Wikipedia

Template talk:Infobox journal/Archive 3

< Template talk:Infobox journal
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Headbomb in topic MathSciNet abbreviations
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

Many journals are sponsored by a learned society or academic institution despite being published by a company; the two are often confused in WP. A new "sponsor" infobox field would seem warranted, so as to minimize confusion. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Will implement it then. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea. "Sponsoring" is a very vague concept. It covers everything from journals owned by a society and published on their behalf by a commercial publisher, via journals published on behalf of a society on a platform like AJOL, to journals co-owned (in varying proportions) by publishers and societies to journals that are completely owned by a publisher like Elsevier, but for which members of certain societies get favorable personal subscription rates. Most of the time, the exact conditions will be confidential (or at least not clearly published in any reliable source). Adding a "sponsor" field to the infobox forces complicated info into a single brief expression and is probably going to be a magnet for all kinds of spam. Better to keep this in the main body of text where things can be explained (if we actually have anything to explain, that is). --Randykitty (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You might argue with the word choice, but there's a clear-cut distinction between the publisher and the society or institution on behalf of which the publisher is acting. The current template is being widely misused: sometimes the publisher field includes the sponsor as well (The Review of Economics and Statistics, Quarterly Journal of Economics), other times only the sponsor (e.g., Geophysical Research Letters). The current situation is a big loss. Call the field "institution", for a common name. (Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms is outside the scope.) Fgnievinski (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the "publisher" field is often incorrectly filled out is not a good reason to create yet another field that many people will (inadvertently) fill out incorrectly. The publisher field should contain the name of the publisher (Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, etc). Only if there is good evidence that a journal is owned by a society, should we add "on behalf of the Foo Society". In case of co-ownership, the text should be "and the Foo Society". If a journal is (co-)owned by a society, then the copyright statement will include the name of the society or even omit the name of the publisher in case the journal is completely society owned. Perhaps a better solution would be to clarify what should go in the "publisher" field in the template doc. I propose to replace "Name of publisher." with: "Name of publisher. This should be the name of the entity (company, university, society) that performs the actual publishing (marketing, printing, distribution, etc), possibly followed by "on behalf of ...." if there is clear evidence that the journal is owned by another organization (usually a learned society) or "and ..." in case there is clear evidence that the journal is co-owned by the publisher and another organization." What do you think? --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
While we may wish to display text in the form "on behalf of the Foo Society" this should not be entered in the |publisher= parameter. For improved data granularity, the name "Foo Society" should be in a separate parameter, and the template code should then create the desired output. For co-ownership, use {{Plainlist}}, not prose "and". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
As explained above, I disagree. Even when a journal is co-owned, the society never has any involvement with the actual publishing process. They will get part of the profits, if any, and may have some influence on the choice of editors, but that is all. If "on behalf of" is considered to be inappropriate, my preference would be not to mention this in the infobox at all, but only in the body of text, where things can be properly explained (if sourceable). --Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Keeping the status quo will not improve the current misuse of the conflated single field. In fact, greater granularity could even help with automatic categorization. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
You disagree with a solution that provides exactly the visual output that you say we should have? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories

OK, agreed with the improved description for the existing publisher field. I'll not insist on the new sponsor/institution field. But what about categories? A good example is Category:Harvard University academic journals and Category:Harvard University Press academic journals. Should we be more explicit in naming the first one, e.g., Category:Academic journals associated with Harvard University? There's already a Category:Publications associated with the University of Cambridge‎ which contains Category:Cambridge University Press academic journals‎ but no Category:Academic journals‎ associated with the University of Cambridge, absence which creates potential for confusion. We should come up with some guidance on categorization membership and naming. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Another can of worms: should Category:Academic journals published on behalf of learned societies‎ be created as a subcat of Category:Academic journals published by learned societies? Lots of miscategorizations despite the current hatnote at the exisitng category. Conflating the two concepts is really begging for confusion! Fgnievinski (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I feel that we should only put articles in Category:Academic journals published by learned societies if the society actually physically publishes the journal, that is, not if the journal is published on their behalf by a publishing company. I don't feel the need to create an "on behalf of" cat, given the uncertainties that I cited above. Things are only very rarely clear enough, in contrast to the "published by academic societies" cat. As for Harvard, the first cat (HU journals) has a number of entries that don't belong there (for example, the Quarterly Journal of Economics is published by OUP, not Harvard). Others are law journals and published by "independent student groups" (again a very flexible term, which may mean anything from being legally independent of the university to being university owned). For example, the website of the Harvard International Law Journal gives no indication of ownership/publisher whatsoever. I don't think we should create cats if we cannot figure out the exact situation. --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it is a lot of effort for little gain and don't really see the need for cleanup in the journals published by learned societies cat (it's not overly large), but will not resist it. BTW, I think that by now most of this discussion has nothing to do with the infobox any more, so perhaps we should move it to the Wikiproject talk page (giving other editors a chance to chip in, too). --Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Randykitty that this discussion is likely a waste of time. There are other places Wikipedia needs contributions and I don't think this windmill is worth the tilting. I doubt I'd revert the proposed changes but it's concerning. I think the discussion about adding a sponsor field makes more sense if it makes sense at all. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Country field

