Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 22



Template:BibISBN/0801857899

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. This would be better addressed by nominating the ancestral template. Izkala (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC) This template is broken and not used in any articles. Also adding these other BibISBN templates as well for the same reason:
 * BibISBN/0801857899
 * BibISBN/0881924393
 * BibISBN/3110171309 --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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, BibISBN, 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)
 * Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Withdraw Last time I talked with, these templates weren't working. Now it seems that have been fixed. I'm wondering how/why BibISBN is used instead of ISBN. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an ISBN database, low or single use templates should be substed into the articles that uses them. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 The nom has withdrawn the TfD.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)
 * 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)
 * Forget Cite DOI, it's deprecated. BibISBN uses the preferred Cite Journal. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Used successfully in our Echidna article and if it's not broken, don't delete it. BushelCandle (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * speedy delete per deletion of cite isbn, this is the same thing with a different name. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. ~ RobTalk 19:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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).