On 21/07/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com 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.
Encyclopedic articles should not be in the first person though, and hence the position of the author should not be identifiable. Still seems like a roundabout definition to me. Also, what policy requires that the author be living in the "real universe" for their contribution to be accepted.
Peter Ansell