in medical articles. But first we really need to get User:Citation bot to stop putting new citation data in translcuded templates and instead add the citation data directly into articles. Boghog (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, should it just be closed as withdrawn? I didn't see any movement and the articles were increasing so I wasn't sure if the discussion had changed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this RFC should be withdrawn. The problem is that User:Citation bot is not being actively maintained but it is still running.  Until we get someone to modify User:Citation bot, we are unfortunately stuck with the present situation. One could argue that Citation bot should be blocked, but the general consensus is that it is doing more good than harm. Boghog (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bog consensus is already against its use. Thus withdraw. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is there really a consensus not to use the cite isbn template?
Please take part in the discussion at Template talk:Cite isbn about whether the RfC to deprecate applies to cite isbn, and whether recent subst-ing out of  has consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup. See related discussion. Boghog (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a "related discussion"; that's the RfC I'm pointing to. Why are you pointing to this RfC as if the discussion has already taken place? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought you were opening parallel threads. Nevertheless, I would like to again emphasize that the arguments in favor in deprecating cite doi are identical to deprecating cite isbn and cite pmid. You claim that the arguments differ, but you have not provided any specific examples. Boghog (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I haven't—this is supposed to be a neutral notice pointing to where the centralized discussion is to take place. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we should definitely deprecate all three. All three have the same problems. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Doc James: The discussion is not here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the discussion is not here, but you still have not answered the question I raised above there. Please answer the question here or there. Collapsing this discussion will not make this question go away. Boghog (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your question was already answered in the appropriate location, as you are well aware—thus demonstrating your bad faith. Your edits have become disruptive. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The question above was posted at 19:17, 28 April 2015. You responded two hours later 21:23, 28 April 2015. You are the one that is demonstrating bad faith, not me. Boghog (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you stop your trolling? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will stop after you apologize for your error. You accused me of bad faith based on a faulty assumption. Boghog (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you—I now have you on record admitting to trolling. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The definition of a troll is one who starts an argument by making a inflammatory statement. The only inflammatory statement that was made above was your accusation that I was acting in bad faith because you had already answered my question at the centralized discussion when in fact you had not yet done so. Boghog (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The definition of a troll is one who posts aggravating comments with the intention of provoking a reaction. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All I asked for was for an apology. The above comment was by far the most aggravating because it was false. Boghog (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not in the least bit false. I anserwered the question on April 28, and you made your comment the next day, while acknowledging it was an inappropriate location to do so.  Meanwhile, before that comment you had already made two other comments at the other discussion, demonstrating you were well aware of it.  Do you see how easy it is to catch you lying? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * These personal attacks really need to stop. I repeat, the question above was posted at 19:17, 28 April 2015. You responded two hours later at 21:23, 28 April 2015. Boghog (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The question was posted long after you had been directed to kjeep all comments to the main discussion. Your every comment here has been nothing but trolling since the very first, where you tried to obfuscate things by claiming a consensus had already been reached at a discussion that had just been opened.  You've been caught in more than one lie now—why do you persist? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * claiming a consensus had already been reached at a discussion that had just been opened – Where did I claim that? All I claimed was you have not provided any specific examples and at the time I asked that question, you still had not answered it. You answered it two hours later. Hence your comment was indeed false. Boghog (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did I claim that?: In your very first comment, where you both linked to the very discussion I was directing people to, and claiming consensus had already been reached. Curly Turkey y|¡gobble! 23:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good grief. All I said was "yup" and then in my next post I apologized when I said Sorry, I thought you were opening parallel threads. Please assume some good faith. Boghog (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The question was originally asked at the central discussion on 17:33, 28 April 2015, asked again here on 19:17, 28 April 2015, and then finally answered on 21:23, 28 April 2015. I was becoming annoyed that you had not answered the question. Now I am becoming really annoyed that you are twisting my comments and accusing me of lying when I am not. Boghog (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You had already been instructed more than once to keep the discussion at talk:cite isbn, yet disruptively kept posting here and removing the collapse template. Then you continued your trolling outside the template.  You are here to be disruptive—there is no other possible outcome. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You made a false statement and then accused me of lying about it. That is trolling. Boghog (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Editprotected
Please add LeadSongDog come howl!  15:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Please request that the related discussions are closed (I see some seem to have consensus and others don't at first glance) and consensus is reached before reopening this request. Thank you. —   15:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that the closure was way back here but not fully actioned.LeadSongDog come howl!  18:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. That closure says: Existing and future DOI details should be included in articles, however, the bot function should remain, with a BRFA raised to change its function to use cite journal within articles without separate subpages. CSD:T3 does not apply, and mass deletion of orphaned citation templates should not occur without further consensus. Some consideration should be given to future automated processing of the data in case there is a future consensus to centralize citations. This is without prejudice toward further UI improvements that may render this discussion moot by providing seamless editing of centralized citations. which only says that only the bot should be changed to use Cite Journal over this template, it says nothing about deprecating this template. —   20:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that the operator has not maintained user:Citation bot since last l September, nor even replied on its talkpage since 9 November? It is effectively allowed to run unsupervised, and continues to create new template subpages of this type. I sympathise, he's busy, and WP is not a paying job, but that doesn't mean the bot should run roughshod over the intent of human editors. If you think the above is not a consensus to deprecate, please explain what you need to see. The /doc page has shown it as deprecated for many months. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The closure says the bot should substitute rather than transclude new templates and that existing templates should be preserved. Hence the problem is with the bot and not the template.  The solution is to block the bot. Boghog (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, both actually. Blocking the bot while having editors continue to introduce new wikitext instances of the template would not be much of an improvement. While the /doc says the template is deprecated, there is no error message to make that apparent to editors when new instances are introduced. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Creating a new bot to substitute templates should not be that hard. We could file a request here. However we should probably wait until the second RFC closes.  If the second RFC is in agreement with the first, then a very strong argument can be made to block the citation bot and request a new bot to substitute new instances of the template. Boghog (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:NOCON, the cite doi template should not be deprecated
As clearly stated here, "there is not clear numerical majority consensus" for deprecating this template. Moreover, most editors oppose the depreciation. As per WP:NOCON, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted". So, the depreciation should be reverted and the template should not be deprecated, until there is consensus to deprecate it. --Erel Segal (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not based on majority opinion. It is based on strength of argument. The closing closer administrator determined that the arguments in favor of deprecating outweighed those of keeping the template. Boghog (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The closer was not an administrator. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "it is based on strength of argument" - but there is no consensus on which arguments are stronger! --Erel Segal (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The closer administrator taking into account relevant policies determined that the arguments in favor of deprecating were stronger. Boghog (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat: the closer was not an administrator. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-admistrators can close discussions. Boghog (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, then we agree. Boghog (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we do not. You were trying to shut up the other editor by an appeal to authority. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What gives the closer better rights than the 11 editors who opposed the deprecation?
 * And what prevents another editor from opening a discussion to revert the deprecation, then regardless of the discussion's result close the discussion saying that "the arguments against the deprecation are stronger"? --Erel Segal (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Closures can be challenged. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have already stated elsewhere, the discussion in question in turn cited this discussion where there was overwhelming support for substituting these templates. Boghog (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS holds no weight outside itself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, the local consensus was incorporated into the global consensus. While the initial discussion applied only to WP:MED, with the sole exception of the MED translation project, all the arguments made there equally applied to articles outside the scope of WP:MED. Boghog (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, did you? It is not within the MED translation projects's jurisdiction to decide whether their arguments apply outside the project.  A local consensus is a local consensus.  If you want it to apply elsewhere, you must get the consensus of that "elsewhere".  Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I did and I stick by my analysis. Boghog (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for your "analysis", WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is POLICY. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense which is also POLICY. Boghog (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So you openly admit you will simply ingore WP:LOCALCONSENSUS where it is inconvenient for you, because what's inconvenient for you is against "common sense"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Arguments made in a local setting may also apply globally. This is common sense. A key phrase in WP:Local consensus is unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right. In this case, neutral independent third party (the closer) read the arguments made at WP:MED and concluded they did apply globally. Boghog (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Arguments made in a local setting may also apply globally.: No, that is exactly the opposite of what LOCALCONSENSUS says, and is a violation of policy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ignoring common sense is a violation of policy. Boghog (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're comment is a non sequitur and a violation of common sense. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI?
Following this discussion, Template:cite doi currently operates by searching the doi string against an individual template subpage within Category:Cite doi templates (each of which is simply a hardcoded citation). There are currently over 50k doi template subpages (more than 10% out of all templatespace) out of approximately 67 million doi in existence. Each citation is of very low (or no) usage. Should every subtemplate under Template:cite doi be substituted into each page as a cite journal citation? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support The current system goes against WP:T3, namely each template is a hard-coded instance of a cite journal reference. Along with the massive effort required to keep watch of all these templates from vandalism, the additional complexity for new users creates does not make up for the minor savings created because people don't have to copy and paste a fairly small string. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support One of the very oldest guidelines for the Template namespace has been "Templates should not be used to store article content."  Citations support article content, and are themselves article content.  Splitting any substantive article text out of the main namespace makes it harder for the content to be reused elsewhere (transwiki'd, translated, etc.).  Page watching is a major concern as well, as someone could change the cite doi child template, but that edit would go unnoticed and disconnected from the article itself.  The other major reason for the policy is that templates are inherently hard for new users to understand. --Netoholic @  06:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support unless they can be adapted to overcome the problems of the system as it stands at present. One of the main problems that I see with the existing system is that it is a fixed output and does not cater for the differing styles of output required for consistency in articles. For example the author fields need to allow for first/last or last/first format, date fields need to be output in day first, month first or ISO format. At the moment if the output style does not match that of the article the template has to be substed and modified to match. Keith D (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support difficulty monitoring, problems with cite var, difficulty in verifying etc. I like the idea in theory but in application it just doesn't seem to work so well, SUBST would allow continued use of function but resolve some issues. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Not only I agree with the OP, my incentive for support is also some of the things that the opposing people have said. For example, User:RomanSpa says that some of the articles implementing the templates receive very little traffic. However, I do know for a fact that articles always receive more traffic than templates, as the templates have virtually no standalone readership. In addition, when a piece of info is brought out of an article an into a template, the weak link becomes two: The calling code in the article and the template itself; both need monitoring and maintenance. And since most of these are transcluded only once, the burden of monitoring soars. Also User:Headbomb says "newbies would not use the system in the first place" which is actually promoting elitism and is actually a big flaw. Coupling this with RomanSpa's comment means that these templates' benefit of readership through transclusion is curtailed. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think you may have slightly misunderstood me. When I remarked that the template pages receive little traffic, I meant what we might call "direct traffic" - that is, people accessing those pages specifically to look at the content of the templates. I didn't mean that they don't receive negligible "indirect traffic", by which I mean views arising from their information's transclusion in other pages. Every time an article that includes information from a template is read, that obviously creates "indirect traffic" for the template page.
 * I'm sorry to say that I feel your remark about "elitism" is way off base: I think you're confusing elitism with experience. To take myself as an example, I didn't know about citation templates at all before being invited to participate in this discussion. Now I do, and with the appropriate learning curve will now be able to incorporate them into any articles I write. I don't think you guys who already knew about them are "elite", and I certainly don't consider myself "elite" just because I now know about this kind of template - I just think I've learnt a bit, and gained a little more experience. This is just how life goes. RomanSpa (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me just interject here that the statement 'Every time an article that includes information from a template is read, that obviously creates "indirect traffic" for the template page" ' isn't right. Because of caching, if article A refereneces template T, template T gets a hit only as often as A is edited (not every time someone just looks at A), and maybe (for technical reasons) a bit more than that. EEng (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Reading your clarification, I am becoming more and more certain that I didn't misunderstand at all. No matter how you look at it, putting the citations in the article exposes them to more scrutiny. As for your note on elitism vs. experience, let me put it frankly: You are sugarcoating elitism. Verifiability is one of the founding policies of Wikipedia. Every single person on this planet must be able to do it. This layer of obfuscation is only deterrent without benefit. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't think I understand what you mean by "sugarcoating elitism": so far as I can work out, nobody in this discussion is advocating anything elitist, and all that I meant to say is that, as with everything else, you get better at Wikipedia with experience, and as you learn how to use more of the tools at our disposal. RomanSpa (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The only tool that should be necessary for the novice editor to update encyclopedic text (which includes citations) should be the edit window. -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support. While I think vandalism occuring on these templates is highly unlikely, the possibility is still there. Furthermore, it's inconvenient to have to go and edit another page just to fix a journal citation. Per, there is no provision in the existing system for slight variation in citation styles between articles. Substituting the templates would be the best solution to these problems. APerson (talk!) 22:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. This should be a snow close. This system is widely used and supported. It saves space in article source and allows for the reuse of journal citations. Substitution would mean that the citations would be less likely to be consistent from one article to the next. The onus is on the OP to show that "massive effort" is required to keep these templates from vandalism. The OP posted similar questions at this discussion and received thoughtful explanations. To not link to that discussion here strikes me as surprising. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Proposal is unclear: is the doi subtemplate to be deleted after subst:'s?, must the bot be shut down?.
 * Proposer invokes argument WP:T3. But that is a criterium for speedy deletion, explicitly about deleting duplicate templates. One thing this bot does good: there are no duplicates to begin with (and no minor variants either). So WP:T3 is out.
 * Indeed I am impressed by the numbers, but for the opposite outcome. If 50,037 doi templates exist, the bot must be adding something good to this wiki. Whatever that is, we'd not want to miss it. Leaving it to the editor who, by good intention, wants to add a doi citation to a page, this number would not be reached and the quality of the citations will be lower and more inconsistent. As for the unused doi subtemplates: a bit of research with the botoperator (like: where do they come from?), and then a mass speedy might be applicable.
 * Netoholic points to one of the very oldest guidelines "Templates should not be used to store article content". Must say, this is the toughest nut to crack. In short: I claim to ignore this rule (guideline). Being a 'very old' guideline is not making it better. This even apart from the fact that "article content" has meanings with grey areas (cf., navbox vs see also section). The rule ignores two basics of the web: 1. Don't copy, reuse existing code/pages and 2. Transclusion is a core principle for webpages (and for wiki no less). It is way too primitive to define content by "what is on this physical webpage". That is where HTML classes are for. Using a template to store "article content" is, at least in this situation, a very, very convenient way to do additions, improvements, and maintenance. Then Netoholic also mentions: 'makes it harder for the content to be reused elsewhere' - maybe, maybe not. 'The other major reason for the policy [sic] is that templates are inherently hard for new users to understand'. Agree on the difficulty, though not sure about whether it is actually a reason. To reduce edit complexity, is there any other way, easier, to add template functionality to an article? And that for a (doi) citation? At least the bot helps the editor. This 'cleanup' idea is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
 * I have not read from an editor who actually works with these doi citations and this bot and says: "yeah, sure, bad thing". If one cannot convince working editors of the badness of this and its background, shouldn't that tell something? -DePiep (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose / Snow close This is a place where WP:CSD does not apply / and where WP:IAR applies. The cite doi system is designed this way on purpose to facilitate the maintenance of citations and cleanup the edit window. I do not use this system myself, but many do and I can't think of a good reason to remove this way of doing things. The argument that "this is confusing to newbies" makes no sense, as newbies would not use the system in the first place. While the risk of template vandalism exists on paper, in practice the cite doi templates are very very rarely vandalize because the average vandal focuses on random articles / high visibility articles, and those seeking to disrupt Wikipedia will pick on higher visibility templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not vandalism that is the only concern. Any change to a shared citation (formatting, updated edition, etc.) could negatively impact or invalidate any article text that is sharing that cite_doi. Now, its actually very rare that templates are on more than one page, but that points toward the other bad aspect of this system. --Netoholic @ 20:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I read no reason for a snow close. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Proposal is unclear, but I'd oppose the shutting down of the bot using Template:Cite doi, which makes valuable edits "that would be extremely tedious to do manually". The bot also makes the citations consistent when they are re-used over multiple articles, which is common. I've never come across vandalism of an article via the template cite doi or Template:Cite pmid so can't see this adds any weight to the argument.
 * 2) Oppose. I would like to keep this as an option until we have a better central citation database (as planned by https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reform_of_citation_structure_for_all_Wikimedia_projects and  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicite). I see the cite doi template system as an acceptable temporary solution and as half a step to this (optional) final solution. So, i agree its not perfect but as a consequence I would like to substitute it for a better centralized system rather than deleting it.
 * Such a central citation database on wikidata (for optional use) seems to solve most of the concerns mentioned here so far, right? Wikidata was planned for this kind of data (so guidelines support it), it was planned having transwiki usage in mind (other languages), datasets are put on the editors watchlist against vandalism, having different choices how to display the data could be implemented.
 * To me it looks like the data could be much easier read/transferred from the uniformly structured cite doi subtemplates than it could be extracted from individual citations in articles (different formats /slightly inhomogeneous content). And I think authors who had chosen this central type of citation management agree with the migration to wikidata in future.--Saimondo (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Tentative Oppose. I am absolutely not an expert in this area, having been brought here by an RfC invitation. However, I have read the discussion, and have done my best to learn how to use the template (though I understand that there are problems with the bot as at the time of writing). If I understand the discussion correctly, the idea is to move individual cite journal citations into the articles in which these citations are made, rather than maintaining a large number of templates, most of which receive negligible traffic. My strong intuition is that such a move would be unwise, because the present approach allows better control of the relevant data, since it is held in a single obvious place (the particular subtemplate), and articles using this data simply incorporate it by transclusion. This seems better for consistency purposes than having several copies of the relevant data in different articles. I do agree with some of the comments made above - I can imagine a better "central database" than a large number of separate subtemplate pages - but the system as it currently stands appears to work, and doesn't appear to be reaching any obvious capacity constraints, so changes should be made very cautiously.
 * I do understand the concerns of the proposers of this idea, I think, and I'd like to address one concern. It has been noted that it is general practice that "templates should not be used to store article content", and this seems like a very sensible general rule. However, it seems to me that in this case this is not what is happening. Rather, the article contains a reference, and what is held in each subtemplate is more a sort of descriptive information. Each article could just give the doi, and leave it to the reader to disentangle what that doi means; the subtemplates, as I understand it, simply provide a sort of sprinkle of sugar to make it easier for the reader to swallow.
 * If I've made any errors in my understanding, please let me know. I shall, in any case, add this discussion to my watchlist and review it again in a few days. Thank you for inviting me to contribute, and I hope I haven't sounded too stupid. RomanSpa (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A very thoughtful contribution that gives a comprehensive description of the topic. Worth reading, and a pleasure to read. (If I show jealousy here, that's OK with me ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Tentative oppose in plagiarism of Romanspa I am barely acquainted with the topic, but I go with Romanspa's argument. If someone will come up with a better-designed and well-accepted tool, fine. Until then however, it generally is an unhealthy practice to lump together multiple functions with different internal logical structures into a single metafunction. As a rule a better approach if a need for such a combined tool became recognised would be to write a hierarchically higher level of tool that invokes lower levels without distorting their specific intentions. Established functional practice I'd say. (Still tentatively!) JonRichfield (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose There are lots of implications about making changes to Wikipedia and Wikimedia citation systems. Lots of reforms are necessary but this should not be the first one. See meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Reform of citation structure for all Wikimedia projects for more information.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  22:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep - Don't worry about performance. All the DOIs will likely be moved to Wikidata at some point, substituting would be a step backwards. In the meantime, let's just keep them as is. jonkerz ♠talk 12:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is a sensible use to transclude reference material not article content.  Some dois are used in many places so this reduces maintenance. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Oppose mass subst'ing of all templates, because:
 * At present the bot can watch a category to identify and complete new (empty) Cite Doi templates within a minute. It's not clear how this functionality could be upheld under the proposed scheme.
 * I personally find it easier to edit references in this way (using a single edit link rather than trawling page code), and would never think to search Wikipedia to find all occurrences of a template that needed updating.
 * And at a more pragmatic level, I would feel discouraged by having a feature that I find useful deactivated without good cause; would I be the only editor to feel alienated from WP by this decision?
