Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@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