User:A Man In Black: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Protected User:A Man In Black: Please don't touch my userpage. This includes the categories; leave them even if they're redlinks. [edit=sysop:move=sysop] |
heh |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Sometimes, it's easy to get lost in "notability" and "appropriateness" and the sort of Wikispeak and stilted politeness, and lose track of why we're here: to make an encyclopedia that doesn't suck. |
Sometimes, it's easy to get lost in "notability" and "appropriateness" and the sort of Wikispeak and stilted politeness, and lose track of why we're here: to make an encyclopedia that doesn't suck. |
||
On [[WP:CRUFT|cruft]]: When referring to unreferenced plot detail, made up nonsense, fanon, speculation, and the like, make sure you call it crap. This is much clearer, without the emotional baggage of the word "cruft". |
|||
[[Category:WikiProject Video games members|A Man In Black]] |
[[Category:WikiProject Video games members|A Man In Black]] |
||
Revision as of 18:50, 27 June 2008
 | A Man In Black is taking an on-and-off wikibreak and will be back and gone at his whim. |
An Encyclopedia has a certain character to it that involves not just accuracy but a personal level of eloquence or balance. Subjects are supposed to be covered in proportion to their significance; those values of accuracy don't seem obvious to people, but they sense when it's not there.
Sometimes, it's easy to get lost in "notability" and "appropriateness" and the sort of Wikispeak and stilted politeness, and lose track of why we're here: to make an encyclopedia that doesn't suck.
On cruft: When referring to unreferenced plot detail, made up nonsense, fanon, speculation, and the like, make sure you call it crap. This is much clearer, without the emotional baggage of the word "cruft".