Template talk:OEIS#This is an external link

Is there a page that explains how to use this template? Something along the lines of, "To put a link to an OEIS sequence write something like

The next few Carmichael numbers are {{OEIS|id=A002997}}:

and it'll come out

The next few Carmichael numbers are {{OEIS|id=A002997}}:

"? PrimeFan 5 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)

:Not really. Btw, you can use oeis:A002997 for just the link (I added the whole phrase to the template because 90% of all articles that reference OEIS seem to use that format). Fredrik | talk 5 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

::I figured as much. Personally, though, I prefer Mathworld's format (Sloane's A002997). PrimeFan 6 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)

:::The link to the article about OEIS should definitely be there. Fredrik | talk 6 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)

Clicking on a link that is the result of this template takes one to an external site, but this is not indicated by the link presentation. This seems incorrect to me - Leonard G. 03:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

:I agree, but it appears to be an effect of the oeis: link protocol which is built into the Wikimedia software. It doesn't seem possible or at least simple to change this. Maybe it would be possible to add the words "(external link)" to the tooltip portion of the substituted template, so it pops up when you hover? Rpresser 16:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think I can use the fullurl: parser function to put the external link symbol. --Kevinkor2 11:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The template should likely be changed to link to http://oeis.org/classic/Axxxxx now

instead of http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/Axxxxxx .

I propose a similar update to the links within the OEIS page.

R. J. Mathar 18 Apr 2010 14:13 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.222.14 (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I propose the following appearance for OEIS links: {{nowrap|File:OEISicon light.svg A190939}}

Code: {{nowrap|File:OEISicon light.svgA190939}}

Greetings, Lipedia (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

::I propose to use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OEISicon.svg File:OEISicon.svg] instead of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OEISicon_light.svg File:OEISicon_light.svg] which is currently used. I personally find the light icon hard to decipher inside article text. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

But the dark icon would dominate the text way too much:

Sed ut perspiciatis, unde omnis iste natus error {{nowrap|File:OEISicon.svg A190939}} sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque {{nowrap|File:OEISicon.svg A190939}} laudantium, totam rem aperiam eaque ipsa, {{nowrap|File:OEISicon.svg A190939}}, {{nowrap|File:OEISicon.svg A190939}} quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt, explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem, quia voluptas sit, aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur {{nowrap|File:OEISicon.svg A190939}} magni dolores eos, qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt, neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum, quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci[ng] velit, sed quia non numquam [do] eius modi tempora inci[di]dunt, ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem.

I wouldn't like to see that in articles.

An icon is not to be read every time, but rather to be recognized as a whole. And above all it shouldn't disturb the reader.

At the moment the icon is not unreadable, and the letters OEIS pop up, if you move your mouse over the icon.

If more people think it's too light, we may superseed File:OEISicon light.svg with a darker, but still transparent version. At the moment the transparency is at 20%. Lipedia (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

::I question whether an image is needed there at all. I personally would prefer to have plain text instead of an image, maybe with a
tag inbetween to achieve the visual appearance of the OEIS logo. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I guarantee that this is not possible. I think the icon is a good compromise between nothing and "in the OEIS". The use of icons next to links is quite usual - in the web in general ([http://www.psyked.co.uk/css/auto-matic-link-icons.htm example], [http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/Twitter example]) and in the Wikimedia (e.g. the Commons icon in Favicon#External_links). Lipedia (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

::PrimeHunter proposed the following: OE
IS A000001. I think it looks quite good (although at least in my browser the 'S' does not sit directly beneath the 'E'). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone do that? Using formatted text in exactly the way an icon is used?

It doesn't really look like the OEIS icon, and in a text it's even more disturbing than the dark icon:

Sed ut perspiciatis, unde omnis iste natus error {{nowrap|OE
IS A000001}} sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque {{nowrap|OE
IS A000001}} laudantium, totam rem aperiam eaque ipsa, {{nowrap|OE
IS A000001}}, {{nowrap|OE
IS A000001}} quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt, explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem, quia voluptas sit, aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur {{nowrap|OE
IS A000001}} magni dolores eos, qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt, neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum, quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci[ng] velit, sed quia non numquam [do] eius modi tempora inci[di]dunt, ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem.
Lipedia (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

:I agree that it is disturbing. And you are right that it dosn't need to be read. As you say, it is an icon that should be easy to identify. Do you think it would be less disturbing if we used PrimeHunter's proposal but with black letters instead of the blue ones (while still retaining the wikilink)? Note: I am not against your proposal, but I (and that might be just my opinion) simply think the way in which the logo in your proposal "hangs down" compared to the rest of the text doesn't look right. If we could make the image in your proposal sitting a bit more upwards and perhaps make it only slightly darker than in the original proposal (thus not black, but a darker grey) I think it would be fine. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The latter sounds good. I don't know how it looks in your browser. To me the position of the icon looks fine.

