Template talk:Article link

Query on usage
Shouldn't the article name be inside double quotations? And then the publication be in italics? Seems more the style that I am used to. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed, sorry for not noticing this comment sooner. Inductiveload—talk/contribs  01:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Where has roman notation been used
I have undone the use of roman notation as the standard is numerals, so adding more variations seems problematic. Can you please identify where it has been used so we can repatriate this matter. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as I edited this, only in the sandbox, but I'll check this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns102=1&ns103=1&ns104=1&ns105=1&ns106=1&ns107=1&ns114=1&ns115=1&ns828=1&ns829=1&ns2300=1&ns2301=1&ns2302=1&ns2303=1&search=insource%3A%2Froman_vol%2F&advancedSearch-current={} is what is using the roman_vol parameter. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, the underlying link generated was the same (i.e normal numerals, per the naming guidelines.), the roman number being a 'display' value only. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * roman_iss seems to be unused, other than in the testcases for the sandbox version. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Not linking issue subpages
Sometimes a periodical's page (e. g. The Czechoslovak Review) is subdivided into volumes (e. g. The Czechoslovak Review/Volume 1) and all the articles from the volume are subpages of this volume page (e. g. The Czechoslovak Review/Volume 1/Permanent Peace and Austria-Hungary), i. e. they are not subpages of individual numbers/issues of the volume (e. g. The Czechoslovak Review/Volume 1/Number 10/Permanent Peace and Austria-Hungary). The advantage is a shorter name of the page and reduced number of slashes, which look too code-like and IMO drive readers away. However, for reference purposes the number/issue should be given. The problem with this template is that when the number/issue is given, it tries to link it, no matter whether the number/issue subpage exists or is desirable to be linked. Would it be possible to add a choice of non-linking the number/issue subpage? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Issue is not required, you can simply do to produce  — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not what I was applying for. Your example simply omits the issue, but if the periodical has issues, the issues should be referenced. I am seeking a possibility of generating a reference including the issue, which just would not be linked, because the issue subpage does not exist and is not intended to be founded. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Where people have been reproducing a solid string of issues to a volume, I think that accepted practice has been displaying with "issue" or the variant word and the community has tried to have a level of consistency with presentation. When working at the issue level, there are good reasons to be able to present the issue in its published form. So I don't think making that change without a community consensus is the best way to proceed. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I observe something different: that not to go to the issue level, although the periodicals have issues, is also a quite common practice and it depends on the preference of contributors. Example: Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 3/The training of nurses was published in Once a Week, Series 1, Volume 3, Number 53. There is no reason to redlink the number, if there is no intention to found the page of the number. And there are quite many examples like that: contributors tend not to go to the issue level if it is not necessary, because too many slashes in the title of the page make it reader-unfriendly. However, this template gives only two choices: to display the number redlinked or not to display the number at all. I am asking to add another parameter (e.g. issue_not_linked) which would enable to display the number without the link to the non-existing issue page.
 * BTW: there is also another practice shown on the example of a popular magazine Nature. Here the contributors go to the issue level but reduce the number of slashes by skipping the volumes, see e. g. Nature (journal)/1231/An Analytical Index to the Works of the Late John Gould. People simply do not like the slashes (see e. g. Scriptorium/Archives/2019-08) and until this is solved somehow, they will keep seeking some ways how to reduce them.
 * If this template is intended to be used as widely as possible, there are two ways how it can be achieved: Force the contributors to behave in a unified way and rework the existing irregularities in the systems of periodicals, or adjust the template. The first one seems like a really Sisyphean task, so I suggest to adjust the template, which would at least enable quite a standardized way of referencing the works, no matter of the system the contributors used when adding the works. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I said "[w]here people have been reproducing a solid string of issues to a volume &hellip;", and it holds. The template is adapted for where we have the occasional drop and run, and where we simply need a holding pattern methodology.
 * "Once a Week (magazine)" has no issue numbers, and its link template uses this template.
 * Nature article does not prove your point, it got moved from a volume to an issue number, and shouldn't have been moved in the first place, and using the person who moved it as a model of application of the style guide is not a good choice.
 * Subpages is what we do here, and mediawiki uses slashes. Beyond that, it is not an argument for this backwoods page. At this stage, it is what it is.
 * Redlinks at issue level has been happily resolved by either transcluding a ToC at the Issue level, or creating a redirect to where the ToC for the issue has been transcluded
 * I didn't create the methodology used, the community did. There are definitely outliers, though we would prefer that people follow existing practice. I always encourage users where they think that the existing structure/practice is out-dated or wrong or in need of adaptation to have that discussion with the community, rather than just ignore the existing practice. It is nothing but problematic when we have people just independently doing their own thing with disregard to community practice.
 * Quietly pushing patches on templates for some new approach that is outside of current community practice is not ideal. and I am sure that you can see the reluctance to provide a de facto acceptance on a template talk page. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ad Once a Week: I am not sure what you mean by "Once a Week" (magazine) has no issue numbers?? Of course it has issue numbers (e. g. issue no. 55). Its link template uses this template, but it does not include the issue numbers which is IMO wrong: issue numbers are traditionally part of references to journal articles. IMO this needs to be fixed.
 * Ad Nature: I am definitely not aware of using any person as a model, or even speaking about any person. This ad hominem argument definitely does not apply to what I wrote. I just wrote that the series of articles from one of the most popular magazines transcribed in Wikisource belongs among those that try to reduce the number of subpages and so cannot use this template for referencing, and that is a fact.
 * Ad subpages: I do not want to solve the problem of abundant subpages here (that would really have to be done somewhere else, but I do not feel like spending that much time on such an unobtainable goal), I just pointed out there exists also different and quite widely used current practice (i.e. many contributors reduce the number of subpages) and that this template would be more helpful if it followed their practice too.
 * Ad transcluding a ToC at the Issue level: this can be done only if such ToC to be transcluded exists. Otherwise the contributor has to design their own auxilliary TOC, but I cannot see any reason why it should be done if the contributor does not go to the issue level anyway. Blacklinking the number of the issue (either with this template or without it) seems much easier.
 * Ad redirect to where the TOC has been transcluded: If the contributor does not go to the issue level, then the TOC is often in the page of the volume. Linking the volume and at the same time redirecting the issue number to the volume seems quite useless.
 * I am far from pushing templates outside of the current practice. The opposite is true: I would like them to follow the current practice in its variety.
 * To conclude it before I return to more important work: Originally I thought I asked for a triffle which would be easily solved and enable me to use the template. The reaction surprised me but I do not want to spend more time with it. However, refusing to adapt the template will not change the (imo desirable) diversity of current practice, it will just result either in non-using the template by some contributors or in omitting the issues from references (as in the case of Once a Week). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To conclude it before I return to more important work: Originally I thought I asked for a triffle which would be easily solved and enable me to use the template. The reaction surprised me but I do not want to spend more time with it. However, refusing to adapt the template will not change the (imo desirable) diversity of current practice, it will just result either in non-using the template by some contributors or in omitting the issues from references (as in the case of Once a Week). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Reboot after 2 years: this is now possible with the parameter. While I think omitting the issue rank from the structure is not a good idea (and too much care is given to page names in general, not just length or slash counts, which are basically just a database key that's somewhat readable anyway, and are much overstated in importance, I think possibly due to the massive default font size and cultural overspill from the endless enWP drama over article names), the fact is there are a lot of works like this, and we should at least capture the issue numbers in the template even if they don't currently get a link. Inductiveload— talk/contribs 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inductiveload: I tried it but it seems that even when the is used, the template supposes that the issue subpage exists and creates a wrong link to the article, eg. The Czechoslovak Review/Volume 2/Issue 11/Story of a Czechoslovak Private instead of The Czechoslovak Review/Volume 2/Story of a Czechoslovak Private. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ooooo, I see. Sorry, I did it so the issue would just not get a link but still exist in the hierarchy. So I have changed it to:


 * This allows you to retain the link to The Czechoslovak Review/Volume 2/Number 11-12, as a sibling to The Czechoslovak Review/Volume 2/Story of a Czechoslovak Private. Which seems like a slightly odd layout to me, but I guess it is what it is.
 * NOte: the parameter "no_issue_link = yes" is now "issue_link = no", which I think is conceptually easier in it's interactions with "issue_in_title". Inductiveload— talk/contribs 11:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so helps to solve cases when a periodical has issues but there is no issue level in its structure in Wikisource, and the  omits the link from the issue number to the issue title page if such does not exist. Unfortunately, these two parameters do not work together in combination: Let’s say that we want to use the template for a periodical which has issues but its structure in Wikisource does not have the issue level and it also does not have any special issue title page to link to. Would it be possible to enable the "issue_link" work also in combination with the "issue_in_title"? I would definitely use this combination for the CS Review, as its issue title pages do not contain the full list of included articles anyway, they contain only some highlights, and so linking to them could be confusing. (The full list of articles of The CS Review is in the volume pages and so it is enough to link to the volume.)  --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It does work if you use them both: one affects the article's link target, one affects whether the issue number gets a link at all:
 * It does work if you use them both: one affects the article's link target, one affects whether the issue number gets a link at all:


 * Inductiveload— talk/contribs 16:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, my mistake, I was setting the parameter in a wrong way. Thanks very much! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, my mistake, I was setting the parameter in a wrong way. Thanks very much! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Periodical display
I am not sure if it is connected with the other recent changes or not, but it seems that the parameter stopped working. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I got it, the parameter was renamed to, so I am just going to update the documentation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Translator
Would it be possible to add a "translator" parameter too? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ordinal numerals
If the day in the date is e.g. 21, the template displays the date as the 21th instead of the 21st. The same applies to the 31st, but 22nd and 23rd display well. On the other hand 12th displays as the 12nd and the 13th as the 13rd.

Examples:

Can this be fixed, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jan.Kamenicek ✅. Apparently I forgot the are numbers ending on 1 that are not 11. Inductiveload— talk/contribs 19:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you also have a look at numerals 12th (*12nd) and 13th (13rd), please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Urgh, who invented this darn language? Inductiveload— talk/contribs 20:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, now it works well! Thanks. Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Issue in brackets can be mistaken for a year
At the moment, the issue number is formatted in brackets. This can be mistaken for the year the article was written, for example at Author:William John Thoms: Would something like Title, series #, volume #, issue # be possible instead? Either with or without the words "series", "volume", "issue"/"number"? -- Yodin T 09:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)