Template talk:Infobox journal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox journal template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 28 days

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes

Academic Journals

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal

Template:Infobox journal is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This template was considered for merging with Template:Infobox magazine on 9 October 2009. The result of the discussion was "do not merge".

This template was considered for merging with Template:Infobox magazine on 9 August 2013. The result of the discussion was "do not merge".

| frequency = Needs to have examples in the doc

To fix <Six times per year> I had to search the freq cat sort then an article to confirm Bimonthly. Dave-okanagan (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use Wikidata as fallback

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could we use Wikidata as a fallback parameter for when |website is left empty? Similar to how other templates such as {{Infobox company}} do. Nobody (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks Primefac. Nobody (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac Can you at least add a tracking cat to see how many don't use the |website parameter? Might make getting a consensus easier. Nobody (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will that work too, if the parameter is added, but left empty? Nobody (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean my placement; #if returns negative if there is no value given to the parameter. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See this link for pages missing |website=. It is linked from the TemplateData monthly report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Implementation should be sure to work even if there are multiple values of the same leading rank. Links relevant to the item, but not ideal for use as the official website are frequently added to Wikidata journal items from ISSN Portal. eg:
- d:Q96697039#P856 has (now-deprecated) links to ProQuest and a volume on Google Books.
- d:Q28453405#P856 has (now-deprecated) links to various subpages and a PURL
- I've seen other items with similarly added links to the homepage of the publisher's website rather than a webpage specific to the journal.
I'm not bothered by Wikipedia displaying one of these not-ideal values. In fact, it may help attract editors to fix it on Wikidata. However, I'd hate to see an ugly Wikitext mess because the query was only expecting a single value. I'm assuming the query is also complex enough to handle qualifiers end time (P582) and language of work or name (P407). Daask (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC) I would oppose a slapdash query which couldn't select among such qualifiers to find the most recent English-language value. Daask (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can easily ensure that only one value is returned. This would be the "preferred" value if one was marked as such, or simply the first value — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikidata is unreliable and prone to vandalism. They can populate their items with data from our infoboxes as much as they want, but the other way around is our responsibility. --Randykitty (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is unreliable and prone to vandalism. Unless you can prove that Wikidata is more unreliable and/or more prone to vandalism then this is not really an argument — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I write 'penis' in an article, it'll get reverted by everyone watchlisting that article. If someone writes 'penis' in Wikidata, no one watching the article gets notified of it. Wikidata is a good idea for a database, but it is unreliable and we be shouldn't using it to supercede Wikipiedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata has abuse filter and recent changes patrollers just like the English Wikipedia and has overall less vandalism than here. Given that only 700 articles don't use |website= and even less have a sourced official website (P856) statement, at most a few hundred articles would even use the value from there and the chance that someone vandalizes exactly one of those is low. I don't see vandalism being an issue. Nobody (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear on my watchlist because I have "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" active by default — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I could add Wikidata edits to my enWP watchlist. I tried that years ago and got swamped with all kinds of irrelevant edits, many of them bots changing A -> B and then another bot B -> C or other crap. And, yes, I know that I can hide bots from my watchlist, but I need to be able to see bot edits on enWP. So including Wikidata on my watchlist is absolutely out of the question. --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In todays editing session I stumbled upon two Wikidata gems. 1/ wikidata:Q106031773, which does not contain even a single source. Lord knows where that info came from. 2/ wikidata:Q6486696, which does contain quite a few "sourced" statements. Sourced to us at enWP that is. We ourselves don't even use enWP as a reliable source. That would make for a cute circular citation round.--Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are welcome to try adding this feature in the sandbox. Keep in mind that if |website= or its alias is present, that value should be displayed. Also, per this Wikidata RFC, items pulled into infoboxes from Wikidata must have reliable sources, so be sure to use Module:WikidataIB with |onlysourced= enabled. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept Template:URL output

I came here to report again a problem reported by Steel1943 in 2019, and myself in 2020. @Headbomb and MSGJ: Courtesy ping to participants in that conversation. I even offered a proposed fix at that time. Editors, myself included, are accustomed to using Template:URL for the official website as is recommended in the documentation of widely-used infoboxes like Template:Infobox organization and Template:Infobox person. Editors who follow that standard procedure using this template produce this result for the non-editor readers of Wikipedia:

[www.aipla.org/learningcenter/library/books/qj/Pages/default.aspx Journal homepage]

I just accidentally did this (again) in this permalink. I estimate that I introduce this kind of error about once a month. Please reconsider implementing my proposal. I know that Template:URL is superfluous in this template, but it is the recommended standard practice in other infoboxes. It should be accepted, though not required, by this one. Daask (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I checked half a dozen articles, and it doesn't seem to have broken anything. Please report any bugs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]