Wikipedia talk:Cruftcruft

Yes, but...

Sometimes, "cruft" is used as short for "DELETE BECAUSE I SAY SO!". However, what it actually means is that it is overly specific and has no place in a general purpose encyclopedia. Thus, it can't be merged, because it doesn't belong in another article either. And misapplication of the term doesn't mean it's less valid. -Amarkov moo! 02:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of onlookers - where does it say that we are a general purpose encyclopedia? Specifically when the five pillars say the opposite? --Kizor 02:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

This needs some cleanup to eliminate the WP:CIVIL violations. I'd do it myself, but I'd rather not be the one to monkey with it. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• This article is a call to address the cruft crisis, written in response to nonconstructive essays such as Wikipedia:Schoolcruft. Any issues with tone or perceived civility issues should be most helpfully addressed at Wikipedia:Schoolcruft. Alternatively, you may want to get a sense of humor. Alansohn 05:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess we can now add this page to the cleanup list as well. Ho ho ho. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you disagree, you can always write your own essay. Alansohn 21:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I didn't say anything about the gist of the essay, and that I opted not to become embroiled in an edit war with you. I just asked you to make it civil. Others have commented on how nasty the essay is. Please note that unlike this essay, WP:CIVIL is a policy to which we are all expected to adhere. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you have specific suggestions on dealing with the problem identified herein, I will be more than glad to consider incorporating your comments, an option not available at other such essays. Alansohn 22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to tone down the rhetoric in the last paragraph under Wikipedia:Cruftcruft#What_is_Cruftcruft.3F, items 2, 3 and 7 under Wikipedia:Cruftcruft#Ways_to_spot_Cruftcruft, the sentence under Wikipedia:Cruftcruft#Editorial_and_policy_issues_of_Cruftcruft and the section entitled Wikipedia:Cruftcruft#Dealing_with_Cruftcruft. Incidentally, speaking of senses of humor, item 6 under Wikipedia:Cruftcruft#Ways_to_spot_Cruftcruft is a Monty Python reference. Thanks for asking for suggestions on how to deal with the essay's civility problems. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I tried. Take a look. I am more than familiar with the sketch, but thought it funnier to treat it as a straight comment, though at least one person got it. Alansohn 01:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there are still problems with the other sections as mentioned, but the portions you edited are a lot more reasonable now, and I thank you for your courtesy. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fanspew

Do you mean that some editors would not want an article created about the Lone Ranger's nephew's horse, Victor? Back before the internet, it was a tough job in a trivia contest to dig out what his name was. Another example is Dr. Watson's revolver. A larger case of spew is every gadget mentioned once in the Gundam franchise or all the Pokemon characters. I've considered writing an essay "Don't spew" urging fans of a TV show, novel, cartoon series, or videogame to work on referencing articles about the fiction work itself and its main characters and themes, rather than a spew of articles about every microscopic thing mentioned in it or hypothesized to exist in it. The resulting fanspew reminds me of someone shaking up a bottle of Coca Cola and spewing it all over a wall. Lots of sticky little drops of fanspew, which dry to cruft, and collectively take lots of effort to remove. Edison 23:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with cruftcruft

Cruftmongers are often too busy deleting articles ...

Surely a "cruftmonger" is someone dealing in cruft, and is therefore too busy adding more rather than deleting it? 81.104.175.145 23:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• The individuals creating articles in good faith aren't "dealing in cruft". It's the individuals who have decided that anything that doesn't interest them should be deleted who are the one creating cruft. Alansohn 05:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly that is patently false. The individuals who have decided in good faith who have decided that some things don't belong in Wikipedia are not creating anything. 81.104.175.145 21:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the essay totally counters itself, and also fails to assume good faith to the absolute extreme as it is designed as the soul purpose of labelling editors which the author disagrees with and constitutes an attack article clear cut and dried, but also fails to propose any model or working solutions that could be undertaken by an editor to deal with the issues identified in the essay. What is there now is a simple cop-out by the sole author because they are just beyond reason and don't like people labelling articles they are involved with (particularly schools) as one or another form of cruft. I can smell an XfD in the wings. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• As you disagree with the tenor of this article, why are you editing or commenting here. You, yourself suggested craetion of an alternative article. Is this Wikipedia:Wikistalking at work here? Alansohn 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why would disagreeing with the page mean that he can't comment on it without wikistalking? -Amarkov moo! 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Can anyone else see the irony here? Orderinchaos 12:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• What's sauce for the goose... Alansohn 21:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

MfD rationale

Since I cannot create the page, I enclose the rationale here:

Seems to have been created by one user to make a point. Nothing more than a veiled attack on editors the author disagrees with, presents no justification for the labelling, and neither presents a counter-argument nor proposes a solution to the perceived issue with "cruft". Last, and by no means least, an egregious failure to assume good faith. 81.104.175.145 20:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what happened at all, but the page is now listed per the above rationale. Orderinchaos 05:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of this article?

I don't know if tagging it with the "essay" tag makes it OK for this article to be kind of unclear, POV and snotty towards those who apparently use the term cruft in AFD debates, but it seems inappropriate for a document on the wikipedia namespace to me... maybe I'm wrong?

Either way, "What is cruftcruft" does absolutely nothing to explain what it is, nor does the article lead. I can only assume from the context that it is trying to be defined as "an abundance of users calling an article 'cruft' to justify its AFD"? All I know is that the section begins:

Before moving on to "Cruftcruft", one must first analyze "Cruft" on its own.

Which seems pretty improper for a wikipedia article, even if it's an essay, but I don't know that much about them. The section then goes on to show the origins of "cruft" and the problem with the definition of "cruft"

Having turned up their nose at a topic, the article must be deleted, and must be disposed of without any meaningful discussion.

Who is "they"? There is no explaination as to why the section is becoming snotty to people, nor is there any explaination as to what CruftCruft means.

But maybe I'm mistaking the purpose of essays as being a proper, group-maintained, suggestion/opinion that users should consider instead of a snarky essay one might find on the letters to the editor page of a magazine. TheHYPO (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

not a portmanteau

I took out "portmanteau" because the word isn't one. There's no blending or fusion, nothing is dropped. --Thnidu (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL

So is this a joke? If not shouldn't the talk page be called "Cruftcruftcruft"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.77.194 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

More commentcruft from an IP editor! Cander0000 (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Another reason

IMHO, it's quite OK to call an article "cruft", but it is not a reason for deletion, since even if the article is badly composed and incoherent, it might serve a purpose rewritten. Cruft should generally be rewritten. Redundant cruft should be considered merged into other articles. It's always better to explain the specifics, such as "incoherent", "confusing" and such. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an essay

This is an essay, so it's okay for it to represent one point of view. Essays don't have to go through any kind of reviewing; anyone can just write one. However, I do agree that this essay should be cleaned up and made more clear. Tallflower77 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion

• User:Cirt/Gutting

I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.

You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)