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pls see related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_28#Category:Academic_journals_by_country_of_publication. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Trouble with JSTOR links

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It looks like JSTOR have changed their URL schemes. The template assumes it uses an URL scheme like http://jstor.org/journals/<issn-digits>.html, where the variable part is the ISSN of the journal minus the hyphen. However in the example I just checked, the African American Review, the URL is http://www.jstor.org/journal/afriamerrevi. That is, it appears for at least some journals they assign a text string abbreviated from the journal's name and use that for an URL without a trailing file ending. Not sure whether they've simply changed their URL scheme so this affects all journals, or the scheme varies from journal to journal.

Anyway, {{infobox journal}} as it's currently set up cannot (as far as I can tell) be used to link to journals like the one here. --Xover (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. It looks like JSTOR have fixed the problem by redirecting the scheme used by the template to their new URL scheme (or at least the 3-4 test cases I had now work again). For example, for the journal Technometrics, the template generates https://www.jstor.org/journals/00401706.html which jstor.org redirects to https://www.jstor.org/journal/technometrics. I'm not sure how best to handle this, but my immediate thought is that this template should handle both variants (the existing one for existing uses of the template, and the new for new uses of the template). Unfortunately, I have no good ideas for how specifically to do that. Sorry. --Xover (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Error message and tracking category for unsupported parameters

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have added error tracking for unsupported parameters. See Category:Pages using infobox journal with unknown parameters. A red error message appears when you Preview the article, between the edit screen and the rendered preview. In the category, the articles are sorted by the name of the parameter that is unsupported. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Conversion to Wikidata

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Going to ping @DGG, RexxS, and Pigsonthewing: for their input here. From our conversations at Wikimania, there was a high interest in converting this infobox to have a {{Infobox journal/wikidata}} version. It won't handle all cases, but we could quite easily handle 95% of them. We'll need to discuss how to handle certain parameters however, it's possible not all of them are suitable for Wikidata. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox journal/Archive 3  
Disciplinemathematics  
LanguageEnglish
Edited byJean Bourgain  
Publisher
@Headbomb: I've made a start by copying the main template to Template:Infobox journal/wikidata and then converting |editor=, |publisher=, and |subject= as examples, using editor (P98), publisher (P123), and main subject (P921) from Wikidata. You can see how it goes by previewing:
  • {{Infobox journal/wikidata |fetchwikidata=ALL |onlysourced=false}}
in any section of a journal article. As an example, on the right there's the wikidata-aware infobox for Annals of Mathematics (Q564426). The language is supplied by the template by default. I wanted to add a Wikidata call for |language=, but it seems that many journals use original language of film or TV show (P364), which is deprecated for works. They should be using language of work or name (P407) now, so I'm loathe to do work that will have to be re-done when and if Wikidata gets the journal entries sorted out and changed to the correct property. Anyway, feel free to have a bash yourself, and shout me if you want help. Although, Mike Peel likes doing these (!), so he may chip in and help. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@RexxS: Thanks for the first step! I'll take a look at how it renders, and what's missing/needs tweaking. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to help if there's anything I can do, just ping me. :-) I'll also keep an eye on this page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Some remarks.

  • For simplicity, only support 1 journal per infobox for now. So ISSN2/JSTOR2/CODEN2/etc... should be out on this iteration.
  • Retrieve journal identifiers from Wikidata (ISSNs, e-ISSN, OCLC, LCCN, JSTOR, CODEN)
  • Retrieve impact factor + impact year from Wikidata
  • Retrieve ISO-4 abbreviation from Wikidata
  • Retrieve publisher from Wikidata

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Travelling home today, so I'll have more time for this once I've recovered. Looks good so far, but don't we normally drop "Language", if it's English? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The template displays English by default, but can be overidden. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm all for defaults making life as easy as possible (so dropping English, and applying |fetchwikidata and |onlysourced=false). *Waves* from Montreal airport... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Pleasant travels Andy. I hope you've enjoyed Canada! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Google Metrics h5-index

