It makes sense to consider it that we are citing implicitly--by citing
a more detailed article in WP we imply that the references in that
article are relevant. It's not provided for by the rules, but it makes
sense, rather than to copy over the references. It's an acceptable
scholarly device, in my opinion, if used carefully.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Yeah, like that. The main example I was thinking
of myself was the article on the Stargate, and it actually lost "Good Article"
status because someone thought we were citing our own articles about TV episodes rather
than the episodes themselves. Despite this being an obvious misunderstanding the article
had to go through the GA nomination process over again because that's what process
required.
That sounds like the perfect candidate to break out IAR on. CREEP FTW!
--
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG