User:J. Johnson/Sandbox1

Testing different displays for special cases

 * . [Using "volume="] ⇐ Preferred.


 * . [Using "volume=" and "journal= GSA"]


 * [Cite, using "id="]


 * . [Using "id="]

maps
At one point using volume= with journal= put the map name in bold. Not currently.
 * . [Using "journal=", "volume="]  ⇐ Preferred **


 * . [Using "publisher=", "volume="]

Using id= for map name puts after the descriptive details in at=. Not good.
 * . [Using "journal=", "id="] XX


 * . [Using "publisher=", "id="] XX

-
 * [Cite map, using "id=" and "publisher="] **Authors ignored.**

Testing of CITEREF links.








Refbegin

Test of brackets in citeref
Link:



Link:



"a new parameter x&#61;4"

Test of named refs in reflist
Link to Smith , link to Jones, and link to Brown. These are only the named tags, the &lt;ref> tags with the actual content are in the reflist (below). And there they are in alphabetical order, but reflist is assembled in the order the tags are first encountered. Also, additional content in the reflist ("Everley") is ignored.

Citation templates
The example above was generated from formatted text like the following (additional linebreaks added for clarity): Le Treut et al., [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1.html Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science], [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-3.html#1-3-1 Section 1.3.1: The Human Fingerprint on Greenhouse Gases], in.

An effectively identical citation can be generated using a citation template :
 * in.

This was generated using the following template (linebreak added): in.

Either form is workable, but if an article consistently uses one form then that should be followed (unless consensus is obtained to change). The chapter details for all reports are provided as formatted text. When using with templates be careful to remove extraneous brackets and commas. In all cases remove extraneous linebreaks, And of course Preview your work before saving.

[Other N.Y. Times articles...]
 * The New York Times:

Test math markup



 * $log ES = 4.8 + 1.5 Ms$, (3.67)


 * $log M0 = 1.5 Ms + 9.1$ (3.68)

+ mvar: $M$, $M0$, $M_{0}$; M: ;   math: $Mw = (log M0 – 9.1)/1.5 = (2/3) (log M0 – 9.1)$, $M0$

+ $M_{0}$; U: &sigma;&#772; &sigma;&#773; D&#772; D&#773;; &sigma;&#772;D&#773;S; {math} messes with the overbars: $&mu;; &mu; &mu; 𝜇, 𝜇

+ Overbar: \overbar{&sigma;}\overbar{D}S$, $&sigma;&#772;D&#773;S$


 * $&sigma;&#772;D&#772;S$ = 1.23 X 10$22$S$3/2$ dyn cm


 * $M0$ (3)

+ $\overbar{&sigma;}$ ... the stress drop &Delta;&sigma; is equal to 2, 2&sigma;&#772; 2&sigma;&#773; $W = \overbar{&sigma;}\overbar{D}S$


 * $2&sigma;&#772; 2&sigma;&#773;$ (4)

Since &Delta;&sigma; is nearly constant at 20–60 bars = 2–6 &times; dyn/cm$2$ for very large earthquakes (Figure 1) and $W = W0 = 1⁄2&Delta;&sigma;\overbar{D}S = (&Delta;&sigma;/2&mu;)M0$ dyn/cm$2$ under crust-upper mantle conditions, (&Delta;&sigma;/&mu;) ~  and (4) becomes


 * $&mu; = 3–6 &times;$ (4')

We let &sigma;$0$ and &sigma;$1$ be ...


 * $W0 ~ M0/(2 &times; )$   (5)

... using the Gutenberg-Richter magnitude-energy relation, $W = &sigma;&#772;D&#773;S = (&Delta;&sigma;/2)D&#773;S + &sigma;0D&#773;S W0 + &sigma;1D&#773;S$. We use W$0$ calculated from $M0$ for E in this equation, calculate $M$, and denote it by $Mw$.

As shown in the previous section, $log E = 1.5M + 11.8$ ... The condition $W0 = (&Delta;&sigma;/2&mu;)M0$ ...


 * 1: $W0 = (&Delta;&sigma;/2&mu;)M0$ --[mvar]
 * 2: $W0 = (&Delta;&sigma;/2&mu;)$ --[mvar, {M}]
 * 3: $$&sigma;i ~ &sigma;f$$ --[mvar/math]


 * 4: $W0 = (&Delta;&sigma;/2&mu;)M0$ --[math, 'M']
 * 5: $W0 = (&Delta;&sigma;/2&mu;)M0$; --[{M|0}]
 * 6: $W0 = (&Delta;&sigma;/2&mu;)$ --[sub]
 * 7: $W0 = (&Delta;&sigma;/2&mu;)M0$ --[ssub]




 * Unicode: &#2272; &#2272;&#FE00; &#2273; &#2273;&#FE00;
 * &lt;math&gt;: $$ {\displaystyle {\leqslant \geqslant \lesssim \gtrsim}} $$