On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:54 AM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern Branwengwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Larsenlarsen.thomas.h@gmail.com wrote:
If I may make a suggestion? That syntax is kind of clunky - maybe we could have a simpler syntax, something like '{{ref|foo}}' & '{{note|foo}: text'...
Reviving a year-old thread? Hm. Related note: Bodnotbod dropped us a link:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Move_references_out_of_the_code
-Stevertigo
That was actually the thread that reminded me; but I couldn't resist the chance to point out the irony of how recent referencing discontents have come full circle from the {{ref}} days.
It took about 3 years to put in place references ('01 to '04/'05), another 3 switch from {{ref}} to <ref> and grow weary of it ('05 to now), so I suppose in 2014 or 2015, people will be complaining about how opaque references in a different section are, how hard to keep in sync with the article text, and how in programming we put the docs right with the functions/methods and why-can't-we-do-that?, and suggest switching to this new referencing system...