[WikiEN-l] "Exclusion" essay

[Ray Saintonge]

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Mark Wagner wrote:
>  
>
>>On 7/20/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at 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.
>>    
>>
>
>Precisely. My preferred writing style for the lede of an article on a
>"special subject" is:
>
>"In (context) (subject) is..."
>
>with the article going on to explain the subject not just in it's
>specialised context, but with relation to the broader context it resides
>in. This should be *strongly* enforced with respect to articles on
>fictional subjects; otherwise, we're going to end up with ledes along
>the lines of:
>
>"In 'real life' (subject) is..."
>
I wouldn't object to some kind of fictional material graphic that could 
be at the head of each relevant article.  It doesn't have to be really big.

Ec