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I think we can all agree that everybody hates the impact factor, and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (point 6) calls for the impact factor to only be used as an indicator of journal "prestige" in the context of other - perhaps more meaningful - metrics. Could we possibly incorporate fields for the Google Scholar h5-index? It is freely available and there is research to suggest it is more reliable and less volatile than the impact factor. I suggest adding:

| h5-index = | h5-index-year = | h5-rank = | h5-rank-subject =

The journals rank can then be added for specific subject areas. Thoughts? Famousdog (c) 07:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I would oppose this change. Love if or hate it, the IF is still the metric of choice for most people and publishers. While some publishers include SCImago stats, for example, basically all of them display the IF. And none that I know off give any GScholar stats. There's a good reason for that, of course. GScholar stats are highly unreliable, include citations from and to predatory journals, etc. Just read the sordid story of Ike Antkare... As for the ranking, nobody seems to care about that either, I haven't even seen publishers use that for publicity... --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Metric of choice? For the moment, maybe, but the tide seems to be turning as suggested here and elsewhere. By focussing only on the IF of a journal, Wikipedia is contributing to the continued dominance of this metric - something that initiatives such as the San Francisco Declaration are trying to counter. Google Scholar is not perfect, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Web of Science and Scopus aren't either. At least Google's metrics are freely accessible. Shouldn't we support that? Alternatively, let's get rid of the IF completely from Wikipedia. Famousdog (c) 11:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The tide may be turning, but it hasn't turned yet. Grumblings about the IF are about as old as the IF itself and for now, it's still dominant, like it or not. It's not WP's task to support things one way or another, we follow what is out there. And for the moment, what readers want to know is a journal's IF, not its Google h5... --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
No, the IF is much older than grumblings about it because for years only librarians knew about it, but I see your point. I suggested the h5-index because it is freely available and is therefore "out there" too. Famousdog (c) 07:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
And librarians grumbled about it... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Why not add a few more metrics and let the reader judge. One could add 5-year impact factor, Eigenfactor ® score, Article influence score, citation half-life, SNIP, SJR... This way it one does not remove the loved-hated impact factor, but it puts it in a larger context. Most Wikipedia articles using this template are rather small, and a bit more information would not hurt. 23 August 2017
Or Elsevier's CiteScore? Famousdog (c) 13:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

2017-08-29 Update

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  1. We now have a |bluebook= field
  2. You get prompted to create ISO 4 / Bluebook redirects if they don't exist. (With copy-pasteable code for convenience).
  3. Relevant categories are Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 redirects / Category:Articles with missing Bluebook redirects
  4. We now have {{R from Bluebook}}

I'm really stoked for this. Having the bluebook / redirect creation functionality has been a long dream of mine, and now it's here! I've posted notices at WT:LAW and WT:JOURNALS to advertise the new features.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 redirects

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should the infobox automatically add Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 redirects when no |abbreviation= is specified? It would be, technically, missing ISO 4 redirects, as the ISO 4 abbrev is not specified. czar 20:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It probably should, yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 maintenance tag

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

In the ISO 4 maintenance tag that pops up when the redirects do not yet exist, wouldn't it make more sense to make a "create this link" link that preloads the redirect text rather than making users copy/paste?   czar 18:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

For sure. I just didn't have time to figure out how exactly how to do that yet. Feel free to take a stab at it though! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Tested this, which appears to do the trick czar 20:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Czar (talk · contribs) could you take care of the Bluebook one as well? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb, done. Should be good, but the maintenance category appears empty anyway czar 01:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
That's mostly because bluebook support was just added. So whenever someone adds a bluebook abbreviation, they'll get the message to create the redirects, and no substantial backlog can be accumulated. Only 11 entries in Category:Redirects_from_Bluebook_abbreviations so far, but it'll increase as WP:LAW gets in on it.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Is something broken?

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I just came across Journal of Avian Biology. There are two hatnotes at the top of the page saying that the ISO 4 abbreviations do not exist. After some research as I had never come across this before, I followed the links to create the redirects J. Avian Biol. and J Avian Biol, but the hatnotes are still there. I even tried opening the page in another browser in case there was a caching problem, but same result. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You might need to WP:PURGE the page after the redirects have been created. It will go away on its own after a little while, but if you purge the page (or do a null edit) it force the update. See the last line of the instructions at Category:Articles_with_missing_ISO_4_redirects.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response. That seems to have fixed the problem. Derek Andrews (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Extraneous warnings

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The template's page and documentation sub-page are now cluttered with warning templates. Could we make it so that these only appear in article space? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. I've kept the one on the main template page (but not doc pages) so it's easier to tweak without going to the sandbox. Once the template is settled, I'll suppress them there as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Ugg, can't there be a less obnoxious way of indicating that abbreviations or redirects are missing? Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 redirects currently has over 1700 articles, and presumably all of those have one or two ugly yellow templates at top. Could a bot handle this quickly and painlessly? --Animalparty! (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Two weeks ago there was over 4000 missing! Bots are being developed I believe though, but the backlog is getting cleared very quickly! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Associated society parameter

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think a new parameter should be added to this template that lets you add the name of the society affiliated with the journal (eg the society of which it's the official journal), but when the journal is not published by that society. Everymorning (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Annoying "R from typo" I can't track down

