10 Results found for "Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2024-02".

Wiktionary talk:Votes/2024-02/End date for Usenet's durably archived status

I'm particularly interested to hear from anyone who supports the Usenet policy change but objects to one of the other changes proposed in the vote. I believe these changes should be fairly uncontroversial, as they are all reflective of longstanding practice, but I'm still keen to hear if anyone holds conflicting views. This, that and the other (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC) @This, that and the other while we're messing with CFI I suggest you add a point mandating (or at least encouraging) archiveurls when quoting works published online. I can't imagine that anyone would be opposed to this given how big a problem link rot is. And even then, you would only be enforcing this in RFV discussions. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Hmm, definitely a good idea. I'm not sure if I really want to add any more new material though. I already feel like I'm pushing the boundaries with the statement about durably archived sources at RFV! I'll think about it. This, that and the other (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I'd say yes. (As for me, I always add the archive URL when I add something from Twitter or Reddit.) CitationsFreak (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC) @CitationsFreak @Ioaxxere check the vote now. This, that and the other (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC) @This, that and the other thank you, I fully support this change. We should change the term "durably archived" at some point since it really just means "published" or "notable". Any website saved on the Wayback Machine is clearly "durably archived" in the literal sense but clearly goes against the spirit of the rule. Ioaxxere (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC) I don't think it's necessary to strike out the ISBN part, since it's an encouragement and not a mandate. But that's not a deal-breaker for me. Megathonic (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC) Agreed, the ISBN is nice to have and it seems odd to remove the encouragement to include it. JeffDoozan (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC) I also agree: we should keep the exhortation to add ISBNs. If anything, we should add exhortations to add DOIs, LCCNs, etc. where possible and not too onerous. 0DF (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC) +1 for me too. @This, that and the other AG202 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC) I restored the sentence about ISBNs. As an alternative, we could once again remove that sentence, and add a new sentence at the end of the "Durably archived" section to the effect of: When citing a quotation, editors are strongly encouraged to provide a bibliographic identifier, such as the ISBN for a book, the DOI for an academic journal article, or the message ID for a Usenet post. This, that and the other (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC) @This, that and the other: I would prefer that new wording. You may want to link ISBN and DOI for anyone unfamiliar with those initialisms, however. 0DF (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)