On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Gwern Branwen
<gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Now we can {{note|foo}}^W^W{{r|foo}} like
it's 2005!
But seriously, I find this discouraging - a sign of dysfunctionality.
All the work put in to switch to <ref> and now we're switching *back*
to something I find indistinguishable from the original? I guess I'll
be opting out of whatever the next switch will be...
Hmm, I don't recall how {{note}} worked - is the current template what
you're referring to?
Not sure. I drank the <ref> kool-aid and haven't used {{note}} in years.
I think the key here is that the remote
definition is optional. The issue arises because this:
Trees are green.<ref>http://www.trees.com</ref>
...is easier to write, but this:
Trees are green.{{r|trees}}
...is easier to read. So it makes sense to write one way and have a
bot convert into the other. Both ways have their downsides, but we
just have to live with in the absence of a fancier editor.
Steve
But my problem is I don't see how the new stuff buys us *anything*.
You say that we can have a bot convert {{r|trees}} to <ref> stuff and
reap the benefits of both styles? But then if we've solved that
problem, then converting to & from {{note|trees}} is trivial and we
didn't need the new feature at all.
And either way, users still need to memorize new markup ('{{r}}' is
actually worse than '{{note}}' in that respect; the latter at least is
an actual word).
--
gwern