Template talk:Infobox journal/Archive 4

Need parameter Medline_abbreviation for the dozens of journals where it does not match ISO 4
Most Medline abbreviations match ISO 4 (ignoring the periods), but dozens of them do not. The ones that are different are those that have city names and years in them as disambiguation markers from otherwise identical abbreviations, such as "Spine (Phila Pa 1976)" for Spine. This template should have a parameter available for such instances. Thank you to anyone who is able to add it. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Would there be value in adding support for that? It wouldn't be very hard to add, but are those actually used in the literature? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * They're extensively used in the sense that PubMed is the single biggest place where people are looking at indexed entries of medical journals. From the viewpoint of developing Wikipedia to its potential, the parameter should exist. I realize that another way to look at it is who cares because anyone who needs to disambiguate similar medical journal titles and abbrevs can just figure it out by searching and clicking around within PubMed and skip Wikipedia. Also a valid viewpoint, but then by the same logic one would not care about developing half of Wikipedia's content (because "I can just find that somewhere else on the internet if I ever want it"). Which, admittedly, is how 99% of people feel about building Wikipedia content. Two ways to view it. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but are they used outside of Pubmed, is the question. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They are often found searching WorldCat. In this case, "Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)" is seen there under "Other Titles". These forms are usually redundant for modern journals, where the ISSN can easily disambiguate, but for older ones they can prove helpful. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And yes, they are also used extensively outside of PubMed, because reference lists in medical journals often use Medline journal abbreviations. Of course ISO 4 values are identical to Medline values for most (not all) Medline-indexed journals (ignoring periods). But the bottom line is that there is no good reason not to have this simple parameter except that a person who is willing to create it cannot do so, and no one who can do it cares. An example of output from a system that has the capability is the NLM catalog entry for Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Wikipedia formerly would add parameters like this because there was the aspiration to fully developed content, but I suspect that there's not enough community anymore to maintain that. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Googling "Spine (Phila Pa 1976)", I get 53 hits, that's not really a lot... --Randykitty (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you only get 53 hits, I seem to be getting roughly 46K in Google Scholar alone, although many are just Pubmed hits. The abbreviation does seem to be used in the literature however, e.g. . Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just tried again and now get 70. Perhaps you didn't put the query between ""? --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did. Several thousand hits in both Google / Google scholar. Either way, it's a legit search tearm, so I've added nlm to the infobox, with supporting categories/templates, like R from NLM. The infobox will prompt for the creation of such redirects when nlm is set, but not when bypassed by bypass-rcheck. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If this parameter is to stay, I can write a bot to fill it. NLM gives one file with all titles, abbrevs and ISSNs, so this should be easy. As for redirects, I suppose the many cases for which dotless ISO-4 coincides with (always dotless) NLM (e.g. ) should have both R from ISO 4 and R from NLM abbreviation? (By the way, Google Scholar gives me 46K too). Tokenzero (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine by me. The bot could add it to the infobox. I can code something to present it as a combined ISO/NLM abbreviation if they only differ by dots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "MEDLINE" is a bit of a misnomer. The NLM catalogue includes many journals that are not in MEDLINE. --Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll switch it to NLM then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent overhauls to the infobox
Over the past few months, a number of overhauls have been made to the infobox.


 * Former names
 * Former names used to be presented in the 'basics/overview' section. Now they are presented in the 'publications details' section.


 * Abbreviations
 * Abbreviations used to be presented in the 'basics/overview' section. Now they are presented in their own 'Standard abbreviations' section, which follows the "Publications details" section.
 * New abbreviations are support bluebook, mathscinet, nlm for Bluebook, MathSciNet, and NLM abbreviations.
 * The infobox will prompt for the creation of abbreviations redirects, with automatic categorization when possible.
 * Redirect templates: R from Bluebook abbreviation, R from ISO 4 abbreviation, R from MathSciNet abbreviation, R from NLM abbreviation
 * Those can be manually added to redirects when multiple categories apply, or when redirects were already created.


