Talk:CliffsNotes

One thing that Cliff's Notes and Wikipedia have in common is that they pull their references from other sources and are widely criticized if used for direct citation. I believe this is a topic of further discussion.

Perhaps. But not here. - DavidWBrooks 00:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More generic usage

This term (Cliff's Notes for X) has spread into a generic use meaning summary, more or less. I have never even seen a Cliff's Notes (or CliffsNotes) and I use the phrase this way. e.g. "Here's the Cliff's Notes version" (=="Here's a summary").

But in two minutes of googling, I can't find a decent linguistic reference in order to expand on this in the article. Grooh. If someone else can, please add it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As there are myriad competitors to Cliff's Notes, placing a few of them in See Also is worthless. Who's ever heard of Bookrags or York Notes? Spark Notes is the modern-day Cliff's Notes, and is worthy of See Also. Otherwise we may as well link to Monarch Notes, Bloom's Notes, Barron's Notes, etc. etc. etc. --Metrofeed 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Metrofeed[reply]

York Notes are standard. Who in the UK has ever heard of 'CliffsNotes'? (Read: kill the American bias.) Njál 13:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]