A source doesn't have to be canonical to be a good secondary source. For example, Harry Potter articles could cite the Harry Potter Lexicon as their source instead of the books by Rowling herself. The Lexicon editors did all the research for us and no original research would be required.
Mgm
On 8/11/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet Uniformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms, and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR.
The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and therefore is surely not [[WP:V]].
As for fancruft, how is an article about Starfleet uniforms fancruft. In some people's opinion, any article to do with any fictional is fancruft. But is the article on Jean-Luc Picard fancruft? I think not.
Your thoughts?
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l