Template talk:SpringerEOM

Opening heading

There is much much more to SpringerLink than just this one reference work. The docs and the template name are really misleading. Loren Rosen (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

True. Perhaps the template should be renamed to {{SpringerEOM}} or similar. I'm not sure a general springer-link template would be useful. I've updated the documentation to make it more specific. --Salix (talk): 08:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remove ISBN or add option to override it

There are several Supplement volumes, and these have different print ISBN numbers, even though the entries appear all together online. E.g., [1] indicates volume ISBN 1402006098, which is "Supplement Volume III" (2002), and it differs from "SpringerEOM", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001 [1994]. (and not it's not just a matter of ISBN-10 vs 13, click the links to WorldCat to see that the supplement volumes are not even included in the set of original books you get on the latter ISBN.) Tijfo098 (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Move req

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to {{SpringerEOM}} which has several existing links. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Springer → Template:EOM – Springer is the publisher for a lot of things. The template is mis-located, and very confusing in the edit window. The template should be moved to Template:EOM, or possibly Template:Encyclopedia of Mathematics, and every transclusion should be updated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support definitely a confusing name. {{EOM}} has potential for confusion it could be End Of Message or a few other things. I proposed {{SpringerEOM}} above as the encyclopaedia is not particularly well known.--Salix (talk): 07:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template does not conform to usual external link conventions

The external link itself is almost always the first thing present in an external link section entry. This template does not follow that convention. It almost looks like a cite template style but it doesn't even conform to that. This is bad because it makes it ambiguous whether the link is being used to support vs supplement the material in the article. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? What should/could be done? siddharthist (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Language

Is the EOM totally in English? We could add "language = en". siddharthist (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks as though EOM has left Springer

As of 22 May 2020, the Encyclopedia of Mathematics' front page states, "The Encyclopedia of Mathematics (EoM) has moved from Springer Verlag to EMS Press, the Berlin-based mathematics publisher, owned by the European Mathematical Society." I suppose some change to Template:SpringerEOM will be appropriate, but I'm new to Wikipedia and not bold enough. Do others think the template should change? — 2d37 (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the links generated are now broken. For example in the Divergence article the link goes to https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=p/d033600 but this is now dead and the EoM article is currently at https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Divergence, You can also link to a specific revision for citations but I don't know if those have changed; I assumed they have. Also, all the editor and publisher info has changed so that will need to be updated. There are hundreds of articles that use this template so hopefully the links can be fixed without having to update all of them. The good news is that the new site looks much more "wikified" than the old one, so maybe inter-wiki links can be used instead of URLs. --RDBury (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the template to use the |title= rather than the |id= parameter. This should work in the majority of cases, however it will lose information about the oldid if set. For example the documentation gives the example of using id=Fredholm_theorems&oldid=12814.

I've also created a tracking category Category:Template SpringerEOM with broken ref which should track articles which don't have a title and use the outdated id form.--Salix alba (talk): 05:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Salix alba: That look very helpful. Still, about 850 broken links to fix, that sounds daunting. Is there any way to default to the page title if there is no title parameter? I've seen that done with other templates but I don't know enough about template markup to implement it. Also, since the site is no longer SpringerEOM but just EOM, or maybe EMSEOM, perhaps a move is in order, probably not a high priority though. It would be nice, too, if we could replace the Citation template with something that uses an interwiki link, something like the OEIS template; seem like it would simplify things a lot. --RDBury (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

PS. Just did some random testing and it looks like most of those 850 broken links aren't actually broken. I think including a title parameter was kind of mandatory, otherwise no title wouldn't appear in the link. --RDBury (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I've modified the template to use{{PAGENAME}} if no title is specified and the old style id is used. This may not always be correct, especially if a page is moved.

I've been messing with the inclusion criteria of the category. Its currently checking for a missing |title=. The 850 was articles with the old style id, but possibly a working title.

There are a couple of templates which redirect to this template {{eom}} 203 transclusions and {{springer}} 1171 transclusions, just 167 actually use this template. The springer template should certainly go

It might be possible to set up an interwiki link but it would require a request on meta:talk:Interwiki map. --Salix alba (talk): 07:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct citations

Currently our citation looks like

Hazewinkel, Michiel, ed. (2001) [1994], "Riemann-Schwarz principle", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. / Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 978-1-55608-010-4

Yet if we follow the link to https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Riemann-Schwarz_principle the citation information shows

How to Cite This Entry:

Riemann-Schwarz principle. Encyclopedia of Mathematics. URL: http://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Riemann-Schwarz_principle&oldid=48543

This article was adapted from an original article by E.M. Chirka (originator), which appeared in Encyclopedia of Mathematics - ISBN 1402006098.

What should the citation look like now following it change of host?

Also for the most part the template is used in the External Links section rather than as a specific citation. So full citation information is not really appropriate. See WP:ELCITE.--Salix alba (talk): 05:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned in the previous thread, that ideally (imo) we'd use an interwiki link, something like an OEIS template. For a link in the 'Further Reading' that should be enough and I'm guessing that covers the vast majority of uses for the template. If the article is actually being cited as a source, a citation tag might be needed, but the link to the actual revision is broken now anyway. Maybe replace those with citeweb or something similar, since might have to be fixed by hand anyway. --RDBury (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)