Template talk:NoMoreCruft

Cruft

Isn't Cruft considered kind of negative. I think its weird that only a relatively small part of Wikipedia has their own tag that I think will come off as an attack and whose existence seems to be geared towards elevating one group (registered) over another (unregistered) and inferring that one form of media (games) is inferior to other forms of media(movies).

"Cruft" is the word used on WP for trvial items such as fancruft, which can include filmcruft, TVcruft, and gamecruft. Adding appearnces of aircraft in games, movies, TV, and even books it relatively easy, and almost everyone knows of an appearance or mention somewhere. It's a;so alot easier to do than to find sourced information, write it in an encyclopedic style, and fit it into to the appropriate place in an article. Before long, the articles contain huge lists of minor and non-notable appearances and mentions, almost all of which are considered unencyclopedic, and almost all of which have been added by IPs. Unforutately, most game usage is always minor, so that's why you think there is a bias against games. Rather, the bias is against anything that is unsourced, and is not a major or significant appearance. "Pop culture" is probably misnamed under such restrictions, but that's the title that has come to be used. others have been tried, such as "Notable media apearances", but they didn't catch on. - BillCJ (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that something needs to be done about this and moved the conversation of to the Air discussion page, my anti-game part was somewhat reference to the AC-130 talk where a Transformers movie reference kept on getting protected while a Call of Duty 4 one kept getting deleted and "No Game Cruft" was added to the actual page.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)