Bryan Derksen wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
I've learned, personally, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}'s fundamentals, and look stuff up from time to time. I've also created subst:able templates for reference works I cite a lot, so I don't have to do the thinking.
Way back when I was doing a bunch of work citing various articles about Stargate subjects and I kept using the same episode citations over and over. I considered creating a group of templates specifically for those cites, for example
<ref>{{cite stargate sg-1/broca's gap}}</ref>
So I wouldn't have to keep looking up airdates and other details to fill in, and if the citation format changed or more information became available they could all be updated with a single edit. Perhaps some sort of formalized system along these lines might be useful for common references? <ref>{{cite collection/Oxford dictionary 2006}}, p. 1245</ref> for example. These big bibliographic lists would then become collections of templates like this and they'd make better project pages.
There's something to be said in favour of a bibliographic project. Wikipedians could register what they have, in case someone wants details looked up. Maybe the software could even put up a red flag when the owner hasn't put up a single edit in the last three months essentially telling others that they are wasting their time asking him.
I do have seriously increasing concerns about the trend toward excessive templates. They tend to reflect an obsession toward uniformity that can obscure the basic values of simplicity where anyone to edit. The counter-argument may well be, "Go ahead and add the data; we can fix the format later." That still makes it difficult for a non-techie to correct data that he considers incorrect.
Ec