Template talk:Google Books URL

Jumping to page doesn't work any more, use phrase
For several months now jumping to a page by number in Google books doesn't work. The page may be available, but can't be jumped to as far as I know. If a suitable unique phrase is found on the page, jump to it with. Pol098 (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea
Doing this inside citations is not even slightly helpful. All that does is greatly impede the ability of editors to fact-check our articles, while at the time time increasing the template/transclusion count and parser load on the page. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've nominated this for deletion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish the result of the deletion discussion was "no consensus". However, we still need to discuss whether to employ it in the `|url=` parameter of a citation template. Kpratter (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To quote : "English wiki has 1,974,794 Google Books links ie. the template is used in 0.00217 or two-tenths of 1 percent." So there is clearly not a consensus to widely deploy this template. I've laid out some reasons to not use this in citation templates, the main one being that it obfuscates the URL in the source view and thus makes source verification by editors more difficult. It also makes entry more difficult, and does nothing useful for the reader (in the rendered page they see the same sort of clickable link). It also increases the template/transclusion count and parser load on the page (which may be an issue at longer and more complex articles), for no clear gain. One of the more common comments at the TfD (which should have been run longer instead of closed as "no consensus") is that this template is simply rendundant with . But this entire template's purpose can simply be replaced by a URL-checking and -cleanup bot.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore all the tools and bots are not programmed to support this template so it won't get proper maintenance, such as check and fixing link rot (yes GB has it). Citation bot is designed to normalize Google Book URLs and does so, this template is redundant, causes link rot problems, and all the other issues raised by SMcCandlish. Maybe we need a VP RfC or something to get wider community participation and list all the downsides more clearly - though honestly VP usually closes against the proposal, no matter what the proposal is. -- Green  C  15:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Appreciation for a civil discussion
I'd like to belatedly thank all who were involved in the deletion discussion archived here. I gained some useful knowledge about how other editors use tools and templates. I appreciated the WP:CIVIL tone of the discussion, especially in view of a lack of consensus. Sadly, that can't be taken for granted, so I'm increasingly grateful when I see it. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Honestly the discussion was weird. It hinged on a few editors who believe if a Google Book goes dead, we want to use this template, because it will prevent tools like IABot from adding a non-functioning archive URLs. But IABot doesn't even do that anymore, nor is this template called Template:Flag IABot so it doesn't add an archive, that's not it's purpose. If a link is dead it needs to be marked dead, and bots can do that, but not when this template is being used. Just one of many reasons this template is a bad idea. -- Green  C  21:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)