On 1/19/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/01/06, Steve Bennett stevage@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@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