Template talk:ISBN

Non-interactive media
An edit suggests we need to show the actual ISBN number for "non-interactive media". What is an example of non-interactive media showing the English Wiktionary content, and what is the use case for the ISBN shown in that context? How common is that use case compared to the online use case? Is provision of ISBN essential for that use case? Can those who produce a Wiktionary version for that use case make sure they show the actual ISBN?

I submit that our further reading is most useful when it points to external source where an online user can read more information about the word, not more information about the online source.

As for attesting quotations, their force and utility does not stemm from ISBN. ISBN acts as visual noise there, distracting from quotations themselves. Providing ISBN via a link ("→ISBN") that is less distractive is a useful compromise to satisfy two groups of people with opposite needs. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Strongly disagree, on the issue of quotation. In order to a establish said utility, the quote must be actually verifiable.

The main way to produce non-interactive media off Witionary is using browser's Print button; and my main use of such paged media of Wikimedia project content (including Wikipedia and Wiktionary) is for bringing them to brick-and-mortar libraries to find and verifiy the alleged references. My verification process starts by entering the ISBN number at library's search terminal; which is not accessible from online.

The ISBN number is a precise anchor to bring me to the book in question, and I prefer it to matching author-title-year-publisher-edition manually. Hiding this information by default hinder users' ability to verify by using their media of choice.

Please change it back.

&mdash; Nvtj (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC) 

State of consensus as for →ISBN
Admittedly, the change to use "→ISBN" was not a result of a Beer parlour discussion or a vote, so a formal evidence of consensus is lacking. It was an implementation of a proposal made by someone else in a different discussion about visual noise. I got one thank for my edit, and after that, Suzukaze-c changed the arrow to point right instead of reverting, and months later, DCDuring and Surjection edited the template without reverting or complaining. It looked there could be something like a semi-consensus by silence; the change is highly visible so editors could not have failed to notice the change yet did not protest since 4 March 2018, over a year ago. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I would rather see the ISBN (the actual number) in the linked text. The current output looks weird in the context of a citation. E.g.,
 * (from Citations:word). I see no reason to present a bunch of information about a specific published work and then hide the ISBN. - dcljr (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (from Citations:word). I see no reason to present a bunch of information about a specific published work and then hide the ISBN. - dcljr (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)