![]() | This orphaned
talk page,
subpage,
image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
Shouldn't this template have a standard for formatting for names like {{ cite doi}} does.
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)
editor=
and title=
for the book, and author=
(or last=
and first=
) and chapter=
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)
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)
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/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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…{{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)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)
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)
{{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){{cite doi}}
.
Curly Turkey
¡gobble!
07:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
{{cite doi}}
with no notice here. I don't use {{cite doi}}
because the types of sources that it serves are typically too narrow to be worth the overhead. {{cite isbn}}
, on the other hand, I use when I know I'm going to use a particular book for a number of articles, which makes it worth the overhead. If I've used a book in a dozen articles, and I notice a year later that there's an error in it, how likely will I remember the dozen articles I used it in? Worse, if I discover an error in an article by someone else who has used the source in a dozen articles, I'm not even going to know about those other articles, am I? Leaving the templates as they were gives us the opportunity for a better solution than keeping the data in template space. The data can be moved seemlessly to Wikidata without having to update the thousand pages that use the template. Now that's impossible—when and if the source data is moved to WikiData, every article will have to be updated, one by one (even if by a bot).{{Cite isbn}}
entries are not bot-generated.{{cite isbn}}
entries are hand-created, they go on their users' watchpages.{{cite isbn}}
is to allow me to use the same source on many pages (otherwise the overhead of setting it up by hand is not worth it).Extended discussion
|
---|
|
{{cite isbn}}
, then it also applies to every use of ISBN everywhere on Wikipedia, and will continue to be exactly as big a problem if all the {{cite isbn}}
s are subst into the articles. So—how is this an argument to do away with {{cite isbn}}
?
Curly Turkey
¡gobble!
11:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
|isbn=
in {{
cite book}}. With {{
cite isbn}} all the bibliographic information could be incorrect, whereas with |isbn=
in {{
cite book}}, at worst, only an ambiguous isbn will be displayed that may lead to an erroneous external link.
Boghog (
talk)
13:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
{{cite ibn}}
is a transcluded instance of {{cite book}}
.
Curly Turkey
¡gobble!
20:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Extended discussion
|
---|
|
|name-list-format=vanc
parameter option was not yet available. These have now been added in this
so that the citation style of the books matches the journal citations. Other examples include
Antipsychotic,
Bupropion, and
Chemotherapy.
Boghog (
talk)
12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
So, summarizing the above, it appears that the answer to Curly Turkey's question is "Yes".-- Srleffler ( talk) 01:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
All of a sudden dozens of cite isbns start popping up as AfDs on my watchlist---oh, wait, no they couldn't be, because none of these things are watched ... Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I started an RFC at Template_talk:Cite_wdl#RFC:_Should_template:cite_wdl_be_deprecated on deprecated template:cite wdl. There's some differences in its implementation but I figured that the same discussion will be here as there. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure challenge: Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Block evading IP refusing to drop the stick. -- Orduin Discuss 19:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I mean, is there really a consensus to deprecate this template? I think the other discussions show that there's much to be discussed here. 166.176.59.107 ( talk) 11:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It isn't clear that the last close was done properly. It was based on the cite doi close which is being questioned. 166.176.57.211 ( talk) 23:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
|
![]() | This orphaned
talk page,
subpage,
image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
Shouldn't this template have a standard for formatting for names like {{ cite doi}} does.
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)
editor=
and title=
for the book, and author=
(or last=
and first=
) and chapter=
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)
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)
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/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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…{{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)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)
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)
{{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){{cite doi}}
.
Curly Turkey
¡gobble!
07:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
{{cite doi}}
with no notice here. I don't use {{cite doi}}
because the types of sources that it serves are typically too narrow to be worth the overhead. {{cite isbn}}
, on the other hand, I use when I know I'm going to use a particular book for a number of articles, which makes it worth the overhead. If I've used a book in a dozen articles, and I notice a year later that there's an error in it, how likely will I remember the dozen articles I used it in? Worse, if I discover an error in an article by someone else who has used the source in a dozen articles, I'm not even going to know about those other articles, am I? Leaving the templates as they were gives us the opportunity for a better solution than keeping the data in template space. The data can be moved seemlessly to Wikidata without having to update the thousand pages that use the template. Now that's impossible—when and if the source data is moved to WikiData, every article will have to be updated, one by one (even if by a bot).{{Cite isbn}}
entries are not bot-generated.{{cite isbn}}
entries are hand-created, they go on their users' watchpages.{{cite isbn}}
is to allow me to use the same source on many pages (otherwise the overhead of setting it up by hand is not worth it).Extended discussion
|
---|
|
{{cite isbn}}
, then it also applies to every use of ISBN everywhere on Wikipedia, and will continue to be exactly as big a problem if all the {{cite isbn}}
s are subst into the articles. So—how is this an argument to do away with {{cite isbn}}
?
Curly Turkey
¡gobble!
11:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
|isbn=
in {{
cite book}}. With {{
cite isbn}} all the bibliographic information could be incorrect, whereas with |isbn=
in {{
cite book}}, at worst, only an ambiguous isbn will be displayed that may lead to an erroneous external link.
Boghog (
talk)
13:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
{{cite ibn}}
is a transcluded instance of {{cite book}}
.
Curly Turkey
¡gobble!
20:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Extended discussion
|
---|
|
|name-list-format=vanc
parameter option was not yet available. These have now been added in this
so that the citation style of the books matches the journal citations. Other examples include
Antipsychotic,
Bupropion, and
Chemotherapy.
Boghog (
talk)
12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
So, summarizing the above, it appears that the answer to Curly Turkey's question is "Yes".-- Srleffler ( talk) 01:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
All of a sudden dozens of cite isbns start popping up as AfDs on my watchlist---oh, wait, no they couldn't be, because none of these things are watched ... Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I started an RFC at Template_talk:Cite_wdl#RFC:_Should_template:cite_wdl_be_deprecated on deprecated template:cite wdl. There's some differences in its implementation but I figured that the same discussion will be here as there. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure challenge: Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Block evading IP refusing to drop the stick. -- Orduin Discuss 19:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I mean, is there really a consensus to deprecate this template? I think the other discussions show that there's much to be discussed here. 166.176.59.107 ( talk) 11:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It isn't clear that the last close was done properly. It was based on the cite doi close which is being questioned. 166.176.57.211 ( talk) 23:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
|