Trichome

thcscience_admin
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fancruft[edit]

All prior XfDs for this page:

As a member of the Kindness Campaign and Welcoming Committee, I strongly believe that "kind" and "welcoming" language are necessary in discussions among editors as members of a community. I therefore whole heartedly agree with Verdatum that "cruft" is "needlessly agressive and needlessly insults the contributors" and that it "also gives the impression that the invoker is on a quest to remove all detail related to various fandoms. This forces the dissenting arguer into an aggressively defensive position which hinders communication and impedes WP:Civil discussion." Use of this term has even spawned single purpose accounts and projects that work at such ends (see for example Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft). Thus, I believe that Wikipedia:Fancruft, Wikipedia:Cruft, Wikipedia:Listcruft, and Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT should all also be deleted in the interest of fostering more pleasant and constructive discussions. There are more on point and more tactful ways of making the same argument without using this particularly unfortunate word. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor asked me to file this nomination for him. User:Krator (t c) 09:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I completely and totally disagree with the use (and abuse) of the term "cruft", which usually means "some extremely broad category of stuff I really don't like". It has no place whatsoever being used at AfD as an excuse for deleting an article. Nor does it belong on the talk pages of anyone other than those who are completely familiar with the derisive term; When used with anyone else, it often comes across as a false misrepresentation of policy and is too regularly used in rather WP:BITEy fashion. However, this is exactly what essays are intended to be used for. As long as these guidelines of basic civility are respected -- and perhaps they should be listed on the top of each article -- I have no objection to the existence of these essays. Evidence of a consistent pattern of abuse may change my opinion. Alansohn (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fully agree with usage of the term "cruft," as it is the easiest possible way to describe a real phenomenon. The term is often taken in a pejorative manner even when no offense is intended, especially in cases where a user is very interested in or emotionally attached to a particular bit of cruft. These pages aptly describe that phenomenon and why it presents problems in many articles. --Several Times (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The most important thing is that we make it so that the above listed items recommend for deletion are not used in AfDs as if they are policy or guideline justifications for deletion and that we engage with each other in as civil a way as possible. Thus, should the essays be kept, I would strongly urge someone adding a comment to them indicating as much, i.e. to avoid using the unhelpful word in practice. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am under the impression that this essay is useful and almost factual. If you look around at the articles on Wikipedia you will notice that quite a bit of it is indeed fanboy or girl written articles. But I also think this policy shouldn't be used on newbies for fear it will drive them away, even if it is true. Yamakiri TC § 07-1-2008 • 17:19:17
    • Comment: How the word is typically used is what I find unconstructive, i.e. [1] (emphasis seems to be on attempting to be witty), [2] (no explanation of how it's "charmed cruft"), [3] (just comes off needlessly harsh), [4] (again, not much of an explained argument), [5] (what does use of that word really add to the comment?), [6] (no explanation of how it's "listcruft"), etc. I can't see those who created and worked on the articles in question in good faith seeing such comments as kind and welcoming, which is why I urge expunging use of this word in favor of more polite and serious language. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That "all blonds are dumb" or "all fat people are jolly" may appear factual to many people, who can provide examples that "prove" the correctness of their theories. Cruft, in all its varieties, is in the eye of the beholder. Cruft is inherently POV. I have little issue with individuals who share a point of view getting together to write up a description of their shared bias. The problem is when Cruft is used as an excuse to demand removal of content or deletion of articles, when it is often misrepresented as policy, as in the example LGRdC provides above. As long as the Cruft family remains an essay, and is used for nothing more than that, I have no issue. If it can't be limited to that purpose, the whole family should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. There is a difference in fancruft, but I feel that this is just abused to remove usefull information put on there by the fans. Sure there is crap such as "This character is more powerful than that by this storyline." That has no place here, but what about stuff about the character that is essentially useful, like the origin of the character and how s/he became who he is in the first place? Is that considered fancruft?
    • I believe that any information which can pass other WP guidelines for things such as verifiability are clearly not fancruft, but anything which shows a clear bias about a particular element of any work of entertainment (i.e. the above example) is certainly cruft. Exceptionally specific details about a work of fiction (i.e. what a particular character is wearing during the 38th episode of a TV series) are certainly cruft, too, and just as dispensible as what any major historical figure ate for breakfast on a particular morning. --Several Times (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I have been around enough AfDs now that some actually do call articles verified in reliable sources as "cruft" anyway. Fortunately, in many instances, common sense prevails and the articles are kept, but sometimes there are pile on "delete as cruft" or "per noms" that in some cases do not honestly reflect the actual status of the article in question. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem isn't so much what does and doesn't need to be deleted, the BIG problem is that a lot of editors simply don't assume good faith and go on and on about it being "cruft". The way I see it, a lot of people are simply ignorant and it's better to say "sorry, we're not looking for this info, but it's useful to X-Wiki" and move it over there if possible, rather than come across and say "nope, this work you spent two hours adding is pure shit and will be killed with fire". The second happens a lot, and most certainly drives away would-be good editors. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk)
      • That would appear to be more of a problem with individual editors than with this page or its material. --Several Times (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe that the rationale given in this deletion nomination compels us to delete these pages. I don't like how much the word cruft is used. I ESPECIALLY don't like when people use the word cruft as a proxy for real debate in deletion discussions. I think that these arguments (LGRdC's) are powerful and persuasive with regard to denying these essays the force of policy or guideline. But I think that they DO reflect the beliefs and positions of a number of editors on the wiki. In order for us to remove them from the project entirely, we would need to either A: show that they represent only the merest sliver of editors (and thus move to userify each, rather than delete) or B: show that they are in violation of some core wikipedia policy (thus meriting deletion). The assertions here submit the premise that the word "cruft" prima facia represents a violation of WP:BITE/WP:CIVIL. Words have power, but the passing of George Carlin should remind us to not be in thrall to our imaginations as to the possible malign influence of words. Constructive discussions are made or broken by editors, not words. Furthermore, deleting these essays would not remove the desire for a catch all term. If we treat "cruft" as an unspeakable word, other words (either more or less patently offensive) will fill the void. People who work on fan information might tar all dense, academic pages on the wiki as needless pedantry. I feel no need to excise the word pedantic from the language to salve my feelings. Protonk (talk) As an addendum, I feel that this is a good faith nomination but that it presents insufficient cause to delete essays which clearly illustrate views espoused by many members of the community. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1) that a term is allegedly being used inappropriately is no reason for deletion of an essay about it, per many others above. (2) I do not think 'cruft' is being used inappropriately per WP:SPADE (call a spade a spade). A quote from that essay: "Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review." This is essentially what is happening here. User:Krator (t c) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be okay if it were used to express constructive criticism of others' edits, but such comments as [7] (emphasis seems to be on attempting to be witty), [8] (no explanation of how it's "charmed cruft"), [9] (just comes off needlessly harsh), [10] (again, not much of an explained argument), [11] (what does use of that word really add to the comment?), [12] (no explanation of how it's "listcruft"), etc. have no place in serious/academic discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see nothing wrong with any of those diffs. User:Krator (t c) 00:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • They add nothing to a serious and respectful conversation about the articles in question. Something that came to mind while watching America's Got Talent, relates to the whole idea of calling a spade a spade as you suggest above. Well, reasonable people can agree that a spade is indeed a spade and anyone who claims otherwise is essentially not reasonable. What is and is not "cruft", however, is something that editors disagree on. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think I can bluntly state that one of the parties within this disagreement is simply right, and that the other should be explained why it is this way. This essay, for one, does a good job at that. User:Krator (t c) 12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • So long as it is clear that it is just an essay, then okay. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • LGRdC, you do realise that all of those AfDs from which you quote above resulted in the deletion of the pages in question. Cruft or not, judging from the sum of comments in those AfDs, and from the page titles, there were plenty of reasons why those things are not suitable for inclusion, which kinda proves those people right who had such a low opinion of the material in question as to call it 'cruft'. Just a point to consider for you. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, the whole notion of "fancruft" is absolutely poisonous. Everyking (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess. I dunno. On one hand, the usage is so simple that it doesn't need explaining; search-replace "cruft" with "junk" on every talk page everywhere and no discussion (except for the endless retarded political correctness nonsense) loses no meaning. On the other hand, this is in pretty universal usage, and the meaning is uncontroversial. So, yeah. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems contradictory to WP:ITSCRUFT. That myself and two others don't use it and others have said keep with reservations, I would say it does not have universal usage. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ITSCRUFT means you can't say "It's junk" without explaining why it's junk. That doesn't mean "It's junk" isn't a reasonable conclusion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, as indicated in some of the diffs above and as I am sure you have seen countless times in AfDs, some do just say, "It's cruft" and so we need to find a better way to discourage that, i.e. the approach to AfDs as a vote. Either they're a vote or a discussion and now they look like something in between with those wanting to approach it as a vote offended when those who engage them try to discuss with them and those wanting to approach it as a disucssion annoyed when they see what looks like votes. There seems to be some disagreement on that. But like I said above, the problem with terms like "cruft" are the subjectivity level; as I have nominated and argued to delete at least forty different articles now, I'm sure there are stuff that we could agree don't belong on Wikipedia, but a lot more is heavily contested and as such we need more compelling reasons than simply calling it "cruft". The other problem is the presentation that "cruft" by itself is somehow a policy, which it isn't in most cases. I, like many, cite essays in AfDs, but I believe that when I do so editors are usually clear on what is just an essay as part of the argument, which usually also cites some policy or guideline. With the "it's cruft" arguments, many times I just see a "Delete as cruft; we don't need this, it's not notable" without any objective explanation of how it is "cruft", why we should not keep the article (what we do and do not need is debatable), and non-notable as used (just like the reverse "notable") in many an AfD is also subjectively applied. Rather than saying "crap," "cruft," or "junk" just say "goes beyond maintable scope of coverage" or "makes navigation of the content difficult" or something more precise that also seems more respectful. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Deleting this essay obscures meaning and doesn't stop what you're unhappy about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then how can we stop it or at least more effectively discourage it? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              Not by trying to delete essays that describe current practice or badgering people or derailing discussions with political correctness nonsense, I know that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Editors should not derail discussions by using this nonsense word. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Are you absolutely sure that you are the person to talk about others derailing deletion discussions? What with 88 edits to a single AfD? How is that not far worse than a single comment containing a concise one-word summary of one's opinion on the quality and suitability of the material in question? What with endlessly replying without ever accepting a fellow editor's point? Maybe you also want to delete this essay? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, I did make 88 edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Resident Evil 4 and I also made over 100 to the article under discussion, including taking and uploading photographs that have resulted in a well cited and improved article on Weapons of Resident Evil 4#Weapons. I wish more others were willing to put so much time into improving content under discussion (some do, but just think what we would accomplish if more did). Sure, such determined and involved attempts at discussion and article improvement do not always work (this MfD is a case in point, although a bit different as unlike a regular article I am not also working to improve the essay in question), but in the instance you reference it was unquestionably worth it and the end result was better coverage of a notable game and more diffs I could add to my list of nice Wikipedians. And I am willing to change my stance when I see a valid point a la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis. I also wish more would be willing to do that as well for as that example shows when I am trying to convince people to switch from delete to keep I am not asking them to do anything I have not myself done. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A valid essay. Knowing that some people agree with it or not won't change the actual issues. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My alternate proposal then would be to redirect GAMECRUFT to the essay as well rather than to the video game guideline as alternative terms have been used instead as replacements. If it is clear that "cruft" is not a policy or guideline based reason for deletion, then I would withdraw this nomination with the additional strong recommendation that editors do reconsider use of this term in favor of more cordial and precise wording. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirecting GAMECRUFT here, as I said, would skewer past archived discussions. Redirecting it is as bad as deleting it. When people use it, they use it as a shortcut for the guideline it points to, not for this essay. You can retire it from use, but you should not remove it from where it is intended to point to - ie the VG guidelines. -- Sabre (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should not point to or be used as a guideline. Anyone referencing a past discussion can just note that it previously redirected elsewhere. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has been abused to no end by deletionists and even administrators. It's a large crutch for people that have crippled deletion arguments. SashaNein (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I can swee here is "we shouldn't criticize content because we will hurt people's feelings". We need to be able to engage in honest discussion about cruft. We might disagree about what is or is not cruft, but when we finally identify cruft we're supposed to get rid of it. Randomran (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need to expunge non-academic and non-serious words from our discussions if we want to be taken seriously as legitimate encyclopedists. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Funny, you seem to be taking it very seriously. It's a word with a clear definition. It may be critical, but criticism isn't illegal yet. Randomran (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see nothing funny about a word used inpolitely and subjectively. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're using "deletion" impolitely and subjectively right now. We're not going to rename "Miscellany for deletion" "Miscellany for replacement with fuzzy bunnies" just because a word offends someone's sensibilities now and then. Randomran (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • What? I did not use "deletion" in any of my responses to you above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not me personally, but to all the people who worked hard on this essay. But perhaps they are not complaining because they have learned to accept the criticism. Randomran (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have argued and nominated to delete over forty times now. This essay is not about deletion, but about a subjective and abrasive approach to it. All I want to see if editors approach discussions seriously and in a respectful manner to their colleagues who create and work on such articles. There are more tactful ways about criticizing people's work that doesn't paint them in a corner. Sicnerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Cruft" is no more abrasive than "bad" or "delete" or any other criticism of people's work. Honestly IS respectful. It takes more than your personal problem with the word to justify scratching it from every wikipedian's vocabulary. Randomran (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • At least five others have said delete here and a host of the keeps have said they don't like or find useful the word. I don't call material created in good faith "bad" either and yes, there are non-abrasive ways of criticizing people's work, "That's a good effort, but I think a better way would be if we did x," for example. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I think it's important that we refrain from personal attacks and profanity. But I draw the line at patting people on the head and coddling them. Randomran (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, WP:IDONTLIKEIT clearly says that an article being cruft is not a valid reason to delete it. Therefore, this essay is basically telling us how to deal with it in articles that are going to remain. Why should this be given a special place over the standard requirements for WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT#PLOT? All of these cover the relevant areas that "cruft" falls under. Additionally, it's a pejorative word; the second edit to it sums that up pretty well. In essence, it's saying that "cruft" needs special attention, and being insulting in doing so. Per the essay text, the "tone and focus" section is inappropriate, IMO. There's nothing barring an article on a fictional show or movie from only mentioning the non-fiction. How is it helpful to the reader to have an article on a television series, and barely mention what the show is actually about? "Positive aspects" is divisive and naming factions, and that's never helpful in disputes. "Approach" is basically telling those seeking to delete how to wikilawyer. We shouldn't be telling people how to apply guidelines to achieve a particular outcome. It would discourage a middle ground, instead pushing for "not of it can stay, see WP:..." JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word serves a definite purpose and describes an actual phenomenon. Removing essays regarding the existence of what is now known as "cruft" won't eliminate the word's use or make it appear less negative. It's already clear that "being cruft" isn't grounds for deletion or removal or anything, since that's not an official policy or anything like it. It's also clear that "cruft" doesn't and shouldn't encompass information which is essential to a particular notable topic. Rather, this term neatly summarizes a number of other WP deletion discussion notes (not unlike WP:IDONTLIKEIT, such as WP:INHERITED, WP:EFFORT, WP:WAX, and even, hey, WP:ILIKEIT. The word exists for sound reasons, and how it is used is independent of this page or its contents. Even when these guidelines are disregarded in a deletion discussion, some guideline needs to exist regarding large amounts of information which not only appeal to a very small group, but have little impact beyond fictional realms. --Several Times (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The word may serve a purpose, but it is an unconstructive purpose about a subjectively perceived phenomenon. If gamecruft is also redirected to this essay and removed from the video game guideline, then okay, but it absolutely must be clear that labelling sometghing as "cruft" is not a policy or guideline basis for anything. Terms that editors regard as "I don't like it" or impolite just should not be used as they naturally do not effectively persuade others. Small groups of editors that subjectively declare information that is perhaps relevent to millions as "cruft" does not make logical sense. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Small groups of editors are usually the ones involved in most deletion discussions, whether they involve this "cruft" or not. Notability guidelines are well-established, and even then, a small group of editors may decide that a particular article does not pass notability guidelines. The term "non-notable" may even be used in a pejorative manner. All I am really saying is that we shouldn't attempt to disregard "cruft" as nonconstructive or subjective when all deletion discussions have a tendency to be highly subjective. Sure, it's not fair to just label something cruft as rationale for eliminating it. More discussion is always better in these situations. Nonetheless, the term is valid and useful for the above reasons. --Several Times (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is another problem altogether, because a half dozen odd editors arguing for deleting an article that may have been around for years and for which scores of editors worked on and therefore believe notability and thousands come to Wikipedia to read just don't seem reasonable. Notability guidelines are seriously challenged (see Wikipedia talk:Notability). I definitely agree that AfDs do tend to be subjective and that strikes me as problematic and I think an invalid and useles term like "cruft" hinders those discussions from at least appearing more objective. If someone argues that content goes beyond maintable scope of coverage or makes articles difficult to navigate and so on then they are making objective and straitforward claims that can be discussed objectively, but when someone just says, "it's cruft," then it comes off as "I don't like it" whether or not that's the commenter's actual opinion and is thus detrimental to the discussion and the arguer's side of that discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Concise guideline that is a nice bulwark against the waves of non-notable spamdalcrapvertising that wash up on Special:NewPages. I will reiterate what has already been stated that being labeled as cruft in of itself is not grounds for deletion, but rather reflects a widely-held consensus based upon accumulated collaboration and expertise that there is a body of content that exists that is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. I would challenge any of the delete votes to come on through NewPages sometime to see how fine a line it is that Wikipedia treads between openness and irrelevancy on a minute to minute basis, rather than rehashing old hand-waving debates about notability. There is a place for this guideline in asserting previous consensus on content in deletion debates. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that unverifiable, pedophilic, unfixable, nonsense, disturbing, original research, hoaxes, how tos, unconstructive, and disruptive and pointed material should be deleted, but there is no consensus about what is and is not "cruft." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:IINFO and the rest of WP:NOT say that content exists out there that is simply not encyclopedic even if it is NPOV and verifiable. WP:CRUFT attempts to specify one such type of content. You would have us remove this framework rather than continue to develop consensus around it out of an unsubstantiated concern that fans will suddenly stop trying to contribute to Wikipedia after they encounter the first roadblock. Or the contrapositive, that once the guideline is removed there will be a golden age of harmonious collaboration. Neither is the case. It is not a policy to justify any action, but rather a reference for existing consensus however poorly or well differentiated it is. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cruft subjectively and unclearly specifics an universally undefinable "type" of content. Use of "cruft" and similar subjectivity does indeed drive "fans" from the project: [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. There is no consensus about what is and is not cruft. Thus, as a minimum if we're going to keep it in essay form, we need to redirect the gamecruft to here and remove it from the videogame guideline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SPADE. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reasonable people can agree that a spade is indeed a spade and anyone who claims otherwise is essentially not reasonable. What is and is not "cruft", however, is something that editors disagree on. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep should be made into a policy/ EE 23:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a terrible idea. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any other reson fro deletion that I dont like it? EE 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because no good reason has been presented as to why or how this term can be used constructively as anything more than a subjective "I don't like it" non-argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fancruft is ratings from gamesites, Gamplay section, ect. EE 00:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • For other relevant comments on the topic, it may be worth reading these arguments: User:GlassCobra/Essays/What Wikipedia is and User:Alansohn/Cruftcruft. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Honestly those are just opinions WP:FAN is something written to make wikipedia better. If this has a right to be deleted do do those articles. EE 00:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Those opinions are just as much about making Wikipedia better if not more than the essays under discussion here. I do not doubt that a number of those who use the word "cruft" do in fact have good intentions or at least think they do, but the problem is that it is subjective and is likely to stop rather than faciliate discussion and can be seen as overly harsh by new editors. As I said, I would be willing to withdraw as long as we at least make the gamecruft redirect to the regular cruft article and remove its mention from the video game guidelines. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pssst. "I don't like it" is a perfectly reasonable reason to oppose a policy. Just sayin'.
          If this were made into a policy, it wouldn't do anything. It's a definition, not a a guide. Everyone agrees that, to some extent, fancruft exists and that not all detail is fancruft: every non-lunatic agrees that we don't need List of chairs in Star Trek, and every non-lunatic agrees that we need Superman. My only qualm is that as a term, it's kind of useless, because "junk" means exactly the same thing, would have all the same problems, but has an immediate English-language meaning everyone can understand. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is doubly uncivil. Firstly, it is derogatory to fans. Our best editors are those who have some enthusiasm for a topic. Sneering at this is both impolite and impolitic. Secondly the term cruft is a derogatory neologism which again has a sneering tone and suggests that work is trash/garbage/crap. Such hostile language should not be tolerated since it promotes conflict and disruption. And since we already have too many policy and guideline pages, WP:CREEP indicates that we don't need rants and essays too since they just add to the general clutter and confusion and so promote endless lawyering. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove the 'proposed' tag - it's an essay that reflects a commonly held view. PhilKnight (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the following reasons:
As it stands, it is vastly easier to create an article than have it deleted. To create, all one needs to do is find a title without an article and then write it. There are no AfCs to hold, no consensuses to establish. On the contrary, to delete, one must locate the undeserving article, engage in an actually fairly cumbersome AfD listing procedure, hold it open for comment for a few days, and obtain a consensus for deletion thereafter. This is, I think, as it should be: there ought to be a presumption for keeping, and that presumption ought to come about through procedural impediments to deletion.
But now it is argued, all the above notwithstanding, that the deletionist's armamentarium is too well-stocked. We are informed that the term "cruft" and its ilk must be banished. It is hurtful, subjective, vacuous prejudice masquerading as policy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Though couched in terms of courtesy, I think the nominator's real qualms relate to the latter charges against the term. While "cruft" usually is meant to be dismissive, any vote to delete, however formulated, will carry some sting of rejection. And this supposition seems borne out in the later comments above, which discusses politeness less and the subjectivity of notability and the vote/argument discussion more.
These are, as mentioned, where I believe the true misgivings lie. What must be admitted is that despite our efforts to make more precise our notability guidelines, there will always be an element of art to the notability assessment. It is said that cruft adds nothing to the debate, that it is merely an empty pejorative. Not at all: it is an expression of editorial judgment, which cannot always be reduced to policy. It is countered that AfDs are not votes, and mere conclusionary declarations of crufthood have no place. This view is mistaken. AfDs discussion points are not ballots, and numeric majority is not required to carry a position. However, there ought to be no minimum standards (pace WP:AADD) as to what kind of comments are permitted in AfD discussions, provided they are topical, which even a sniffing designation of "cruft" is. Comprehensive, policy-grounded arguments will be more persuasive, but even bare assertions of "keep" or "delete" will aid administrators in ascertaining the consensus concerning an article's suitability for inclusion.