 * Tracking categories:, , ,

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Linkless ifexist checks
 * Redirect checking now uses Linkless exists, to address the issues identified in this discussion. bypass-rcheck has been removed from articles, although it still exists to handle bad links created by abbreviations that clash with interwikilinks, such as CA: Cancer J Clin..


 * Search links
 * Search links can be enabled in the infobox. The links facilitate finding relevant abbreviations (Bluebook, ISO 4, NLM, MathSciNet) as well as MIAR to verify abstracting/indexing information. These links are hidden by default unless you enable them (instructions).

RFC on abbreviation usage
Right now the template guidance is that NLM/MathSciNet abbreviations should only be added when they differ from the ISO 4 abbreviation. This was added by. If feel that in the old presentation, those abbreviations would have taken a look of spaces, and that the advice made sense then. However, with re-organization/improved presentation, I feel that advice is no longer productive. We should add those abbreviations when we have them. If there's redundancy, that's not a big deal. Opinions? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, I disagree. I don't see the necessity to repeat the same ISO 4 abbreviation multiple times if the NLM or MatSciNet or whatever abbreviation is identical (give or take the periods that NLM habitually omits). I'm not even sure that we should accommodate all these abbreviations in the infobox at all. We already have too many fields that people misinterpret and fill in incorrectly... I don't see any problem with having the ISO4 abbreviation in the infobox (after all, ISO is an internationally adopted standard followed by the vast majority of academic journals) and then, if a journal has, say, a different Bluebook abbreviation, mention this in the body of text. --Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've mentioned before, we could concatenate to
 * ISO 4/NLM: J. Appl. Phys.
 * when they are the same, and leave them as separate lines
 * ISO 4: Spine
 * NLM: Spine (Phila Pa, 1976)
 * when they are different. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of combining the fields when the abbreviations are the same. (And in the case of MathSciNet, the abbreviation is only going to exist if it's a journal in a mathematical subject.) How easy would it be to get the template to do that automatically? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem would be mostly handling all the possibilities and corner cases (some journal where Bluebook + NLM is the same, and ISO+MathSciNet the same). It wouldn't be very pretty, you'd have a huge  tree, probably with lot of ! in there, but that could probably be mitigated by using subtemplates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be pretty easy to do with Lua. Galobtter (pingó mió)
 * Maybe, but that would involve dealing with LUA, which I'd rather avoid if possible, since that would make the template/subtemplate nearly unmaintainable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My thinking is to do it through a child infobox of say Module:Infobox journal abbreviations so there'd be code of data15 = to replace the current abbreviation code. That hardly seems to complicate it to "unmaintainable", at-least versus a subtemplate system and an if: tree as you said above. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, feel free to try to implement it via that. In the meantime, I'm going to try to do with with template-fu. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You can do that if you wish, I don't think the lua solution will take more than an hour to code (addendum: 30 minutes probably, actually), and will probably be less of a mess/ pain incase you want to add more abbreviations etc; however I probably won't have the time to write that for a few days. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, having something scalable would be nice, but I think I got something good enough for now in Infobox journal/sandbox (this revision, at least)

I left Bluebook on its own line, since it's styled by smallcaps. I still prefer the separate listings, but I could live with the combined version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Tweaked so abbreviations are vertically centered. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Any opinion on the above mockup? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Not really. How many more things are we going to add to the infobox? We could also add Scopus profiles, for example. Or the Washington and Lee rankings for law journals. And I'm sure that there are more subject-specific databases that can be linked from the infobox. At one point we'll have to make a choice about what is too much. I still think that we should only mention the ISO4 abbreviation and if, say, a Bluebook abbreviation is different, mention that in the body of the text (actually the first line of the lead). But it looks like I'm in the minority here. --Randykitty (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I need some help
Hi, I have some problem with the infobox. Can someone please revise Draft:Catalysts (journal) and show me with a diff how they would fix the warning? Thank you! i have tried enough previews with no result.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was done, thank you. I guess I can move the draft to mainspace now, it's close to a permastub, not a lot to say for this journals.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hint
A hint to Template:Cite journal would be helpful. AVS (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In what way? The two templates are completely unrelated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * May be, I am too simple minded, but, while referencing something, I wanted to replace Literature by Journal and expected the same pattern. For me, both templates are connected by their common object. AVS (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well I have to say I have literally no idea what you are talking about. Do you have an example of what you have in mind? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Forget it! AVS (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding Article Processing Charges (APCs) to template?
Hi, Many journals (in particular open-access journals) feature article processing charges (APCs) that the author must pay to submit an article. The amount of these APCs are important to readers because several unethical journals charge high APCs, so the value of these APCs is important to describe the journal. So I was thinking it could be interesting to add a field for APCs to the template. What do you think? --a3nm (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking this would be a nightmare to keep up-to-date beyond using Hybrid or something similar. If anything more is required, e.g. if specific criticism is directed to the journal for that practice, I feel this would likely be best covered in a sentence rather than the infobox. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Module:Linkless
Module:Linkless has been nominated for deletion (discussion). Infobox journal uses Linkless, but the suggested approach should have no effect on journal infoboxes or the links they record. Certes (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

.html in JSTOR links
Hi,

The JSTOR links usually do not end with .html (and I believe, never). I suggest to remove it. It would also allow more explicit links. For instance on Early Music (journal), I find https://www.jstor.org/journals/03061078.html, although it should be https://www.jstor.org/journals/03061078, and even better https://www.jstor.org/journal/earlymusic. But https://www.jstor.org/journal/earlymusic.html won't even work.

Kiwipidae (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"Edited by" entry of the infobox
In my opinion, the name of this entry is misleading. A scientific journal is rarely, if ever, "edited by" a single person, the editorial work is usually teamwork. When I recently tried to complete the "Edited by" entry of a journal with the name of additional editors, I was informed that this entry is supposed to contain only the name of the EiC. No doubt, the EiC is the person who should take the responsibility for all editorial decisions single-handedly, in this sense (s)he deserves special highlighting. However, if the intention is this, then the entry should be named simply "Editor-in-Chief" to eliminate any misunderstanding. Schubaa (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's simply 'edited by' because quite often the title isn't editor-in-chief but something close to it, like managing editor or lead editor or directing editor or something like that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Template not compatible with Template:Official URL
I'm not sure if I will get around to trying to fix this, so I'm letting the editors who may watch this page know: This infobox template is not compatible with the template for pulling the URL from Wikidata: Template:Official URL. The reason is that the following line:""...forces the text "Journal homepage" to appear and if Official URL is put as the value for the parameter, the aforementioned parameter then fills the line as so:""...which makes the line appear incorrectly. So ... just posting this out there since I am aware that removing the "Journal homepage" text is probably not an option (unless Official website is used with the parameter  instead of using Official URL at all...)  Steel1943  (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Former names
Infobox journal will now ask you to create redirects for missing former names, as well as search for their standard abbreviations. This is currently experimental, and will only display for people that have the search links enabled. If you have the search links enabled, the prompt will look like

Due to a lot of crap being in the formername parameter, it will skip formername with  in them. The list of 'skip characters' might get expanded as problematic entries get discovered. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * you will likely be interested by this, since you don't have the search links enabled, and you create a lot of articles that I need to add the former name abbreviations for. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about this, it should be helpful. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Category cleared! Created about a thousand new redirects (roughly ~350 former names + their corresponding abbreviations). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Needs better error-handling for frequency
There's been a couple of cases recently (such as here) where an unwitting editor has entered too many details for the Frequency field which has confused the infobox into generating an illegal. Could this be changed to some kind of appropriate tracking category, perhaps as a daughter of ? TIA Le Deluge (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I added support for 'Semester' and related terms to the infobox. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As another example, Development Growth & Differentiation is "mostly monthly".... Le Deluge (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Default image size
The default image size for this template (150px) is incredibly small. I understand that because most journal covers are upright, we don't want to default to 250px like other infoboxes, but 150px is postage stamp sized. Please change the default to 200px (or at the very least 180px). Here's an example of what 200px looks like: The Equinox; and 180px: Peckhamia (journal); and 220px: Life (magazine). Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest we instead default to 1. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ 200px. Not sure what upright does, feel free to give and example or sandbox though. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * upright scales the image relative to the user's preference setting; see MOS:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So what's different than normal scaling? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It allows us to change the size of the image relative to user preferences rather than setting a fixed px size. See for example the documentation for upright at Template:Infobox_person. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit skeptical of switching from the image_size system to the image_upright system simply because few people understand how to use it. If we did switch to using image_upright, I suppose a good default would be 0.8. Kaldari (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think if it's been done for infobox person, which has 40+ times the usage of this template, it could be done here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Are the old px sizes retained? Or are they converted into an upright percentage? Senator2029 “Talk”   08:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Add non-specified abbreviation parameter
There are currently four parameters for preset standard abbreviations. Many journals use a different style guide for abbreviation format that is not one of the four preset ones, e.g. University of Chicago Law Review. To account for these situations, there should be two parameters created: custom_abbrev and custom_abbrev_label. This would allow, e.g. U Chi L Rev and Maroonbook. A condition would be placed on the label parameter that it must link to an existing Wikipedia page, so as to reduce any possibility of over-including style guide formats.  Ergo Sum  15:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, we already have too many fields for abbreviations (like the NLM one, which in over 95% of cases just is the ISO4 abbreviation without periods). We should present the most important ones (ISO4 and, for law journals, Bluebook) and leave it at that... --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For journals like Chicago or NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, the most important ones aren't Bluebook, and definitely not ISO. That's why I propose this parameter, so that the most important one can be included.  Ergo Sum  15:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm against non-standards abbreviations in infoboxes. If it's standard, it can have its own field. For the Maroonbook, it's redundant with the Bluebook by design. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Relaunching this discussion -- many journals have "unofficial" abbreviations that are in common use but not normalized by any standard. Could we simply add an "abbreviation" field for this kind of abbreviations, without having to specify a standard? --a3nm (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Add Open Access, Licenses and DORA compliant info
Hello,

In agreement with the wikipedian values, making knowledge free for everyone, I think it's relevant to adapt this template. We could for instance modify fields in respect with San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment : DORA )

--RP87 (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I recommend to only use data which can be easily kept up to date in Wikidata with a sync from DOAJ, see wikidata:Wikidata:Dataset Imports/Directory of Open Access Journals for the ongoing work.
 * The impact factor should be removed because it's not verifiable and it's useless, harmful, unencyclopedic marketing information. We don't put the "Rotten Tomatoes" average score in the infobox of a movie producer, for instance. Nemo 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree the impact factor should be removed, and am interested in the idea of reflecting APCs in the infobox. However, instead of trying to summarize overly complicated self-archiving policies in the infobox, I recommend linking out to the journal's policies or a third-party resource such as SHERPA/RoMEO. Megs (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * For "5-year impact factor, EigenFactor [8], SCImago [9], h-index," etc, I feel DORA principles would say "don't list these" rather than recommending we add more metrics. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

DOI prefix parameter?
I noticed that this template has no way of indicating a journal's DOI prefix. Should this be added? Thanks, 178.3.227.207 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not. How would knowing a journal's DOI prefix be useful? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

