Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:42, 12 February 2021

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Linking with ID does NOT work - the links come in different styles

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Charlton_Bradley&type=revision&diff=1006255040&oldid=997969563 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It often does work.. I think the problem is that some ODNB articles have much longer IDs, and these don't work with this template. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me that |id= should be deprecated and removed. I have created Category:Pages using cite ODNB with id parameter and tweaked the template to fill that category.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

In my experience it works with most ODNB articles, but possibly only those with simple ID numbers of up to five digits. The broken ones may be only those that were written recently, which will mostly be for people who died in recent years. I have identified three where this is a problem: Lance Percival (died 2015), Donald Charlton Bradley (died 2014) and Lucian Freud (died 2011). Rather than changing all of the articles that use |id= we should try to get the template fixed, if this is feasible. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The final DOIs are not all the same format. There is no way for the template to deal with this. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Would converting all the |id= to |doi= be viewed as a good thing? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

There is little to be gained from this. The doi is displayed even if the id is specified. The template description should be revised to indicate that using |id= can cause a problem – can we establish that all five-digit ids will work? If |id= or |doi= is specified then |url= should not be specified, as this results in duplicate links. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

My gut reaction is that over the long term, |doi= as published on the article's page is best. I think this because ODNB doesn't publish the doi that we have derived from a (vaguely defined) small portion of a url. We all know that urls can change at the site-owner's whim. ODNB does publish a doi on each of their article pages so that is the doi we should be using.

For me, this search returned 173 articles where {{cite ODNB}} uses |id= of six digits. I tested the twenty that landed on the first page of results when I did the search (the order of your results may be different because of the vagaries of cirrus search). All of the six-digit ids that I tested worked.

Here is another search, this one for nine-digit ids (no results for seven- and eight-digit ids). The search returned sixteen results, all beginning with 1010. The couple that I tested did not work.

And yet another search that returned ten results. This search looks for an ISBN-like number (978+10 more digits). Interestingly, none of these ids work and they all include ISBN 9780198614128 which is part of the id that started this discussion. (A similar search for any thirteen-digit ids returned the same results.)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked at three articles with nine-digit IDs, and they all had 1010 or 10100 prepended to the true ID. I have fixed these three and the template works ok. I guess either the ONDB website changed or the Misplaced Pages editor made a mistake and failed to check. I am reluctant to support mass changes as this makes more work for editors who watch their watchlists – I seem to spend hours checking modified pages whose only changes have been made by Monkbot or Citation bot. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Manually fixed them. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)