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@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l