These are the possible positions.

default: XX11pxXX

baseline: XXFile:OEISicon light.svgXX

sub: XXFile:OEISicon light.svgXX

text-top: XXFile:OEISicon light.svgXX

text-bottom: XXFile:OEISicon light.svgXX

Apart from that, let's wait for comments of some other people. Lipedia (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No one seems to care. I've uploaded a slightly darker version.

The default alignment is around the lower case x, so I added a bit empty space at the bottom of the icon, to make it centered around the upper case X. Lipedia (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As this template inserts an external link, it should only be used inside a structure or in an External links section. Unfortunately, the common usage seems to be inline, but surely that is wrong. I converted a couple of inline uses to s, but reverted these when I realised the template is used over 500 times. This looks like a task for a bot. HairyWombat 01:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:I think it would be useful to format this template in a way to work in conjunction with {{Reflist}} so that it displays as a footnote, like this: {{OEIS|A007318}}

{{Reflist-talk}}

:Perhaps it should be formatted such that the template generates the ref tags by itself. I don't have the time right now to create a working example but will try to do it later if you want. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The present use makes complete sense. Instead of changing anything, we should rather ask at Wikipedia:External links, if anyone is troubled by inline links to the OEIS. Lipedia (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:That sounds like a good idea. Can you do it? Otherwise I will do it later, as I have to log off now. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:I made a post there (see Wikipedia talk:External links#Inline links to OEIS). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:: I added a suggestion there that people contribute here. That way the discussion will be only be in one place. I also added a pointer at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Inline links to OEIS. HairyWombat 17:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way a very simple question:

If we write the A-number in the text and put the link in the reflist: What would be the advantage?! Lipedia (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:The advantage would be that this would make it compliant with WP:ELPOINTS 2.. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:On the other hand, ELPOINTS is a guideline, not a policy, and I personally think the OEIS links often can be useful inside the article text, so it might be an acceptable exception. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:: What is the difference between a policy and a guideline? I have never discerned any difference. Practice should comply with guidelines unless there is a good reason not to. So far, I see no reason given here. HairyWombat 17:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

: I don't think that the suggestion to move to footnotes is a good idea. On the other hand, note that {{t1|OEIS2C}} is also available for cases when the full parenthetical is not desirable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally still don't see why the OEIS links must be inside the article text. Furthermore OEIS is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedias standards anyway as it is a wiki. The best thing to do perhaps would be to move all OEIS links to the external links section of the respective articles. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And I know this directly contradicts what I said above. I personally like the OEIS links, but I question whether they are needed. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:OEIS is not a wiki. It's a place where individual authors publish material they are accountable for. Lipedia (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

::So does OEIS count as a reliable source per Wikipedias standards? Perhaps yes, as they seem to have some kind of formal review process. Are the people who review the additions to OEIS considered experts? Anybody can review anything and approve or not approve it for for inclusion into the database they are maintaining. I can also download MediaWiki, set up a Wiki that anybody can edit and then approve some edits but not others. That does not make me an expert though and does not make my database a reliable source. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

::: As Lipedia says, the OEIS is not a wiki. The entries are reviewed by the OEIS Editorial Board and approved by an Editor-in-Chief. I would consider them a WP:RS (and the OEIS has been considered as such in the past). I don't know what the Wikipedia definition of "expert" is, or if it has one, but the OEIS Editorial Board would probably be considered to consist of experts in the usual sense.

::: Of course my claims are about the OEIS and not about arbitrary MediaWiki-using projects. (Actually only a small part of the OEIS uses MediaWiki, most runs on custom software.)

::: CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:OEIS may not be a wiki but if you look carefully at the template it uses an interwiki link. What I get from this is this isn't just a link to some random website but one of a few that MediaWiki has deemed appropriate to give its own prefix. So I believe WP:ELPOINTS should be applied judiciously here. In articles where this is used it sometime occurs many times. To change these to footnotes so people have to click to the bottom of the page and then sort out which note belongs to which sequence would be unnecessarily cumbersome. In addition, the links are usually not being used as references but as a way of getting more terms in a sequence without cluttering up the page with a lot of numbers. EL guidelines state that external links should have information that would not be in the article if it was FA quality. I think if OEIS did not exist then a extended list of terms would need to be included in the article for completeness. But instead we can just point OEIS and save ourselves the clutter and maintenance issues. In other words, normally an external link is used to say "This site has additional information not considered noteworthy enough to be included in the article." But an OEIS link is given more as information that is noteworthy but is located elsewhere. So the usage is more like a link to a WP article given by :Template:See also or :Template:Main; these aren't given a footnotes and similarly OEIS links shouldn't be either.--RDBury (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:: Yes, that's precisely it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

::I also like to have the OEIS number and link displayed inline. I think OEIS links serve 3 goals: 1) A reference to the first terms of the sequence (and possibly the definition) which are usually given in the article. 2) An external link to additional information. 3) Simply saying what the OEIS number is as relevant information in itself (could be done without linking it). I think the OEIS number is often worth mentioning in the body and then it's a short way to conveniently link on it. It also gives easier maintenance. Some vandals or ignorant users change sequence terms. It's easier to check the terms with the link right there, both for ignorant users and for editors fixing errors. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:I saw the note at WT:EL. I'd say that your first problem is that you're violating Wikipedia:External links#Templates_for_external_links by including the distracting and unnecessary favicon rather than producing a plain old link.

:The fact that an interwiki link works seems to be meaningless; apparently they exist for all sorts of random wikis.

:Whether it should be formatted as a reference or an external link should be decided according to what you're doing with it. Are you proving that the sequence exists, or otherwise supporting the content of the sentence? If so, that's a (hopefully) reliable source, and you should format it like all other reliable sources in the article. Are you providing a link to further information? If so, that's an external link, and you should format it like all the other external links in the article—which generally means down under ==External links==, by the way, but also with the name of the website typed out, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

{{tl|SloanesRef}} is the one intended for the external links section, I think. It's not very consistent with the others, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The inline external links to OEIS sequences are fine (provided no undue icon is used). This kind of situation is the reason for WP:IAR since, whereas rigorously upholding WP:EL is essential for a variety of reasons in most cases, those reasons do not apply to this link. Each OEIS link is for a specific purpose (it links to an excellent and reliable resource that is directly relevant to the topic), and there is no reason (apart from worrying about precedents) to require a clumsy footnoting system. A similar situation arises with wikitext RFC 1234 which displays as RFC 1234 (for an example where this is used, search for "RFC" at Internet Protocol Suite). Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The icon (File:OEISicon light.svg) is still a problem. It is ugly, a spam magnet, and an irritation to many external link patrollers (myself included). In the context (math articles), the spam problem is minuscule, but EL patrollers see periodic attempts to favor some external link by creating a template (which makes the link look "official" and hard to challenge), and by inserting an icon which proponents say is helpful and part of modern life, while opponents object to one link being given an undue prominence with an apparent "tick of approval" by Wikipedia. The {{diff|Template:OEIS|prev|457248815|recent change}} at {{tl|OEIS}} has greatly reduced the icon problem, but it still exists. For example, there is no need for the icon in {{tl|Number of relations}} (used, for example, here), nor in this example. I propose that most usages of {{tl|oeis}} be replaced with something else that does not display the icon. If no one else wants to do it, I would attempt this: the icon is not needed in the first example just shown, and should be replaced with "Sequence {{OEIS link|A000170}} – N Queens solutions at OEIS" in the second). There are 36 occurrences of {{tl|oeis}} in articles. I'm hoping that this change, if implemented, would reduce clutter in articles, and reduce some irritation felt by external link patrollers. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

:oeis and OEIS2C are really the same template so they should be treated the same, in other words if the icon is removed from one then it should be removed from both. The current usage of these templates has little to do with the original intent, so what I'd like to have happen is that both template be eventually replaced by an expanded set of usage specific templates, with 'OEIS link' used in one-off cases. It may take a while to carry out this program though. So I have no objection to removing the icon in the mean time but what I'm really hoping for is to make the question moot by deprecating the templates.--RDBury (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

::Maybe we could do something completely new:

::Just showing the link {{OEIS link|A000170}}, and change some deeper settings, so that the mouseover text reads:

::Sequence A000170 in OEIS: Number of ways of placing n nonattacking queens on n X n board.

::or

::Sloane's A000170: Number of ways of placing n nonattacking queens on n X n board.

