On 12/21/05, Steve Bennett stevage@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