Template talk:ISBN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Using {{ISBNT}} code[edit]

@MZMcBride: Could we use the code from {{ISBNT}} to add ISBN verification ? --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 12:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi NicoV. Yes, of course! --MZMcBride (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources[edit]


Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Make the link style consistent with cite xxx instead of magic links[edit]

I made this consistent with {{cite xxx}} instead of magic links which are going away (see mw:Requests for comment/Future of magic links). It was reverted so please chime in on why this would be better with the current style vs. how it is done in cite templates as well as in {{PMID}} (see Template talk:PMID#Switch to using interwiki), etc. Comments on Template talk:ISBNT#nowrap for hyphenated ISBNs also seems to indicate convergence preference towards CS1. Let's converge on a unified link style (I personally am good most sane styles). Thank you. (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I support this change. I reverted it because this is a highly visible template that will probably be added to hundreds of thousands of pages in preparation for magic links going away. I thought it would be best to have a discussion and consensus on this page, for the record.
For clarity, the proposal is to change the current behavior, in which "ISBN" followed by a number creates one long link to Special:BookSources, to a new behavior, in which "ISBN" is linked to ISBN, and only the number itself is linked to Special:BookSources. I could demonstrate the behavior here, but since it will change, I think a narrative works better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
support as well, although I don't really like this principle of linking to id pages such as ISBN because these pages might not be super useful for the reader and "overlink" a bit the citations. But uniformity is more valuable than taste here. − Pintoch (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Whole hearted support. CS1/2 templates worked like that for a while, but it was changed to magiclinking a while ago. Linking ISBN to the article, and the identifier to the Special:BookSources should be how it's done. I'd even go further personally, and color the Special:BookSources in the same 'external link' color we use for say PMID 123456, but I suppose that's a different matter. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Seeing this discussion headed towards a snowy end, I have reverted my own revert, implementing the change suggested above. If it causes a problem, post a message here. Thanks for being willing to discuss. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you everyone. We now have a full set of mostly uniform linking template alternatives to magic links: {{ISBN}}, {{IETF RFC}} and {{PMID}} (even though they differ from Wikiversity's v:Template:ISBN, v:Template:RFC and v:Template:PMID). I look forward to having magic linking (as well as Booksources and the ISBN parser function) moved out of MediaWiki core. (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
However there is not consensus that the magic words should be removed. Nor is there consensus that the opposed changes to the Cite family of templates, that make ISBN the most linked to page on Wikipedia are a good thing.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC).
Actually there is, depending on what you meant. There seems to be ample consensus for removing magic links from MediaWiki core, however, it remains to be seen if that will translate into removal from WikiMedia projects like Wikipedia (or if they will be re-implemented by an extension and/or moved to templates, etc.). I too question the value of linking the identifier name (ISBN, RFC or PMID) to article space and personally think it would be a good idea to convert Wikipedia magic links to templates, however, I have not thoroughly studied all the ramifications of the issue either. For now, I was just targeting getting a unified set of alternatives. (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Related bot requests[edit]

--MZMcBride (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95 (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)