Talk:Cultural depictions of William IV

Referencing
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)