 * But of course, there will be individual cases (for example where custom citation styles are used) where Cite doi templates should be substed. The current system of substing these on an individual case-by-case basis seems sufficient. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  09:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Comment Similar schemes are used for the approximately 11k Category:Cite pmid templates and 1400 Category:Subtemplates of Template RussiaAdmMunRef. This RfC doesn't concern them but it's a parallel situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The OP has notified a few editors on their talk pages. This may be perceived as canvassing unless the OP is careful to notify all editors involved in previous discussions, including this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I forgot that discussion. I only went off the previous TfD discussion. I'll notify everyone left. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Request To get some perspective, I suggest that everyone thinking about this RfC look at the reality of how this system is being used. Pick a couple dozen random Category:Cite doi templates from random category pages, and check the "What links here". A shocking number of them are completely abandoned, and most have only a single use. Any thoughts that we gain any significant level of consistency among articles is going blown away by how very rare that happens. -- Netoholic @  11:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unused doi subtemplates? Start a blanket TfD for them, get arguments from the bot operator, and when agreed a bot can delete those. Now please stop panicking for an unused template. In now way that says the system is broken. -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that makes sense really. In the last discussion, the orphaned template was unorphaned by this edit, reinstating the template. Are the templates that are orphaned orphaned because they were substituted or orphaned because the citation has been completely removed? I'd assume the supporters of the current system would want the templates used as much as possible, so we'd need to check every 'orphaned' template to see if the template has been abandoned or the citation. I'm not making a strawman argument but it would seem strange to keep the template in its current form but not to actively search for all DOIs to be templated: either the system improves citing or it doesn't. Keeping it for the current uses only or for whoever feels like using it seems like a haphazard idea. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, it takes some thought and I already advised twice to seek advice from the bot operator. And yes, you do make a strawman. You are creating by your own reasoning that supporters of this template actually want to have them all, and so unused ones. Nonsense. Stop panicking for an unused template. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment – There is consensus within the WP:MED project that the cite pmid, cite isbn, and cite doi templates are a bad idea and should be substituted. Boghog (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)  There was also a related discussion here. Boghog (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * yeah but they didn't do anything so screw that. """Oppose"""" any changes and close and warn the crooked supporters for wasting people's time here. Biased violators have no business ruining the encyclopedia for their laziness.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.28 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact the project did do something (see BRFA). In the top 1500 most accessed pages within the WP:MED project, cite pmid, cite isbn, and cite doi templates have now all been substituted. Boghog (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Beside the advantages of a central citation database mentioned here and here I understand why the MED people dislike cite doi. In the source code itself you see only the doi number and cannot see directly if it is really the right publication. You only see the citation data (title, name.. of the publication) when you have the tooltips option enabled in your preferences (is it by default?) when you hoover over the citation number in the preview mode (screenshot ). I wonder whether the MED guys were aware of that, I think its not that uncomfortable. Personally, I appreciate the cleaner looks of non-inline references, especially in case of several citations in one sentence. Example Although the source code coloring by the syntax highlighter helps, a higher number of detailed in line references can still be confusing (and impairs source code readability permanently / in the long term for the sake of one time checking the ref values within the source). So I would like to leave it to the author to choose. Maybe we can brainstorm about technical improvements in the citation database projects.--Saimondo (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

On top of that are problems such as those mentioned by others here, like the need to keep all these templates on my watchlist. EEng (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know enough about the technical aspects involved to give a firm opinion at this moment. However, I have avoided using these templates for a while now, for 2 reasons. 1/ I don't think anybody has these templates on their watchlists. Any vandalism could go undetected for a very long time. 2/ If the name of a journal is linked to the WP article on that journal, the layout will be incorrect (name in bold) if the template is used in the article on the journal itself. As for the comments above about the bot, citationbot is indeed a great help (although recently it often seems to have problems completing). However, the bot works just as well with the cite journal template as with the cite doi template. When entering a reference, I use the cite journal template with "doi=xxxxxxxxxx" as only parameter and then, after I save, run the citationbot, which normally then fills in the rest of the template. --Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe a year ago someone pointed me to the doi machinery, and at first I was delighted -- all that work saved! But after a month or two I gave up and subst'ed all the templates into the article and never came back. Why? Because the bot insists on doing things its own way, overwriting data I corrected with its own incomplete or incorrect data, blocking fixes to formatting problems (such as when an article title itself contains quote marks or an apostrophe) etc. I spent a lot of time on the bot talk page trying to get those active there to understand that there need to be ways for editors to take what the bot provides and formally & permanently alter it, but what I got was a lot of insistence that I shouldn't want to do what I wanted to do -- that I should just submit myself to The Will of The Borg and be happy. It just wasn't worth it.
 * I understand. This layer obfuscation eliminates the much-needed flexibility. When I had taken my article to WP:FAC, reviewers insisted the referencing style must be consistent. They didn't care about syntactic and technical issues; they wanted a consistent citation style and in all fairness, they were right.
 * I agree, it might be nicer if the bot would only overwrites /"updates" the fields that had been written by a bot (not by a editor), otherwise careful manual changes might get lost. I think all cite doi templates changes can be seen on [] which I imported into my feed reader. The good thing is: so far no obvious vandalism occurred since end of June.--Saimondo (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Question How would this change affect the "cite journal" template that comes with RefToolbar? That has a search button for the doi. And how about the method using the cite journal as described by above? Are these both searching the same collection of templates? RockMagnetist (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is written directly in the article and doesn´t depend on the cite doi subtemplates. So it should´t affect this.--Saimondo (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is excellent. Finally substituting the refs into the article and getting rid of CITE PMID and CITE DOI. This will make my job of editing and updating references MUCH easier. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The lunatics have taken over the asylum
 * The antediluvians have taken over the ark
 * The antideluvians have taken over the ark
 * Normally, progress is to develop a tool so that it does what you want, not take the retrograde step of abandoning it. John of Cromer  (talk) mytime= Mon 14:57, wikitime=  06:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh: "[the] long-standing principle and consensus that templates should not contain article content. While use of templates could reduce redundancy in articles, and improve consistency, the risk is that our articles become harder to edit and maintain if their content is in substituted templates". Please, next time, one can impose this outcome before any discussion takes place. One can argue Mk's of posts, in the end any closer will always falls back on a 2006 quote, without mentioning any counter-argument.

Following that, the closer also repeats the "used only once" argument without taking note advantages still present (and mentioned). This too could be in top of an RfC: "Please discuss, but these our habits will be enforced anyhow. After that, we might read use your argument".

As for the "unwatched pages", I feel misrepresented. It looks like this is about "unused" templates (with a strange twist of wording), which could easily be deleted without changing anything to the argument.

Etcetera. -DePiep (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Breaking {sfn}
It appears that sfn is broken now to accomodate/enforce the outcome (see helium). (Couldn't find the actual template page edited; anyone knows?).

However, this is inacceptable. After a deprecation, it is up to the handler (could be the closer or a bot or AWB or manual), but blanket-breaking the pages is unacceptable. I request reversal of the break. Noting "deprecated" is enough, then in this case a bot should do the cleanup. -DePiep (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is broken in helium, other than the citations that are missing last names and showing errors? There were some recent changes to Module:Citation/CS1; part was reverted do to a bug. --  Gadget850talk 11:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. --  Gadget850talk 12:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Long term
In the long term, such citation metatdata should be held in Wikidata, once, and can then be used by any of our projects. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree as should the PMID. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Reform of citation structure for all Wikimedia projects is a directory of every citation reform proposal I have seen and all of them point to this idea.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I used template:cite journal and nothing happened
The deprecation notice says that the current template is deprecated and that is a replacement. I used this template in several articles, and nothing happpened - the missing details were not completed even after several weeks. See, for instance, fair item assignment. I think this is a good reason to put the deprecation on hold, until there is a sufficiently good replacement. --Erel Segal (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Since User:Citation bot is currently blocked and unmaintained, nothing happens when cite doi is used either. So "dedeprecating" cite doi would not solve the problem. What is meant by "please use the  template instead", is to use a completely filled out template that includes the doi created by WP:REFTOOLS, Wikipedia template filling, or some similar tool. Boghog (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Which would be great if the explanation given on the project page actually said that, which it currently does not: if you go ahead and try to use and put a doi number in the correct parameter, all you get in the reflist is a blue doi number and an error indicating that the title is missing (because the  template requires a completed title parameter).  So then maybe you go to one of the other links you mentioned: the wmflabs link doesn't accept the doi parameter at all (making it utterly useless here as an alternative to  ) and the reftag.appspot.com page generates a citation with the author's name and year based on the doi but still generates no title parameter, meaning it creates the same error in the reflist, never mind that it too apparently leaves out all the other pertinent information that is available directly from the doi.  As near as I can tell, blocking and deciding to no longer maintain the citation bot has only crippled the ability of editors to generate full citations from a simple doi.  I hope it has made something better somewhere else, but it had done nothing to make them better here.  I have read over the autofill function supposedly available under reftools 2.0, but for christ's sake, I am not a computer programmer, I am just an editor wanting to generate a citation and I do not have the necessary certification in javascript to figure all that out!  No editor should have to!   was simple, and generated a complete citation, without all of the extra confusing work.  I feel hobbled.  I know I am not alone.  KDS 4444  Talk  09:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're having trouble. Citation bot was very useful, but its maintainer stopped updating it and stopped fixing bugs a while ago, and then it started blanking complete articles, so it had to be blocked. The WMF is working on taking over maintenance of the article. Until then, you can copy and paste the example cite journal template from that template's page, then copy and paste the title, authors, and other information into the appropriate parameters. There are other, fancier options, like RefToolbar, but if you haven't been able to figure out how to use them, copy and paste works well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)