Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 02:03, 26 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (14x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was close/delete. Yes, I did participate briefly in this discussion, but a close is several days overdue and I sincerely doubt any administrator would close this differently. If tagging as {{rejected}} is preferred over deletion, let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft

[edit]

This two-member project seems to exist entirely to attack other projects' articles (it aims to trim "most, if not all, Doctor Who articles" - though many Who articles are good and/or featured); its template {{WIKICRUFTWARN}} has been unilaterally placed on numerous project talkpages and is currently up for deletion - also see my reasoning there —TreasuryTag—t | c 11:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per AN discussion. Agathoclea (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete potentially divisive and not doing something that shouldn't be done anyways. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per AN and above. seicer | talk | contribs 11:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at least form some other group of editors who want to cut uncyclopedic content out of articles. Instead of nominating this for deletion and criticising its flaws, You could instead try to help it along. As for some of the comments above, the project: This two member project does not aim to attack other projects articles. In fact, I created it to Assist other project' articles. See Assume good faith. Yes, actually, Template:WIKICRUFTWARN is rather "iffy", obviously my attempts to create a template to notify members of WikiProject that some of their articles are falling behind went awry. "Most, if not all (insert name of fiction here) articles"- Oh, I am so sorry. I'll revise that. What I am trying to say is that long plot summaries, fancruft, in-universe writing and articles about non-notable subjects are something that distresses about Wikipedia. Take a good look at Prehistoric Park, And other pages that have been forked off from it. I am just trying to help. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 11:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No offence T.Neo, but as above, an organised group to remove fancruft is not needed. Where seen in articles, it should be removed, or a discussion raised on the talk page. This seems potentially divisive and WP:CREEPy. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 12:05, May 26, 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per AN discussion. King iMatthew 2008 12:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am yet to see a reason why a co-ordinated effort to trim OR, rewrite articles that are in-universe and edit lengthy plot summaries is in any way unencyclopaedic or harmful. If it "should be done anyways", why not co-ordinate it? I'm not sure that that's an argument. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is different from all other Wikiprojects how? :) --Relata refero (disp.) 13:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • indeed. Distinguish between the potential merit of a project, and the way it is being carried atm. Also, don't create a Wikiproject for everything. Just because you're going to focus on some topic doesn't mean you need to tell the world by investing effort in building a "project", just do it. I guess I am for merging most inactive and/or ill-advised Wikiprojects until we get some structure that actually makes sense in terms of benefit for Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 13:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- if it does, then why not edit it so that it isnt? T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 12:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So the goal of this project is to be some sort of faux wiki-police? Exterminate! Matthew (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I have edited the page to make it less unilateral, less incivil and less OWNy. Plus, I am not creating a "wikipolice". My argument is backed up by User:Relata refero. Of course, WikiProject Fancruft is probably going to be deleted anyway. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 12:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and rethink this from the ground up. If the project page I just looked at is the "improved" version, I'm glad I didn't look through the edit history. Yes, marginal content is a definite issue in WP, but firstly it's not restricted by topic (I look at the ten of thousands of shoddily bot-created article on asteroids free of any evident notability or indeed useful data -- to say nothing of the minefield that is biographies), so "fancruft" is not a useful scoping characterisation, secondly even if it were, it's a monumentally uncivil one, that by "declaring hostilities" rather than doing anything constructive, is much more likely to produce wikidrama and inevitable backlash than the supposed object of reducing said content. Alai (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see this has now been cleaned up. If it were now renamed to, say, Wikiproject:ArticleCleanup I'd have no objections. Black Kite 13:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - TNeo's attitude hasn't been exemplary (take a look at his post/s on my talkpage, including my page history) and I don't think he ought to be running such a revamped project! —TreasuryTag—t | c 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The beauty of Wikiprojects is that they don't generally require anyone to "run" them, just a number of people to participate in them. (OK, there are some exceptions to this, but generally participants with Fancy Titles(TM) are either the product of an actual emergent need for some sort of organisation given, for example, the sheer size of scope of a project (or admittedly occasionally mere peacockery).) Alai (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary section break 1
[edit]
  • Comment- So what about something like a "WikiProject uncyclopedic content" that patrols articles and deals with... uncyclopedic content. Or, at least some form of user coordination against "uncyclopedic content". T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 13:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary per Black Kite; also seems to me to be unnecessarily POINTy (note that when the "many, if not all" areas-in-need were removed, it happened while adding "see also" links to "(insert fiction topic) articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction" categories, all of which are hidden categories), and something that anyone following the whole TTN/Episodes and Characters mess could easily see would be explosively divisive. If you wanna set up a way to organize improving episode and character articles to better meet Wiki standards, do so through the existing applicable WikiProjects. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean to imply it was; I just feel that we'd be better served in cleanup duties by working on setting up cleanup taskforces within the existing WikiProjects than creating an entirely new WikiProject that is likely to get a lot of people feeling like SPAs are stepping on their toes in steel boots. Note: I don't mean to imply that T.Neo is an SPA, just that the perception among the members of the other projects might be that people from an outside project coming in and cleaning up their articles without discussion on the project page are deletionist SPAs, and the last thing we need is more cleanup-induced anger. It may be a pain in the butt, but I feel that cleanup is much better handled organically through the WikiProjects that already cover the majority of articles, since it gets a larger consensus as to what needs to be done for cleanup.
  • I see no reason why not, I keep Who articles free of fancruft, and anyway - I have no desire to. —TreasuryTag—t | c 13:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, If there are people like you getting rid of Fancruft on articles, then there shouldn't be a need for any such WikiProject. I don't see why one person would be running a WikiProject, WP:OWN, and, yes, I was basically the only person giving attention to WikiProject Fancruft, but: a. I was getting it off the ground and b. It was basically inactive. Putting templates on Wikiproject talk pages is not productive. I get it. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 13:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If there are people like you getting rid of Fancruft on articles, then there shouldn't be a need for any such WikiProject." No, because there's always more work to do. Review my contribs and see if I get rid of fancruft or not. —TreasuryTag—t | c 13:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was aimed at my comment, note that I specifically said that you were NOT an SPA, T.Neo, but that this project might be mistakenly perceived as being made up of deletionist SPAs, resulting in more gnashing of teeth and fighting than the issue already has. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're commenting on a "comment above", please thread said meta-comment accordingly. Having what-ought-to-be threaded discussion randomly rapidly restart to top-level boldface "comments" is not conductive to orderly conduct of same. Alai (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost. Also, place your comment immediately after the most recent comment in that particular discussion thread, rather than always placing it at the bottom of the page, so that it's easier to keep track of what's replying to what. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename Things haven't got off on the best of feet, and there did seem to be an attampt to wind people up, but:
  1. The project is new, therefore it is too early to claim that it will only have two members.
  2. Most projects are doing things that should be done anyway; this isn't a reason to scrap a project that focusses on one problem
  3. With User:Black Kite's prompting, the project page has now reached a version that is perfectly acceptable.
  4. WikiProjects are not "run" by individuals but are collective to whoever wishes to participate.
  5. There is an awful lot of fancruft. This isn't entirely in core project articles and is indeed more problematic when not. Derek Jacobi, for example, last year had an outbreak of people trying to make out that his appearance in one episode of a long-running series was a central feature of his career that merited a copyright violating screen image being used. Any number of articles get cluttered by trivia indicating that their subject got mentioned in umpteen songs, video games, comics, films and TV series. Having a project dedicated to chasing stuff up would be useful.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I don't think the present title (and hence scope) is remotely acceptable, thus not only is the present version "perfectly" so, I'm fairly sure that no future version will be either, at least short of a rename (and accordingly, rescope). There's simply far too much generic-term-of-abuse baggage attached to "fancruft" for it to be an at all sensible means of scoping problems, much less solutions. Alai (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is why I suggested renaming the project "WikiProject Uncyclopedic content". the one could split it up into subpages: WikiProject Uncyclopedic content/notability, WikiProject Uncyclopedic content/fiction and so on. I do not see a problem with the current version of the project page, However I am instructed not to move it by the Mfd template, and I would not move it without a consensus. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 14:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a step in the right direction (well, other than for good spelling...), but I'd rather see each of those issues addressed entirely separately. As currently scoped, it seeks to identify what it sees as an "editor syndrome", rather than a clearly-definable and cleanup-able issue as it exists in the article space, with reference to our standards. It's possible (with a fair wind) to have a sensible discussion about whether the topic of an article is sufficiently notable, whether it be a minor Doctor Who character, or an (even more) minor asteroid. It's not possible to have that if it's framed as "you guys are writing fancruft, and need to stop that". So why lump notability in with other issues that have little to with notability, whilst splitting up into notability issues you will addresses, vs. ones you won't? Alai (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary section break 2
[edit]
  • Deletion without thought about preservation destroys content that is found useful by people. Furthermore, area-targeted deletion necessarily engenders ill will. No project is necessary to coordinate this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A focused effort on the problem can only be of benefit to Wikipedia. We all acknowledge the problem of fancruft, and we should all acknowledge that there are Wikiprojects that take care of their own problem with cruft and trivia growth, and projects that don't. All too often, the projects that don't wind up being confronted by a single, unsupported editor that, despite the fact that he is backed by policy and reason, is overwhelmed by the attack of the fans. That editor needs a place to go to notify other interested parties that he has located a problem and to focus attention on it. I won't comment on the particular merits of this group of editors, but I find the idea the the very concept of the project is somehow damaging to be ludicrous.Kww (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sjakkalle's comment, this wikiproject is promoting an agenda about what content articles should have in general, and it's not trying to improve a particular topic. Also, divisive project, and people running it are too unexperienced to run a successful wikiproject and make mistakes like placing a wikiproject talk page under their own wikiproject [1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OR, maybe not, but the other two, yes. Sceptre (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot summary. It is supposed to be a summary of the plot. Too many articles reiterate the plot. That is why such a WikiProject is needed. So that people can come to a consensus on weather something is appropriate or not. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 15:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For my money OR is too, since when "necessary summarising" edges into "impermissible synthesis" can be -- and is -- debated endlessly. But more to the point, terms like "fan" and "cruft" imply a whole further layer of subjectivity, as they signal that certain topics will be subject to such scrutiny, while others will not. (Certain topics may in practice require it more than others, but to start off by framing it in those terms is inherently divisive, and argues implicitly from guilt-by-association. Or indeed, innocence-by-inheritance.) Alai (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary section break 3
[edit]
  • Comment- Apart from the name, the project has been rewritten, the template has been removed from all pages it was on (I voted for it to be deleted). Now, also, I have removed the unilateral claims of "areas needing attention". Overall, The Wikiproject is no longer there to "attack other projects articles". The question of it being deleted is not really relevant to the reason that TreasuryTag provided. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 16:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and reconsider how to do this with the scope of the many existing wikiprojects. fragmentation of cleanup projects is confusing--and much less productive than actually working on cleanup. DGG (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - divisive; not a neutral vehicle for article improvement but a vehicle for advancing a contested agenda. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikipedia:Wikiproject Cleanup. Of course, |I wouldn't initiate such a project without the consent of other wikipedians. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 19:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - far too divisive for a project. Mr.Z-man 20:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hate to pile on, but like so many others have said, way too derisive and mean-spirited.--Bedford Pray 22:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this project is disruptive and encourages editorial conflict. John254 02:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A hack-and-slash mentality harms Wikipedia. As an example, the other day someone removed a paragraph from the introduction to an article about a TV character.[2] Sounds crufty, right? Actually the page was a GA and the cited paragraph was describing how the executive producer of an Emmy award winning series had used a historic figure from the Watergate scandal as the inspiration for the character. Lopping off half the introduction would have endangered the article's GA status (discussion here). This is the kind of damage that happens when overzealous volunteers apply pejorative labels such as cruft or spoilers without adequate understanding of the underlying material. DurovaCharge! 08:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As one who plays a major role in the 24 Wikiproject, my opinion here is well, slightly biased. However, I feel that there are other venues for this sort of thing, such as cleanup categories, eg Category:WikiProject 24 articles mainly consisting of plot information for this sort of work, and that these efforts need to be worked on from within the Wikiprojects that the concerned articles relate to, and not from a seperate project which may have little knowledge of the certain subject. That's what discussion pages are for, and it's what cleanup categories are for. I personally feel that this wikiproject could disrupt the processes of how the Wikiprojects with the articles concerned, actually function. I know from past history how difficult it is to deal with editors who have a vendetta against a certain topic. A Wikiproject facilitating this, is just a poor idea. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 09:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See WP:SNOWBALL. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 11:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as perhaps well-intentioned, but unnecessarily divisive. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is a bad idea. Try to create your articles, not to destroy other people's articles. I've done a lot of deletion work, so I shouldn't be hypocritical, but focusing on one set of articles as "fancruft" while ignoring other sets of articles, as is very likely to happen, will increase friction in the community, and the benefit does not justify the potential cost. By all means remove fancruft when you see it, but don't make it an organized effort to clean house. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do hope this was started with the best of intentions, but I imagine it would likely become rather divisive (it seems to presume some sort of hierarchy structure among projects, too, placing itself in an implied position of authority -- not sure if that's intended, either). Might be better to work within existing wikiprojects, either by subject area or trying to negotiate a position with some copyediting group. The concerns brought up here are quite important and fundamental, but I can also see some value in providing a central location for developing some standards and communication regarding this topic. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This project's attack on the Doctor Who project was rather offensive, so I propose that the culprits who formed this project write an FA like Sceptre has a few times. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ITSCRUFT, Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, and [3]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary section break 4
[edit]
  • Delete Who appointed them the cruft police? I can see the members of this project unilaterally deleting what ever they don't like without any discussion on the talk page and when questioned they'll just point to the project and hide behind it. Seems WP:Bitey WP:Owney and even a little bit WP:Pointy since instead of working within the already established guidelines of talking it over on the article's page, they've decided to start a project and slap templates on anything they decide is "cruft". Oh, and BTW? from WP:CRUFT? "While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgment of importance of the topic is inhibited by their fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith." So calling it cruft is patently uncivil. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A project that is not only redundant but inherently disruptive, with much capability for misuse and abuse. Daniel Case (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fancruft&oldid=1146633989"