On 18/01/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On what
basis do you make this particular claim?
Ok I was definitely unclear :) I am trying to find the rationale behind
people's revulsion of "fancruft". I don't see the derogatory word
"cruft" used to describe any subject on wikipedia, no matter how
esoteric, that is based on the physical world.
Classic counterexample: nominating a handful of articles on *physical
elements* as "sciencecruft".
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
are we talking about physical elements that are know to exist or ones
that are subject to speculation in only a couple of papers?
--
geni