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