Template talk:ISMN
RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources
See
- Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC
- Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC
books} 17:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)]
Template-protected edit request on 3 May 2020
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Undo this edit for reasons explained at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Link to ISMN not going through identifier redirect. -- Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. There's consensus to deliberately route this through this specially crafted redirect to reduce the clutter at "What links here" and improve reverse lookup possibilities. See f.e. the discussion at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_64#choosing_identifier_redirects. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not your call: as said in the discussion I linked to, there's no consensus apparent from that discussion. There was no formal closure to a discussion with afaics four (!) participants. There's no discussion on (nor even a link to the other discussion from) this template's talk page, so there's far from a broad enough support to implement this on a scale far beyond such a very local consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm against these redirects, but I'm even more against an inconsistency between CS1 and individual templates, or having an exception for one specific identifier. This is the wrong place to make this request. b} 13:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)]
- I'm against these redirects, but I'm even more against an inconsistency between CS1 and individual templates, or having an exception for one specific identifier. This is the wrong place to make this request.
- Not your call: as said in the discussion I linked to, there's no consensus apparent from that discussion. There was no formal closure to a discussion with afaics four (!) participants. There's no discussion on (nor even a link to the other discussion from) this template's talk page, so there's far from a broad enough support to implement this on a scale far beyond such a very local consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)