ScottL wrote:
The problem with fancruft** is one of distraction and dilution. I
think the best way to sum this up is that in almost every case the reader has come looking for something else and the fancruft gets in the way. For the enthusiastic fan it is likely that they already knew this bit of trivia (or in the case of our Harry Potter articles actively disagrees with the crufty bits added by someone else so they need to add a crufty counter example). It is rather like the Monty Python sketch that gave unsolicited commercial email its name when it starts to spread out into other articles.
Monty Python did indeed do a sketch on the matter, but they did not originate the term, and they built upon a previously known and highly dispersed product.
Fancruft if about wishing everyone though the things you like are as important as you think they are. In some cases this leads to a desire to have an article on every little detail as proof of its importance. But, the results are bad for wikipedia and they are bad for the coverage of the show or book. The rounding up and merging of Harry Potter articles that has been going on has had a very significant impact on the quality of our HP coverage.
** I am using the term fancruft to mean the inclusion of specific details of a fictional universe where they are not necessary or even detract from the encyclopedic point being made. Especially when found in articles on unrelated subjects.
This may be a better explanation of the concept than many others that I have read in this thread.
Ec