official website/journal homepage
The use of official website to get the website from Wikidata currently gives [Official website Journal homepage] in ReScience C, which is a bit redundant. Either official website or this template should be modified. Otherwise someone will sooner or later decide to drop the use of Wikidata for the website, with the aim of preferring a nice appearance over long-term data management. Boud (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this template ought to be modified to be compatible with &#123;&#123;official website&#125;&#125;. In lieu of that the code   works. -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 20:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! :) I realised some time ago that a short cut to using Wikidata is to use the properties directly rather than a huge function, but I hadn't got around to doing that in practice. It will frighten some editors, but maybe also encourage them to start using Wikidata... Boud (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is typical to use Template:Official URL in infoboxes rather than Template:Official website. Both draw from Wikidata, but Template:Official URL shows the website domain rather than the text "Official website". Unfortunately, Official URL removes the URI schema prefix (http://), which this template currently balks at. My proposed changes below resolve that issue. Daask (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know about official URL. In the case of, official URL does not show http(s):// in the anchor (rendered text), but the link goes to https://rescience.github.io/, which seems acceptable to me. Boud (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Extra line break on mobile
This template shows an extra line break under the title on mobile: compare Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to. The problem persists even when all parameters are blank. — Goszei (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked both on Desktop mobile and phone mobile and I don't see it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could see it using Firefox. It was caused by the  in the COinS span rendered in a new line after the title. Since CS1/CS2 works without it, I removed it. Seems to work now. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Use Template:URL2 for more flexible website input
Please copy Template:Infobox journal/sandbox to Template:Infobox journal. This will allow editors to use Template:Official URL or Template:URL for website, as is typical for other infoboxes. The difference can be viewed at Template:Infobox journal/testcases. Daask (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like a completely unnecessary and pointless usage of Official URL/URL. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something here? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To test this in the case I'm interested in, i.e. using Wikidata, we would need to see if Wikidata people would accept the creation of an element that only exists for the purposes of Wikipedia template testing. However, to me it seems that official URL solves my particular problem; showing both the domain name and writing 'journal homepage' after it, and linking to the https:// version from Wikidata, seems fine to me (I don't see the point in hiding the domain name).
 * A different bug is for multiple language websites at Wikidata. The particular example website, for the High National Election Commission, has been updated since I posted the problem, so a different example would be needed to better test if that bug still exists. Anyway, that can be discussed over there if anyone's interested. Boud (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right about URL being useless in this case, except that editors may be accustomed to using it in other infoboxes. Official URL is necessary; there isn't another easy way to grab this information from Wikidata. Daask (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Disabled request for now, because it's not very clear what you are trying to achieve. I believe you are trying to fetch the website field from Wikidata for use in the infobox. If so, there are various approaches you can take but I don't think using official url is the right route to take. You might like to look at Template:Infobox bridge which I have been involved with. It uses the code


 * label15    = Website
 * data15    =
 * Then if no local website parameter is supplied and if website is set in the template then will be used from wikidata. Let me know if I can help at all. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This template currently doesn't accept the output of Template:URL2. My proposal would modify the template specifically to allow the output of Template:URL2 and Template:Official URL. I appreciate your offering a solution. However, that seems excessively complex for something that Wikipedia should be using in every infobox, and as I noted, this template currently balks at Template:URL2's output anyway. Daask (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I still don't really understand what you are trying to do. Would you mind giving some examples (e.g. on Template:Infobox journal/testcases) to show what is wrong with current code on the template? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 February 2021
Can anyone please change Publisher to Publisher ? 217.213.113.4 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please make the change in the sandbox so that this redirect can be replaced with its target when the next substantive change is made to this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 March 2021
Can anyone please change Publisher to Publisher ? It is done in the sandbox. 90.235.123.133 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Apologies, because there seems to be no reason to bypass the redirect, which is a good, working redirect that is WP:NOTBROKEN. And just fyi, the edit is not in the sandbox, which is presently synched to the live template and has been since the 5th of March.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 07:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata
How does one get the infobox to use Wikidata if the template fields are not set on Wikipedia? &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

