On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The way it was discussed in-project a teritiary source summarizes
several secondary sources into one cohesive article.
Is a work that summarises/draws on multiple news articles secondary or
tertiary? I wonder, because I've considered
2009/8/23 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The way it was discussed in-project a teritiary source summarizes
several secondary sources into one cohesive article.
Is a work that summarises/draws on multiple news articles secondary or
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I just want to address this one quote.
You also don't have an article if you have a lot of primary
and tertiary sources, but very few secondary sources.
Let's say that you have the tertiary (shudder) source EB 1911,
Cleopatra. You are aware that an enormous number
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:21 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/19 wjhon...@aol.com:
Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for
AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the
Carcharoth wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopedia_topics
The only remaining task on Variation and selection is integrating
references, probably to their own authors' pages. That page is still
up for historical interest and to finish small amounts, but for all
intents
I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there
is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing
tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of
notable secondary sources. So they quite obviously provide notability,
Of course I wouldn't put them up for AfD. There is no reason to make
the previous text inaccessible--and conceivably some of it could be
used. I could do much more rewriting if people put fewer acceptable
(or at least fixable or mergeable) articles up for unwarranted AfDs,
or did not try to
2009/8/19 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
As for the British parliamentarian, I can't identify him.
This was 2004, I really do not remember :-) If anyone who cares more
than me wants to grovel through my edits from five years ago ...
- d.
___
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there
is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing
tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of
notable secondary sources. So they quite
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there
is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing
tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of
notable secondary sources. So they quite
The way it was discussed in-project a teritiary source summarizes
several secondary sources into one cohesive article. Let us first
set-aside those works calling themselves encyclopedias when they are
really specialist works that pretend to cover a subject area thoroughly
which is a different
In any subject, a tertiary work is almost by definition outdated.
There will necessarily be 4 delays before new work can be recognized:
A, The time to publish the new work, B The time for the reviewer to
assimilate the new information by C. The time to write the review
D. The time to publish
Well to me, a review is not a tertiary work at all. Personally I think
a tertiary work should only be considered those who synthesis multiple
secondary works in an article on the same subject. This would be as
opposed to commentary on a single secondary work as you seem to be
stating below.
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I believe tantamount not to rules can be broken but rather to rules can
change. I never advise people to be bold *against* policy, but rather
to go to the policy discussion pages and see whether or not their
situation might be an exception that we'd like to include
I just want to address this one quote.
You also don't have an article if you have a lot of primary
and tertiary sources, but very few secondary sources.
I think this is a false reading of our intent.
The entire structuring of the rely primarily on secondary sources and
other discussion that
Not that it's a single source. The problem is that it's a single
outmoded source, never really balanced and NPOV, and by now wholly
unreliable in almost all subjects, the ancient world included. About
95% of it was written over a century ago, and there is almost nothing
for which new information
Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for
AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the articles could be
fixed, but the previous point was that a single tertiary source isn't
sufficient
2009/8/19 wjhon...@aol.com:
Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for
AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the articles could be
fixed, but the previous point was that a single
2009/8/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/8/19 wjhon...@aol.com:
Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for
AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the articles could be
fixed, but
19 matches
Mail list logo
