Template talk:Article info main

A peer review would be located here for an article

ORCID

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've added a tracking category for articles with ORCID iDs. Pigsonthewing (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 04:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Split the template

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After delving into the code, I was surprised to discover that this template is being used both in the article pages as in the talk pages of the article. This dual-use seems to be complicating (and ultimately, limiting) the template unnecessarily. I suggest we split the template in two: Template:Article info for articles, and Template:Peer-review info (or similar) for the talk pages. Eventually, this should give us more flexibility as to what to display in each context, while keeping the wikitext much simpler to understand. --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

All this template needs to be is an infobox

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

(And also insert the WikiJournal header.) I've done many edits in this direction today, but many more are neede. Right now, there's a problem when trying to edit an article using this template with the visual editor, namely that the whole article is considered to be inside the template. It seems there was a fix for this with an open ended div (which I removed). Feel free to revert my edits if you must, but seriously I think we need to continue working on this template so that it becomes a simple infobox that the visual editor is able to handle properly (as any other infobox) rather than going back to the weird and complicated thing this template has become. I'll resume work in a few hours, cheers! --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sophivorus: Hi! Grat simplefication and refactorig of a template that's been growing in complexity. There were a couple of things I was trying to achieve with the original implementation. As you noted, much is just inclusion of metadata like doi, orcids etc. The other is formatting (drawing from a few different journals, e.g. eLife, PeerJ, Nature and PLOS):

Narrowing the maximum line width to improve readability via the open div (ideal is actually <75 characters!)
Have the table of contents bar scroll with the screen via the open div (particularly useful for long articles, inspired by wikiwand.com and several journals).
Still allow not-yet-accepted articles to be easily edited using VE via the open div (this was sacrificed in published articles, since editability is less important)
Retain author info (name, affiliations, contact) above the abstract/lead in the standard journal style (agree ORCID works well in sidebar)
Clearly mark preprints that are yet to go though peer review / are still in processing
A few figure articles (example) used |w_many=. Not essential, but perhaps some simple version could be reintroduced.

As you noticed, several of these features prevent VE use (though only in published articles) and worse, cause them to misformat on mobiles, which is their main drawback. I fully agree that working forward from your updated template is the way to go (I'm not a big fan of reversion in general) and a lot of your refactoring has been very helpful. Do you think there are any way to reintroduce any of the features above without breaking the improvements you've achieved? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Evolution and evolvability: Definitely! I will re-introduce most if not all the features you mention. About the first one: do you mean keeping the space below the sidebar clear, so that the content is "squeezed" to improve readability? --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sophivorus: That's correct. As you've probably a good idea by now, I've no formal backgropund in css, and mainly worked by experimentation. I've also mocked up an example implementation for the authors affiliations here. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I like the approach! If you don't do it first, I'll implement it along those lines, but forgive me if I don't do it today, I've been at this for hours and hours and it's late here, I need to go eat. Cheers! --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sophivorus: I've managed to get the {{efn}}+{{notelist}} formatting of author affiliations to work. It seems as though the efn must come before the notelist in order to render correctly. However I've not managed to get the author list to float above the abstract correctly yet (still creates gap above infobox on the right). Any obvious css I'm missing? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 13:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done! --Felipe (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sophivorus: Thanks! Any ideas on how to implement it with the {{efn}} before the {{notelist}}? See rendering here. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 23:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mobile rendering problems

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

A recent twitter post pointed out that this template (and some of the templates it transcludes) currently renders poorly in phone screens (example):

menu tabs should stack vertically on narrow screens
all menu tabs should be collapsed by default in the mobile view (like a heading2 section)
div with article text should reflow underneath the infobox section
the infobox should also collapse like a heading_2 section

Any ideas on how to fix these (or a suggestion of who else I could pester) would be v. helpful. I'll start addressing point 1 this weekend, but I'm not certain how to implement the others. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 06:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Have also asked at MediaWiki support desk. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 07:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Note: I believe these issues have now been fixed with the <nomobile> and <onlymobile> div classes. Mobile rendering problems were also reported for pages using the {{Sliding_right_TOC}} template and I believe I've now fixed those in the same way. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 03:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Article infobox

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I started Template:Article infobox to eventually replace this template. The infobox uses the standard Template:Infobox which makes it much more flexible, powerful, easier to understand and thus easier for others to contribute. I think this is the way forward, but it still needs many iterations before it can replace this template. I'm posting this here so that others can take an early look, leave some feedback and hopefully join in the development, particularly Evolution and evolvability. Kind regards, Felipe (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Sophivorus: Good stuff! Thank you for working to make this template a bit easier to work with behind the scenes. I guess splitting the template into smaller chunks will also help make each of those easier to read (like you did with {{Article_info/author}}). I tried to follow the same sort of system when making {{Article_XML}}. Do you have any experience synchronizing information between an infobox and Wikidata (note at wikidata)? It could be a good opportunity to populate data from wikidata where available in a similar manner to w:template:Cite Q - e.g. {{#if:{{#if:{{#invoke:wd|property|Q44001486|P50}}|{{#invoke:wd|property|Q44001486|P50}}|text}} (would require the 'wd' module). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 03:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

SVG icon

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've uploaded File:ORCID iD.svg to replace File:Orcid icon.png. However, in this template, I have no idea where the file reference is made, so I'm unable to make this switch here. Any help appreciated. Mwtoews (discuss • contribs) 04:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Mwtoews: It's not actually in this template. It's included through Template:Article info/author, and easy to spot there. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Mwtoews (discuss • contribs) 07:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Pulling from wikidata

I'm starting the process of enabling the template to pull from wikidata (using module:WikiJournal). The first test items are the lists of peer reviewers and editors on the right. See doi:10.15347/wjm/2020.002 for an example where they're used. This'll require the data to be present in wikidata of course, but eventually I think all metadata should be stored from there rather than locally in the