Talk:Wall E. Weasel

from VfD:

It pains me to say it: Simpsons fancruft. How I wish there was a Simpsons wiki... &mdash;tregoweth 02:42, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) Everyking 06:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete . Merge with the episode it appeared in.  Fancruft.  (My moody, cynical side says that if there was a Simpsons wiki, people would just copy articles from that wiki to here.)   -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Perhaps a curt note to the contributors of these? One-off joke. Geogre 05:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to episode title and keep content there. Look at the pictures! This is all outstanding content. Rather than a curt note, the contributors deserve to be congratulated.
 * Keep it, there is a reference to Wall E. Weasel under the Chuck E. Cheese page. That's why this page was created. It's a short page anyway, people might be searching for it. -- this vote by User:Walleweasel
 * This is definitely a great effort on your part. However, we try to discourage this level of granularity about television series. Best of luck, I can tell you'll be a fine Wikipedian. Delete. Ian Pugh 08:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe you try to discourage that, don't speak for the rest of us. Everyking 16:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * My apologies, that was presumptuous of me. Some try to discourage it, others don't have a problem with it. Controversial subject. Ian Pugh 17:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete fancruft. Gazpacho 13:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete fancruft. --Improv 15:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow. Exciting. That is so much information. Delete. Bart133 16:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep/Move/redirect to Radio Bart, or maybe Radio Bart (simpson's epesode) or whatever the canon requiresalong with everything else from that episode, if the Radio Bart article is not created before the end of voting, Merge/redirect with The Simpson's article.  Break it out of that article if content becomes unwieldy there.  Wall E. Weasel crammed fun down our throat in only one episode if I am not mistaken.  ("cheesiest episode ever") explain "fancruft" again?  Wasn't the USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the world's first nuclear powered submarine named after a wee bit o' fancruft itself?Pedant 16:41, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
 * ok, I just got a note back from the Naval museum in groton, and apparently, no, Nautilus was not named after capt nemo's sub... see Ships named Nautilus but still, I think fancruft of some kinds is likely to last a while.  How long has bart been in elementary school? longer than there have been webpages, I think.  I think its timelss enough to merit preservation.Pedant 06:05, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
 * Fancruft simply means that it's a level of detail which is not merited for a general-interest encyclopedia. Just when details cross over from "of interest to fans" to "of general interest" is, of course, highly subjective, which is one of the reasons we discuss them in VfDs.  I'd suggest, respectfully, that your example is sort of off the point; even if 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea was not one of the most significant science fiction novels of all time (I think 134 years is enough time to make that judgement) and thus worthy of more detail, it wouldn't prevent anyone else, like the US Navy, paying tribute to it.  But it wouldn't really change the question of how much detail a TV show/novel/film needs in a general-interest encyclopedia.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * As it stands, I've been trying to remove unnecessary references to The Simpsons in multiple articles. I can understand some occurrences of this, where the reference is notable in its own right or was the cause for something to happen outside of its sphere of influence (Tomacco remains on my "weak keep" list because the reference spilled over into a notable real life occurrence), there's also been a proliferation of non-notable one-off refs all over the site. Sample quote, removed from Emu: "In an episode of the television series The Simpsons, Marge suggests to Homer that he could raise emus." Unnecessary and damaging. Ian Pugh 19:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Move/redirect to Radio Bart &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  18:23, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with Siroxo. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:49, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Move/merge/redirect Radio Bart. Content has already been created - so while we may prefer contributors to work on other areas, we should keep this now. zoney &#09827; talk 11:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is more inclusive than a "general encyclopedia". I view it as like a general encyclopedia and all specific encyclopedia's combined, with no storage limitations beyond namespace problems.  At any rate, move this to the title of the episode.  --L33tminion | (talk) 05:24, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * If we absolutely have to have an individual article on every episode of every show ever aired (some hundreds of thousands of articles), then merge this in with the inevitable episode article that this pertains to. But we'd be better off just deleting it, or maybe giving it a one-line mention in one of those Simpons articles that deals with Simpons trivial facts. So if someone writes an article on Radio Bart or whatever, I will not physically prevent them (much as i might like to), and they can mention Wall E. Weasel there. But unless someone does, just delete this. -R. fiend 05:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, The Simpsons is a particularly notable show, don't think? I mean, if millions of people watch something, isn't it inherently notable? How could it not be? I wouldn't want to prevent anybody from writing an article on "Radio Bart"; I think we'd be better off to have one. I'd like to see it on the main page as a featured article of the day. We would be the first and the last resource, wouldn't we? By the way, does anyone else agree with me that those are some really good pictures of Wall E. Weasel? I mean, seriously, somebody award the author a barnstar, that's fine work. Everyking 05:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, give the animator an Emmy. Give the contributor the misplaced granulatity award. Millions of people watch the Simpsons, so the Simpsons has an article in wikipedia. In fact it has several. Individual episodes are not notable in and of themsleves. Millions of people see Tylenol ads. What can someone learn by reading an article on an episode of the Simpsons? Is reading an article supposed to be a viable alternative to watching it? Does every joke in every episode need to be explained? Does anyone gain anything from that or does it just serve to make the contributors feel like they've paid their proper homage to their favorite show. Nothing kills comedy more than writing it down in the format of a reference work. Watching Worker and Parasite's utterly confusing cartoon and seeing Krusty react with a "What the hell was that?" is funny. Reading a mundane description of it is not. Those who have seen the episode know what it is; those who have not will only have their potential appreciation for it ruined. -R. fiend 16:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Tylenol ads aren't important to hardly anybody, though. Obviously Simpsons episodes are. I think Simpsons episodes are an important piece of contemporary culture that deserve to be recorded in considerable detail, same as anything else of cultural significance. In time such information will become fascinating, and I suppose to some people it already is. Everyking 21:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * They key is "the same as anything else of cultural significance". Almost nothing of cultural significance (and there is plenty of it in wikipedia) is covered in nearly as much detail as the Simpons, Star Trek, Pokemon, and Tolkien (and some others too), and there was plenty of significant culture that pre-dates all of these. So yes, give them the same degree of coverage as anything else, not 100 times more. We don't need to catalog every joke told on the Simpsons. They're not funny in this context, and if jokes aren't funny they're pointless. We're not a database so people in 2120 can look back and know what this "Simpsons" thing is that people seemed to like so much in the 1990s. I'm sure the episodes will be around in some form longer than wikipedia will be. -R. fiend 23:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Trollminator 23:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge into the article on the episode in question when that article is created. - SimonP 05:29, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion