Earle Martin wrote:
On 17/10/06, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'd fail you in any of my English classes for
being a slave to
authorial intent.
It is a testament to my having given up English classes that I don't
even understand what that means... :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent :)
(Which is not
to say "Hey, you know what we need, more OR" so much as
"For the love of GOD will people stop assuming they instinctively
know how/what to cite outside of their field?")
Indeed.
For stuff like this where one show is making a reference or homage to
another, I'd say cite the thing it's making an homage to and count it as
"original research" only if after watching the two side-by-side the
reference isn't blatantly obvious. There will no doubt be borderline
cases where debate can be had, but that's life on Wikipedia and
shouldn't be feared.