In a message dated 7/20/2008 9:18:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee@rahul.net writes:
I also didn't see many properly referenced articles in that, most of those articles were referenced mainly or solely to primary sources.
Works are acceptable as sources for themselves.>>
--------------------
Yes but our policy does address specifically articles that are mostly, or mainly referenced from primary sources. We don't like them. We want the article to have been interesting enough to have already been published by reliable, secondary, third-party .... etc.
Building an article based entirely or even mostly or mainly on primary sources is frowned upon. This was hashed out many years ago, and in-fact spawned a number of short-articles in WP space as we were debating all the intricacies.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Works are acceptable as sources for themselves.>>
Yes but our policy does address specifically articles that are mostly, or mainly referenced from primary sources. We don't like them. We want the article to have been interesting enough to have already been published by reliable, secondary, third-party .... etc.
Building an article based entirely or even mostly or mainly on primary sources is frowned upon.
Because the name Tessaiga comes from a primary source doesn't mean the entire article is mostly from primary sources.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Because the name Tessaiga comes from a primary source doesn't mean the entire article is mostly from primary sources.
Whoops, sorry, wrong argument. Though I wouldn't be surprised if someone did try arguing against Tessaiga using this.