On 10/21/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Also, the definition of "fancruft" is far less clear than the definition of "libel." I'd want to see something solid and widely accepted for that as well.
Okay, then, I'd like to throw that one out to the list, but I'll start with: unnecessarily verbose, gushing and hyper-detailed recitation of trifling details about a fictional element, contributed with a reverence better reserved for factual information. (Or, in the terms that I prefer, the dull and witless prattling of socially-impaired nerds, but that's only my opinion, and not a recommendation for policy wording.)
-- Earle Martin
The thing is "unneccesarily verbose", "gushing", "trifling details" make the whole term subjective. Where one finds even finds a mention of comic book character verbose, not everyone will agree. You can't treat fancruft until there's a proper objective definition of what it is.
I'll suggest you shouldn't go in more detail with a fictional character than you'd go with the bio of an living person. When you mention "the dull and witless prattling of socially-impaired nerds" it's clear you already set a very high standard for fictional content. And I don't see why the standard should be any higher than with non-fictional stuff. It's just as much part of our daily lives.
Mgm