I have found that you must not put any spaces after the pipe symbol, or it doesn't work. (It duplicates the number, and doesn't create a link). If I knew more about templates, perhaps I could diagnose this.
The following works correctly: {{OCLC|3185581}} giving
OCLC3185581
while the following fails: {{OCLC| 3185581}} giving
OCLC3185581EdJohnston02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
It's because of how external links are sensitive to spaces. Let me see if I can hackaround to fix it.
JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've inserted this template into {{cite book}} to add an explicit oclc=... field instead of id={{oclc|...}}, but, because of Bugzilla: 8446: Don't show conditionally included links on Whatlinkshere unless they're actually included, the What links here for Template:OCLC is useless. So I'm going to substitute it.
OCLC, as an article name, is currently a redirect to the fully-spelled-out name of the center, so no disambiguation is needed or even possible. The *template* {{OCLC}} is intended for use in reference lists, and needs to be compact. If {{OCLC}} were to expand out to 'Online Computer Library Center' on each occasion of its use, it would blow up the size of reference lists unnecessarily. Can you say more about what you have in mind?
EdJohnston (
talk)
01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm suggesting that the template be linked to "
Online Computer Library Center" instead of "
OCLC" to avoid the redirect. Isn't it generally the practice to avoid redirects? Your explanation is reasonable enough, but this is only an issue if the template is meant to be substituted and there are no instructions on the template page advising editors to do so. — Cheers,
JackLee–
talk–02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't quite see how your proposal would work. We *want* the occurrence of the template to present the redirect 'OCLC' in the visible reference list. To do that it has to stay as it is. If you edit the template to spell out 'Online Computer Library Center' then every single reference list will show that as fully spelled-out.
As a test, edit the page we are in now and type {{OCLC|3185581}}. Then hit the 'Preview' button, and tell me what you see. You ought to see is
OCLC3188581. What you see (if your change is adopted) will be
Online Computer Library Center3188581 if I've figured it out correctly. That is the expanded form that would show up in every reference list (that uses this template) if your proposal were adopted. I believe that subst will make no difference in what appears. If you disagree with this prediction, please create a test version of the template (with the change made), instantiate it, and see what it gives you.
EdJohnston (
talk)
02:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I think we're misunderstanding each other. I'm not suggesting that "OCLC" be spelt out in full in the template, just that the abbreviation is linked to the article "Online Computer Library Center" rather than the redirect "OCLC". The simple solution is to use a piped link, like this: "[[Online Computer Library Center|OCLC]]", which simply renders "
OCLC". This will reduce server load as it is then not necessary to go through the "OCLC" redirect. — Cheers,
JackLee–
talk–03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
It seems to be a reasonable request. Users curious about what OCLC stands for might hover over the link to see what article it links to, only to discover that it stands for, oh, OCLC. Neither of the arguments against disambiguating presented in the R2D guideline seems to apply cleanly here: if the
OCLC page is indeed turned into an actual article or disambig page, we shouldn't be linking to it from this template, and the readability of articles while editing will not be altered by a slight change to a template. Removing the redirect won't have a significant impact on server load (unless you count the short term job queue), but will benefit readers' understanding. – Luna Santin (
talk)06:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)reply
{{
editprotected}} Instead of transcluding the documentation page on to the template page using {{/doc}}, please use {{Documentation}} instead as this looks tidier, indicates to editors how they may edit the documentation, and is becoming the norm in Wikipedia. — Cheers,
JackLee–
talk–20:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Can you give examples of any other templates where this change has already been made? I tried to test your proposed change but realized I didn't understand it well enough to know whether it was working right. This template is transcluded between 500 and 1000 times, and I didn't want to make a mistake.
EdJohnston (
talk)
21:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, this template needs additional fields added for multiple OCLC codes which are added by the DOI bot. It should have additional code like 'If {{2}}' etc.
Dhaluza (
talk)
19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Done. Very straightforward to implement and a good thing to boot, but in the future I would request, instead of opening a discussion and adding the editprotected tag at the same time, that you let the discussion run its course, determine the best course of action, have the code written up and ready to go, then request editprotected, so the responding admin can more easily take care of your request. Cheers! :) —
Huntster (
t •
@ •
c)10:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Done. The template now supports up to nine oclc codes. Slightly deviating from the previous format, the list entries will be shown separated by commas (","); this default is now also consistent with the output format of dozens of other "catalog lookup" templates. If, for linguistic reasons, the last comma in the row should be changed into something else, it is possible to change this using the optional 'leadout=text' parameter, e.g. 'leadout=and', 'leadout=or', 'leadout=as well as', etc.
{{editprotected}}
I noticed that this template creates links to
WorldCat using http://worldcat.org/... rather than http://www.worldcat.org/... Given that http://worldcat.org/... redirects to the http://www.worldcat.org/... version and is now the recomended format:
[1], could this template please be changed to point to the www.worldcat.org version in the first place? :) -
Paul1337 (
talk)
01:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
If you add '/editions' to the end of the url, all editions, formats and languages are shown. Compare
one with
all. I think it would be helpful to add that option, changing the current display from 'OCLC Number 55534889' to 'OCLC Number 55534889 all editions' so users can click on whichever they want to see. (I don't know if the current option for multiple OCLC numbers in the template was a workaround for that.)
Flatterworld (
talk)
06:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Done. This is now possible using the optional 'show=all' parameter. If the text displayed needs to be changed from the default, it can be specified as in 'show=text'.
Thanks for your reply! Because if users browse Wikipedia in HTTPS, by using protocol relative URLs, they will stay in HTTPS mode when they click external links. So this is beneficial for those who really care about security. So in my opinion, as long as a website supports both HTTP and HTTPS (in this case
https://www.worldcat.org works fine), then we should use protocol relative URL. Why do you think it's a bad thing?
Chmarkine (
talk)
05:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I've deactivated the request for now. This request isn't uncontroversial, so it will need a consensus before admins are authorised to enact it. If you find a consensus after further discussion, feel free to reactivate the request. If you don't get very much input to a discussion here, you can always try asking at
WP:VPT. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪10:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Perhaps my question was a bit more terse than intended. I'd simply read somewhere(s) that PRUs should be discouraged and wondered what the benefit was here, and Chmarkine's explanation makes sense. Thanks for that. —
Huntster (
t@c)11:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Support Why are protocol relative URLs "A Bad Thing™"? Surely they're a good thing, because some websites (Wikipedia and Worldcat included) permit both http: and https: access, and so protocol relative URLs permit users to follow links without needlessly switching between protocols. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
11:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2017
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change "https://www.worldcat.org/" to "https://www.worldcat.org/". When using Special:LinkSearch to search for HTTP links, relative links are caught in there as well giving an inaccurate list of articles using http links.
Jon Kolbert (
talk)
04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply