Template:Citation Style documentation/id2: Revision history

From All Skies Encyclopaedia

Diff selection: Mark the radio buttons of the revisions to compare and hit enter or the button at the bottom.
Legend: (cur) = difference with latest revision, (prev) = difference with preceding revision, m = minor edit.

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

8 June 2024

  • curprev 19:4819:48, 8 June 2024imported>Daask 12,913 bytes −34 Rephrase #ATAWM message. "f.e." is very rare, and was used incorrectly anyhow. We shouldn't be claiming object validity, but only telling editors what to input.

5 June 2024

27 May 2023

26 May 2023

17 April 2023

6 February 2022

14 August 2021

10 April 2021

25 January 2021

4 January 2021

4 December 2020

19 November 2020

21 October 2020

  • curprev 01:4701:47, 21 October 2020imported>Pokechu22 12,731 bytes +83 Example of LCCN with a letter (lccn.loc.gov/e09001178) and an LCCN with a hyphen

14 October 2020

12 October 2020

10 October 2020

20 September 2020

  • curprev 13:2713:27, 20 September 2020imported>Francis Schonken 11,708 bytes +33 update discussion location (a link to the concluded RfC can be found at that location)

23 August 2020

27 July 2020

16 June 2020

  • curprev 07:5007:50, 16 June 2020imported>Nemo bis 11,672 bytes +848 The guideline is already linked. If we don't want to make it sound like a guideline let's not have that sentence. This documentation has already been discussed on the talk page, open a new discussion to remove or change.

15 June 2020

  • curprev 11:0211:02, 15 June 2020imported>Matthiaspaul 10,824 bytes −933 Definitely not. First of all, this has nothing at all to do with the auto-linking discussion. Second, template documentation is not a guideline, and this is an attempt to introduce pseudo-guidelines through the backdoor.. Third, URL never was a parameter for "free access" resources only (although it is, of course, nice, if it is), and anything stating or implying this must be removed from the documentation. I have removed the whole misleading para now, if necessary, let's discuss on article talk
  • curprev 09:4509:45, 15 June 2020imported>Nemo bis 11,757 bytes +277 I believe the previous edit came from this discussion. Let's state clearly what the users over there think was the consensus.
  • curprev 09:4009:40, 15 June 2020imported>Nemo bis 11,480 bytes +154 Revert to status quo consensus version
  • curprev 04:2404:24, 15 June 2020imported>Matthiaspaul 11,326 bytes −154 Reworded misleading URL stuff. The consensus is on removal of identical links, not on equivalent links (and only for some identifiers, not all of them). Also, often URLs point to the actual document and identiifier links to meta-pages about that document. Removed a sentence about URL parameter usage for "free access". The link should point to a relevant page. It's nice if its open access, but this is irrelevant as WP does not depend on free or online refs, but on reliable refs.

6 May 2020

20 April 2020

18 April 2020

17 April 2020

  • curprev 15:4615:46, 17 April 2020imported>Trappist the monk 11,575 bytes +3,485 update in advance of cs1|2 suite update; isbn, sbn, and s2cid will need tweaking after the module suite update;

15 April 2020

  • curprev 22:4022:40, 15 April 2020imported>Nemo bis 8,090 bytes +53 Restore and clarify; "free-to-read" is not a well-recognised term, plus it's ambiguous (free as in beer or free as in freedom). Sometimes we say "freely accessible" but that's also slightly ambiguous. We can see "gratis copy" but that would include copies which require gratis registration.
  • curprev 22:0622:06, 15 April 2020imported>Trappist the monkm 8,037 bytes −3 free-to-read not open access;

22 March 2020

16 March 2020

7 February 2020

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)