Template talk:JSTOR

This template was considered for deletion on 2008 August 14. The result of the discussion was "No consensus".

TfD survival

This template survived TFD - see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/May_2005. R adiant _* 08:33, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Direct link to discussion:

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/May_2005#Template:JSTOR

Nbarth (email) (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limited design

Note: This is only appropriate for journals that JSTOR has assigned a numeric ID to. There are also individual documents at JSTOR which do not fit into the URL pattern implemented in the template.--SallyForth123 00:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete

JSTOR uses Digital object identifier, which means this template is useless and obsolete. ––Bender235 (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you’re talking about links to articles – this links to journals, so using DOIs obsoletes {{JSTOR stable URL}} instead.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

…except that not all JSTOR articles have (working) DOIs, so that template isn’t obsolete either.

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the template so that different types of identifiers, and may now point to individual articles. -3mta3 (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subscription required

Would it make sense (or indeed even be possible) to somehow incorporate into this the Subscription required template ? - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably possible, but not a good idea. For starters, a significant portion of pre-1920s content is now freely available. Also, the template is not necessarily the last element in the citation, and in many oinstances you'd end up with two {{subscription required}}. Circéus (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect DOIs

I was looking at an article that uses this template, Cucurbita californica, and the DOIs are wrong. How does one correct them? --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The problem, it turns out, is with {{Cite jstor}}, but I am not sure if fixing the dois wouldn't break the whole citations, since the bot that is supposed to fill them is apparently nonworking since August of last year because of the JSTOR API. Circéus (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get the bot to give the citation without the doi, or get a bot to copy the citations, instead? I would like to use this template, and was excited to find it in the same instance I saw it was broken, as I hate filling them out, and I want to start citing authorities for type genera. To me, the bot should always been dumping a full citation. That we can edit --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

{{jstor}} works fine. I have no idea if {{cite jstor}} works in any fashion, but I think it's a safe guess that if there's no jstor API, there is no way that new instances of template can be made to work. You'd need to ask at Template talk:Cite jstor to know for sure. Circéus (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried {{jstor}} and it gives a link but no citation information. Is this filled in later or something? If that is the case then just not using cite jstor would work, but if the jstor template doesn't give the citation information it is less useful than an incorrect doi, imo. Thanks for the all the help. By the way, you write the best DYKs on Wikipedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

{{cite jstor}} a b Nee, Michael (1990). "The Domestication of Cucurbita (Cucurbitaceae)". Economic Botany (New York: New York Botanical Gardens Press) 44 (3, Supplement: New Perspectives on the Origin and Evolution of New World Domesticated Plants): 56–68. doi:10.2307.2F4255271. JSTOR 4255271. edit
{{jstor}} a b JSTOR 4255271

RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources

See

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]