Template talk:Cite doi: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Curly Turkey (talk | contribs) |
→RfC: Is there really a consensus not to use the cite isbn template?: please answer the question |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Please take part in the discussion at [[Template talk:Cite isbn#Is there really a consensus not to use this template?]] about whether the RfC to deprecate {{tld|cite doi}} applies to {{tl|cite isbn}}, and whether recent subst-ing out of {{tld|cite isbn}} has consensus. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly Turkey]] [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 23:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) |
Please take part in the discussion at [[Template talk:Cite isbn#Is there really a consensus not to use this template?]] about whether the RfC to deprecate {{tld|cite doi}} applies to {{tl|cite isbn}}, and whether recent subst-ing out of {{tld|cite isbn}} has consensus. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly Turkey]] [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 23:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
{{collapse top|Commentary should take place at Template talk:Cite isbn}} |
|||
: Yup. See [[Template_talk:Cite_isbn#Is_there_really_a_consensus_not_to_use_this_template.3F|related discussion]]. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 11:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
: Yup. See [[Template_talk:Cite_isbn#Is_there_really_a_consensus_not_to_use_this_template.3F|related discussion]]. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 11:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
Line 24: | Line 22: | ||
::::Yes we should definitely deprecate all three. All three have the same problems. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 19:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
::::Yes we should definitely deprecate all three. All three have the same problems. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 19:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::: [[User:Doc James|Doc James]]: The discussion is not here. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly Turkey]] [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 19:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
::::: [[User:Doc James|Doc James]]: The discussion is not here. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly Turkey]] [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 19:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::: I agree that the discussion is not here, but you still have not answered the question I raised above there. Please answer the question here or there. Collapsing this discussion will not make this question go away. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 19:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
Revision as of 19:17, 28 April 2015
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cite doi template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Academic Journals Template‑class | |||||||
|
RfC: Is there really a consensus not to use the cite isbn template?
Please take part in the discussion at Template talk:Cite isbn#Is there really a consensus not to use this template? about whether the RfC to deprecate {{cite doi}}
applies to {{cite isbn}}, and whether recent subst-ing out of {{cite isbn}}
has consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yup. See related discussion. Boghog (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's not a "related discussion"; that's the RfC I'm pointing to. Why are you pointing to this RfC as if the discussion has already taken place? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey: Sorry, I thought you were opening parallel threads. Nevertheless, I would like to again emphasize that the arguments in favor in deprecating {{cite doi}} are identical to deprecating {{cite isbn}} and {{cite pmid}}. You claim that the arguments differ, but you have not provided any specific examples. Boghog (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Of course I haven't—this is supposed to be a neutral notice pointing to where the centralized discussion is to take place. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes we should definitely deprecate all three. All three have the same problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Doc James: The discussion is not here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the discussion is not here, but you still have not answered the question I raised above there. Please answer the question here or there. Collapsing this discussion will not make this question go away. Boghog (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Doc James: The discussion is not here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey: Sorry, I thought you were opening parallel threads. Nevertheless, I would like to again emphasize that the arguments in favor in deprecating {{cite doi}} are identical to deprecating {{cite isbn}} and {{cite pmid}}. You claim that the arguments differ, but you have not provided any specific examples. Boghog (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)