Brown, Darin wrote:
Good lord, can we listen to ourselves?? Since when does any one person have the moral authority over deciding what topics are "serious" or not? The articles stand as they are, many are written pretty well, and that's that. Prompting people that they should spend their time on more "serious" endeavors seems to serve no practical purpose.
Hear hear! There was a wonderful little article in the Onion a while back (that I can't find online via Google any more, alas) titled something along the lines of "Walking Star Trek Encyclopedia Made Fun of by Walking Sports Encyclopedia" in which a stereotypical sports-obsessed guy made fun of a stereotypical Trekkie for not "having a life". But there was clearly a one-to-one correspondence between their obsessions; the sports guy memorized endless pointless statistics about players while the Trekkie memorized pointless statistics about fictional characters, the sports guy dressed up in his favourite team's jersey while the Trekkie wore a Star Fleet insignia, sports guy went to playoffs while Trekkie went to conventions, etc.
Practically _every_ topic can have "-cruft" appended to the end if you ask the right person. I once saw a VfD for a transuranic element's article with the justification given that the subject was "sciencecruft". :)