Template talk:Cite arXiv

message: I'd like it if the cite arxiv template looked something like
* Marathe, Madhav V., Breu, Heinz, Hunt, Harry B., III, Ravi, S. S., and Rosenkrantz, Daniel J. (1994). "Geometry based heuristics for unit disk graphs". arXiv:math.CO/9409226.
instead of
* Marathe, Madhav V., Breu, Heinz, Hunt, Harry B., III, Ravi, S. S., and Rosenkrantz, Daniel J. (1994). "Geometry based heuristics for unit disk graphs." .
For one thing, the doubled period looks bad. For a second, unless I hover over the link I can't tell the first kind of cite apart from a random web page anywhere else. We include publishers of other kinds of sources; why should we slight the arxiv in this way?
On an unrelated issue, it's not obvious how or why to fill in the "version =" part of the template for a paper that doesn't have multiple versions. Omitting it doesn't work correctly. The cite above was generated with a blank version. The examples on this page seem to indicate that the version should be filled in with the upload date, but arxiv uses a different numbering scheme in which versions are like "v1", "v2", etc. The year is already visible elsewhere, but if you want a date as well, why not call it a date? And why not allow the "16 Dec 2005" style format appearing on arxiv pages for easier copy and pasting?
—David Eppstein 06:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show as arxiv cite; no version? 

message: Hi,
I've upgraded the template so it uses Template:Citation/core.  I've been careful to retain current functionality; in addition, I've integrated the template with User:Citation bot. Therefore it is now only necessary to add an  parameter to the template, and you can sit back and watch as the bot automatically fills in the rest for you. 
Hope that doesn't cause any problems! 
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernisation 

message: In other citation formats, there is a preference for using a separate parameter for each author.  I am aware of two main benefits: firstly, metadata is more readily extracted and more usefully presented; secondly; there is improved compatability with the Harvard style of inline referencing.  The template already supports this behaviour, and I consider it non-controversial to update the template documentation accordingly. Please dissent below! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple author input 

message: See Template_talk:Cite_web#Upper_case_form_of_template_name. Debresser (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalised documentation page 

message: So we can cite to pages. Paradoctor (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am against this for arxivs. If you need to reference a particular page, it is better to write . Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe, but for a single use it needlessly clutters up the article. There is no need to argue, I'm asking for optional behavior, not a default. If you don't like it, and don't want to do it, I have no problem with that. Just means I'll have to do the work myself. Is there a reason I shouldn't? Paradoctor (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add page and pages parameters 

message: There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on identifiers 

message: In this version of a Wikipedia article the class parameter of this template is used. The resulting reference (number 1) has an external link to the desired source material, followed by a generic second external link to the part of the archive that is associated with the class. This second link does not seem very useful to me. The documentation for this template states that the class parameter is optional and should be used only with new-style eprint identifiers that do not include the class. Is there some reason why the class parameter should be used in that situation? Can we add some usage guidance to the documentation? Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  class parameter 

message: and  are now in the navbox. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: has been edited to show that this template is no longer bot-filled. What is the status? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: It would be far more useful if  worked in the same fashion as  and , etc, so that  pointed to .
Then we could have the citation completed on demand, and duplicated results taken care of with REDIRECTs between templates.
As far as I can see, if the paper is published, it gets a DOI which can be seen on the arXiv page, which could be used to decide whether to use  or , although since the latter redirects to the former the distinction is reasonably moot.
Thoughts? —Phil | Talk 16:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different behaviour would be much more useful 

message: See arxiv for details. We may need to change the template. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, I checked it and the output of doibot with the new 5 digit numbers seems fine. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArXiv IDs are going to 5 digits Jan 2015 

message: If what is published at arXiv are preprints and there's no review process but "moderation" to categorize them correctly, that would seem to make them low-quality, primary sources, maybe too low for science/medicine citations at least (maybe okay in the humanities, as directly attributed primary sources used with caution for non-controversial claims and only when necessary. They would seem to have the reliability level of, e.g., a thesis/dissertation, maybe less. 
An argument can be made that they're self-published sources, since arXiv is acting as a self-publishing house for academics (in WP:RS terms, if not in intent; I gather their intent is more like that of WikiSource and Project Gutenberg and Archive.org, but narrowly tailored).
Another argument can be made that it's WP:UGC; people all over the world uploading what they've written to a website (with an administrative user class) where it is categorized for public, free consumption ... that's a description of a Wiki.  
Exception made for material that is actually published in a journal by the time we need to cite it; the arXiv URL might be the only one we have, if the journal is behind a paywall.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Same reason why we might want to cite anything. To establish a claim, a fact, support a thing, or whatever. This is no different than using . Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not responsive to a single word I wrote. I'm tempted to delete that as trolling, per WP:REFACTOR.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I told you exactly why anyone would cite something from the arxiv. If that doesn't answer your question, then the problem is with your question, not my answer. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The respondents at the current discussion get the point; it isn't actually necessary that you do. [shrug]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would we cite these? 

message: In R-algebroid arXiv:0804.2451. also has CiteSeerX 10.1.1.312.7226, so must use cite paper rather than cite arxiv. If easy please add the other likely parameters. RDBrown (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not needed. This template is specifically for citing a preprint from arxiv. That the preprint can also be found on CiteSeerX is of no relevance.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Again no, because that's fully redundant to the arxiv identifier.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add citeseerx, bibcode and s2cid as parameters 

message: It seems like this template has no support for specifying a translator? –jacobolus (t) 19:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  translator?