On 21/07/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm
<macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Any article on a fictional subject written largely as if the author
were living in the fictional universe in question is fancruft.
Encyclopedic articles should not be in the first person though, and
hence the position of the author should not be identifiable. Still
seems like a roundabout definition to me. Also, what policy requires
that the author be living in the "real universe" for their
contribution to be accepted.
Peter Ansell