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]

  • 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 - 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]
  • 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]
  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]
  • 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]
  • Look at the articles in Category:Prehistoric park. This is what I am talking about. There needs to be a means for users to cooperate against stuff like this. Plus, one time my edits were reverted, The reverter wrote in his edit summary "Reverted info seems good to me". No Contest. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 15:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, true, but I am also rather neutral right now about weather it gets deleted or not. I am already considering proposing a Wikipedia:Wikiproject Cleanup, If other users would like to cooperate. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 18:24, 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]
arbitrary section break 4
[edit]


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.
More