Template talk:Cite jstor

JSTOR API disabled
The bot won't complete these templates until the JSTOR API goes live again. Here's a message from their technical services:

The JSTOR API has been taken down for the time being. There are currently no plans for when this interface may be available again. Apologies for any inconvenience caused here.

Meanwhile, the template will continue to link to existing templates.

Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  19:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Should we add an error message when someone creates a cite to a nonexisting subtemplate? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 September 2012
Comment out the expand option until it works.

AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Sandboxing the desired change would be best, otherwise be much more specific. I see a note that a bot will update the citation, a link to "jump the queue", and a link to "expand by hand" that appears to work correctly already. Anomie⚔ 15:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment about the bot and the link to jump the queue need removed (better yet commented out). The JSTOR API has been removed, so the bot can not longer do the work.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for clarifying. Anomie⚔ 23:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2014
The bot is working again that automatically can expand these. Please add back the jump the queue code, noting that the URL has changed: please see cite doi for correct URL (it is now tools.wmflabs.org/citations/doibot.php?doi=  ). It might be easier long-term to just make this even more of a wrapper for cite doi (ie. make it simply add the 10.2307 in front of the jstor number and pass that to cite doi. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I am not familiar with this template. In the interests of caution, would you mind making the required change to Template:Cite jstor/sandbox and reactivate the request? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I have updated the sandbox. Does it look the way you want it to look? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , well done. It works great. Please copy to real template from sandbox. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have admin rights, but I have reactivated the edit request., are you able to make the change for us? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Testing that the bot is working
This is a test of Cite jstor expansion:

This should turn into a full citation, if the above section is correct. I could not get it to work in my sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That didn't work for me when I ran the current Citation Bot on it. Here's an equivalent Cite doi:




 * That works now, which is good, but the bot appears to have made the Cite jstor template work by filling in the Cite doi template. Here's another Cite jstor template for the bot to fill in:




 * I'll leave this one alone. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * cite jstor is just a wrapper for cite doi so the right thing is for the bot to create a cite doi AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about why you took away the "not working" notice and added the edit request above if the bot is not actually completing these Cite jstor citations yet. I would think that posting a note on Citation Bot's talk page would be necessary first, and then waiting for a code change from the bot's operator, but I may be confused (it happens frequently). – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the sandbox code, and now I think I see how this template is supposed to work. I don't know if it actually does, but it looks like it will. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "right" thing for the bot to have done would be to replace {cite jstor} with {cite journal|jstor=} and fill in the rest of the parameters too. We've just gotten accustomed to it doing the wrong thing so long. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've done that manually to clear the backlog in Category:Pages with incomplete JSTOR references. Not pretty, but done. Now perhaps we can stop creating new ones? LeadSongDog come howl!  20:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we subst Cite journal for all of these and then delete this template?
This template has been causing trouble for years, but people continue to create new Cite JSTOR templates from working URLs and in other ways. Citation Bot has been blocked for months and, if it is revived by the WMF, may be able to created filled Cite journal templates from JSTOR identifiers. This template is not needed.

Should we substitute the 900 existing instances of this template and then propose it for deletion?

I believe that simple instances of this template can be replaced by substitution, like this:

can be substituted using:

Note that the JSTOR ID from the existing reference appears in the second line as the digits after the ".2F" in the substitution. I think that this would be a simple task for someone with basic AutoEd or AWB skills. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that Dexbot is going to do this -- I did ask for them to do it (and cite hdl too). Right now it is doing cite doi and cite pmid. That reminds me that we should blow cite isbn away. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 December 2015
Add or just delete this AManWithNoPlan (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet. It is deprecated but still has transclusions that need to be substituted before this template is deleted. Example transclusion: Talk:Philippine resistance against Japan. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about now . AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better. Deletion is fine with me now. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is linked through about 150 pages. Wouldn't it be better to replace the content with something like ?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Links to an unused template don't really count. Only transclusions count, and there are non left that aren't just a discussion of the template.  This template is used no where.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe Historical template, since it has really gone beyond deprecation to having instances of it deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * good point, this template is ancient, unlike cite isbn, which was just totally deleted AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the template from Cascade-protected items so it is no longer protected. However I would prefer to see this template deleted on the back of a TfD rather than G6. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC closure challenge: Template talk:Cite doi
Please take part in the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)