Talk:Second Sons

Include chapter info.

This handy chart cites the novels and other sources.[] It is sufficient to establish non-triviality. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That chart cites Wikipedia. You can't cite something in the article that cites the article itself--that's the furthest thing from WP:VERIFIABILITY. DonQuixote (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And therein lies the reason why we don't add information not verified via secondary sources. This would have been a great source had we not allowed Sherlocking between the book and the episodes without the backup of reliable sources beforehand. This is the sound of our chickens coming home to roost. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. What do you mean by "Sherlocking"?

DQ, can we concur that the existence of the Slate article establishes significance/non-triviality? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You still can't cite it though. DonQuixote (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There is an additional problem - one I've brought up elsewhere where the reference was used. if you look at the lower left corner of the website, it identifies itself as "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run". It is by definition unusable as a source, and only establishes that fans are very interested in comparing/contrasting/evaluating the bokks versus the series. Add the circular linking to Wikipedia, and it craps out. Sorry - I had high hopes for this source to solve the problem. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Why the heck not? Wikipedia's rules require that the content be notable and verifiable. Nothing says we can't cite Slate for notability and the novel for verification. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

References

RfC participation request

There's an RS RfC on the Oathkeeper talk page. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)