Template talk:Cite EGA

This template was considered for deletion on 23 January 2010. The result of the discussion was "keep for now".

Use with parenthetical references and shortened footnotes

Would anyone object to the following?

I would like to add this line:

ref={{harvid|EGA {{{book}}}}

to each instances of {{cite journal}}.

This would allow editors to create a shortened footnote using only

{{sfn|EGA IV-1|loc=proposition 17.1.3}}

*{{EGA|book=IV-1}}

rather than the more complicated "computerese" of

<ref name="EGAIV 17.1.3">[[#Reference-EGAIV-1|EGA IV-1]], proposition 17.1.3.</ref>

{{wikicite|id=EGAIV-1|reference={{EGA | book=IV-1}}}}

This technique would also automatically combine identical footnotes, and would allow bots to detect when the full citation has been forgotten.

Similarly, it would allow the creation of linked parenthetical references using only

{{harv|EGA IV-1|loc=proposition 17.1.3}}

I noticed this in the article Formally étale morphism. This article's citation method seems unnecessarily complicated to me. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my edit. Your method looks much simpler, so please go ahead with it. I just did the only thing I knew how to do. Thanks. RobHar (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, then I'm talking to the right person. I have two questions. First, is it okay if I omit the subscripts? E.g., is this okay?

Article text.^[1]

Notes

^ EGA IV-1, proposition whatever.

References

Grothendieck, Alexandre; Dieudonné, Jean (1964). "Éléments de géométrie algébrique (rédigés avec la collaboration de Jean Dieudonné) : IV. Étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas, Première partie". Publications Mathématiques de l'IHÉS. 20. MR 0173675.

Second, what book is "EGA 0"? How ~~show~~ [should we] fix these in Formally étale morphism? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EGA is complicated. It has eight volumes numbered I, II, III₁, III₂, IV₁, IV₂, IV₃, IV₄. I contains the beginning of chapter zero and all of chapter one. II contains chapter two. III₁ contains more of chapter zero and the start of chapter three, and III₂ contains the rest of chapter three. IV₁ contains yet more of chapter zero (it's almost all chapter zero) and a little bit of chapter four. IV₂ through IV₄ contain the rest of chapter four. It's traditional to refer to the parts of chapter zero as 0_I, 0_III, and 0_IV depending on whether they were published in the same volume as chapters I, III, or IV. So, for example, formally étale morphism's reference to 0_IV, Définition 19.10.2, is to the nineteenth section of chapter zero, which is published with chapter four and is therefore in volume IV₁. This complicated numbering scheme is used by EGA itself, so it's not going away any time soon. Ozob (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for a very complete answer. This is certainly an unusual citation format problem if ever there was one. I'm going to think about this a bit and get back to you all.

I've created {{EGA/sandbox}} which has the anchors I'm suggesting, which might still be useful; you wouldn't need {{wikicite}}. The anchor creation would be handled inside {{EGA}}, simplifying things a little. If I forget about using {{sfn}} (and {{harvid}}), the inline cites could look like this: [[#EGA IV-1|EGA IV4]] and [[#EGA IV-1|EGA 0IV]]. (I.e., essentially like the ones in formally étale morphism).

({{Sfn}} won't work here, at least not now, because it can't handle . There are plans to upgrade {{sfn}} and {{harvid}} to handle cases like this. If so, then we could use {{sfn|EVA IV1|loc= ...}}, with all the advantages of {{sfn}}. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1]