New Parameters to be added
Can anyone add the parameters "Founding Editor", "CiteScore", and "Impact Factor" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suneethkrishna (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We already have the impact factor btw. For the others, give me a couple of days and I'll get to it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is necessary and would be unnecessary clutter of the infobox. If it is known who the founding editor was, that belongs in the body of text. As for CiteScore, I still have to meet a person who not only knows what it is, but also uses it. There are many more statistics than just the IF and this CiteScore, most of them rather obscure and none of them used to evaluate journals or academics. For better or for worse, that's what the IF is used for, which is why we need to have the IF in the infobox but not all those other statistics. --Randykitty (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Noted, Thank you for the clarification. Suneethkrishna (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 September 2021
Can anyone please change Publisher to Publisher ? It is done in the sandbox. 217.213.86.211 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: no need to bypass a working redirect that is not broken. See also other requests from February and March.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 12:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2021
Would it be possible to create a tracking category for "Infobox journals with missing cover images"?  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 20:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for this. I never knew this tool existed.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 07:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is updated monthly, typically around the end of the first week of the month. If you look through those thousands of articles and find that you still need a tracking category, reopen this request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Start date, inception, establishment
Why is there no parameter for start date/inception/establishment? It is included on almost all infoboxes I can think of, as it tells when that entity came into existence. Is the ommisson of this parameter accidental or intentional? Senator2029 【talk】 14:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The related Template:Infobox magazine has: Senator2029 【talk】 15:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * founded The date the magazine company was founded
 * firstdate	The date of publication of the first issue of the magazine
 * Covered in the History parameter. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 February 2022
Change Bluebook abbreviation to not be italicized when in small caps. In the Bluebook, journal titles are not italicized when abbreviated in this way. Henrygg98 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 01:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Undone, we're not reproducing Bluebook style one to one here. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. I've restored the Wikimarkup line breaks.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 01:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 March 2022
Can anyone please change Publisher to Publisher ? I have done it in the sandbox. 95.193.26.193 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Terasail [✉️] 17:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Should there be a parameter for non-standardized, but customary abbreviations?
The template currently has parameters for various standard abbreviations of journal names, such as Bluebook, ISO 4, MathSciNet and National Library of Medicine. However, within certain academic traditions, journals might have an abbreviation which is commonly understood, but not part of any standard. For instance it is known that, within British legal academia, ICLQ refers to International and Comparative Law Quarterly, within German legal academia, ZaöRV refers to Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, and, within Nordic legal academia, TfR refers to Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap. Citations to these will often just use these abbreviations. Would it make sense to have a parameter for these types of abbreviations? I can see there being issues of verifiability or consistency if different authors use different abbreviations and there are no authoritative abbreviation guides, but, on the other hand, if left out, the infobox might be lacking the abbreviation that is most commonly used for the journal because it doesn't fit within the standard systems. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 12:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As an addendum to the above: In many cases, the customary abbreviation will be acknowledged by the journal itself, which would reduce issues of verifiability. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 12:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not for the infobox no. Those can be mentioned in the text if they are important, however. Also those are acronyms, not abbreviations. BAMS is Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society for example. But that's true only in mathematics. In general, it can be many other publications. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my examples were not the best. Better examples might be the many abbreviations in the Cardiff Index which do not conform to Bluebook or ISO 4. I'm not sure I agree with your argument, since the purpose of the infobox is to summarize key information of the article. But I'm not that passionate about it, so I'll leave it here. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 13:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If the Cardiff Index is a standard set of abbreviations (and not just like, used internally at Cardiff University), then those could be integrated in the infobox rather easily. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"License" Parameter
Currently, the "license" parameter directs simply to License. This target page is incredibly broad to the point of unhelpfulness. This would be like if the Frequency parameter directed to Frequency. I think a much better target page would be Public copyright license, since this parameter relates to intellectual property/copyright licensing. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, the issue here is that not all licenses are public copyright licenses. At least to my understanding (I could be wrong here). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Licenses in the context of academic publishing? TBH, this is not my area of expertise but that's what I assumed (it could be different in non-Western countries, though). However, the license parameter is only needed when the preceding parameter open access = yes. So really the most specific target would be Open access. But that might be too specific. How about Copyright? I see no reason why we're making the reader brush up on driver licenses, leases, patents, and the like. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that Copyright would be the most useful link here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Updated. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)