Template talk:R:cs:Nase rec

Changes
I undid most of the undiscussed changes that have been made to the template by User:Dan Polansky recently.

First of all, I strongly disagree with making such massive changes without discussion (and without trying to ask, why did the author of the template do it the way he did it). Please, do not do it anymore, it is very discouraging.

I strongly disagree with removing the "author" parameter (which even has not been pointed out in the edit summary).

I disagree with "artno" parameter, because it is much less intuitive for less experienced editors than "url" template. I had been thinking about this before I founded the template. In the past I had such a problem with a similar parameter at a template at Wikipedia. I remember that it was explained somewhere on the documentation page but I did not notice it and could not use the template until somebody explained it to me. My thoughts (as a newbie in that time) were: Why so difficult, isn't copying url simpler? BTW: copying full url is also quicker (click into the url line + CTRL+A and CTRL+C, or in some browsers even only Click and CTRL+C) than copying out a number from the url.

I also think that it is better if the title is in quotation marks. It is a common practice when citing magazine articles.

I think that it is also useful if the reader is warned that the cited article is not in English and so I think that "in Czech" should be written there.


 * You undid everything wholesale. I explained my changes in the edit summaries. I think most of them are obviously preferable. For instance, how is the reader to understand "18 (4)"? I used "volume 51 (1968), issue 1", which is very easy to understand and is used on the web page itself. I don't really know what to say. As it is now, I do not want to use this maldesigned template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A note on whether I should have discussed first: I did not discuss first since the template is used in rather few entries. The changes that I made directly in the entries consisted in using "issue" instead of "number", and in using artno. I find both to be obvious improvements; I am very surprised to see the use of artno instead of url contested. The changes that I made directly in the template are easy to undo, and hence do not need prior discussion; this is a wiki. I admit that I was a bit too careless about the author thing; I actually hoped we can figure out how to present the author later. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

artno
I think it obvious that url should not be placed directly to the template invocations. Using only artno is obviously preferable, IMHO. I do not think this is too hard for a newbie; a minimum intelligence is required. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For ease of reference, markup using artno:



Markup with full URL:



This makes the invocations in the mainspace directly dependent on the specific URL, and one of purposes of reference templates is to make such markup URL-independent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Display format of the volume, year and issue
Why is "43 (5–6)" preferable to "volume 43 (1960), issue 5-6"? The latter is clear, easy to understand and is used directly in nase-rec.ujc.cas.cz. This example is from http://nase-rec.ujc.cas.cz/archiv.php?lang=en&art=4756. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I see. This format is used by w:template:Cite journal which is based on some widely used style and I simply got used to it. However, it is not such a big deal and I understand that writing "volume" and "issue" is more comprehensible, so I have no problem with this. I focused more on other changes that had been done in the template and did not notice this one, otherwise I would probably leave it. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

In Czech
I find "in Czech" in the display format of the template to be an avoidable visual noise. I do not find it in, another Czech reference template created by Jan Kameníček. We do not place "in German" to, "in French" to a French reference template or "in Romanian" to , and I hope we will continue that practice of avoiding inessential visual noise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)