Last modified: 2011-12-23 19:53:58 UTC
There was a request to add similar functionality for ISSN numbers as exists now for ISBN numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Book_sources
These files add this feature.
Created attachment 961 [details]
patches Parser.php for ISSN magicnumbering
Created attachment 962 [details]
Periodical Special Page
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created an attachment (id=961) 
> patches Parser.php for ISSN magicnumbering
This patch is useless because the code that was supposed to use the function you
added is commented out, furthermore, making a new function to parse ISSN codes
rather than adding that functionality to the already existing ISBN function
(they're parsed almost in the same way),
Created attachment 1018 [details]
patch responds to criticism, integrated with current ISBN code
* Avoid mixing tabs and spaces; use tabs consistently
* Please follow existing code conventions on code block usage
* Will require patch to Sanitizer.php to protect against ISSN links in HTML
* Won't this not work without a patch to Booksources?
Created attachment 1137 [details]
fixed formatting in response to Brion's comment
Created attachment 1138 [details]
Patches Santitizer.php to catch ISSN links
Created attachment 1139 [details]
*Responded to Brion's comments about format
*Included patch to Sanitizer.php
*Changed patch so that ISSN pages go to SpecialPeriodicalsources.php
*Added patch to SpecialPage.php to include SpecialPeriodicalsources.php
*attachment 962 [details] is SpecialPeriodicalsources.php
What's the appropriate way to patch for messages
What is this for? ISBN is a label for a single book. ISSN is a label for an
entire journal; not individual articles or even volumes. What is going to be on
the "ISSN sources" page? A single link to the web site of the journal? What's
WONTFIX'ing per comment 10 and lack of activity for 3 years.
Lack of activity is never a legitimate reason for WONTFIXing, but I don't think we want more magic like ISBN and RFC. Better that those should be phased out in favor of templates at some point in the future.
re-opening to depend on Bug #26207
Removing need-review keyword. This absolutely depends on 26207 which presumably would handle this cleanly without requiring Sanitizer & Parser changes.