I'm not SURE yet if this is a good way to do it or not. The problem with putting the source in italics is that you can't differentiate the title from the description, so for instance you would get a source that looks like
- Unweaving the Rainbow, Richard Dawkins, pg 100
Is this a good way to do it or not? If not, we should revert both templates and the Einstein page.
Kazim 04:58, 28 August 2006 (MST)
- Actually, you can differentiate anything you like...
"Here's the same source citations you have above, but (overly) formatted to separate title from author and page..."
- — Unweaving the Rainbow, Richard Dawkins, pg 100
- Another solution is to create a new template that accepts additional parameters, by name, like template:comment-box1. It might even be the preferred solution as you can easily standardize that "author" is in plain text, "source" is always italicized, "page" is always in small teletype...or whatever standard we might prefer.
- On the other hand, that may just be too much overhead. Since changing comment-box1, I've been looking at other templates and thinking that some of them could be deleted.
Why use template:WP-name when template:WP-name2 does the job, without the bug. It's a little more work, but easily fits in the "better safe than sorry" category.Also, an interwiki map would solve the problem in such a way that neither template would be needed.
- Looks like there's still a lot more fine-tuning to do, but we'll get there. - Sans Deity 08:37, 28 August 2006 (MST)
- (I struck out the above comment because template:WP-name2 is being deleted) - Kazim 16:51, 9 September 2006 (CDT)