Earle Martin wrote:
On 17/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I'd fail you in any of my English classes for being a slave to authorial intent.
It is a testament to my having given up English classes that I don't even understand what that means... :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent :)
(Which is not to say "Hey, you know what we need, more OR" so much as "For the love of GOD will people stop assuming they instinctively know how/what to cite outside of their field?")
Indeed.
For stuff like this where one show is making a reference or homage to another, I'd say cite the thing it's making an homage to and count it as "original research" only if after watching the two side-by-side the reference isn't blatantly obvious. There will no doubt be borderline cases where debate can be had, but that's life on Wikipedia and shouldn't be feared.