On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
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.
No. I want to be able to write good, usable articles on important
topics in a manner unencumbered by pointless and onerous requirements
designed to keep idiots from breaking Wikipedia.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA_Cup_2006-07
Not substantively different - a compilation of results from a variety
of events in list form. And, hell, if you go down to the qualifying
rounds you get some really strange moments - the Atherton Laburnum
Rovers/Parkgate game was only witnessed by 17 people. For these more
obscure games, they weren't televised, and the only results are going
to be reprintings of the official results. So it's primary source
material at its finest.
-Phil