On 20/10/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
Our articles on fictional characters are cesspools of fancruft, original research, and outright idiocy. This should be a clear call to the fact that we do not have sufficient control over these articles.
In this incident we had two copyvio articles and a bunch of unattributed images. It's not at all clear how you're progressing from that to the conclusion that all of Wikipedia's fictional character articles are so out-of-control that they need to be "nuked."
I think Phil is speaking from having read numerous fictional character articles, not implying that his feelings stem from this incident. (I happen to agree with him; the amount of blithering fancruft is astonishing.)
We need to demonstrate our lack of tolerance with a zeal previously known only to BLP.
Wikimedia Foundation could get sued for having "fancruft" in articles about fictional characters? Or having fancruft could somehow ruin the lives of fictional characters? Those are the reasons for BLP but I don't see any similar level of importance for fictional character articles.
Again, I think you're misreading Phil's point, namely that we should be as ruthless at eliminating fancruft as we are at BLP issues, not that fancruft is causing the same problems as BLP issues.