This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Saxony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Lower SaxonyWikipedia:WikiProject Lower SaxonyTemplate:WikiProject Lower SaxonyLower Saxony articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
So, let me get this straight. Some editors think that a book or film cannot be used as a source about its own contents. But presumably if its contents are described in another book then it's a valid reference! That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard! Books and films, as media, are already sources in their own right. They don't need further referencing about their contents - nothing is more valid than the bloomin' original! So let me reiterate. A comment about a book or film does need referencing; a simple description of its contents does not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, right now we have a tiny fragment of an article, probably a content-fork, which has as its entire contents two paragraphs - one a description of a sailor in the Patrick O'Brian books, which doesn't clearly show how it's related to William IV, and a second paragraph with three references to when the King is portrayed in films. And they're all unreferenced. What is the point to this article when there's so little to say? Skinny87 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read WP:Stub and tell me where it says that short articles that can be expanded (as this one clearly can) shouldn't be created. No, didn't think so! Many stubs are a damn sight shorter than this article! As to referencing, see my statement above. Primary sources don't need further referencing - they are references. Oh, and it's not a content fork. I suggest you read that section too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.svg)