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

The redirect EMBnetjournal was tagged with an {{R from typo}}, which I removed because I could not find exactly where or how EMBnet was linking to the misspelling. I narrowed it down to the infobox, so I suspect that this template is the culprit, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Wikidata is somehow responsible. I was tempted to just delete the damn redirect entirely, but just settled for accepting it as a legitimate spelling since it's used in a URL. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

EMBnet uses {{Infobox journal}} with parameter abbreviation=EMBnet.journal. The template code contains
  #ifexist:{{replace|{{{abbreviation}}}|.|}}
This creates a spurious record of an imaginary wikilink from EMBnet to the journal's abbreviation with its dot removed. Certes (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the unfortunate behaviour of the #ifexist predicate as used in this template causes problems for people cleaning Wikipedia, as discussed in the previous section. Certes (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm the one that created that redirect, mostly to satisfy the ISO check. This is clearly not a {{R from ISO4}} case, or a legit spelling; so {{R from typo}} is a quite correct categorization for it (if EMBnetjournal were used, it would be a typo). The spurious linking bit is annoying, but it's a software issue (see T14019). Nothing we can do about that at the template level really. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Why is this code -->{{#ifexist:{{replace|EMBnet.journal|.|}}||<!-- taking the perfectly correct EMBnet.journal and intentionally stripping the dot out of that to create the intentional misspelling EMBnetjournal? What is the purpose of doing that? {{replace|EMBnet.journal|.|}} → EMBnetjournal is an error that begs for correction ... wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: The purpose is, as has been explained above, to encourage the creation of missing ISO 4 redirects. The code works in 99%+ of cases, but there will be some exceptions, such as this one where the stripped version isn't an ISO 4 redirect, but rather a typo redirect. This isn't a big deal, since creating the typo redirect will suppress the message.
Also, when did I say EMBnetjournal shouldn't be fixed? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, the above section is a bit TL;DR.
Creating the typo redirect did not suppress its appearance on Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings. It caused the appearance on that list. EMBnet is the offending article that is linking to the misspelling. As long as it remains on that list, it hasn't been fixed. Since you reverted my simple solution, which was to remove the {{r from typo}}, you're forcing me to spend more time figuring out a template that you can't fix yourself, as it seems I'm obligated to solve a problem that I did not create.
So I assume that these categories have relevance to this system:
I suppose if I try to understand the purpose of the first two categories and work to clear some items from them, that will help me better understand this system. wbm1058 (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
"Creating the typo redirect did not suppress its appearance on Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings". It's the report that's inaccurate because of a software issue (see T14019). The template itself is behaving correctly, and there's no actual issue needing to be fixed in any article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You could also set |bypass-rcheck=yes on that infobox (diff), and it will get rid of the error checking / spurious link. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with the bug, and have been for over two years. I was going to point out a previous work-around implemented to avoid the problem, by not using #ifexist at all, but rather finding another means to accomplish the task. I just left a comment on the phabricator, and this is the reply I got: Complaining that no one has worked on this bug doesn't do anything to help resolve it. Developer time is limited, and dominated by fixing more critical bugs than this and developing new functionality. Compared to that, this is a quibble with a feature that already works, which produces editor annoyance but doesn't actually block any critical wikiwork. Rather than complaining into the void, maybe you should read the above discussion and related bug reports and contribute something meaningful to the discussion (or even better, submit some code)? Left unsaid is that even if code is delivered to them on a silver platter, there's a good chance that it could still sit for years waiting for someone to get around to check it, test it, and actually make it go live. So, I would just consider #ifexist to be stillborn and avoid using it for anything, unless it's absolutely necessary and there are no viable alternative solutions.

So, thank you for creating Category:Infobox journals with bypassed redirect checking. That is exactly the sort of solution I was hoping you would implement. Thankyou, thankyou. wbm1058 (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • When I edit n.paradoxa and click Show preview, I see:
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox journal with unknown parameter "bypass-rcheck" (this message is shown only in preview).
I have no idea why as it seems to be a recognized parameter which works fine to populate Category:Infobox journals with bypassed redirect checking. The other member of the category, EMBnet, does not exhibit that behavior. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Fixed in Template:Infobox journal, by adding bypass-rcheck to the list of known parameters that the template doesn't complain about. Certes (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! wbm1058 (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"Find out here"

