On 12/20/05, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's not like we make it very hard to create an account anyway, so I agree. Do you think prefilled templates should be switched on by default for established users? (those existing prior to implementing this feature, that is). -Matt

Matt Brown wrote: Yes! A large number of Wikipedia editors are not making quality articles, today. Remedial help is needed. Sydney Poore Go Bengals!

Matt Brown wrote: Sure, why not? We have to add categories and level two headers to our articles, just like everyone else. And if they don't like it (which I wouldn't exactly understand), give them the option to turn it off. Nathaniel

Is it worth having different templates for different sorts of articles? Is it worth having a wizard? "Is this an article about a person, place, event...?" "So it's a person. Are they alive or dead?" "Great, what field are they most known in?" "Sport, eh? American, British, Jamaican?" Take that far enough and it could spit out half the article, with relevant templates, categories, stubs and pointers for you to read the guidelines for that type of project. Is this the road we want to go down? Steve

Sam Fentress (Asbestos) wrote: Something like that. Thank you! I'll have a fiddle with it later as per the discussion so far on the list. - d.

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

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote: Ditto Mgm. I'm not worried about the 800k articles we'd have to change - we got through categorising fine, didn't we? What I'm concerned about is that, as he said, external links != further reading. Maybe we could change "further reading" to "other resources"? John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])

John Lee wrote: Also, it's eminently bot-suitable. One of the first things Kate did on en: was run a bot to change "External link", "External Links" and "External Link" to "External links". Or maybe we could leave it alone! I don't at all see the problem with "References" and "External links". (And some articles, e.g. [[Xenu]], actually have "References" and "Sources" and "External links".) I think the current convention is fine. - d.

G'day David, <snip /> [[Lang Hancock]], which I bring up whenever I need to refer to a good article I've written (since, alas, it's the only really good one I can claim!), has References, External links, Further reading, and See also. I listed all my sources as footnotes in "References", and now there's far too many footnotes; especially when I cite some sources more than once. I've been considering renaming "References" to "Footnotes" and using it only for extraordinary claims, and moving everything else to a sources section ("References"). Then there'll be Footnotes, References, See also, Further reading, and External links. Thank goodness it's not a stub as well! Knowing Hancock, there'd be a *lot* of stub categories the man could fit under. -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.3/209 - Release Date: 21/12/2005

Yeah, personally I think it doesn't even need to be changed. Teach people the difference. Don't change Wikipedia to help the ignorant.

We already have a lot of articles and a lot of them are substandard. I think spending time fixing, updating and generally improving articles is better spent than creating new ones (especially ones that end up on AFD or spark huge rows). But hey, everyone is entitled an opinion. As long as you are one of those that seek out gaps in our coverage that no one disputes needs to be covered. I can think of a few, then creation is a good cause. Mgm