[WikiEN-l] fancruft

[Bryan Derksen]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I
>> want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is
>> rather important in that regard.
> 
> No one, but no one, is claiming that synopsises of TV shows are
> fancruft.

Anthony apparently does. Here's what he wrote in the email this was a
response to:

> I think summarizing something directly (e.g. using a Friends episode
> as a source for facts about itself) is, by its very definition,
> original research.  The Friends episode isn't even a primary source in
> this case - the Friends episode is the subject, and the summary would
> be the primary source.
> 
> There are a number of reasons to do this.  One is that it helps lessen
> the amount of "fancruft".

I was mainly disagreeing with the notion that the episode itself isn't
an acceptable source for a description of the episode, but this other
notion about the summary being fancruft seems implied as well.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060721/4aead2b5/attachment.pgp