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The "Find out here" link in this template violates WP:CLICKHERE. It's also very non-standard for an infobox. Can we remove it? Kaldari (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Hmm. I think perhaps the salient question is whether the ISO 4 abbreviation is a required parameter. If it isn't, then its absence should simply result in it not being shown. If it is required then it might be reasonable to have a lookup function somewhere (with better link text of course), perhaps along the lines of how the CS1/2 modules handle parameter errors. Apart from the WP:CLICKHERE issue, displaying what amounts to maintenance messages to readers (vs. editors) is somewhat problematic. --Xover (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It may be non-standard, but it sure helps with filling out those missing abbreviations. We were missing 8,000+ just a few months ago, now it's down to ~1,000. The alternative is to display a bigass {{ambox}} template with the link there instead of in the infobox. WP:CLICKHERE also applies to content/self references, rather than cleanup (e.g. see {{dab needed}} which has a similar call to action). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Xover: The ISO 4 abbreviation should not be required. For many journals, it's pretty obvious that no abbreviation is needed, like Zygon, Telos, Ostraka, Peckhamia, etc. IMO, the default should be to display nothing if the parameter is missing. Kaldari (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Wikipedia is missing millions of pieces of information. It's a work in progress. We don't need to explicitly call out everything that's missing. If it's important, someone will add it eventually. Kaldari (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll add: a tracking category is an excellent way to handle maintenance tasks like this. And like Help:CS1 errors, error messages can be added in-article in a way that requires explicit opt-in (custom CSS) to see. Is the need for these abbreviations really so pressing that it justifies putting this technical stuff in the article for all readers? --Xover (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
"All this technical stuff", it's one link. And I'd argue that yes, this is critical information since most journals are abbreviated in the literature. If you see J Trauma Stress, you might very well think that stands for Journal of Trauma & Stress, rather than Journal of Traumatic Stress, or if you see Account. Organ. Soc. you might think it stands for Accounts of the Organist Society rather than Accounting, Organizations and Society. This information remedies that, and also triggers the creation of the relevant redirects. One word abbreviations are also the vast minority of cases, and even then they are useful because some people might think that the ISO 4 abbreviation for say Biochemistry is Biochem., rather than Biochemistry. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages

