Wikipedia talk:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources Information & Wikipedia talk:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources Links at HealthHaven.com
advertise
add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
Bookmark and Share

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 
about
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
Featured Results:
To talk or not to talk, that is the question
To talk or not to talk, that is the question
issuesinmedicalethics.org
 Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
independentliving.com
  Text Alerts | Newsradio 620 - Milwaukee, Wisconsin News, Talk, Sports,...
Text Alerts | Newsradio 620 - Milwaukee, Wisconsin News, Talk, Sports,...
620wtmj.com
 

Archives
Archive

[edit] Okay.. um...

"Do not include copies of primary sources (specifically: text, maps, artworks and other useful images) in Wikipedia. If it is a large source, consider placing it in Wikisource. Wikibooks Annotated works and Project Gutenberg are other alternatives for pursuing primary source documentation."

Is this seriously saying that, say, an article on Beer Street should not include the artwork being discussed? I'm going to substantially rewrite this to try and get rid of the obvious stupidity =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rework done. Nothing controversial, I trust. Anyway, one last thing left to do: a quick move to a more accurate title:

[edit] Move requested

{{editprotected}} Actually, I'd like a move - the title seems inappropriate: We can and do quote from primary sources, and very short primary sources, e.g. Jack Sprat can reasonably be quoted in full. It's also misleading, because, with thumbnail software, we can easily include primary source images, and I don't think anyone would want to argue we shouldn't. A better name would be Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talkcontribs) 02:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Page is not fully protected. Please note that {{editprotected}} is for making a request to EDIT a fully protected page. Requested page moves should be requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 03:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] proposal: exception for law articles?

there are thousands of supreme court cases, and almost every one of them is going to have an article which is going to cite the body textr somewhere off-site, even if that means to Wikisource. However, Wikisource will be inferior to a source like Altlaw, which contains its own version of wikilinks. What I'd really like is for every article on a law case to have an accompanying article containing the opinion text (e.g. at Roe v. Wade/opinion), with the body text full of automatically-generated wikilinks to the cases cited therein. That way, if I'm in the article on "Roe v. Wade", I can 1) transclude individual paragraphs of text (to avoid people from making changes when I want an excerpt in the article) and 2) see "what links here" in the form of other cases. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 22:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)




Product Results (view all...)

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots