This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cybercobra (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 28 September 2009 (→Adding OCLCs to articles that already have ISBNs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:41, 28 September 2009 by Cybercobra (talk | contribs) (→Adding OCLCs to articles that already have ISBNs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) |
|
 | Note: In order to keep this page from becoming cluttered with outdated posts, I clear comment sections from my talkpage on a regular basis after I have responded to them. So, just don't be surprised if you're responding to my response and your original post is no longer here. |
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybercobra. |
Adding OCLCs to articles that already have ISBNs
I'm creating a new discussion as you seem to have decided to remove the previous one on this subject from this page before it has had time for proper discussion. I agree with the editor who started the previous discussion that these links are inappropriate, and would like to add that removing the oclc= parameter from the infobox is not the issue. The OCLC is useful for books that don't have an ISBN, so the parameter should not be removed from the template, but the ISBN already allows people to link to Worldcat, or any other site from Special:booksources that they prefer, so adding the OCLC, which links only to Worldcat, is redundant. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note that removing the parameter was only one of the possible courses of action I listed. I also said trying to change the documentation/policies surrounding the use of the parameter was another option. Bot task-specific recourses are also available. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have, as you suggested, read the documentation for Template:Infobox Book and it clearly says "Use OCLC when the book has no ISBN". Please turn off this bot now and reverse the edits that it has already done. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I read that statement as being exhortatory (i.e. "PLEASE add an OCLC in the event the book has no ISBN"), not prohibitory (i.e. "DO NOT add an OCLC, UNLESS there is no ISBN"). --Cybercobra (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have, as you suggested, read the documentation for Template:Infobox Book and it clearly says "Use OCLC when the book has no ISBN". Please turn off this bot now and reverse the edits that it has already done. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note that removing the parameter was only one of the possible courses of action I listed. I also said trying to change the documentation/policies surrounding the use of the parameter was another option. Bot task-specific recourses are also available. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would prefer discussion to be in one place, and other concerned editors will find it easier to find here, so I have moved your comments here from my talk page. Please reply here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was merely using my preferred reply style, which I advertise quite clearly on the top of this talkpage; you had made no contrary request. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- If that statement has two possible interpretations then we have to fall back on ignoring all rules and deciding what's best for the encyclopedia. How is it better to have a link to a specific catalogue when we already have a link that allows the reader to access that catalogue as well as many others? Two editors have now expressed concerns about this bot's actions, so please turn it off now and wait until a wider discussion has taken place before making any further edits. I waould also suggest that you restore the previous discussion about this to your talk page until the issue is resolved. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree regarding usefulness. Regarding the bot, I don't think N time units one way or another matters much; in the event its edits are to be nullified, it's just another bot task or the infobox template itself could be modified to show the OCLC# only if no ISBN is provided. Should you desire more immediate action regarding the operation of the bot, I already linked above to more relevant, correct, and likely more speedy, avenues of expressing concern about bots. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're just being pig-headed. There was no proper consideration of whether the bot's actions conform to policy at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/CobraBot, and you have been asked politely by two editors to stop. Please do so now and let's have a wider discussion at a more leisured pace over the next few days, once I've worked out which of the Byzantine Misplaced Pages processes I have to follow to get you to see sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you were to file a BRFA appeal or one of the aforementioned proper/formal processes, I would then feel obligated to suspend the operation of the bot. Until then, all that's going on is some casual discussions. Here, I'll even link directly to the page where you would raise the appeal: Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Requests for approval. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're just being pig-headed. There was no proper consideration of whether the bot's actions conform to policy at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/CobraBot, and you have been asked politely by two editors to stop. Please do so now and let's have a wider discussion at a more leisured pace over the next few days, once I've worked out which of the Byzantine Misplaced Pages processes I have to follow to get you to see sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree regarding usefulness. Regarding the bot, I don't think N time units one way or another matters much; in the event its edits are to be nullified, it's just another bot task or the infobox template itself could be modified to show the OCLC# only if no ISBN is provided. Should you desire more immediate action regarding the operation of the bot, I already linked above to more relevant, correct, and likely more speedy, avenues of expressing concern about bots. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- If that statement has two possible interpretations then we have to fall back on ignoring all rules and deciding what's best for the encyclopedia. How is it better to have a link to a specific catalogue when we already have a link that allows the reader to access that catalogue as well as many others? Two editors have now expressed concerns about this bot's actions, so please turn it off now and wait until a wider discussion has taken place before making any further edits. I waould also suggest that you restore the previous discussion about this to your talk page until the issue is resolved. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)