On 3/20/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)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