Latest comment: 6 years ago62 comments7 people in discussion

There is a (perhaps misplaced, but I don't want to WP:FORK it) discussion about this template at User talk:Mike Peel#Template:infobox journal. In brief, the ifexist test in the ISO4 field is causing a major problem for WP:DPL regulars. Narky Blert (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's just move the original discussion here, then there's no FORKing issue. ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
This is another template which creates false positives in User:DPL bot reports. I have collected a dozen examples. Apeiron (philosophy journal) is representative; see Special:WhatLinksHere/Apeiron, about 14 lines down. The problem seems to be the ISO 4 abbreviation field in the template. It is almost inevitable that a journal name abbreviation will correspond to a DAB page on which it appears (they are often a classical name or an initialism), so the link will be circular. The same effect turns up on pure redirects, e.g. J. Am. Chem. Soc.; see Special:WhatLinksHere/J. Am. Chem. Soc. (view 500, and search for "journal"). I know nothing about template design, and am very reluctant to meddle for fear of breaking something. Is this within your area of expertise? Narky Blert (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Narky Blert: I think this is due to the changes that @Headbomb has been making to that template, see the talk page. They are probably the better person to debug this than me. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel and Headbomb: You could well be right. If the problem isn't sorted out soon, I'll post at Template talk:Infobox journal. I estimate that it is causing User:DPL bot to report something like 2,000-4,000 bad links (i.e. 10% or more of the number which show up in the disambiguation pages with links report). Narky Blert (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really sure I see what the problem is here. Could you explain? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel - I apologise for cluttering up your talk page, but it seems best to keep this discussion in one place.
@Headbomb: - I apologise for not responding sooner. I had internet connection problems yesterday.
I mentioned above two types of dummy links from infobox journal (IJ). (1) To DAB pages. (2) To redirects. There will presumably also be links (3) to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC pages. #2 and #3 are harmless; #1 is not. See WP:INTDAB. "Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors. In order to find and fix those errors, disambiguators generate a wide array of reports of links needing to be checked and fixed." The main report-generating tool is User:DPL bot. It's unfortunately been broken since 22 September, but its old reports are still available. See WP:TDD for the scale of the problem: at latest count, 28,478 links to 22,941 DAB pages. This link shows the full list. Links have to be checked manually and either repaired or flagged {{dn}}.
Even a correctly-formatted link from IJ to a DAB page (through the (disambiguation) page) will be circular (assumimg the journal abbreviation is on it, as it should be), and therefore unhelpful.
In the range Am- to Ari- of pages with one bad link (112 of them, about 5 hours work to look into), I have bookmarked 14 created by IJ. I dread to think how many there are in the rest of the alphabet. This is a major problem for WP:DPL regulars. From a post which Mike Peel made elsewhere, I think it may be something to do with an "ifexist" test. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what anything you just said means, and I'm pretty well versed in templates and technical speak.
  • What are dummy links? How are they different from normal links?
  • If DPL bot is broken, then fix DPL bot.
  • You imply some links are incorrectly formatted. Which links, and how are they incorrectly formatted?
I will tell you that, around August 29, ISO 4 / Bluebook redirect detection was implemented in {{Infobox journal}}. There are a couple of "ifexist" statements in it related to ISO 4 abbreviations and Bluebook abbreviations. If the redirects don't exist, a template appears at the top of the infobox, asking users to create the redirects. If the redirects do exist, then everything is fine, and no template is displayed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: What I have called "dummy links" are ones which show up in Special/WhatLinksHere but not in the article itself. See e.g. Apeiron (philosophy journal), Special:WhatLinksHere/Apeiron and the relevant error report.
The state of DPL bot is neither here nor there. It is designed to pick up all links in Special/WhatLinksHere to DAB pages, because they are all errors. That ifexist statement is creating a thousand or so links which are flat contrary to WP:INTDAB. I have wasted 40 minutes or more on them, and I wouldn't be surprised if other WP:DPL members may have done so too.
An alternative to DPL bot is the old-fashioned eyeball. With experience (I think I've looked at something north of 40,000 DAB pages with links), bad links on Special/WhatLinksHere pages jump out at you. Tweaking the bot wouldn't solve that problem.
Correctly formatted links to the DAB page Apeiron go through Apeiron (disambiguation). Any direct link to Apeiron violates WP:INTDAB – and by extension, WP:MOS.
That well-intentioned ifexist routine is causing major problems for other editors. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb and Narky Blert: I have no objections to you using my talk page for this, but if you get to the point where you need more people involved I'd recommend moving to the template talk page. ;-) On the #ifexist issue, I've filed a phabricator report to see if this can be fixed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
It turns out that this has been an issue since 2007 - it's tracked at phab:T14019. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel. Thank you for that. The functionality (i.e. warning an editor that no redirect exists, and that one should be created) is clearly very valuable. It's only the side-effect which is a problem.
(I know of another template which produces a similar effect: {{redirect}}. If the redirect no longer exists but has been turned into a DAB page, the link appears on Special/WhatLinksHere and User:DPL bot finds it. Not very common, and dead easy to fix if you've seen the problem before.) Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC))
