On 3/20/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, this is my objection. The Amazon link, or the LoC link, or any other link, is *not a source*; I mean, really, what are we verifying? That a work by this name and with this metadata appears in an online catalogue. Nothing more. It does not verify the assertion that this is a relevant work, or that it is one we used. It is simply what we use to sanity-check the metadata in our own list of sources. Once we've done that check, we've confirmed we've spelled the name right and got the year correct, we don't need to keep that link or that catalogue code; it's an internal editorial reference, and it can be kept on the talk page or junked, but it's unnecessary and somewhat misleading to keep it with the citation.
Some of the Amazon ones being discussed here were not as part of a bibliographic entry but were being used for facts quoted in an article, e.g. release dates, etc. In that case, it IS being used as a source, and that's a different case.
I think it is useful to keep cataloging information around, for the use of subsequent editors to the article, but I agree that it serves little purpose for the reader in most cases. Perhaps in these cases the entry should be in HTML comment form or be an ignored parameter passed to a cite template.
-Matt