Template talk:Druce, 1905

@Stho002: I'll ask again, what is the point of adding to this template the doi link to the Wiley Online library? Once you get there and click and wait again, you find you can rent or buy a copy of a pdf of an article that is freely available via the BHL link. This long string of code letters is ugly and, in this case, appears to me to serve no useful purpose. Why should I not delete that doi template link? Accassidy (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I did answer you the first time, Alan. The point is that the doi is an identifier for the article. The reality is that a significant group of potential WS users (namely the biodiversity informatics community) will not take seriously anything which doesn't have an objective identifier. The reasons behind this are complex. I was initially skeptical, but not now. Furthermore, for those users like myself who do have subscription access, we may prefer to read it there, and it is a second option, if, as happens sometimes, something goes awry at BHL. Stho002 (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Then can you find a way of formatting it so that all that shows is the "doi" and a link sign, rather than showing the whole string associated with the issue number etc? It just looks rather cumbersome and uninformative formatted as it is. Accassidy (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not my problem ... Stho002 (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Accassidy: On further (rational) reflection, I see the problem and propose the following alternative solution: In cases, like this one, where there is an open access and permanent link, like BHL (but not unofficial postings on author websites, etc.), we relegate the doi to the reference template page in such a way that it is not included in what shows on pages where the reference is cited. I will do it now to the present example. Feel free to jump up and down and complain ... Stho002 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stho002: Me, jump up and down?? Surely not. That seems a quite satisfactory solution to me. Thank you. Accassidy (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Accassidy: Oh you're right, how could I have mistaken you for an athletic type? [Wry humour alert! :)] Stho002 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Accassidy: On a related matter, I really wish that you wouldn't link from the page citation, but would instead use links of the form BHL. There are several reasons, but one main one is that a lot of people aren't going to click on a hyperlink without knowing where they are going to end up. Stho002 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stho002: That's really the difference between six and two threes. I prefer a link that people can see will take them directly to the particular pages of the document concerned. Just linking to "BHL", even assuming that they know what those initials stand for, appears to me to be less clear in its obvious intent. So we'll probably have to agree to differ, as we will probably retain our different views. The ones I originated, however, that you have changed, I have not reverted to my way, despite my feeling a bit peeved about it, because that is the way that confrontations start. An alternative might be to have both the page range and the letters "BHL" both shown as part of the link. I've done this as an illustration on this Template. Can we agree on this as a compromise that serves both purposes? Accassidy (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Accassidy: Unfortunately, I cannot agree on this. Your page range links are highly idiosyncratic, and just as unclear as my way. Your "compromise" violates basic biodiversity informatics principles by including the term "BHL" as part of the reference citation itself. Therefore any automated parsing of the citation is likely to lead to garbage. I think that what might not be totally "clear and obvious" at first glance (eg. my BHL links) becomes clear enough soon enough, and that most things are less than entirely clear at first glance, so it really isn't much of a criticism. Stho002 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stho002: Then, we have different ideas about the meaning of idiosyncratic, as many other templates on a number of Wikis use the same idea. And if you have information on any system attempting automated parsing of WikiSpecies reference templates I would be interested to see it. So, as I said, we will have to agree to disagree, as I am as convinced by your arguments as you are by mine. Of course, you could leave my links as they are and add your BHL link so that both options are available, although that would be demonstrably redundant. It would, however, be more co-operative and help you shed the general impression you leave of always thinking yourself right and others wrong. Accassidy (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Accassidy: Thank God I am an atheist, but if there was a God, I would feel so very sorry for Him, always being right, but being constantly told, by people like you, to "shed the general impression you leave of always thinking yourself right and others wrong"! I am right most of the time about Wikispecies related matters because I have 7 years and >500K's worth of relevant editing experience. I'm sorry if you can't handle that ... Stho002 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stho002: One can say the world is flat a million times, but that doesn't make the world flat. Quantity and "rightness" are not synonymous. A superiority complex cannot be excused simply by the assertion of superiority. Rather, this compounds the problem. As I wrote yesterday, we will have to agree to disagree about some issues. See - I have handled it. Accassidy (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Accassidy: Saying that the world is round also doesn't make it round. It is what it is despite what anyone says. And so with other facts, e.g. that relevant experience increases the frequency of being right. The "superiority complex" thing is a figment of your own imagination Stho002 (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)