Update: I have posted at Template talk:Infobox journal#Links to DAB pages. Narky Blert (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Update #2: I have invited other WP:DPL members to contribute to this discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Template:infobox journal. Narky Blert (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The solution here seems to fix/tweal DPL bot, or address the core issue in T14019. Not much that can be done at the infobox level, I think. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb:. "The solution here seems to fix/tweal DPL bot". No it isn't. This is a WP:MOS matter, see WP:INTDAB. Feel free to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Narky Blert (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I have, today. bookmarked yet another 8 crap links created by infobox journal to DAB pages. This is seriously annoying, and wastes my time. Narky Blert (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I would be justified in adding a {{dn}} tag to every DAB page which I view which has a bad link from IJ, but it would annoy readers and wouldn't help solve the underlying problem. It is a problem, and it cannot just be swept under the carpet. If this problem isn't fixed in one way or another, I may start adding {{dn}} tags to pages which link from IJ to DAB pages, because this feature is beginning to piss me off majorly. Would it be OK if I post bad links from IJ tagged by me on your Talk Page, so that you can help sort them out? Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, if you want to get blocked for WP:DE/WP:TE/WP:SPIDER. WP:MOS covers displayed text. The displayed text is fine. There is no link in {{Infobox journal}} in need of a {{dn}} tag. No reader is being mislead. What is not fine is the software behaving in a way no one wants it to behave, and DPL bot's logic being in need of a tweak while the software isn't up to snuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The bot is correctly reporting that the table of links contains links which should not exist. The links do not exist; it's the table that's wrong rather than the bot. I haven't examined the bot's code but I think it would be very difficult and resource-heavy to add a change which compensates for the data errors. Solutions in order of preference:
  1. Get #ifexist fixed. This would benefit not only IJ but Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) in general.
  2. Change IJ to avoid #ifexist. I can probably do this, but my code would probably use more resources than the built-in compiled functionhard; see below and it would only fix IJ.
  3. Create some sort of whitelist and have all the tools filter out those links before reporting. I don't know the tools so this would need help, and some poor soul then has to maintain the whitelist forever. Also, we'd have false negatives where an article has both whitelisted links and bad ones.
  4. Give up fixing links to dabs in this field and leave the relevant articles to rot. We could achieve this by having the tools ignore pages that transclude Infobox journal.
Better alternatives welcome. Certes (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
How would you avoid using #ifexist? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll second that. I'd love to hear about a method for testing whether a page exists without creating a spurious link to it. --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I've had a go in {{Infobox journal/sandbox}}. To judge by {{Infobox journal/testcases}} it hasn't done any harm, though I've no evidence that it's a valid workaround. A quick read through Help:Lua suggests that it may even be more efficient than the current version. Warning: I'm not an experienced template editor. Certes (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Certes: that doesn't seem to work though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The snag is that you're replacing #ifexist with a call to {{#invoke:Page|id|nnn}}. Unfortunately, that promptly calls mw.title.new(nnn) which if you check the documentation at mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual #mw.title.new does this "If a number id is given, an object is created for the title with that page_id. The title referenced will be counted as linked from the current page." The bug exists in the underlying php code for the MediaWiki software, and as far as I can see you can't avoid it by calling the title library from Lua (or any other language), instead of indirectly via the parser function #ifexist. --RexxS (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I have downrated the number of problems to "several hundred", based on what I have seen in the last day or so.
Whitelisting dummy links created by #ifexist would hide the problem to some extent, but wouldn't make it go away.
The problem as I see it is: #ifexist shouldn't be creating links in the first place. It's merely a test routine.
As for IJ functionality – there is no guarantee that a positive result from the #ifexist test means that a journal name abbreviation is on the page to which it links. So, it is failing its purpose. (I haven't yet managed to find a journal abbreviation linking to a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I'm betting my mortgage that there are some.) Narky Blert (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Ha! Got one. Tetrahedron (journal). Narky Blert (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a perfectly good hatnote on Tetrahedron, but #ifexist doesn't know that. Narky Blert (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The ifexist check on Tetrahedron (journal) achieves its primary purpose: flagging missing redirects if they indeed are missing. Here there are no missing redirects, so nothing is displayed. For those interested in tweaking DPL Bot, the logic should be rather easy. If Foobar (journal) links to Foobar, and Foobar is a disambiguation page, then exclude it from the bot listings. It might exclude a few links, but it should remove the ~682 or so possible cases where the ifexist check cause headaches for the DPL cleanup people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I'm afraid I can't see the mechanics of how that would work. I've seen very few links to journal abbreviations on DAB pages; no more than single figures. (I suspect that may be because editors who know how to format citations are likely to react to the nastygram which DPL bot sends out when it finds a new bad link.) Tetrahedron isn't a DAB page, but assume for the sake of argument that it were. How would DPL bot distinguish between the link to it from Tetrahedron (journal) and this one, which certainly needed fixing? Narky Blert (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
(I have just repaired seven links to the Platonic solid article which actually meant the chemistry journal. I expect there are more; I only looked at most obviously dodgy links in the first thousand links-in. Narky Blert (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC))
You're right. I wrongly assumed that recording the link happened at a higher level. All title object methods that reveal whether a page exists record a link or transclusion. Back to the drawing board. Certes (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Bypass ifexist when page has a (disambiguation) redirect

