Talk:Anvilology
from VfD:
Would you believe there is no such thing? Well, perhaps in a single Animaniacs episode. This one's right up there with Bort and other one-time gags from cartoons. Encyclopaediac? Hardly. -R. fiend 08:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Fancruft, of no relevance separate from the gag in the cartoon. Average Earthman 11:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Fancruft. Don't see any better place to put it. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:22, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete fancruft. Gazpacho 14:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Subtrivial joke. Geogre 16:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Doesn't it occur to anyone that fans are people too, and that so-called fancruft is exactly what they want to find in an encyclopedia? This article is not a lot more interest to me than rimming (it is a little!), but both should stay. At worst merge and redirect to the cartoon series in which it features. Andrewa 17:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Doesn't it occur to you that no one ever said fans weren't people? Doesn't it occur to you that even when people are people (what a shocking idea!) it doesn't meant that everything they want to find in an encyclopedia is everything that belongs in an encyclopedia? Again, this is an example of the "if you talk about fancruft you are an anti-fan bigot" fallacy, which I consider just short of a personal attack. For cripes' sake, if Wikipedia was a place for every sort of thing that fans were interested in, I'd want a full episode guide for Mr. Rose and Take Three Girls and Quick Before They Catch Us and The Sentimental Agent and Lucan and The Corner Bar and craploads of other obscure TV series. Don't you go telling me that I'm crushing the dreams of those poor innocent fans who want their particular TV show/movie series/video game covered in infinite detail. I am a fan and I love that kind of detail but I don't delude myself that Wikipedia is the place for it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Thank you for illustrating the very point I was wanting to make. IMO terms such as fancruft indicate dangerous thinking, and remind me of the story of the preacher who noted on the side of his preaching notes logic weak on this point, speak loudly. It's obvious some people are irritated by the details some fans want included in Wikipedia, and I fear we are reducing the usefulness of Wikipedia to such people as a result, and rejecting their interest with their interests. Perhaps this one is over the top as an article, it's an extreme case, but it's also a useful, catchy term on which someone who had just seen the cartoon and remembered little else might well search, looking for encyclopedic information. Food for thought? Andrewa 20:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Not really. These are just more personal attacks from you. You haven't explained why you think my logic is weak; you haven't explained what the very point you wanted to make was, let alone how you think your point was made for you; you haven't explained why typing "fancruft" instead of "a level of granularity inappropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia" every time represents "dangerous thinking". All you've done is throw insults; pat yourself on the back that you can cite smarmy insults about how foolish the people disagreeing with you are instead of, y'know, raising an adequate defense of why a joke that appeared in exactly one episode of one TV series should have its own article or why we should encourage people to think so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you find nothing but insults in my comments, and that you don't see why it's dangerous. Let me try again. Fancruft is an emotive term that expresses the user's disgust at the material. It's not respectful of other views, in particular the contributors', and it avoids the issue of what level of detail is appropriate. Again, I'm truly sorry that you feel I don't respect your views. I do. I just don't agree with them. I'm sorry I have evidently expressed it badly. And I am certainly giving myself no pats on the back. Andrewa 10:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Not really. These are just more personal attacks from you. You haven't explained why you think my logic is weak; you haven't explained what the very point you wanted to make was, let alone how you think your point was made for you; you haven't explained why typing "fancruft" instead of "a level of granularity inappropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia" every time represents "dangerous thinking". All you've done is throw insults; pat yourself on the back that you can cite smarmy insults about how foolish the people disagreeing with you are instead of, y'know, raising an adequate defense of why a joke that appeared in exactly one episode of one TV series should have its own article or why we should encourage people to think so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Thank you for illustrating the very point I was wanting to make. IMO terms such as fancruft indicate dangerous thinking, and remind me of the story of the preacher who noted on the side of his preaching notes logic weak on this point, speak loudly. It's obvious some people are irritated by the details some fans want included in Wikipedia, and I fear we are reducing the usefulness of Wikipedia to such people as a result, and rejecting their interest with their interests. Perhaps this one is over the top as an article, it's an extreme case, but it's also a useful, catchy term on which someone who had just seen the cartoon and remembered little else might well search, looking for encyclopedic information. Food for thought? Andrewa 20:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Doesn't it occur to you that no one ever said fans weren't people? Doesn't it occur to you that even when people are people (what a shocking idea!) it doesn't meant that everything they want to find in an encyclopedia is everything that belongs in an encyclopedia? Again, this is an example of the "if you talk about fancruft you are an anti-fan bigot" fallacy, which I consider just short of a personal attack. For cripes' sake, if Wikipedia was a place for every sort of thing that fans were interested in, I'd want a full episode guide for Mr. Rose and Take Three Girls and Quick Before They Catch Us and The Sentimental Agent and Lucan and The Corner Bar and craploads of other obscure TV series. Don't you go telling me that I'm crushing the dreams of those poor innocent fans who want their particular TV show/movie series/video game covered in infinite detail. I am a fan and I love that kind of detail but I don't delude myself that Wikipedia is the place for it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect with or without merge, from an Animaniacs fan. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Micro-fiction--decidedly NOT the sort of thing I would search an encyclopedia for. Niteowlneils 18:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Houshuang 13:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. A fictional dicadef. Really, all this information in this article is in the title. I have nothing against fancruft, but this has no potential for even usefulness to a fan. (Although, if you move away from the fancruft angle, the anvil is a classic icon in the physical comedy of cartoons. One could write an article on the use of the anvil in art. Makes me wonder what started that gag, and why it became so popular, and what makes the anvil more popular than the less commonly used heavy weight or safe... And anvil mentions nothing about this use of the anvil, which is surprising. Hmmm... I'll have to do some research...) --L33tminion | (talk) 19:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- By all means, include the iconic use of anvils in cartoons (particularly Warner Brothers cartoons) in the anvil article; I'm surprised it's not there already. A short paragraph at the bottom of that page is a great place for such information. But we don't need breakout articles on such things, nor do we need mention of their cartoon use to overwhelm their legitimate use. I am still be against keeping this as a redirect, as I have no idea where to redirect it to. It seems way too minor to have it redirect to Animaniacs; I think it would only confuse people, as the two are not synonymous. Redirect to anvil would be worse, as it would imply this word has legitimacy. -R. fiend 19:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Redirect could be to either, but makes more sense to Animaniacs IMO, or better still to Anvilania (perhaps only until that is also deleted). Redirects do not need to be synonyms, but should obey the principle of least astonishment. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- My point basically was that a redirect from anvilology to Animaniacs would violate the principle of least astonishment. If anvilology is going to be mentioned at all on that page I don't think its important enough to be mentioned in any capacity until very far down in the article. So the reader will be linked to a page that seems to have little to do with anvils, and wonder why he is there. While redirects do not need to be synonyms, they should have a strong and readily apparent connection, in my view. The anvilology/Animaniacs connection doesn't do it for me; anvilology is too small an aspect of Animaniacs. -R. fiend 23:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think the principle could be quite well respected by such a redirect. We need to ask, why would a person search for or link to anvilology?, and notice it's a principle of least astonishment, not none under any circumstance. In any case it's up to those who create a redirect to make it work, and if it doesn't work then the redirect can and should be nominated for deletion. Andrewa 10:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- My point basically was that a redirect from anvilology to Animaniacs would violate the principle of least astonishment. If anvilology is going to be mentioned at all on that page I don't think its important enough to be mentioned in any capacity until very far down in the article. So the reader will be linked to a page that seems to have little to do with anvils, and wonder why he is there. While redirects do not need to be synonyms, they should have a strong and readily apparent connection, in my view. The anvilology/Animaniacs connection doesn't do it for me; anvilology is too small an aspect of Animaniacs. -R. fiend 23:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Redirect could be to either, but makes more sense to Animaniacs IMO, or better still to Anvilania (perhaps only until that is also deleted). Redirects do not need to be synonyms, but should obey the principle of least astonishment. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Redirects are cheap, and I have no problem, for the record, of a redirect to anvil and the iconic use of anvils as the omnipresent falling object in cartoons is an excellent idea. The anvil is a great object for falling in a cartoon. People who grew up with smithies and farriers still in existence (e.g. the people who watched the early cartoons in the 1930's and 1940's) would think of the anvil as something immovable and the non plus ultra of hard. It's a great object. It's just that an entry on a one-off joke in any pop culture ephemera turns us into a "Hey, 'member when they did this? that was awesome" (the Chris Farley skits on SNL): discussion, placement in context, historical impact, significance are things I expect of articles. Just "It happened here" is a registry. Geogre 22:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- By all means, include the iconic use of anvils in cartoons (particularly Warner Brothers cartoons) in the anvil article; I'm surprised it's not there already. A short paragraph at the bottom of that page is a great place for such information. But we don't need breakout articles on such things, nor do we need mention of their cartoon use to overwhelm their legitimate use. I am still be against keeping this as a redirect, as I have no idea where to redirect it to. It seems way too minor to have it redirect to Animaniacs; I think it would only confuse people, as the two are not synonymous. Redirect to anvil would be worse, as it would imply this word has legitimacy. -R. fiend 19:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Not the place for this Jackliddle 00:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Merged and redirected to Tiny Toon Adventures, which is what this was originally drawn from. -Sean Curtin 02:23, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete DCEdwards1966 02:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Anvilogy shouldn't have any own article since as far as I know it's not often used in cartoons (or even in Animaniacs). Jeltz 13:06, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
- Delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete (yes, even the redirect) - neologism. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Another one for the fan sites. A waste of the miniscule resources it would take to store it. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion