Wikipedia talk:Fancruft

Welcome to the discussion

---

• /Archive1 (November 2004-November 2005)

Is this fancruft?

I'll be honest. As something of a fanboy myself, I tend to like the articles which, by definition, would be considered fancruft - the entries on videogame characters.

What annoys me, though, is when overzealous fans make connections where there is none. For example, we recently had to edit quite a lot of Final Fantasy character pages, because one or two Digimon fans had gone though to each one, explaining the minute and, frankly, ridiculous "resemblances" between completely unrelated FF and Digimon characters. Also, the Corpse Bride article has a paragraph comparing it to the anime Urusei Yatsura, when there is virtually no real connection between the two. This is what I consider fancruft. I suppose these fans mean well; they seem to think the world of the particular series that they've latched onto. But it bugs me that they think that their nebulous fan connection has any legitimacy to it.

Should this be added to the definition of fancruft? "Coincidental resemblances or connections between unrelated media, series, stories or characters is not considered encyclopaedic"? --Marcg106 03:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If they can find some sort of support in canon for their interpretations, then let them have at it. If they're speculating, the problem isn't the fancruft; it's the speculation. Fancruft forever! Salva veritate Rogue 9 00:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

I've removed this example, because I think it's actually an example of a different phenomenon. Chapter-by-chapter analysis is, by its nature, original research or POV, and very likely both. However, in the case of an extremely influential book like Atlas Shrugged, I can absolutely concieve of 87 different articles on various critics and critical essays on the book that are NPOV, sourced, etc. In fact, I think such a series of articles would be truly impressive.

Furthermore, I think the scale is different - as massive a tome as Atlas Shrugged is, there is considerably more written in the Star Wars universe - it is thus somewhat logical, at least, that the Star Wars universe would need more articles to cover adequately. So I don't think the case that what was done with Atlas Shrugged is generalizable is as solid as it needs to be to be a banner example here. Phil Sandifer 17:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Um... no. The Jungle, that was an "extremely influential" book. Atlas Shrugged... not so much, outside of freshman dormitories. --phh 18:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a good book. Just influential. As I recall, it came in just after the Bible, for better or for worse. I suspect worse. Phil Sandifer 18:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

...and just ahead of The Road Less Traveled by M. Scott Peck, suggesting that that particular survey may not really be something we'd want to cite as an impartial analysis of literary influence. My point is that for any given piece of fancruft you will find people who say that their fancruft is different from all the rest because theirs is important. If it didn't inspire that kind of outsized devotion it wouldn't be fancruft in the first place. Anyway, I don't think it matters that much and I'm late to the party anyway, but I do think the AS cleanup was pretty generalizable as an example of dealing with fancruft. --phh 19:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is merely that the standard for fancruft is not "There are no more than X words to say about this subject and you have said Y," but rather "what you have said is idiotic." Phil Sandifer 19:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Entire Range of Human Knowledge

Wikipedia is like an Walmart of knowledge in a sense. I use Wikipedia as my "one-stop-shop" for just about anything I want to find out. I feel this is one of the strongest points of Wikipedia, and in this aspect it is infinitely superior to any paper encyclopedia, nearly anything imaginable is documented to some extent. It is quite an opinionated statement to say that Wikipedia should strive to be like a profesionally published encyclopedia. Whenever there is anything that I'm curious about or wish to learn more about, the first place I would check is Wikipedia, and as of yet it has not disappointed me. If there isn't sufficient detail in the article itself, there is almost always links, both internal and external to places where I might learn more, and it has any basic information I need on a topic without ever having to leave my desk. The primary set of complaints seem to be more along the lines of trivial or non-encyclopedic. Here is the definition of an encyclopedia:

encyclopedia

n : a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty

Is "fancruft" somehow outside "the entire range of human knowledge" now? I'm fairly certain that Wikipedia wasn't meant to only be a reference to "some particular specialty" so I take the former definition. Let us remember what an encyclopedia is, and not merely a comparison to other "traditional" encyclopedia. Despite how often it is brought up, the random page button is not the way anyone seeking specific information will use an encyclopedia. One does not open random pages of Britannica to look up information on Napolean Bonaparte (pardon my spelling) until one eventually succeeds. When a person visit www.wikipedia.org they do not see the "random article" button on the front page, instead they type in their desired search query, and wikipedia returns the article or list of possible articles pertaining to what they are looking for. That is the beauty of disambiguation pages, and if at some later date those pages become too long, they themselves may be categorized into separate pages, allowing still more information to the user while still providing an intuitive way to find what they are seeking. Adding more knowledge does not make Wikipedia significantly more cumbersome. I believe (and this is my opinion but I'm fairly certain of it) that most would be more disappointed to look for an article only to find that it doesn't exist, than too look for an article and find that there are links to similarly named articles, but that quick browsing of their short description quickly points them to their desired article.

Just 2 days ago I was researching for my Sociolingustics paper on "internet language" and found one of the article that I used was being considered for deletion. Information to be used in a college paper was under consideration for deletion. Any well written article can and probably will be of importance to someone at some time. Deleting such articles does not further the cause of creating a compendium of "the entire range of human knowledge". Instead of removing articles that may not seem to be pertainate, isn't the more important issue that we should add to the articles that are? I do not disagree that there should be standards such that information is presented in a meaningful manner, but the including of trivial information does not impede this. --141.140.121.70 19:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree with this user. To the extent possible, I want to find information on anything I'd like to know about in Wikipedia. There might be some subjects that really have so little interest not to warrant a page. Certainly, if I wrote an autobiography of my ordinary life, that would warrant deletion (covered by the vanity page policy), as would discussion of a character in a book that sold only 50,000 total copies or something. But if someone wants to write a summary of some or all of the episodes of any TV series that survived long enough to have more than 10 (a round number thought-- basically half a season or more), more power to them. Those who want to know have the reference, and those who don't care don't have to (and won't) read the page. KP 01:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I also wholeheartedly agree with this. Consider the nature of Wikipedia, and why it's different form conventional encyclopedias. Why would you not find an article about something obscure that doesn't matter to a huge number of people, possibly with a great deal of detail, in a regular encyclopedia? Why am I unlikely to find a list of the Districts of Ogrimmar in the Encyclopedia Britannica? What would make that appropriate for a Wikipedia-style encyclopedia? Conventional encyclopedias are made for the purpose of spreading knowledge at a price. To be completely sure that the content is refined and professional, people have to be paid to go over it. Obviously busy editors can't check whether all the information about Ogrimmar was correct, so even ignoring the physical limitations of traditional paper encyclopedias, there just isn't the time or energy for the pro's to do it all. This is not the case with Wikipedia. There are people who will spend hours on end every day reviewing articles of interest to them, or just tagging poorly written ones, or fixing things and removing those tags, and never see a dime for it. They don't mind. They enjoy it. Maybe they're not certified professionals, but through the peer review of a handful of half-capable people the end result can still be a pretty good article. Why else might not our Britannica friends write about Ogrimmar? Maybe it's something that goes out of style and mind so quickly that they wouldn't be able to get it out in time. Wikipedia does Current events. Or maybe it's just not professional to write about Ogrimmar. Wikipedia users are basically anonymous, and every teacher and student knows (all too well) that Wikipedia is not a citeable, professional source. Just let Wikipedia be what it is, instead of trying to constrain it to the standards of a different breed on Encyclopedia. I would also think that the fact that a person is deeply interested enough in a topic to bother writing about something is, more often than not, indication that there might be other such people out there who would be interested in reading it. And if not, who cares? So you've got an article that takes up a couple KB of text space and 0 KB of bandwidth because nobody is interested enough to read it. I wasted 100 times as much space and infinitely more bandwidth than that article by uploading a picture at 500 KB when I could've decreased the quality to 250 KB. If the problem is that the articles are crappy quality, misspelled, ill-formatted, uncited pieces of garbage, then the problem is the quality and not the subject. Maybe some people have and will put up and never update short articles (or worse yet, long, redundant articles laden with mechanical errors). That doesn't mean they're all like that. Stereotyping and saying "Well fancruft articles are sometimes/always/often poorly done!" is counterproductive because then you all those grammar-hating, obsessive fanboys and fangirls trying to tell you just how st00pid they think you are. Give everyone a break and make better use of your time by working to improve their articles. I think that badly written content is a mutually agreeable and easily combatable enemy. I recommend that this Fancruft essay be replaced with "Fancruft is the shiz, just write it well plz." (Just kidding on that last bit...) --Twile 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is that the frequently poor quality of articles on obscure topics is directly related to the fact that not many people are interested in them. The WP idea is not that everybody is a brilliant writer or editor--but that the wisdom of many people, added together, can create a brilliant encyclopedia. If you don't get the many people, you don't get the brilliance--usually. Nareek 20:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And the problem, I think, is that instead of allowing the brilliant writers and editors who want to write on obscure topics do just that, people try to lump stuff together as "fancruft" which "frequently" is "poor quality". Now I have no problem with tagging things for improvement, or contacting the original contributors and ask that they clean it up, or even *gasp* fixing it yourself. That's the nature of the Wiki. The thing that perplexes me is how something can be reasonably be nominated as an article for deletion on the premise that it is fancruft, if as you said, the article is obscure enough to not attract motivated writers and editors. The person putting it up as an AfD obviously stumbled across it somehow, is it so hard to think that some Wikipedian with an equal or greater sense of duty might come across it due to looking for it? --Twile 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sciencecruft

While I understand that the term is used sarcastically, I have no difficulty imagining what sciencecruft would be. Just because a paper is accepted at a conference, does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopaedia. — ciphergoth 09:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A useful distinction

There was a useful point made in a Village Pump discussion about fictional universes a while back--about the difference between encyclopedic discussion of popular culture and fan-style cataloguing:

There is no problem with covering the subject matter of fictional characters on Wikipedia. The problem is instead how they are covered. It is mostly done with very little context—no attempt to firmly tie everything that is said to be true about the character to the works of fiction in which they are depicted. See Radioactive_Man_(Marvel_Comics) for an example of this flaw; excepting the word "fictional" in the intro sentence and the infobox details, the article is written as if the subject were real. No reference is made in the article text to a single writer, artist, or even comic book issue or title. See also the "character history" of Spider-Man, which starts with summarizing a plot about his parents having been spies that was not written until after over thirty years of publication history. These articles merely paraphrase fiction rather than describe it, and appear to be written from a fan perspective rather than a cultural historian.