::That would reduce the need for an explanation in the text. In the OEIS the mouseover text is also the title. Lipedia (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

:::I am opposed to methods that need mouseover to be understood properly. For one thing, it makes printed versions harder to understand. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

::::I agree that relying on mouseover is not desirable. When I get a chance, I hope to work out exactly how the various templates are used and see what operations are actually required—perhaps the templates could be merged or simplified in some way. It's fine for {{OEIS|A007318}} to display "{{OEIS|A007318}}", although there are probably cases where the parentheses are not wanted, and in cases where several sequences are mentioned in the same paragraph, it would probably be ok to omit the "in OEIS" text in subsequent cases. A very quick look has not shown a case where the icon is desirable IMHO. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically the OEIS stores sequences, but [https://oeis.org/search?q=keyword%3Atabl&sort=&language=english&go=Search a lot of them] describe tables, and than in fact the description page is about the table and not about the sequence. At the moment our link always tells that there is a sequence - which is trivial when there is really a sequence, and confusing when there is a table. So I would prefer [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PascalsTriangle.html MathWorld's way] to link A-numbers:

Nimber multiplication table (Sloane's A051775)     makes sense to me.

Nimber multiplication table (sequence A051775 in OEIS)     looks strange and requires explanation.

Apart from that it would be shorter. Lipedia (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

:I would support using (Sloane's A051775) for all inline OEIS links. Easy to decipher and fits better into the surrounding text. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

::Nothing should be done until someone gets around to working out typical examples of how the link is used in all articles as it should be possible (and would be desirable) for the several associated templates to be simplified. While Sloane is obviously the key figure, it would be better (and more logical for someone with no relevant background) for the link to say "OEIS". Example: (A051775 at OEIS). Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I've been working on what the OEIS2C and oeis templates are actually used for. What I'm finding is the following:

:::*Tables, I'm replacing these with the bare link (OEIS link template) with the OEIS link in either the column or row header.

:::*External links, I've been replacing these with the SloaneRef template.

:::*Inappropriate links in text. Generally I'm just removing these but in some cases I'm moving them to the external links section with the SloaneRef template.

:::*Link to OEIS after a OEIS template. This was actually the intended usage of OEIS2C. I'm replacing these with the OEIS template.

:::*One-offs and cases which are too difficult to deal with at the moment. For example there is an article with a table where the OEIS link template could be used except that the table will have to be converted from TeX format to a more customary wikitable.

:::Right now there are a bit less than 200 article which have the icon and I'm guessing that 80% of them fall into one of the first four categories. There are now four existing options, replace with OEIS, OEIS link, SloaneRef or remove, and I'm not seeing a lot of articles that can't be handled with one of those, though every case is different and sometimes the article needs to be fixed in other first. So I'm thinking the OEIS2C/oeis templates can be deprecated but removing them from existing articles should be handled on a case by case basis.--RDBury (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For the external links I would prefer something like

Sloane's A100200, Decimal Goedelization of antitheorems from propositional calculus.

before

[http://oeis.org/A100200 Sloane's A100200 : Decimal Goedelization of antitheorems from propositional calculus]. The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. OEIS Foundation.

Example from The End of Mr. Y. Lipedia (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed all the instances of oeis (lowercase) from articles and changed the template to a redirect. There are still just over 100 instances of OEIS2C which I'm still working on. I'm doing this on a case by case basis and so far I've found few cases where the template shouldn't be replaced by one of OEIS, OEIS link, or SloanesRef according to the usage described in the template documentation. In many of the remaining cases I'm removing the template because it's being used contrary to the MOS (see HairyWombat's concerns above), in an unencyclopedic way, or being used to replace a link to a Wikipedia article. In some cases the entire paragraph or section where the template appears needs extensive work or should be removed.--RDBury (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that the link to the OEIS is not clearly marked as being an external link. Should a little icon be added to the template to indicate this? I understand not wanting to create too much fluff. All recommendations welcome. 137.124.161.4 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

:Putting icons next to links is mostly a function of the wikimedia software. Currently it only does it to warn of formatting issues (e.g. pdf files). Otherwise, the color of the link is different for internal and external links, which should help to indicate that the ones produced by this template are internal. But if you really need a little icon next to the link, there is already an alternative form for the template, {{tl|OEIS2C}}, which does that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

::On the current vanilla version of Wikipedia the internal/external link color difference is barely noticeable. I literally have to move my head closer to the screen to differentiate between the two (i.e. on Fibonacci number). I think it's reckless to not have an icon for all OEIS links. 137.124.161.12 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

:::Why OEIS in particular, and not all external links more generally? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

::::Because I doubt I could alone influence general Wikipedia policy being a mere IP editor. And I really only care about mathematics articles on Wikipedia. 137.124.161.12 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)