On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The following sentence makes obvious the real
reason for you dislike
of these articles, elitism: "The harm is mostly the maintenance of
large numbers of pages, and to our reputation: a serious
encyclopedia".
Ok, bear in mind I'm not trying to express what I personally like and
dislike, but attempt to identify the unstated reasoning that leads
people to nominate fancruft for AfD. It can't just be because they
personally hate it, can it?
Maybe take it from the other point of view: the *only* problem with
excessive fancruft is that it damages our credibility.
If you want to rework the essay a bit, go ahead.
Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
So what do you define as excessive fancruft? Surely a [[Bulbasaur]] article
isn't considered fancruft? I'm afraid that personal hate of the subject and
reputation paranoia are in fact the number 1 reasons for calling something
fancruft. Any valid reason to exclude or delete such items could be
explained with the regular policies without dumping the fancruft label on
it.
Mgm