Compare those with Captain Marvel, a recent featured article, or Superman. Both summarize the history of the characters in the real world, revealing the "facts" of fiction according to that framework. We need a very clear set of guidelines to make sure all articles about fictional characters are written in this manner. User:Postdlf 23:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think making this distinction clear in Wikipedia policy would be a very good idea. Nareek 06:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Heartily seconded - this would make good official policy, though I would be sorry to see San Serriffe rewritten in this style :-) — ciphergoth

Agreement from me, as well. Regulars at Featured Article Candidates regularly object to articles about fictional characters and things due to those articles' frequent failure to treat the subject as a cultural artifact in the real world. And when the articles are written from the perspective of the real world, fictional cruft constantly creeps in. See, for example, Donald Duck, which tries to assert the character's "real name" based on a throwaway gag in one cartoon short (for a time, this information was in the first line of the article!). Or Goofy, which does much the same thing based on the television series Goof Troop. I've had to repeatedly revert similar additions to Daffy Duck (in one cartoon, Daffy jokingly says his middle name is "Dumas"). Quite frustrating! — BrianSmithson 19:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect from article space

Fancruft in the article space, redirects here. I thought that this was a no-no. As the article recognizes that "fancruft" is a Wikipedia neologism, referring to it in the article space might be inappropriate.

I did a google search on "+fancruft -wikipedia", and not many hits come up that don't reference Wikipedia (or a mirror) in some useful context. (The word is being used more and more outside of Wikipedia, but perhaps not enough so that it warrants an article...) --EngineerScotty 02:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced or juvenile?

Discusion to be held here. Should it say "displays a lack of balance" or "looks juvenile to newcomers?". Let's not get into an edit war, please. Deckiller 02:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am temperamentally inclined always to side against someone who tries to get their edit in by revert-warring, but in this instance I think I have to plump for the latter. "displays a lack of balance" simply prompts the question - why should it be balanced? But "it makes us look silly" is fair enough. And that sentence is not trying to state the truth, but to accurately represent one point of view.

I must add that you did the right thing bringing the discussion to here - and emphasize that User:JosephBarillari did the wrong thing in simply re-inserting his edit repeatedly without discussion. — ciphergoth 04:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if people think I hadn't discussed the matter. I justified my changes in the edit summaries. jdb ❋ (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My preference would be for "unbalanced" and "inconsistent (levels of detail and coverage)" with the image we try to project as a competitor with EB et al- juvenile has connotations more along the lines of pages dealing with how totally sweet chicks and breasts are, or how ninjas can totally flip out for no good reason and so ninjas are the most awesome creatures God ever created, so awesome that a ninja once flipped out on God himself... but I digress. The problem is simply one of coverage, with some deprecated areas receiving more attention than others. Let's not engage in name-calling. And I can't say that glibly deprecating the work of thousands of editors is all that good a thing, either.

Besides, describing Wikipedia as hopelessly crufty is not a little insulting to our readers- we wanted an Encyclopedia written by, for, and of its readers, the better to serve them. And may the gods help us, we got it. --maru (talk) contribs 06:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Maru. "Unbalanced" is the, er, more balanced term. — BrianSmithson 12:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote it to avoid the issue entirely. jdb ❋ (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fans of the fancruft

I'd like to add something to the page about sentences (and they are extremely common in WP) that begin "Many fans believe that" or "Popular response to this is" or anything that cites the Internet fan community as an authority without any verification (e.g. The Secret War of Lisa Simpson, Criticism of Halo 2, The Division Bell). The presumption that an online fan community is representative of general opinion is a significant problem with fancruft, and seeing as these types of pop culture articles aren't about to go away it's probably worth pointing out how they could be improved rather than just deleting them when they're particularly peripheral or egregious. Ziggurat 08:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Kill these when you see them. Phil Sandifer 18:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are weasel words, and there's a whole 'nother project page dedicated to them and their removal. And, yes, please slaughter these mercilessly and e-pinch the people who have added them. "Some/Many fans believe" and such are ususally just a way of someone adding their personal opinion to an article, and trying to disguise the fact. --FuriousFreddy 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? That's a HUGE overgeneralization. Huge. To me, the question would be whether (a) what comes after "some fans believe" is really an opinion of some fans (even a definite minority) rather than just the writer, and (b) whether alternative interpretations are also included and given fair treatment. The writer may not know every alternative interpretation that has significant support, but those can simply be added rather than throwing the whole concept out. I can also imagine a case where there are so many interpretations of something that it would take up half the article to list them, but that's the exception and not the rule. KP 00:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree somewhat with KP. For instance, I'm still trying to find time to track down SPECIFIC references for a number of the theories (which I HAVE seen both in online fan communities and occasionally, in academic papers) mentioned regarding what is or is not fan fiction. These theories ARE out there - I just haven't been able to get around to finding non-LiveJournaly sources to show who in the fan community or especially who in the academic community supports each theory. And I'd rather they be there for now (though admittedly, perhaps with a Citation Needed tag here and there) than not be there at all. Articles such as this are in a state of flux, somewhere between "crap" and "decent article"; the point being that as balanced a range of views and facets as possible be shown, but (the mark of a good or great article) be well-written AND well-sourced. People are working on the latter, especially. Runa27 03:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a similar problem with these "weasel words" recently in an article, concerning a bootleg of demos vs. the finished official album (major artist, but won't distract by naming them, it's not important to the point).

I knew for a fact that "some fans" (no idea how many, but more than "hardly any") prefer the rough 'n' ready boot to the officially polished jewel, and felt I had to say so, or I'd be committing a WP:NPOV error. I trust everyone here would agree there.

However, "...some fans..." was the only NPOV construction I could come up with. "Many fans" would've been way OTT and POV - a complete distortion. But "a few fans" would've definitely misrepresented the situation the other way, as if "no one really liked it except a few nutcases" - not true at all, and so more POV and distortion. And using a different word to "fans" woulda just made the NPOV situation worse (I wasn't discussing "record-buying folks in general", as most would be unlikely to have heard the damn boot at all, and I certainly couldn't categorically state what Joe Public thought on the issue anyway).

So, it was a bootleg, and I was definitely talking about "fans", no question - so I used "fans". And the number of "fans", in the interests of NPOV, was "some" - not "none" (a lie), not "most" (distortion, POV), not "a few" (dismissive tone, POV), but "some".

In that particular context, I couldn't get any more "neutral" than "some fans..." - I ain't saying "nearly everyone" and I ain't saying "a few losers" either. I am therefore expressing a NPOV. To say "ah to hell with it, those are weasel words, can the whole discussion" would've been a far worse POV crime (since I knew critical reception of the bootleg was significant to its history) than keeping what I wrote.

And, for the record, I like both the boot and the real album, but would always favour the official one if ever pressed, no question.

So if someone was to announce to me with a deft flourish that my use of "some fans..." proved categorically that I was pushing my own POV, well - that person could not possibly be more wrong! :-)

BTW, I had other verifiable sources to cite who also preferred the boot, so I didn't lose any sleep over my use of "some fans", but I do think it is clear that "weasel words" are sometimes something of a requisite of NPOV writing, not an anathema to it. "Ban them all now!" is a bit simplistic and naive... and maybe a bit POV in itself. IMO, of course... --DaveG12345 05:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Listcruft merged

Listcruft merged per request. Deckiller 03:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The following is the archive of a concluded discussion. Please do not modify it. The result of the discussion was do not merge. Stifle (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am de-merging this again, to allow for proper discussion. The merge request was on the page for less than a day. I think that Listcruft and Fancruft are distinct subjects, and merging them is not appropriate - especially as someone calling up Wikipedia:Listcruft gets diverted to this page, where the information they're actually looking for is more than a full screen down the page. Stifle 20:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose merge. The two are separate and distinct. Just zis Guy you know? 10:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Combining the two seems unhelpful. Nareek 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should not be merged. Listcruft is a different sort of problem. — BrianSmithson 16:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The above is the archive of a concluded discussion. Please do not modify it.

Punk'd

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I'm having some trouble on the Punk'd article. An unregistered user named BigBang19 keeps re-inserting material into the article that is irrelevant, poorly worded, etc. I've tried posting a message on that article's Talk Page, but he has not responded. Because he had no User Page, my message to him was the first one on it. If you could check out the bottommost section on the Talk Page and chime in with your two cents on his revisions, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream 05:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fancruftopia

I can think of about two fictional universes whose characters merit articles on Wikipedia -- the Bible and Greek mythology. Kidding! But only a little.

Video game characters? Characters on sitcoms? Articles on any characters, beyond main articles about works of fiction? I'm agin' all of it, and I'd vote "yes" for a policy that said "Characters (episodes, planetoids, robots, chapters in Atlas Shrugged, and Beanie Babies) live in their respective fictional worlds only, not in Wikipedia."

Everyone should read/see/play with works of fiction, and then, for more insight, information, and total immersion in their fictional worlds, start a discussion group -- maybe with real people together in a room. Or on the Internet. Publish a book. Put up a website. Start a fan club.

Fancruft is spam. How productive would it be to focus our energies on factual, useful encyclopedic content (including works of literature and film, but not down to each horse's name and fictional planet of origin)? This is one of the main things that keeps me from contributing money to the Wiki foundation. There's no way I'm paying for more hard drives to get clogged with characters from WWF Smackdown, aliens appearing on Stargate SG-1, or lists of muggles with funny names.

I think this is an awful way of looking at things. We should retain the encyclopedia model in terms of desired quality and NPOV, but not limit content to that which would be found in an encyclopedia. The basic criterion for deleting a page should be as simple as, "Will a significant number of people want to read it, and if they do will they be informed by it?" For a good article about a major character in a reasonably popular work of fiction, the answers are yes and yes. And actually, if the first part is yes and the second is no, that means the article requires improvements to its quality, but not deletion-- unless the needed improvements are so massive it would be easier to delete it and start over. KP 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said! --maru (talk) contribs 23:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My opinions on "fancruft" are so complex and confusing that I've never really had the time to sit and put it on paper. — Deckiller 23:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Send the entire Star Wars/Pokémon/Simpsons/Potter/Anime/Adult Swim/Soap/Real World/Survivor fancruft universe elsewhere. And I love The Simpsons! And Aqua Teen Hunger Force too. But articles on individual Simpsons episodes, or Billy Witch Doctor, is ridiculous. I liked Star Wars a lot, at least the first one. Having articles on Star Wars characters is absurd. It's all original research, not to mention impossible-by-definition to meet WP:NPOV. ("Some think that Lando was forced to encase Han in carbonite, while others feel he was just being vindictive."). The fact that people feel their lives were changed by a Jedi is a reflection of the human race's lack of compassion and contact with itself, not a basis for another "encyclopedia" article.

People shake their heads when there's a news story about a college somewhere teaching Star Wars as Metaphor, or "Parallels Between Dune and the Balkans Situation." If they knew the number of pages on Wikipedia devoted to this stuff, they might suspect that Wikipedia is a giant compendium of pop-culture masturbation, with a few encyclopedic articles in the sciences and humanities.

Don't get me wrong. I spent a lot of time lately on some fiction-based articles, including Burr and Brokeback Mountain. But I'm not writing separate articles on Ennis Del Mar, Jack Twist, their horses, wives, kids, and the rodeo clown in the bar in scene 16.

I'd pay somebody to fork the whole thing tomorrow, and send Fancruftopia(tm) its separate way.

I'm really not a crabby old college classics professor. I'd rather sound like one, though, than a nincompoop who knows more about the third season of Who's the Boss than he does about global warming or what a molecule is. By not banning fancruft, we feed it, and it metastasizes throughout the body Wiki. DavidH 08:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

ooooh, nothing is complete without an oh-so-tasteful cancer comparison. Really lets us know how carefully you've thought about this whole thing. Look, if you see a specific article that you think exhibits Granularity Out Of Proportion To Influence, then feel free to suggest it be merged or put it up for deletion. But a statement as broad and sweeping as the one you make here comes off as unbelievably arrogant ("Hey, look, guyz! I can effortlessly sum up the importance of all fiction in the last two millenia in a couple of sweeping paragraphs! Ain't I smart?") and puts off people who might have actually sympathized with a desire to rein in the spread of fancruft on a reasonable basis. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to be offensive per se, but I take your point and apologize. I see not a few specific articles but thousands out of proportion. As to unbelievable arrogance, I'll wear that shoe. Mainly I thought the rant could be amusing; I'll try to be reasonable when it comes to actual proposals. The hyperbole shouldn't be taken as bad faith and nothing else. -- DavidH 00:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

AF---interesting point, but it understates the problem. Suggesting that DavidH VFD "a specific article" glosses over the real issue, which isn't the occasional extra article here or there, but great gobs of articles on individual games, TV shows, and movies. Look at Cosmic Era Mobile Units, which lists dozens if not hundreds of individual articles on giant robots from a Japanese cartoon show. It's a waste of time to discuss those one-by-one---they are either all worthy of inclusion, or none of them are. --jdb ❋ (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it they must all be notable or non-notable, period? What about a list of them? --maru (talk) contribs 02:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't honestly imagine that (for example) TS-MA2mod.00_Moebius_Zero could be notable while ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam would not be, or vice versa. As to consolidating all of the articles into a list, well, that's also on the table. But any such consolidation would require deleting material (the individual articles aren't exactly stubs), which brings us back to the question at hand. --jdb ❋ (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting? Why would you need to delete information when merging into a list? In my experience, the only information lost in merging is usually the categories (since a list doesn't usually have a superset of all its element's original categories) and possibly links to the articles. --maru (talk) contribs 06:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In many of the fancruft articles in question, you would and do lose large amounts of information in a merge because making a list by combining articles without trimming them can result in articles with lengths of 30+ pages. Even when an article tree is admittedly fancruft by almost any definition, merging it into a list can be a bad idea because of the massive size of the resulting list article. In some cases, you are left with 3 options: Deleting a group of well written and painstakingly edited but unnecessary articles, leaving them as is, or scraping them down to the absolute bare bones and combining them into a list.

For this reason, I believe that if a subject itself is notable, any well written subarticles should be kept as well. It's true that no one but the fans will probably ever read those articles, but it is similarly true that because of this very fact they do no harm to the wikipedia. We certainly don't NEED an article on every single Naruto (manga) character, but someone took the trouble of writing them, so someone obviously has an interest in the subject. If those articles meet the other quality standards, is there any need to delete them? If only being of interest to a small proportion of the population is sufficient grounds for deletion, then Wikipedia itself is an unnecessary work.--Tjstrf 21:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Waste of time or not, I have one request to people involve in this project. Someone start to put several pages in Cosmic Era Mobile Units on AfD per this project. While I respect your point of view, this person made these nomination seperately, divide in several small groups, daily. Please keep them in single page and wait to see vote result. I can accept whatever result to be, but thislooklike he's just trolling. Plus, most of this person's contribute is AfD nomination (see Special:Contributions&target=Brian+G.+Crawford) with only few article edit. My opinion on subject, while merge closely relate entry (like all Dagger or Astray MS) into single article make sense, merge all of them into single list is unbearable. Some are very different from other and should be keep seperate.L-Zwei 19:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with L-Zwei. I'm a fan of the series in question also. I've got to say that specifically pointing out one universe as cruft gives the series a bad name which is most likely why Mr. Crawford has started on his "cruftsade" on Gundam, which is by the way not a show with samurai robots with colored car fenders, and wouln't stop until someone makes him. Rappapa 7:16 PM, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"I can't tell you what fancruft is, but I know it when I see it" -Drdisque 06:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

