Template talk:R:cs:Rejzek:2015

ISBN

@Dan Polansky: Your last edit could be a good compromise if all quotation and reference templates did it the same way. It is important so that the user understands the principle on the first sight and thus their usage has to be unified. So if you suggest the same change for all quotation and reference templates, I will support it. However, if the change does not happen broadely, this reference template should be returned to the previous state as well. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it is a good compromise, and I find the function of the "ISBN" link to be easy to discover regardless of what happens to other templates. That said, you cannot expect any unification of reference templates any time soon. If people like the idea, it may spread, piecemeal. This is not continental Europe. Here, things happen spontaneously and various disunities develop. You yourself started to use a format in Czech entries that differs from the overwhelming practice of Czech entries, which use the {{gloss}} format; and yet, I do not plan to force unification to {{gloss}} of the entries you created any time soon. If you want to revert my proposal, I cannot prevent it; status quo ante prevails. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this is different from what you write about gloss. Identification numbers are standardized by their nature and so should be their use. If various entries use the identificators differently, it may be confusing to some readers. That is why I suggested it would be better to propose such a change in all templates of this kind, and I would support it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Identification numbers are standardized by their nature and so should be their use": looks like a non-sequitur to me. Excessive standardization prevents new ideas from spreading other than via a centralistic, all-or-nothing fashion. Standardization makes a lot of sense in the wikitext, for instance to make it easier to parse for machines; with the ISBNs, were are talking about a user-facing rendering with no impact on machine processing. Thus, in fact, standardization in the use of {{gloss}} would be more important.

Reference templates are fairly disunited in the English Wiktionary. A user made a relatively recent effort to standardize them, which I opposed, since I found what he chose as the standard to be ugly, excessive, and functionally uncalled for. Disunity will be confusing to some readers, but achieving unity by standardizing on an inferior standard is worse than the confusion. The reader of the English Wiktionary has to get used to the fact that, to an extent, the English Wiktionary is not made as tightly uniform and consistent as some cultures prefer. In return, the editors of the English Wiktionary can breathe much more freely. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Basically, if you and I agree that the compromise is pretty good, we can unify all Czech reference templates in their rendering of ISBN. Unifying everything else is a much larger effort. It would probably require a vote. I am tired of creating votes; I created a lot of them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It may not be a problem if the outcome of the reference templates were different in different entries, but I do not think it is a good idea if it is different within the same entry, such as:

• Rejzek, Jiří (2015) “bor¹”, in Český etymologický slovník [Czech Etymological Dictionary] (in Czech), 3rd (revised and expanded) edition, Praha: LEDA, →ISBN, pages 92–93
• Čmejrková, Světla, Hoffmannová, Jana, Klímová, Jana (2013) Čeština v pohledu synchronním a diachronním‎^[1] (in Czech), →ISBN, page 433

--Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I admit, it is less than ideal. But what is really most disturbing is not the lack of unity but rather the excessive identification of the 2nd reference, so long that it spans two rows. The first reference looks beautiful: it provides unique identification, is reasonably short, and even allows the reader to search book sources by ISBN. {{cite-book}} used in the 2nd reference was not always so baroque. The 2nd reference can be simplified as follows:

• Čmejrková, Hoffmannová, Klímová (2013) Čeština v pohledu synchronním a diachronním‎^[2], →ISBN, page 433

That does not solve the ISBN problem, I admit. I admit it would be worthwhile to change the ISBN presentation in {{cite-book}} as well. That said, from my standpoint, it is better to have some things done well than to have all things done badly, albeit consistently badly.

To address the problem in a particular Czech entry, it suffices to avoid {{cite-book}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You know what? I tried my luck and edited Template:ISBN. Let's see what response this gets. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

I don't agree that showing the full ISBN is bad, it is a good one in my opinion. I just admitted that your solution is possible too, if it is done to other templates as well. So in my view we can choose between the current good state and your good compromise with the above described disadvantage. I can agree with the compromise if the disadvantage is removed. However, I am aware of the fact that changing such a widely used template such as cite-book would result into long and tiring discussions, which is probably the reason why you do not want to try it (and neither do I). For that reason I propose another compromise, which is displaying the full ISBN, but smaller, see the current revision. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Smaller font does not do anything for me. It is not a compromise, from my standpoint. I still see the noise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

On another note, a smaller ISBN does not work for me; it is still identifier noise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

In {{R:Rejzek 2001}}, I chose yet another solution: I placed an ISBN link to the title, to "Český etymologický slovník". That is even more minimalistic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, too. But I still believe that usage of identifiers has to be unified more than other things. As a reader who has never come across this solution, I would think that the link will take me e. g. to a Wikipedia page about the book or something like that. IMO the readers should know what is going to happen after they click on something before they do it.

Thanks for you try with the ISBN template. I have just tried to apply the ISBN template in Rejzek 2015 as well, but you were quicker. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The reader will not know perfectly what happens upon clicking the link, with Rejzek 2001; still, they expect to be taken to a page that contains some detail about the reference work, and as far as that, the link is accurate. Also, a detailed identification would contain ISBN, so a reader looking for ISBN could easily hit upon the idea of clicking that link to find it. The use of "↑ISBN" is a kind of compromise, where the link is made more explicit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)