Template talk:Cite doi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:04, 28 April 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cite doi template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 30 days

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Academic Journals Template‑class

	This template is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes we should definitely deprecate all three. All three have the same problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James: The discussion is not here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your question was already answered in the appropriate location, as you are well aware—thus demonstrating your bad faith. Your edits have become disruptive. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 ::::: [[User:Doc James|Doc James]]: The discussion is not here. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly&nbsp;Turkey]]&nbsp;[[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)
+::::::: Your question was already answered ''in the appropriate location'', as you are well aware—thus demonstrating your bad faith.  Your edits have become disruptive. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly&nbsp;Turkey]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 20:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)