Template talk:IETF RFC

RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources[edit]

See

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better links:

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Access locks: Visual Design RFC
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC

I'm not really sure how these discussions are related to this template, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template output change[edit]

RFC 1234
RFC 1234

These outputs are now identical. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should not have been done. Reverted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Headbomb. Okay. Can you please explain further? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The output of this template is designed to match that of other identifier templates, like {{OCLC}}, {{PMID}} and so on, and is also designed to match the output of {{cite xxx}} templates. It is not designed to match whatever magic thing the software does (especially since this will be phased out in future releases of mediawiki). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. We should probably update Template:IETF RFC/doc to note this, then. I'm not sure how anyone is/was expected to know that this template purportedly needs a very particular format.

The eventual deprecation of magic links is why I took an interest in this template. I looked at the template's usage and thought it would be safe enough to change since nothing is really using it. For what it's worth, some people don't really like "overlinking" to articles such as ISBN or Request for Comments or Case citation or whatever in templates like this. It's somewhat similar to the arguments against date linking.

In going through the instances of RFC magic links, a lot of them are inline external links currently, which probably need to be converted to references. I may end up using this template, but not for inline cases, as I first thought, but instead putting it inside <ref> tags. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In <ref> tags I would probably use {{Cite IETF}}. — Franklin Yu (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any reference about phasing out of the RFC magic? — Franklin Yu (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basic error checking[edit]

Maybe we could include some basic error checking, like max number (right now, we're in the 8.1k range, so >10k for a while would be an error), as well as verifying every input is a number. --Izno (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

@The Anome: There are only 200 transclusions. Why was this fully protected? --Izno (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That number is going to increase significantly, as the magic links bot does its work. I would expect the template to be linked in at least 2,000 articles shortly, and to thus be a significant vandalism target. As the template has only one, well-defined, purpose, I don't see any current need for it to be generally editable; it can be unprotected to be edited if necessary. -- The Anome (talk)

@The Anome: That sounds like a rationale for template protection, not full protection, then. --Izno (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I've changed the protection level to template protection. -- The Anome (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: The same applies to {{ISMN}}. Can you change this to template protection as well? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthiaspaul:

Done -- The Anome (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: Thank you.

Meanwhile, the {{error-small}} template has become a highly used template due to its use in other highly used templates. Can you add template protection to this one, please? Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthiaspaul: Thanks for spotting this!

Done -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the protection is dubious for only 200 pages, fondly remembering "my" Template:!.

–84.46.53.185 (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested feature: section links[edit]

I just created the following link: [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4086#section-6.1.3 RFC 4086 section 6.1.3] "Traditional Pseudo-random Sequences", which renders as RFC 4086 section 6.1.3 "Traditional Pseudo-random Sequences". Since I am referencing a section, making the link point to that section makes all sorts of sense. But I couldn't find a way to create this using {{IETF RFC}}. I don't currently have a suggested parameter name, and I'm not sure I put the right words inside the link, but maybe something like this is of broader interest? 104.153.72.218 (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you need this link? In references {{Cite IETF}} is better IMO. —— Franklin Yu (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

|section_n= seems reasonable, but the current template seems like too much meta template to try to stuff that in. --Izno (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

plainlink=yes[edit]

The {{IETF RFC|125|126|127|plainlink=yes|}} example 125, 126, 127 is odd, I expected a class="plainlinks" RFC 125, RFC 126, RFC 127 effect. –84.46.53.185 (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New site datatracker.ietf.org[edit]

The https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXX now redirects to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfcXXX. For example https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc114 redirects to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc114. Maybe the template should be updated accordingly? Same for Template:Cite IETF. Thanks --Prikryl (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prikryl,

Done. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability Thanks. --Prikryl (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability What about Template:Cite IETF?

rfc-editor.org or datatracker.ietf.org[edit]

Currently the https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXX is redirected to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfcXXX.html. I would prefer www.rfc-editor.org rather than datatracker.ietf.org.

Example: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html vs https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9110

May I update this template to link to the www.rfc-editor.org? Wdpp (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related templates?[edit]

Are there IETF foo templates for other types of IETF documents, e.g., BCP, STD? My first thought was that, e.g., {{cite IETF|BCP=}}. would serve the purpose, but that requires |title=. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NOELBODY[edit]

What's the justification for including external links when the guideline says not to? Often where I see this being used, e.g. at WebSocket, the link should be used as a reference, not as an inline EL. SmartSE (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to use variadic arguments instead of hardcoded 1-9[edit]

I based the implementation of {{autnum}} on {{IETF RFC}}, as a wrapper that calls {{Catalog lookup link}} with args 1-9 passed through (except expanded to 1-100 because I wanted more than 9 in some cases). I recently made a change there, to remove the hardcoded 1-n list of arguments, which might be beneficial to apply here too.

Potential caveat: this removes the #expr evaluation currently done on each argument. I didn't find it necessary for {{autnum}}, but maybe someone is relying on it here in a way I haven't seen.

Thoughts? DefaultFree (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:ELN § Templates being used to embed external links into articles[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ELN § Templates being used to embed external links into articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]