Misplaced Pages

Template talk:Cite doi: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:04, 28 April 2015 editCurly Turkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users103,777 edits →RfC: Is there really a consensus not to use the cite isbn template?← Previous edit Revision as of 20:33, 28 April 2015 edit undoCurly Turkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users103,777 edits →RfC: Is there really a consensus not to use the cite isbn template?: collapseNext edit →
Line 15: Line 15:
Please take part in the discussion at ] 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. ] ] 23:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Please take part in the discussion at ] 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. ] ] 23:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


{{Collapse top|Please keep the discussion to the appropriate location at ] }}
: Yup. See ]. ] (]) 11:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC) : Yup. See ]. ] (]) 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? ] ] 17:50, 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? ] ] 17:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 24: Line 25:
:::::: 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. ] (]) 19:17, 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 20:04, 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. ] ] 20:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}

Revision as of 20:33, 28 April 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cite doi template.
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
WikiProject iconAcademic Journals Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Misplaced Pages. 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
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages'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)

Please keep the discussion to the appropriate location at Template talk:Cite isbn#Is there really a consensus not to use this template?
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)
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)
Categories: