[WikiEN-l] dueling templates

[Ray Saintonge]

Todd Allen wrote:
> Bryan Derksen wrote:
>   
>> Brock Weller wrote:
>>     
>>> Were not deleting the article, were deleting the unencyclopedic crap
>>> sections. Your point is a strawman.
>>>       
>> And since we're talking logical fallacies, you're begging the question.
>> Calling the sections "unencyclopedic crap" presupposes that they're
>> useless, whereas David and I have been arguing that a lot of what's in
>> those sections is not crap but rather is just poorly formatted and
>> integrated.
>>     
> Generally, when I remove a trivia section, I do find the occasional
> piece that's actually relevant, is sourced, and can be integrated. Quite
> often, however, the stuff isn't even verified, is someone's personal
> opinion, or is unimportant or very marginally related. 
These are nevertheless three separate bases for evaluating material.  
Some may not be verified, but is verifiable.  Importance is completely 
subjective. Marginally related may be your strongest point, but even 
there a contrary argument can often be made.  Establishing one does not 
establish the others.
> Some of the
> stuff's alright, but most of it that I've found so far was indeed
> unencyclopedic crap. We don't have to keep every drip of data someone
> ever touches an article with. Even if it's true, even if it's
> verifiable, sometimes it just isn't too significant or doesn't fit. It
> is OK, and even good, to -cut-, it is not "destructive", it is not
> "deletionism", and it isn't mean. It's part of editing anything you want
> someday to be a decent work.
If you want your work to be considered decent, then you need to respect 
the work of others with a different view as also being decent.  
Dismissing the good faith work of others as "crap" doesn't measure up to 
that.

Ec