On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Now we can {{note|foo}}^W^W{{r|foo}} like it's
2005!
But seriously, I find this discouraging - a sign of dysfunctionality.
All the work put in to switch to <ref> and now we're switching *back*
to something I find indistinguishable from the original? I guess I'll
be opting out of whatever the next switch will be...
Hmm, I don't recall how {{note}} worked - is the current template what
you're referring to? I think the key here is that the remote
definition is optional. The issue arises because this:
Trees are green.<ref>http://www.trees.com</ref>
...is easier to write, but this:
Trees are green.{{r|trees}}
...is easier to read. So it makes sense to write one way and have a
bot convert into the other. Both ways have their downsides, but we
just have to live with in the absence of a fancier editor.
Steve