User talk:Smith609

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note: to avoid duplication, I'll reply to queries about DOI bot on this page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

/DOI bot

[edit] Template:Google scholar cite

I created a {{Google scholar cite}} template so I can easily store and communicate searches that use Google Scholar enhanced with the Wikipedia citation assistant. For example, if I want to tell another Wikipedia user who might be interested in Miscanthus about this great tool, I can now say: "Hey, click this link to search the Google Scholar Wikipedia citation assistant for: miscanthus". The lucky recipient merely has to click once to see a sample search, and then click a {{Wikify}} link to see the resulting {{Cite journal}} template call. That's easier and more compelling than trying to convince a distant stranger to browse to the tool's input form and fill it out. On Wikipedia we have lots of users who don't "get" citation templates and footnotes, and it's hard to demonstrate things persuasively when we communicate with occasional Wikipedia users we do not meet in person. Therefore I want to provide personally relevant one-click demos of these types of tools, to lower the hurdle as much as possible. Anyway, I invite your comments and criticism (don't hold back if I fouled something up). I'm still testing the template, so I don't know if I encapsulated all the input fields properly yet. --Teratornis (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty handy - you've clearly put a good deal of work into it! Thanks very much.

I guess I ought to pay some attention to the tool, now - There have been a great deal of improvements I've thought of while implementing DOI bot which I have yet to implement! Smith609 Talk 08:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of work, but mostly I copied from other templates I and others had worked on previously: {{Google custom}}, {{Google wikipedia}}, and others in the {{Google templates}} list. So I was able to copy the basic layout and especially the style for the documentation page. Doing all that from scratch would be a job, but copying from an existing template and editing is easier. The somewhat hard step for the {{Google scholar cite}} template was determining the exact search URL to construct, since the form uses method=POST to generate a clean URL. Using method=GET makes for a more frightening but informative (and bookmarkable, and communicable) URL, so I saved the form to a local HTML file and edited it to use method=GET so I could see what I missed on my first attempt to read the form code and put the field names into a URL. I initially did not see the need to send the search button value - I only paid attention to the field names. That was the only difficulty I had, since everything else was just a rehash of things I had done before. --Teratornis (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of improvements, how about:

• Expand the {{Cite journal}} output page to show two or three versions of the template call. The first version would be the one you have now, showing the minimal number of parameters. The second and possibly third would show additional (blank) parameters. This would help the user in cases where the tool does not pick up all the desirable parameter values, and the user needs to edit more values into the template call. Currently this requires manually browsing to the template page, and then some tedious copy and pastes to add more parameters to the template code from the tool.
• Think of a concise name for the tool. "Google Scholar enhanced with the Wikipedia citation assistant" is a bit unwieldy to use as a subject of a sentence when we document the tool. A one or two word name would be nicer. Ah, but it looks as if you changed it to Universal Reference Formatter in WP:CITE#Citation creation tools.
  • I'm using the old URL: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~ms609/Wiki/Scholar in {{Google scholar cite}}; evidently I need to update that to the new URL: http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Scholar/
• The first time I stumbled into the tool, it took me an embarrassingly long time to realize I need to click the {{Wikify}} link. That's because I started with just the link to the form (which I found in WP:EIW#Citetools, and it looks like that reference needs an update too). And also because the Google Scholar results page looks so similar to the plain Google Scholar results page that at first I did not notice the extra {{Wikify}} option. I see you fixed that on the new search form by adding a sentence of instruction.
• There is a typo on the search form: "Firefox Seach (sic) Assistant"
• The template output page has another typo: "Remeber (sic) to create a Reference section if needs be"
• Not everyone knows the terms: DOI, PMID or PMC. I guess they stand for: Digital object identifier, PubMed Identifier, and PubMed Central. I suggest linking those acronyms to their defining Wikipedia articles where they occur on http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Scholar/ and User:Smith609/Cite/doc.
• The template output page could link to the Wikipedia instruction pages: WP:CITE and especially WP:FOOT, and to the {{Cite journal}} page so the user can easily read the documentation for that template and see the field definitions.
• Perhaps the beta form: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~ms609/Wiki/Scholar should contain a link to the new form, with a sentence telling the user to go there. Just in case the user should follow some stray link to the old form, as I did.
  • It might be worthwhile to Search Wikipedia with Google for: "citation assistant" and see if any links to the old form need updating to the new form. I will edit the reference I added in the {{Google scholar}} documentation (a template that links to a plain Google Scholar search, which I made before {{Google scholar cite}}).

--Teratornis (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I found some more typos on the form interface:

• PMID and DOI are the most reliable, but a combination of earlier fields may also yeild (sic) results.
• If the citation doesn't expand, check (whether should go here?) your data is correct, and consider adding a little more.

--Teratornis (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the four example searches from your Universal reference formatter to: Template:Google scholar cite/doc#Examples. Since the "q" field in the form corresponds to the first unnamed parameter in {{Google scholar cite}}, the syntax is compact: for example, {{Google scholar cite|Nash 1950}} generates the search link: Nash 1950. I'm starting to like this tool a lot. Now I must educate the users who are messing up the references in the articles I care about (such as Peak oil, Oil price increases since 2003, etc.). --Teratornis (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for all your suggestions and ideas (and the barnstar! (-;). I'll implement them (and more) as I get the opportunity. Smith609 Talk 18:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar for your efforts

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your efforts on the Universal Reference Formatter. --Teratornis (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential WP security problem

Hello, Smith609. You might be able to help on the above. It is sensitive enough that I am reluctant to discuss it online. (On the other hamd, maybe it's not a big deal. I'm not expert enough to know which it is.) Is there a way I could reach you other than on WP, possibly including through a willing thurd party? I have an email address but would rather not disclose it here. Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Try using Special:EmailUser/Smith609. Also, if you make sure that your email address is listed in your preferences (don't worry, it isn't made public by doing so) and you check the box "Enable e-mail from other users", then Smith609 will be able to "reply" to you using Special:EmailUser/Thomasmeeks.

« D. Trebbien (talk) 13:17 2008 June 12 (UTC)

Ah-ha. OK. Thank you. I'm a little Wiki wiser. --Thomasmeeks (talk)

I did follow the above suggestion. If the email is not received in a reasonable time, please let me know. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)