Mark Wagner 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.
Precisely. My preferred writing style for the lede of an article on a
"special subject" is:
"In (context) (subject) is..."
with the article going on to explain the subject not just in it's
specialised context, but with relation to the broader context it resides
in. This should be *strongly* enforced with respect to articles on
fictional subjects; otherwise, we're going to end up with ledes along
the lines of:
"In 'real life' (subject) is..."
I wouldn't object to some kind of fictional material graphic that could
be at the head of each relevant article. It doesn't have to be really big.
Ec