One problem I have with getting rid of Fancruft is that if you're at all interested in anything that is related to the topic of the cruft, reading it can be very entertaining and informative (even if the information isn't very useful). I don't consider myself to be a big Star Wars fan but I sat down and read the entire article on all the forms of Lightsaber combat, who uses them, how they work, etc etc. For a person with a couple hours to burn and a laptop and wireless connection, finding a low-bandwidth, free site like Wikipedia with large amounts of information about a wide range of scientific, literary, cultural, biographical and theoretical topics can be highly entertaining and satisfying. Problem is, what you consider to be interesting obviously ranges from one person to the next. I could care less about pretty much anything related to dance or football, for example. Is my interest or lack thereof any more or less important than somebody else's? Somebody above said that your opinion, online polls, etc etc, aren't reliable sources to use. So until someone can do a massive survey without the aid of the internet to prove a topic isn't interesting or relevant, you don't know what the general population thinks about it. I propose keeping Fancruft on Wikipedia if only because it can be very entertaining, and Wikipedia being what it is, chances are high that it will be thorough and reviewed by at least several people. It also allows for a look at what from that fancruft is real (especially for science fiction), all from within the comfortable and nicely styled walls of Wikipedia. --Twile 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture"

A phenomenon that upsets me is the way that an otherwise excellent article can be cruftified by the inclusion of an In Popular Culture (or similar) section. Suddenly every film, TV show or videogame which makes reference to the subject of the article gets listed. See troll, giant panda and many others. Keeping the cruft down in these articles becomes a major task, and one risks upsetting people when drawing the line between notable examples and cruft.

In such sections, I think it is best to document general trends rather than specific cases, and having a policy of only one example per trend. That is what I am trying to do in the Undead article, which has attracted a lot of fancruft in its time. BreathingMeat 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples

The article currently contrasts 87 articles on Gundams with "a single article on Moby-Dick." This is now an unfortunate comparison, as Wikipedia has articles on Moby Dick, Queequeg, Ishmael (Moby-Dick), and the Pequod (Moby-Dick). I suspect keeping a permanent example there may be impossible, since well-meaning contributors will fix the lack of articles we implicitly criticize. Nonetheless, I suggest we change the example to one that is true. A few minutes of thinking and checking lead me to suggest Paradise Lost might be a good example. I'm going to be bold and make the change now, but it's rather arbitrary and I'm not at all attached to it. ^L_Wizard @ 07:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Argument for the sake of argument

I propose that Wikipedia: Fancruft is a fancruft page for Wikipedia. Jtrainor 13:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You are hereby blocked for self-reference. You must not climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to protest your block. Just zis Guy you know? 13:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wha? Jtrainor 13:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think he's joking around with you. I am quite frankly amazed that we actually have an essay/joke page called that though. --tjstrf 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft = Deletion

If an article has "Fancruft" you delete it... So you remove all the information regarding to that article because you as an admin don't understand? An encyclopedia is for collection of information. Okay I get that you want the information to be as clear as possible, but by deleting it you get rid of the information and Oh get people pis*ed of so they never return to wikipedia and thus never re-contibute viable information. Good Policy. I Have been donating a lot of Hours to Kiddy Grade and all its sub-articles. SO many pages have been deleted, and the only thing that I have done is move information around, I haven't changed ANYTHING (apart from the fact its in a different place and that I have added pics and infoboxs). I didn't type anything and all the effort I have made into using the cumbersome wikiscript to get these boxs to work nicely and to get the pictures up so they arnt "Illegal" and then to just see whole articles up for deletion because someone cant understand what it says. Maybe if people stopped sticking their noses everywhere and gave me (AS THE ONLY PERSON bothering with this article) time to improve it, which is exactly what I am trying to do, then I will. All the admins patrolling around the article and telling me it needs improving is so F****************** annoying.

This "Fancruft" this is a way of improving articles, and as a principle that is fine. But I am doing that already, and its annoying, and if I delete the fancruft notice, as it gets in the way and doesn't let me see what the article will look like, the article is deleted.

User:Geni and User:Stifle are those doing this.

--Crampy20 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here here. I too have spent a lot of time on articles only to see them nominated to be deleted, with half of the votes being "Delete as Fancruft" and similar crap. People need to understand that just because they think something in Fancruft doesn't mean it should be deleted. Even if it is in fact Fancruft, this is not a guideline or a policy, it's a heavily opinionated essay. "Delete as Fancruft" is just as valid of a vote as "Delete as boring" in that neither of them are policies and both of them are subjective. The thing that makes me really sick is to see all the people who seem to delight in removing Fancruft, especially game stuff. They feel they're doing Wikipedia a great service, and make it into a fun little game, congratulating each other on deleting pages which took hours and hours to write. This has got to stop. --Twile 16:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

