On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
The following sentence makes obvious the real reason for you dislike of these articles, elitism: "The harm is mostly the maintenance of large numbers of pages, and to our reputation: a serious encyclopedia".
Ok, bear in mind I'm not trying to express what I personally like and dislike, but attempt to identify the unstated reasoning that leads people to nominate fancruft for AfD. It can't just be because they personally hate it, can it?
Maybe take it from the other point of view: the *only* problem with excessive fancruft is that it damages our credibility.
If you want to rework the essay a bit, go ahead.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.
Mgm