Template talk:Cite isbn: Difference between revisions
Randykitty (talk | contribs) |
Curly Turkey (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
: Consensus is not based on majority opinion, but rather strength of argument. The main [[Template_talk:Cite_doi/Archive_1#RfC:_Should_Template:cite_doi_cease_creating_a_separate_subpage_for_each_DOI.3F|argument]] in favor of substituting {{tl|cite doi}} is that templates should not contain article content. This argument applies equally to {{tl|cite pmid}} and {{tl|cite isbn}}. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 02:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
: Consensus is not based on majority opinion, but rather strength of argument. The main [[Template_talk:Cite_doi/Archive_1#RfC:_Should_Template:cite_doi_cease_creating_a_separate_subpage_for_each_DOI.3F|argument]] in favor of substituting {{tl|cite doi}} is that templates should not contain article content. This argument applies equally to {{tl|cite pmid}} and {{tl|cite isbn}}. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 02:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
:: Nobody said anything about a majority. The discussion was not about {{tld|cite isbn}}, and some of the arguments in the discussion didn't apply to this template. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly Turkey]] [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 07:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Second that. In addition, having the content in a template makes editing more difficult (difficult to see which reference you're dealing with) and also risks vandalism, because hardly anyone watches these templates. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 06:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
:Second that. In addition, having the content in a template makes editing more difficult (difficult to see which reference you're dealing with) and also risks vandalism, because hardly anyone watches these templates. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 06:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:46, 28 April 2015
Standard formatting
Shouldn't this template have a standard for formatting for names like {{cite doi}} does.
Authors of different articles in same book
How does one handle citing different articles/essays/etc from the same book? They'd all have the same ISBN, but they should be separate citations. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that can be done with this template. You may have to use {{citation}} using
editor=
andtitle=
for the book, andauthor=
(orlast=
andfirst=
) andchapter=
for the article. Hope this helps. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Basically it's undocumented but the citation can be edited with any of the citation parameters. But you might need to extend the template so the invocation allows other parameters, e.g. volume, as with page/pages and ref now. Alternatively you could add {{rp}} after the citation.
John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Thu 11:34, wikitime= 03:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
oclc
Is there any possibility of cloning this mechanism to do a similar job with OCLCs? That's basically for books too old to have any isbn but notable enough to be in worldcat.org
i.e. create {{cite oclc}}. I don't know if oclc has any validation, ones I've seen are 9 digits.
John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Thu 10:44, wikitime= 02:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Is this 'legal' abuse of this template?
Please look at User:Revent/UID/ISBNs/Oxford_Reference/EncycOfEnlight. The way I'm producing the effect shown in the examples is inside the ISBN templates themselves, like this.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_isbn/978019510430&action=edit
I need to know if what I'm doing here is okay, or if it's going to break something. The way it 'looks' is cribbed from things like the odnb templates.
I've asked about this on irc and such, and basically gotten 'uh, I think it's ok', and I don't know of another 'logical' place to ask.
Also, I've explained how to use these to be more specific down at the bottom, by substituting the actual 'ISBN template' into the article, and then editing it to add the article and author names. I need to know if this is okay.
Or, alternatively, kick me upside the head and point me the right direction. :)
Revent (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- so what is the reason for substituting it? Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Template:Cite isbn/978480531098 up for deletion---appears they don't know about Cite isbn
Does anyone want to weigh in on the deletion discussion for Template:Cite isbn/978480531098? It appears that those who want to delete it are not aware of {{cite isbn}}
. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hyphens
Can't we replace {{{1}}}
with {{replace|{{{1}}}|-|}}
in the template so that any hyphens included by editors are ignored automatically instead of bothering the editors about it? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- In the absence of comments, I created a test copy of the template, successfully tested it, and made the change (reflected in the documentation). —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Pages
Could this template have |page=
and |pages=
parameters? Suppose I want to cite page 42 of a book on one article, and page 99 on another; I could use:
{{cite isbn|1590593243|42}}
{{cite isbn|1590593243|99}}
We'd have to think of a way to control the display if both were used on the same article. perhaps
{{cite isbn|1590593243|99|ibid-yes}}
could generate the necessary output. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- This would be quite a good idea for when this template is used just once in an article, though: there's quite a few books which are used across multiple articles but with different pages being referenced, so this template cannot be used.
- The way I prefer to handle the multiple instance case is to move the {{cite isbn}} under a "Sources" sub-heading and use {{harvnb}} in each reference to link to the generated citation. I have been pondering an addition to the
cite
extension to allow an extra parameter (ibid
?) which would allow for two-level stacking of references, but I haven't got very far doing anything about it… - HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Pagenumbers are not working yet? That's sad - I can hardly use the template then. In the german wikipedia Template:BibISBN is used in this purpose and working very well. However, this template is not activated yet and nothing is done about since september 2013. --Minihaa (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Minihaa: try
{{cite isbn|1590593243|page=99}}
. if it doesn't work, you just need to add it to the template. Frietjes (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Minihaa: try
- As I envision it, this should explicitly work across multiple articles - the target page holds details of the book; the individual instances of the template indicate the pages referred to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Pagenumbers are not working yet? That's sad - I can hardly use the template then. In the german wikipedia Template:BibISBN is used in this purpose and working very well. However, this template is not activated yet and nothing is done about since september 2013. --Minihaa (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism
Are there measures in place to prevent silent vandalism? It seems to me that by removing the bibliographic information from the article, this template puts it off everyone's watch list, making it vulnerable to vandalism. --Srleffler (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there really a consensus not to use this template?
![]() |
|
An editor has added a template informing users that the {{cite isbn}}
template has been deprecated, linking to a discussion at {{cite doi}}, where {{cite isbn}}
is not discussed and the closer explicitly states "there is not clear numerical majority consensus"; further, many of the arguments there don't apply to {{cite isbn}}
.
Now there are editors subst-ing out {{cite isbn}}
s (about a thousand). It doesn't appear to me that there is anything like a consensus in support of such a move. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus is not based on majority opinion, but rather strength of argument. The main argument in favor of substituting {{cite doi}} is that templates should not contain article content. This argument applies equally to {{cite pmid}} and {{cite isbn}}. Boghog (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody said anything about a majority. The discussion was not about
{{cite isbn}}
, and some of the arguments in the discussion didn't apply to this template. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody said anything about a majority. The discussion was not about
- Second that. In addition, having the content in a template makes editing more difficult (difficult to see which reference you're dealing with) and also risks vandalism, because hardly anyone watches these templates. --Randykitty (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)