These are all pages legible for fancruft or deletion or merging, or listation simple because well, policy.................. Abra Absol Aerodactyl Aggron Aipom Alakazam Altaria Amaldo Ampharos Anorith Arbok Arcanine Ariados Aron icuno Azumarill Azurill Bagon Baltoy Banette Barboach Bayleef Beautifly Beedrill Beldum Bellossom Bellsprout Blastoise Blaziken Blissey Breloom Bulbasaur Butterfree Cacnea Cacturne Camerupt Carvanha Cascoon Castform Caterpie Celebi Chansey Charizard Charmander Charmeleon Chikorita Chimecho Chinchou Clamperl Claydol Clefable Clefairy Cleffa Cloyster Combusken Corphish Corsola Cradily Crawdaunt Crobat Croconaw Cubone Cyndaquil Delcatty Delibird Deoxys Dewgong Diglett Ditto Dodrio Doduo Donaphan air ite Dratini Drowzee Dugtrio Dunsparce Dusclops Duskull Dustox Eevee Ekans Electabuzz Electrike Electrode Elekid Entei Espeon Exeggcute Exeggutor Exploud Farfetch'd Fearow Feebas Feraligatr Flaaffy Flareon Flygon Foretress Furret Gardevoir Gastly Gengar Geodude Girafarig Glalie Gligar Gloom Golbat Goldeen Golduck Golem Gorebyss Granbull Graveler Grimer on Grovyle Growlithe Grumpig Gulpin Gyarados Hariyama Haunter Heracross Hitmonchan Hitmonlee Hitmontop HoOh HootHoot Hoppip Horsea Houndoom Houndour Huntail Hypno Igglybuff Illumise Ivysaur Jigglypuff Jirachi Jolteon Jumpluff Jynx Kabuto Kabutops Kadabra Kakuna Kangaskhan Kecleon Kingdra Kingler Kirlia Koffing Krabby Kyogre Lairon Lanturn Lapras Larvitar Latias Latios Ledian Ledyba Lickitung Lileep Linoone Lombre Lotad Loudred Ludicolo Lugia Lunatone Luvdisc Machamp Machoke Machop Magby Magcargo Magikarp Magmar Magnemite Magneton Makuhita Manectric Mankey Mantine Mareep Marill Marowak Marshtomp Masquerain Mawile Medicham Meditite Meganium Meowth Metagross Metang Metapod Mew Mewtwo Mightyena Milotic Miltank Minun Misdreavus Moltres MrMime Mudkip Muk Murkrow Natu Nidoking Nidoqueen NidoranFemale NidoranMale Nidorina Nidorino Nincada Ninetales Ninjask Noctowl Nosepass Numel Nuzleaf Octillery Oddish Omanyte Omastar Onix Paras Parasect Pelipper Persian Phanpy Pidgeot Pidgeotto Pidgey Pikachu Piloswine Pineco Pinsir Plusle Politoed Poliwag Poliwhirl Poliwrath Ponyta Poochyena Porygon Primeape Psyduck Pupitar Quagsire Quilava Quilfish Raichu Raikou Ralts Rapidash Raticate Rattata Rayquaza Regi Relicanth Remoraid Rhydon Rhyhorn Roselia Salamence Sandshrew Sandslash Sapleye Sceptile Schuckle Scizor Scyther Seadra Seaking Sealeo Seedot Seel Sellow Sentret Seviper Sharpedo Shedinja Shelgon Shellder Shiftry Shroomish Shuppet Silcoon Skarmony Skiploom Skitty Slaking Slakoth Slowbro Slowking Slowpoke Slugma Smeargle Smoochum Sneazle Snorlax Snorunt Snubbull Sol Spearow Spheal Spinarak Spinda Spoink Squirtle Stantler Starmie Staryu Sudowoodo Suicune Sunflora Sunkern Surskit Swablu Swalot Swampert Swinub Taillow Tangela Tauros Teddiursa Tentacool Tentacruel Togepi Togetic Torchic Torkoal Totodile Trapinch Treecko Tropius Typhlosion Tyranitar Tyrogue Umbreon Unown Ursaring Vaporeon Venomoth Venonat Venusaur Vibrava Victreebel Vigoroth Vileplume Volbeat Voltorb Vulpix Wailmer Wailord Walrein Wortle Weedle Weepinbell Weezing Whiscash Whismur Wigglytuff Wingull Woobuffet Wooper Wurmple Wynaut Xatu Yanma Zangoose Zapdos Zigzagoon Zubat Bardock Panbukin Seripa Toma Totapo Broly Bio-Broly KingVegeta Nappa Paragus Raditz SonGokū Tullece Vegeta Saegi Kollifum Bra FutureTrunks Pan SonGohan SonGokūJr Trunks VegetaJr Fusions Gogeta Gotenks Vegetto Gotan Onio Honey ZFighters Kuririn Yamcha MutenRōshi(Kame-Sen'nin) Tenshinhan Chaozu Uub Supporters Bora Bulma Bulma'sMother Chi-Chi DrBrief GrandpaSonGohan Gyū-Maō Lunch Marron MrSatan Sno Upa UranaiBaba Videl Yajirobe RedRibbonArmy ColonelViolet CommanderRed ColonelSilver GeneralBlue GeneralWhite Hasuki LieutenantCaptainDark SergeantPurple AdjutantBlack