I've made another tentative change to the sandbox, replacing

#ifexist:Abbr then do nothing else display ambox

by

#ifexist:Abbr (disambiguation) then do nothing else #ifexist:Abbr then do nothing else display ambox

If we can arrange for every dab Abbr with a name which matches a journal abbreviation to have a redirect called Abbr (disambiguation), which is a good idea for other reasons too, will that prevent #ifexist: from being called for dab pages and solve the problem, at least for IJ? Certes (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Won't that simply make a spurious link to Abbr (disambiguation) – instead of Abbr – from the calling page, causing just as many false results? --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes and no. It will make spurious links to Abbr (disambiguation), but DBL bot and other tools already know that these are not a problem. (If Abbr is a disambiguation page then Abbr (disambiguation) exists for the very purpose of marking certain links to the dab page as harmless.) Therefore we shouldn't get false results. Certes (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You need to ask yourself how "DBL bot and other tools already know that these are not a problem". If you make a redirect called Abbr (disambiguation) then it's a redirect, not a dab page. Unless DPL bot and other tools just look for the parentheses to signify a dab page (not recommended because of false positives and negatives), then they won't actually know that they are meant to regard Abbr (disambiguation) as a dab. --RexxS (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know the bot's internals but certainly links to Mercury are reported whilst links to Mercury (disambiguation) are not. Certes (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know the internals of DPL bot, nor of other relevant tools, but if I were looking for dab pages, I'd check to see if the page was in Category:Disambiguation pages. However, Mercury (disambiguation) isn't in that category, so that's encouraging. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a bit more subtle than that: links to Murcury (a redirect to Mercury for the hard of spelling) should get reported. I expect it's based on the (disambiguation) suffix.
What's the best way to test the theory, ideally without putting live an untested version of the template in a way that might cause breakage? Certes (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Make yourself an account on the test wiki: https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and test there perhaps? --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I've confirmed that the basic principle works on the test wiki: the page calling the template is in "What links here" for the (disambiguation) page, and is also in "What links here" for the page at the base name if and only if no (disambiguation) exists. Of course, we don't have DPL bot or other tools checking the test wiki, but we can see that the bot's inputs are right, so its outputs should be (and if they're not, that's a separate problem). Certes (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
With all respect, this is missing the point. If an editor writes an article about the journal Fanciful Universal Bullshit Academic Research and adds the abbreviation FUBAR to the IJ infobox, #ifexist will return "true" because FUBAR (disambiguation) exists. There is no mention of that journal on the DAB page, for good reason. The #ifexist test is no guarantee that the DAB page contains any relevant information. Narky Blert (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
You're right. But the current test gives no guarantee that FUBAR mentions the journal either. That's a problem, but it's a different problem which my suggestion neither solves nor worsens. Or did I miss something? Certes (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Certes: We may be on the same page. My argument is that the #ifexist test is hopelessly unreliable. There is no guarantee that it will return a useful result. I've seen a similar case where Template:Q generated a dummy link to a {{hndis}} page from WikiData where I have found no reason to think that the person in question might be WP:NOTABLE.
I would be all in favour of a pop-up which asked, Have you checked this link? Automated checking is guaranteed to produce some false results. Narky Blert (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
An example of #ifexist failing in its purpose. Free Radical Research creates a link to FRA, and it isn't mentioned there. (It isn't mentioned in FRR either, which is what I'd have expected the abbreviation to be. I've posted a query on the journal's Talk Page.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of the template is not to decide everything once-and-for-all (that's impossible whatever amount of code you write), but to encourage editor action when something (the redirect) is obviously missing. It automatically adds a message when the redirect is clearly missing (still a few hundred pages), and does nothing otherwise – how is that harmful or not useful? Tokenzero (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
(As for FRR I've fixed the abbreviation to the standard-compliant "Free Radic. Res.") Tokenzero (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tokenzero: TY. I've added the informal abbreviation of the journal name to the FRR DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't automatically link it all. Only going to create either circular links or bad links. At least to disambiguation pages or just the tip of the iceberg. Going to be lots of bad links to just plain wrong pages. My suggestion is leave unlinked and create a new parameter for the actual link, when exists. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hyperbolick: I think we all agree that we don't want to create these links. The problem is that a bug in the Wikimedia software creates a record of unwanted links (but not actual links) whenever we check that a page exists. We are trying to agree on which checking strategy produces the least harmful set of unwanted records. Certes (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Literally can’t believe this idiocy is still going on. I just fixed a bunch of these by adding an_after the radiation. Doesn’t look great but seems to be the only thing that will do for now. But do try to get it actually fixed. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hyperbolick, Narky Blert, Mike Peel, Certes, Tokenzero, and RexxS: In the meantime, you can set |bypass-rcheck=yes on infoboxes (diff), and it will get rid of the error checking / spurious link. But only do that if the redirects were created. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Thanks, I'll give that a try. If it works, it may not be an ideal solution to the problem, but it's a perfectly usable one. I've got a hundred pages or so bookmarked (in the range A-J). I'll check that each DAB page does link to the journal. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: That looks like an excellent fix! I've added it to my toolbox of methods of fixing links to DAB pages automatically generated by templates. The effect in "What links in" seems to be instantaneous. It reduces the problem down to "fix when found", which is all a DABhunter needs. (I've already found one spurious link to a DAB page where the journal wasn't mentioned, and made the necessary addition.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Bypass #ifexist again

As my previous workaround for #ifexist wasn't adopted, here's another method which I hope will gain consensus. I've created Module:Sandbox/Certes (later edit: now at Module:Linkless), which checks for the existence of a page without creating a rogue wikilink. User:Certes/Linkless illustrates some calls to it. We can make this into a properly named module, perhaps Module:Exist, with a suitable wrapper template (all the good names have been taken!) and use it wherever #ifexist or its Lua counterparts are causing trouble.

The module uses the trick that checking the expiry date of edit protection on a page reveals whether the page exists without creating a wikilink or transclusion. Admittedly this is something of a hack but, if a more transparent method emerges later, at least we will have the infrastructure in place to change the module's innards in one place without changing every page that calls it.

Thanks to Narky Blert for inspiring this development by drawing attention to what was needed. Comments please! Certes (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Clever. What about {{ifpageexist}}? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This idea is entirely down to Certes. I like it, and claim no credit at all. Narky Blert (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
(PS1. This is not the only infobox template which causes WP:INTDAB problems similar to this one. I know of at least three others. Certes may know more, and Certes' idea may solve the whole lot.)
(PS2. All {{infobox journal}} DAB problems have now been fixed using |bypass-rcheck = yes; unless any new ones have been created in the last month. If there are still any, I should find them on my routine sweep through Disambiguation pages with links, which is now (my 3rd time through) taking 2 rather than 6 months, thanks to major efforts by other WP:DPL members.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I've created {{Linkless exists}}, and amended {{Infobox journal/sandbox}} to use it. Certes (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This has been implemented, btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Please be aware of the caveat at the top of {{Linkless exists/doc}}: as this template avoids recording the relationship between pages in the database, the containing page may not get updated automatically if the checked page is created or deleted later. Certes (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Well that's true of all templates. You need a purge before things update. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

MathSciNet abbreviations

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The infobox now supports |MathSciNet= for MathSciNet abbreviations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_journal/Archive_3&oldid=1138525730"