Hey, it's your suggestion. If you don't want the input, don't use it. That was my risk, I suppose, in spending the time to write it.
Perhaps there has been some cross talk because we've both been loosely using URL and web links interchangeably.
The two quotations of mine you referenced are *not* talking about the same thing. A Universal Resource Locator (URL, also generically called link, address, web address, and web link) is not the same thing as the newly introduced field in FTM labeled "web link" on the person tab or "web address" in the citation dialog. This new feature in FTM is designed to house a URL, but it's certainly not the only place that a URL can be inserted.
On 4 Dec 2012 I was referring to the "web link" feature in FTM, not a URL in general. If you had quoted more of what I said, you would have included my explanation of where I place the URL in a citation. I did not write that I use the "web address" field for that.
So my comments today were just repeating the same thing. I include the URL because the citation is incomplete without it. I omitted telling you where again, which I should not have done. To repeat, I'm talking about either the field in the template that asks for it or in the citation detail field for the generic template.
Finally, I made an argument that citations do not stand alone if they require readers to look at corresponding media that may or may not be included. Omitting a URL from a citation pointing to an online resource is an example of an incomplete citation. (Even if its connected to citation media, because, again, citation media doesn't always go where the citation goes.) Now you've mentioned repositories, but that's not a complete answer either. First, not all of FTM's templates use repositories. Second, a link to a repository is probably insufficient to help someone locate a particular record. In other words, a URL should, whenever appropriate, be included with a repository, source, citation, and citation media. This is not redundant. A repository points to a domain like familysearch.org. A source points to a particular record collection like a parish register, e.g., new.familysearh.org/parishregisterX. The citation will have a link to the particular record (or page) of that register, e.g., new.familysearch.org/parishregisterX/page52. All three of these will be different URLs. Only the citation and citation media will contain the same URL, but that is necessary for each to stand alone.
(These three examples involve the use of the same domain name. That might not always be the case.)
(I do admit to using the web address field at Ancestry.com for many years, but I stopped using it when I realized that it didn't synchronize with FTM or export from Ancestry.com via GEDCOM. And since this feature has been added, I have not verified that it now syncs, though I assume it finally does.)
And speaking of GEDCOM, that's some feedback from me that you left on the table without a response. David asked a good question. Data portability is something we all should be concerned with. You don't know how much longer Ancestry.com or FTM will be around--or if something a million times better won't be available for free in five years. None of us should want our data going into a black hole.
If you're going to request a change to the handling of web links in FTM, therefore, it would be to the benefit of all customers if you asked that "web links" not only be integrated with filters and reports but with GEDCOM exports as well.
And then there is the argument I've been making for having FTM automatically create citation media (that you call "exhibits/images") from webpages when you're using web clipping. This would be a great boon to all users of FTM. I'm a bit baffled why you wouldn't want to include this in your enhancement request. Seems like a no-brainer when we're all spending time doing something that FTM could automate.
Last but not least there was mention of using MS Word. In my first message to you, I merely pointed out that the forum doesn't support that as an attachment, but that you could share your document nevertheless by one of the means I listed. (You were complaining that you couldn't attach a .doc to your message.) I went on to lament that the forum doesn't support PDFs for attachments, because those are more portable. (Not everyone has MS Word.)
If you have a system using MS Word that gets the job done, I'm not advocating that you change. I invested the time in this thread to make a case for PDF as the *default* format that FTM should use when it creates citation media from webpages during web clipping. Again, I'm a bit confused why you would ask for input on this subject and then ignore the lion's share of what I offered--without even discussing the merits of my suggestions--without, in fact, even responding to them.