User talk:Sticky Parkin/Theistic Satanism

Hello...

Let's see what you are up to... Merzul (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Book refs

So, what is your opinion on linking to google books? I think most people prefer to not link there. I'm not sure if that is for legal reasons, I don't think so, but maybe it's also because that's superfluous and unprofessional. Ah, of course, now I get it, we don't want our readers to think we just did a quick google book search. We have of course read all these books in detail!!!! What do you think, should I remove the links and replace them with proper book refs? Merzul (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That of course lol, I've heard wikipedia described as a google search aggregator and that's one of the true-est "criticisms" I've heard of it. Also, google books links are messy, as they're so looong. There's no legal problem with linking to these as they are previews of a few pages, which the authors have said it's ok for people to see. The reason I link is because as well as a smart looking ref I also want to include a link so people can easily check what the sources say and verify it for themselves. I asked on the help desk and this is what they said, Wikipedia:Help_desk#changing_a_google_books_search_reference_into_a_more_direct.2Fprettier_hyperlink to do so would involve using a very laborious template thing, like all the "citeweb" etc and others, I find these very evil. Here is a bit about it Template:Cite_book. :( These things spoil my fun lol.:) Merkin's mum 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just spotted your example- I love it, as you can see above on the ref desk they showed a way to conceal the messy link behind a ref like that. More work lol, I'll copy what they said onto a page of mine before they archive it. Merkin's mum 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)