The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Comment. Strictly speaking those templates are not broken - they display perfectly well, they're just book references - I think the issue is that the parent template, Template:BibISBN (
talk·history·transclusions·logs·subpages), isn't working as it should. The reason is that it is based on a German template which has since been updated and so the book references don't always display correctly or even at all. In particular the German version calls three utility programmes or modules called
de:Modul:URIutil which I have no idea how to deal with. If someone could help with that, we may be able to create a useful template. All sorted, see below. --
Bermicourt (
talk)
08:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Firm keep. The main template has now been updated and fixed; the new module works and all the linked pages display correctly. These sub-templates are now linked too. So all sorted.
Bermicourt (
talk)
20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. The nom has withdrawn the TfD. In any case, you've misunderstood the purpose of the templates. They're not to create an ISBN database - that's hyperbole. But they are intended for multi-use (not single-use) ISBN refs. Of course in the early stages, they will only have a couple of refs, but over time that will grow. --
Bermicourt (
talk)
10:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
It's exactly the same as Cite DOI and Cite PMID, creating a database of citations with low use based on a product identifier (in this case ISBN, instead of DOI or PubMed) That's probably a worse method of identifying a publication than DOIs, especially since ISBNs are relatively recent, and many books have multiple ISBNs. --
70.51.46.39 (
talk)
05:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
What were the reasons (apart from sheer petulance) that {{cite isbn}} was deleted? Please provide a working link to the valid arguments or your rationale is not fathomable and should be discounted in any assessment of consensus...
BushelCandle (
talk)
20:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Substitute and delete as per the site-wide consensus developed regarding {{cite isbn}}, {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} (among others). There has repeatedly been consensus developed at large RfCs that these sorts of subtemplates that hide references away should be deprecated and removed. These sorts of templates make it harder for new editors to edit references, and they provide no significant value-added over a bot placing references directly in articles.
WP:Local consensus almost certainly applies, although I wouldn't necessarily oppose a closure as "no consensus" to take this to a wider audience and see if this is really the same situation or somehow substantively different. See
this RfC for one example of very recent consensus to deprecate for these sorts of templates. ~ RobTalk19:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).
Comment. Strictly speaking those templates are not broken - they display perfectly well, they're just book references - I think the issue is that the parent template, Template:BibISBN (
talk·history·transclusions·logs·subpages), isn't working as it should. The reason is that it is based on a German template which has since been updated and so the book references don't always display correctly or even at all. In particular the German version calls three utility programmes or modules called
de:Modul:URIutil which I have no idea how to deal with. If someone could help with that, we may be able to create a useful template. All sorted, see below. --
Bermicourt (
talk)
08:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Firm keep. The main template has now been updated and fixed; the new module works and all the linked pages display correctly. These sub-templates are now linked too. So all sorted.
Bermicourt (
talk)
20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. The nom has withdrawn the TfD. In any case, you've misunderstood the purpose of the templates. They're not to create an ISBN database - that's hyperbole. But they are intended for multi-use (not single-use) ISBN refs. Of course in the early stages, they will only have a couple of refs, but over time that will grow. --
Bermicourt (
talk)
10:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
It's exactly the same as Cite DOI and Cite PMID, creating a database of citations with low use based on a product identifier (in this case ISBN, instead of DOI or PubMed) That's probably a worse method of identifying a publication than DOIs, especially since ISBNs are relatively recent, and many books have multiple ISBNs. --
70.51.46.39 (
talk)
05:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
What were the reasons (apart from sheer petulance) that {{cite isbn}} was deleted? Please provide a working link to the valid arguments or your rationale is not fathomable and should be discounted in any assessment of consensus...
BushelCandle (
talk)
20:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Substitute and delete as per the site-wide consensus developed regarding {{cite isbn}}, {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} (among others). There has repeatedly been consensus developed at large RfCs that these sorts of subtemplates that hide references away should be deprecated and removed. These sorts of templates make it harder for new editors to edit references, and they provide no significant value-added over a bot placing references directly in articles.
WP:Local consensus almost certainly applies, although I wouldn't necessarily oppose a closure as "no consensus" to take this to a wider audience and see if this is really the same situation or somehow substantively different. See
this RfC for one example of very recent consensus to deprecate for these sorts of templates. ~ RobTalk19:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review).