On 12/21/05, Steve Bennett
<stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That's
why to start simple, to see if we need to. Something
to help the newbies and not annoy the experienced editors.
Speaking as a semi-experienced editor, I wouldn't mind the odd template.
Typing is boring. Let the machine do it.
Incidentally, there was a proposal somewhere to change the nomenclature
from "references" and "external links" to "sources" and
"further
reading". I've seen this implemented once or twice and it seems to work
a lot better, and remove all the confusion over when to use URLs, swaps
academic naming conventions ("references") for more understood
"sources", etc. If a template is being created, it's probably a good
opportunity to think about making a decision on that, and implementing
it there.
Steve
I'm not really happy about "Further reading". Not only do some
external links show films, or images (which don't require reading), it
also fails to take into account that further reading is much thought
about with regard to print sources and may lead to people being
confused on where to put external links.
And that's without mentioning the 800,000 articles that'd need changing.
Mgm
Ditto Mgm. I'm not worried about the 800k articles we'd have to change -
we got through categorising fine, didn't we? What I'm concerned about is
that, as he said, external links != further reading. Maybe we could
change "further reading" to "other resources"?
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])