Talk:Malmesbury Market Cross

Proposal on handling Google books links
I propose that we avoid having unnecessary naming of Google Books in the article. If a direct link to a particular online version of a book would be helpful, many use the convention of linking the title of a publication rather than adding a link called "Google Books". If you use a template like citation or cite book then the parameter "url=" will do this for you. Where an ISBN is available, these automatically link to an "agnostic" page with a large number of book catalogue providers, not just Google Books. I would encourage contributors to also check books that are public domain on WorldCat, as there are often a variety of other on-line versions of a publication available, this is also a good reason to check if an OCLC number is available if a publication is not a book, or may not have been published or re-published after ISBNs were available. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What are called "courtesy links" to actual text available on google (not always globally, or forever) are clearly useful, as others to text. Library & catalogue links that give you no text are a waste of time. It is unfortunate that an article designed for beginning editors will now be too scary for them to edit because of impenetrable thickets of templated web citations. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just do what Reftag does. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)