On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:11:49 -0400, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I advocate following the last good version
here, which is
to say, continuing as we were instead of paying heed to people who
nitpicked this important qualification out of existence in favor of a
guideline on how to write a bad encyclopedia.
In other words, you prefer to be able to draw entirely from primary
sources where no reliable secondary sources exist. Which we already
know, of course. That is a matter of Wikiphilosophy.
It doesn't deal with the fact that we are republishing a
categorisation of vehicles originally presented by someone else, in
its entirety. I don't know of any other media where anybody on this
list would seriously argue that presenting the entirety of the
contents of some recently published primary source not in the public
domain, was acceptable.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG