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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles
NA
This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
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 articles
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Possible additional fields
Hi Cliff, see my sandbox for some suggestions. Cheers, --Crusio (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I added a few of the fields. Some of them don't apply for online indexes (ISSN, OCLC, & LCCN for example), but would apply for print serial indexes. We could 1) add them in and use the Bibliographic Database infobox for both instances, 2) use the Academic Journal infobox for the print serial indexes, or 3) create a separate infobox for print serial indexes. I left out the country field, since database producers and providers are often in different countries (but it doesn't affect the creation, production or use of the database). Since that's the case I don't really see it as notable for databases (unlike journals). -- Clifflandis (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I think the "country" should be an optional field. There are some databases that are national. For instance, there is an article (can't find it right now, it's actually currently prodded) on a Pakistani database and there is also a French database (HAL), for example. Those fields that might apply to the print version of a database (like SCI when it was still being printed) could also be optional. I don't think we should use the journal infobox for them, because the new box you made is much more appropriate. As print serial indexes are rather rare (and I think al but vanished now), I don't think it would be worth while to create a separate infobox for them. BTW, good work! --Crusio (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Crusio. I'll throw in a "country" field, and I'll also add a section for print details for print indexes. They're actually still produced for many databases and collected by many major libraries (and quite handy when a database is down, I can tell you!). I'll make it an optional header and set of optional fields, so that those databases "born digital" won't display them. We can include the print information for those databases that still have a print component (such as Mathematical Reviews) or those that have transitioned to digital-only (such as SCI, SSCI, etc.). For those print indexes that still do not have an online database counterpart (and yes, they're out there!), and those print indexes that ceased publication before the birth of online databases, we might be better off using the Journal infobox, since they are print serials (and their metadata will match up with journals) rather than the bibliographic databases infobox. Clifflandis (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, thanks! --Crusio (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you get a chance, Crusio, could you edit the documentation to explain the difference between the "country" and "geospatial coverage" fields? It's still a bit blurry for me, and I fear they may duplicate information for databases like HAL and Pak Data Base. Additional explanation may help prevent this. Thanks! Clifflandis (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this, I think that for databases like HAL and Pak, the "country" parameter should display in parentheses behind the publisher name (as it does for journals), whereas the fact that "Pak" covers mainly Pakistani journals should go into "geospatial coverage". I now realize that all this was a bit blurry to me, too... So for databases like the Science Citation Index, we would enter "Thompson ISI" as publisher, "USA" as country, and "worldwide" as geospatial coverage. How does that sound? --Crusio (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I'll start using it from now on. Many thanks for your hard work! --Crusio (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cliff, the depth section should include a mention to citation indexing as in SCI, SSCI, A&HCI and Scopus to name a few. --Fdbgonzalez (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Clifflandis (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cliff, is it possible to have links displayed with a default title? Currently, when I enter a link for the "web" parameter, for example, that is exactly what is displayed. The academic journal infobox as a default displays this as an external link named "Homepage". Similar for the other link parameters. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done! --Clifflandis (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
? I'm not so sure this is a good idea. Most other infoboxes support use of {{URL}}. This shows the actual URL itself when rendered (and presumably with screen readers too). The current template implementation means trying to include the URL in this way is broken. -- Trevj (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a field named "depth" whose domain values are unclear. I think it should be basically three or four levels: full-text, abstracts, metadata (i.e., article title, author, etc.), and perhaps a fourth, minimal (only journal title, ISSN, etc.). I also think that citations should become a separate field, with yes/no values (corresponding to Category:Citation indices sub-category. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image parameter not working?
Would someone please take a look at the Research Papers in Economics page and see why the image I tried to add here isn't working? Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Web parameter and URL template conflict
It seems that the |web= parameter will not accept a {{URL}} template properly. Is this a bug? Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RobbieIanMorrison: I've updated the parameters to show the URLs, also because as mentioned above, the screen readers can then see it. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Funandtrvl: Four years back so I cannot remember what that was about .. but thanks anyway! RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
I'm not so sure this is a good idea. Most other infoboxes support use of {{URL}}. This shows the actual URL itself when rendered (and presumably with screen readers too). The current template implementation means trying to include the URL in this way is broken. -- Trevj (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