OtherVillains Taopaipai Mai Musuka Bongo Pasta JagaBada DrKori Tsuru-Sen'nin KingGurumes Minor Angela Chico Chyao Ebichiyu Fan-Fuan Ginger GrandmaHakkake Karoni KidKatsu KingKuruesu Lime Lime'sCaretaker Maron Minto MousseFamily PricessMiisa Pigero Piroshiki Pizza Paoru QueenHi Romu SuperOne Tanmen Yuzukā Paris Coco GyosanMoney NatadeShaman Olive GinkakuandKinkaku Puck AerobicsWoman AkiraToriyama Doctor&Nurse Erasa Farmer Banzan Smitty IdasaandIkose'sMother JingleVillageChief KenpauKa Mutaito Sharpner Shen Yamhan ZTVAnnouncer HumansFromtheTenka-ichiBudōkai Announcer Bacterian CaptainChicken Idasa Ikose Jewel JackieChun Killa KingChapa Kirano MightyMask WildTiger Namu Noku OtokoSuki Pintar Panpoot Ranfan Umigame Oolong Pu'ar Karin Shū CaptainYellow Alligator Dinosaur Gregory HaiyaaDragon HikuiBird Inoshikachyou Jinku Yoodon Konkichi PteranodonFamily Bee BearThief CarrotMaster Bubbles BabyGamera KingoftheWorld Blackcat Iruka(Dolphin) NekoMajinZ Giran Chairman Man-Wolf SaberTiger BigFish Freeza KingCold Coola Kurīza Tophenchmen Kewi Dodoria Zarbon Soldiers Appule Orin BlueberryandRaspberry Dodoria'sElite Gi'nyuSpecialCorps Non-combatants Malaka Planthorr Coola'sArmoredSquadron Dore Neizu Sauza Miscellaneous Cell PiccoloDaimao PiccoloDaimaoRelatedCharacters Cymbal Drum Piano Tambourine Kami-sama PiccoloMaJunior NamekiansencounteredonNamek Cargo Dende Saichourou Moori Nail LordSlug Jinzō'ningen#(ArtificialHuman#) Jinzō'ningen#(Android#) SuperJinzō'ningen#(SuperAndroid#) Jinzō'ningen#(Android#) Jinzō'ningen#(Android#) Jinzō'ningen#(Android#) Jinzō'ningen#(Cyborg#) SuperJinzō'ningen#(ArtificialHuman#) Jinzō'ningen#(Cyborg#) Jinzō'ningen#(Android#) Jinzō'ningen#(Cyborg#) Cell CellJr OtherJinzō'ningen DrUiro(DrWheelo) DrUiro'sTeam BioMen DrKochin Ebifuriya Kishime Misokatsun OtherJinzō'ningen Giru BioWarriors Metallic MonsterBuyon KaizokuRobo Babidi Bibidi Buu Dabura MajinGrunts PuiPui Spopovich Vegeta Yakon Yamu Kami Dende MrPopo EmmaDaiō GozandMez Annin TheKaiōandKaiōshin DaiKaiō EastKaiō NorthKaiō SouthKaiō WestKaiō DaiKaiōshin EastKaiōshin NorthKaiōshin SouthKaiōshin WestKaiōshin RouDaiKaiōshin Kibito Kibitoshin AkaneKimidori AoiKimidori AraleNorimaki DaigorouKurigashira MeganeButa GajiraNorimaki(Gatchan) HighKingNiko-Chan KinoniSarada KurikintonSoramame MidoriNorimaki OboChyaman Pagosu PisukeSoramame SenbeNorimaki Suppaman TarouSoramame TsukutsunTsun TsurutenTsun TsururinTsun TurboNorimaki MiscAliens Aruhua-jins Atla Bun Emi GhostUsher Esau KingMoai Lemlia Ozotto Pilaf PrincessSnake Saibaimen Shula Tsufuru-jin Urdo Yardrat Yeni ZacroandRaiti Zeshin AliensfromtheAno-Yo-IchiBudōkai AlienAnnouncer Arqua Caterpy Chapuchai Froug Maraikoh Midoren Paikuhan Stote Tapkar Torbi AliensfromtheGrandTour Bebi DrMyū CardinalMutchyMutchy Mutchy Dolltaki Doma DonKee Gale Ledgic Lenne Lood Mamba EC Natto Para-ParaBrothers Shusugoro Sugoro Zuunama AliensfromMovies DrRaichi GarlicJr Garlic GarlicJr'sTeam Ginger Mustard Nicky Salt Sansho Cashew Vinegar Gasuteru Hatchyak Bojack Bojack'sTeam Bido Bujin Kogu Zangya Janemba Lucifer Igor Hiredugarn Shamosei-jins Tapion Minoshiya Tullece'sTeam Amond Cacao Daīzu RakaseiandRezun LordSlug'sTeam Angira Wings Gyosh Medamotcha Zeeun UranaiBaba'sFighters Akuman DraculaMan InvisibleMan Myra Necromantic_bells Nine_Bright_Shiners Disreputable_Dog Mogget Orannis Tokimi Tennyo_Masaki Airi_Masaki Rea_Masaki Azusa_Jurai Funaho_Jurai Misaki_Jurai Minami_Kuramitsu Z_%Tenchi_Muyo%% Nagi Mayuka Minagi Sabato_%Tenchi_Muyo%% Jaken Ah-Un Goshinki Juromaru Kageromaru Entei_%InuYasha% Myoga_%InuYasha% Tatarimokke Midoriko Kaijinbo Gatenmaru Gakusanjin Goryomaru Shiori_%Inuyasha% Taigokumaru Bokusen%on Setsuna_no_Takemaru Menomaru

Its annoying to have people fiddling with articles. --Crampy20 16:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)