Long live cruft. Pop Secret (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is actually quite easy for some to just hover around AfDs and do nothing more than "vote" to delete as many articles as they can and thus somehow effect a false depiction of consensus after a mere five days concerning something others may have worked on for months or years. The onus must always be on those trying to argue why something should be deleted. My rationale is based on a combination of the lack of politness behind this word as well as its subjectivity. Cruft indeeds as nothing to a civil and academic debate. And yes, there should be minimum standards about what we shouldn't include in AfDs if we actually want them to be respectful and responsible discussions. Cruft should be removed from our vocabulary. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it not just as easy for some to hover around AfDs and do nothing more than "vote" to keep? How could we obtain a truer depiction of consensus? Only promote admins with ESP, perhaps? Could we ever have perfectly objective assessments of notability? How? What would the guidelines be? Are our guidelines now in that condition? If they aren't, are we allowed to be subjective until we perfect them? These are all questions that those who would forbid "cruft" (which, let's face it, has always been shorthand for notability and proportionality concerns) should have to answer. Pop Secret (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because those arguing to keep typically also are looking for sources and editing the articles in question during the discussion. It's far easier to speed vote "Deleter per nom", "Delete as cruft", in multiple AfDs then to actually look for sources or continue arguing to keep and work to improve the articles in question against single-purpose deletion only accounts. We can get a truer depiction of consensus by assuming that all those who edited the articles in question also believe they follow our policies. We can further notify every single user who ever worked on any given article of the AfD to see what they think of the deletion rationales. For those like myself who have worked on thousands of articles, some of those can be nominated only to find out on the 6th day. We should base our coverage on verifiability rather than notability as others believe per Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability/Essay and which is more consistent with encyclopedic tradition: "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I readily admit that you look for sources in deletion debates more readily than others, let us be fair. It is not proper to suggest that systematically, keep votes are looking for sourcing more diligently than delete votes. Some editors come to afd for the drama. Some editors come to afd with an axe to grind. Some come with truly dispassionate backgrounds. Some come with passionate views but act faithfully. The whole spectrum exists, just as in any venture with humans. I would request that we keep the discussion to the matter at hand, whether or not these essays should be deleted. While your opinion (and the opinions of others) about WP:N may motivate you, discussion of that is not a vector to a solution here. Neither is characterization, positive or negative of the "average" editor in AfD. The deletion of these essays should be based on the merits of the essays themselves. If you feel that articles now in the penumbra of the notability issue should be brought into the project, that means you should support and link to essays supporting that view. If others feel that a stricter definition of notability is necessary (or that the current definition excludes what these essays describe), then they may link to these essays. In order to deny them that option we must show that the essays themselves are ON FACE violations of some policy. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling work "cruft" is confrontational and thus supporting calling work in a confrontational manner that cleary does frustrate some editors seems to violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. And yes, I of course acknowledge that not everyone makes the effort I do in AfDs to also look for sources and improve the articles under discussion, but some do and when you have accounts that have outright stated they will never argue to keep participating in AfDs or who regard those who argue to keep as "acne-ridden mongoloid fanboys obsessed with keeping every single piece of crap ever written", then imagine how frustrating it is when you make improvements that any reasonable or neutral person would concede to, but that some still dismiss unreasonably. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) but we've been over this, kind of. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND doesn't specify that hard or intractable opinions can't be held. It also doesn't specify that broad brushes may not exist. I think that this deletion seeks to conflate uncivil behavior with a specific set of views. Calling a work "cruft", within the confines of the rather restrained language of the essays above does no more than to say that it has languished in the absence of expert attention. I may (I won't, usually) call a list "cruft" if it has swollen beyond its original intent and scope without a particular goal or guide. We may disagree over the merits of each individual element on that list, but the term "cruft" refers to the expansion and cluttering of the list. It most CERTAINLY does not refer to the editor. That editor may feel hurt if someone deletes a passage with an edit summary "rm cruft", but that is an interpersonal problem. I don't want an institutional attempt at a solution for that and even if I did, this isn't it. If there is a disagreement over inclusion of new material, we may hash out that disagreement on the talk page. "acne-ridden mongoloid fanboys obsessed," is an attack on an editor. That is remedied through a different channel. Again, disagreements over what (for a list example) is and is not discriminate will crop up regardless of the existence of this essay. We may seek to change consensus over WP:NOT and WP:N (as you have implored and linked), but this is not a venue for that. We must be careful not to treat this deletion discussion as some sort of referendum on policy as it relates to articles and content. That discussion is ongoing, but not here. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's no different from calling work junk. Sometimes, junk is junk. WP:CIVIL does not prevent "This article is bad" and if it ever does then this project is irrevocably fucked. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes, sure, but in many instances it's used with incredible subjectivity and also as an alternative to making an effort to fix the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a subjective term. Of course it's used subjectively. As for "an alternative to making an effort to fix the article," superkeen thanks for accusing everyone who tries to delete unfixable articles of bad faith. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had a discussion about understanding that people might hold opinions different from your own in good faith on my talk page. I'm disappointed that you didn't seem to understand that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It often seems that articles are brought to AFD without due diligence since a quick search reveals that the topic has good notability. It might be tempting to cite WP:FUCK in such a case to indicate that either the nominator doesn't give a fuck about doing a proper job or that the voter doesn't give a fuck about such a sloppy nomination. But the use of such an abusive word would not be conducive to a good debate and the seeking of consensus - it would be uncivil. The term cruft has the same character - it is abuse which adds nothing but heat to the debate - and so should be deprecated. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I.e. you'd like to see the word "cruft" used less often AfDs - good luck on that, honestly. And how exactly would deleting this essay accomplish this? (BTW, I don't buy that book burning and killing the missionary combats the overall philosophy, if that's your response.) – sgeureka t•c 08:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting the essay is a step toward delegitimizing the word and thereby compelling editors to make actually stronger more objective policy/guideline based arguments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable people can agree that a spade is indeed a spade and anyone who claims otherwise is essentially not reasonable. What is and is not "cruft", however, is something that editors disagree on. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, if you don't like an essay then write an essay to say why it is wrong. Don't nominate it for deletion to suppress people's opinions. I'm aware that LGRdC is an extreme inclusionist but there is room for all opinions here as long as they are not disruptive. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may be a strong inclusionist, but I have actually argued and nominated to delete more articles (over forty by now) than a number of those I have debated with have argued to keep. I am not interested in suppressing opinions, but in encouraging editors to express their opinions in a more civil and constructive manner. "Cruft" is subjective and to many perceived as abrasive. Better wording would focus on scope and readability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even kindness has its limits. I wish there was a better way to address the underlying issues, e.g. of people editing more according to their fan enthusiasm than to encyclopedic enthusiasm. Editing as a fan is not the issue, editing primarily as fan and not as an encyclopedia editor is. These things won't go away and need to be addressed, albeit by something better than just disparaging insufficient content that someone erroneously but in good faith tries to include. But whatever alternative, it needs to be more efficient, get the point across and ideally convince people of encyclopedic enthusiasm, and of the fact that fan enthusiasm can only ever be an auxiliary philosophy on Wikipedia. However, trying to enforce this by deleting an essay ? No way. Not that I'm particularly fond of the essay; it's just absolutely not the way to go about it since it will not improve the actual underlying issue, that for which people use the shorthand term 'fancruft' because it does exist. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disagreement with an essay is not a reason for deletion. Instead, feel free to write another essay condemning the notion of "fancruft".  Sandstein  14:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an essay, and people are perfectly entitled to write essays. If you dislike the content, write an essay of your own. Neıl 龱 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like Neil said, this is just an essay. If people want to disagree with essays, go ahead and write an opposing essay. Additionally, though I may not like it, deleting this page is hardly going to stop the flow of the usage of the word "cruft" as justification for deleting articles. We may as well keep this around. GlassCobra 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's just an essay. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a curious paradox that the editors who are so keen to delete articles on matters of interest to our readership should wish to instead keep such opinionated and offensive essays. It is quite contrary to our general principles which hold that we are here to create a great encyclopedia, rather than to enjoy the sound of our own voices. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also see the curious paradox that outspoken inclusionists actively seek deletion for once, but no-one will make friends if we elaborate on that any further, so let's not go there. (preemptive comment) – sgeureka t•c 20:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real problem, needs addressing. On one hand, we have people complaining about mathematical proofs taking up too much space -- in an encyclopedia! -- and on the other hand, we have List_of_minor_Star_Wars_characters. I rest my case. Niczar (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep should be developed into a pillar of wikipedia. Every time a page is created it should flash up. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our project is not taken serious because of the amount of cruft that we have here. The answer is not to try and erase a common piece of termnology amongst the community - that of cruft, it is to eliminate the problem we have here - that problem being cruft. this AFD is doubleplus ungood. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that were actually true, I would not keep coming across stuff like this. We are indeed mocked because of how we go about deleting material and that is a concern for me and many others, because we believe in our project and do not want readers and new contributors who have the potential to stay on and work on all kinds of pages that you may think more valuable or become donors, etc. Like many editors, when I started editing I focused of course on the articles that mattered to me, but have since helped to improve all sorts of article at others' requests (for example, see edits on March 19, 2008 following a request for help from Durova). Many editors might branch off into such other articles over time, but we are not likely to make them feel welcomed or encourage them if we dismiss their work as "crap," "cruft," or "shit." It is just not how we are going to retain editors. Plus, I have time and time again now come across AfDs with rapid fire "delete per nom", "delete as cruft," etc. only to have myself or others wind up finding all sorts of sources that end up resulting in the article being kept, which just further demonstrates the subjective and many times inaccurate use of the term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider renaming. Many objections in the nomination and the voting are about the potential incivility in calling editors' work "*cruft". So let's call it something kinder. How about WP: Avoid Excessive Detail ? BreathingMeat (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so arbitrary section break: Everyme's proposal[edit]

Everyme has made an interesting suggestion above: "Why not propose a rewrite, or a redirect of the page to a new essay with a more neutral title, e.g. something along the lines of Wikipedia:Fan enthusiasm and encyclopedic enthusiasm?" So, here is what I propose as there is clearly no consensus to delete at this point: 1) Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT is redirected to Wikipedia:Cruft and removed from the video game guideline and 2) all of the "cruft" pages cited in the nomination are then moved, merged, redirected to Wikipedia:Fan enthusiasm and encyclopedic enthusiasm following wording suggested by Everyme above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What about WP:Cruftcruft? EE 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is cruft associated with TV series, science fiction and fantasy novels, sports, locomotives, stamps, Wikipedia policies, and just about every hobby in addition to gaming. Why privilege one type of cruft over every other possible kind of cruft? Cruft is cruft. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All use of that word should be removed as it is incompatible with respectful and academic discourse. Plus, reasonable people can agree that a spade is indeed a spade and anyone who claims otherwise is essentially not reasonable. What is and is not "cruft", however, is something that editors disagree on. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) (replying to Grand Roi) While I agree that it's not civil to describe others' work as "cruft," we may as well keep the essay around for historical purposes. The expression of divergent views should be tolerated, even if they conflict with current policy; that is how policy changes. Plus, even if you disagree with the essay's contention that certain stuff should be labeled as cruft, the essay's existence provides you an opportunity to publicly refute those arguments on its talk page; and in the ensuing debate, as various points are made and refuted, it should become clearer to readers what the best course of action is. And in that way, we end up with better decisions being made. Also remember, someday, it may be your essays (or essays you support) that people want to delete. Best to just let everyone air their opinion. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I don't think what we have in mind involves giving undue weight to any particular type of cruft, or rather: to any particular associated concerns in any area. Indeed, cruft is cruft, regarding the implicit concerns of its users as well as the more explicit concerns of others regarding the usage of that term. WP:CRUFTCRUFT, as a meta essay, is a separate issue and should stay in place imo. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the idea, and would be willing to work on that page with LGRdC. My rationale is basically what I said above, and also that the frequent usage of the shortcut implies relevance to the project discourse on a level that imho mandates a neutral and helpful, in short: useful approach, not something to beat others over the head with. Basically, I don't have anything against the existence of the current essay, but the fairly prominent redirect at WP:CRUFT should go to something that might just become a reasonable guideline or at least a serious how-to. Also, the various individual opinions are implicitly contained as radicalisations of aspects of a neutral, matter-of-factly approach anyway and it's kind of sad that we haven't yet undertaken a serious unified attempt to distill and explain the spirit of all the various applicable policies, guidelines and wikiphilosophical approaches when the demand has been so clearly present for so long. I'd also be happy with the new page just being a more serious and organised essay page btw. My hope is that when the page approaches a useful state, a consensus is effortlessly going to emerge that it should be the primary target (and maybe even the central hub of sorts?) for anyone seeking information and advice on the issue. Note that I'm obviously dancing around the cake here of naming that issue -or lemma- as it obviously shouldn't use the term 'cruft' itself, or 'junk' for that matter, but would at the same time, among other things, include due acknowledgement of the various and multidirectional valid concerns I personally associate with the widespread adoption of the term. Fan enthusiasm and encyclopedic enthusiasm is just an idea I had a while back when another user and me mused about writing that page. Since this has now resurfaced, for me at least, for the second time, I'd be willing to give it a serious shot. All input is of course highly welcome.
    As to WP:GAMECRUFT and the wikiproject guidelines it links to, I don't think a valid consensus can be determined here and come the time, that issue would best be assessed separately at a central location. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So... because you're offended by a word and how people use it, we should delete it? Shall I petition the world's dictionaries to remove comprise? People use that word incorrectly all the time. Or how about idiot or moron? Those words are used aggressively and contribute nothing to a collegial atmosphere. No, that would be ridiculous. As is this nomination. If you have a problem with how people are using words, then that is an issue to be addressed with the editor himself, not by deleting a page because you dislike the terminology. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use of "cruft" is ridiculous and inconsiderate to a civilized discussion. The pages should be deleted because they seem to legitimate an unconstructive term. I cannot think of any logical reason why anyone would be okay with supporting use of a nonsense word that annoys editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the rub is we don't all share that belief about the word cruft. If we all were operating from the premise that the word cruft was unacceptable for use in any discussion, we wouldn't be in this MfD. This essay(s) would have been torpedoed long ago. What if we ban cruft and it is replaced with "kludgy" (thought a strict comparison wouldn't be accurate)? Kludge is not in standard english usage, but it is in use among smaller social groups to describe an inelegant solution to a problem. Cruft is in use among certain social groups to describe the accumulation over time of miscellany in articles. We do not all agree that the word is patently offensive. We do not (although many more agree than not) agree that use of the word is uncivil. The essay describes the word, common parlance legitimates it (were it to require a veneer of legitimacy). Legitimacy does not flow from this essay, as any exchange on AfD will show. One may write a Wikipedia:Cruft essay, a Wikipedia:Cruftcruft essay, or even a Wikipedia:Cruftcruftcruft if we so desire. I am no more compelled to treat the first with authority than I am the third. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly it! "We don't all share that belief about the word cruft." The incivil word lacks consensus and is not policy and is subjective, but is used by some as if it somehow is justification to delete articles that others argue satisfy policies and guidelines and is used to dismiss others' work. And I am happy to read that you will not treat such an essay with legitimacy. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but we don't need to share a belief about cruft in order for this essay to remain. Reasonable differences may exist about the meaning or validity of several essays. I'm sure reasonable minds disagree about WP:FUCK. This disagreement doesn't mean that the term cruft can't be used. You are making it seem like people are presenting CRUFT as a policy that must be enforced, rather than an interpretation of policy. That is an editor problem. "Cruft" as a one word rationale is not justification to delete something. Linking to cruft isn't that justification. It isn't even a sentence. The start of some justification would be "I feel this article is cruft because...as such, it should be deleted." Insofar as that editor's comment reflects a real policy, then it will be noted. You see this in closing remarks all the time "Keep(delete) side votes were not based on policy...". You have made strong and persuasive arguments for these essays to not be given the force of a guideline or policy. I think VERY few people believe that WP:CRUFT should be a policy. But that is not the threshold for inclusion as an essay. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think of Everyme's alternative proposal? And yes, some do indeed even in this discussion say that "cruft" should be a policy. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look at it in a bit. And I never said "no one". Some people will ALWAYS think some things. As long as people's preferences are spread out, someone will be on one end and someone else will be on the other. And the fact that people think that this essay should be policy is even more reason to keep it (because if they think it ought to be a policy they are bound to think it at least ought to remain as an essay). Protonk (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. I looked at it. I think that renaming it while a good portion of the community uses the other name is a recipe for malcontent. WP:VAIN is the closest analogue I can think of and that was done because "vanity" is a personal insult. I can't see an argument of similar force being made for something that describes content rather than people. Isn't it a bit like renaming "shell shock" "battle fatigue" (where credit is due)Protonk (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an editoral issue for you to take up on that page - it's irrelevent to this administrative MFD process. so please don't conflate the two. --Allemandtando (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators can make protected redirects and can close XfDs in a variety of ways. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's fine where it is, the title is fine. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Throwing my two cents in. WP:CIVIL does not mean we do not call a spade a spade, and it should not mean we override the primary purpose of this encyclopedia (to wit, being an enyclopedia) to coddle people. This is a useful essay to explain the concept of fancruft and should stay. JuJube (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reasonable people can agree that a spade is indeed a spade and anyone who claims otherwise is essentially not reasonable. What is and is not "cruft", however, is something that editors disagree on. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no consensus to delete it because there's nothing wrong with calling cruft "cruft". People disagree on what is or isn't cruft, but it doesn't mean that it's a bad term, or non-existant concept. People might disagree about what is or isn't notable, or what is or isn't bad, or what is or isn't point of view. But we don't erase words from peoples' vocabularies just because people disagree how to apply them. We discuss whether the word applies. Yes, sometimes people will misapply a word. But if we were to remove every word that got misused we wouldn't have very many words left. Randomran (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's wrong with it is because noone can agree on what is and is not "cruft" and the term is likely to offend/insult new users, which is why it is a bad term. This word is misused at a particularly disproportionate level in XfDs. If editors used better wording, they would actually make stronger arguments and better endear themselves to their colleagues. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • People misusing the term isn't justification for censoring the term from wikipedia altogether. And not everyone is concerned with endearing themselves to each other. That doesn't necessarily make them incivil. Honest criticism is civil. Either way, your opinion on the word is distinctly in the minority, and even if you could unilaterally delete this essay people would still use the term. You're obviously going to be disappointed with the outcome here, so here's something you can do on your own: when someone says "this is cruft", ask them why it's cruft. And if they give a reason, then counter with an explanation as to why it's not cruft. Then let the discussion ensue, and accept the wisdom of the consensus on the cruft/non-cruft distinction. Randomran (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no consensus on what is and is not cruft and I am not going to encourage anyone to use this word by giving it any legitimacy in a discussion. I would much rather compel people to use more academic language. A good number of the "keep this essay" comments above even note how the word itself is not really helpful even if they think the essay should be kept for historic purposes. In any event, people can make honest criticism in a more respectful and tactful fashion than using such words. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here are other words that are misused: vandal, sockpuppet. But they are discrete concepts. Just like cruft: information that is superfluous or incomprehensible to reasonably skilled reader. We don't censor words. We can't pass a guideline to make everyone into Ned Flanders. Accept criticism, where valid, and ignore it where it's not. I intend to keep calling cruft cruft. You're always welcome to dispute whether something is, in fact, cruft, just as I'm welcome to apply the word cruft with justification. But I'm going to ask once politely that you learn to accept my choice of vocabulary, or leave me alone. Randomran (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Vandals and sockpuppets are far easier to degfine than "cruft." I will never take seriously use of "cruft" as a valid argument in an XfD. And if you would like to be left alone, then that works both ways. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I just defined cruft. I don't mind if you have a legitimate disagreement with me over the substance of certain articles. But at a certain point you have to allow me to use the word "cruft" in peace, despite your disagreement with it. Every time I use it, just imagine that I said "superfluous detail that doesn't belong in wikipedia". Randomran (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Why not just say that instead? It's not about me, but about not throwing off or offending those who created or worked on the articles in question. It's about finding a way to continue working with them in the future that won't make them resent those who labelled their work in such a fashion. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Nah, I'm gonna keep saying cruft. Randomran (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Then people are going to keep posting [{WP:ITSCRUFT]] in response or disregard the argument. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Then someone is going to read to those people what "ITSCRUFT" actually says. "Please note that while declaring something to be 'cruft' in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, there are certain types of material that are not acceptable for Wikipedia. 'Cruft' is often used as a shorthand term for this type of content, and the use of this term should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion which policy it fails and why it fails it." It's cruft isn't a condemnation of the word. In fact, it supports editors who use the word so long as they support it with a rationale. Besides, it's an essay, and not a guideline or policy. Randomran (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Which is exactly what "cruft" is not, i.e. neither a policy nor a guideline. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • You're not talking about deleting a policy or guideline. Your beef is entirely with a word. Randomran (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • My nomination also includes deleting Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Because you don't like the word cruft, not because it's a bad guideline. The guideline clearly outlines what "cruft" is. It's up to editors to apply it accurately. Randomran (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • The guideline itself is overly restrictive/exclusive, as seen by the total lack of consensus at the discussions to revise the notability guideline. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • But to the extent that it sets appropriate limits, it excludes cruft. That's why it's called "gamecruft", because it targets cruft. If you have a problem with the guideline itself, propose a change to the guideline, and see what consensus you get. Randomran (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Which is exactly the problem. It targets something that is subjectively determined. The guideline can be changed once the regular notability guideline changes as it seems logical to finish revising that to be more inclusive first and then applying to the sub-guidelines. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • No more subjective than anything else in wikipedia. Wikipedia is the sum of reasoned perspectives. I agree that guidelines should be updated as they all evolve. But in the meantime, consensus leaves us where we are now. Randomran (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • And the consensus has shown that as a subjective word, it is a weak reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • All words by themselves are poor reasons for deletion. "Hoax" "Cruft" "Crystal" "Biased" "Bad". Arguments take at least a few words. Lots of articles are deleted or cleaned up as cruft. Not because someone called it cruft, but because numerous editors made convincing arguments that it was cruft. Randomran (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • I don't typically see compelling arguments that contain "cruft." --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                              • Fortunately, most other people are able to recognize them. As well as administrators. Randomran (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                                • Yes, all reasonable people are able to recognize that "cruft" is almost if not never a compelling reason for anything. Sincerely, --Happy editing! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                                  • I've got at least a dozen AFDs that show that using the word "cruft" doesn't undermine a solid argument. But whatever makes you feel better. Randomran (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cruft is a new word for something that already has a name. "Excessive Detail" covers it pretty well. I don't think that avoiding the word "cruft" is a spade-identification issue. BreathingMeat (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So? It's developed into a word we all understand - if we try and ban cruft, people will just settle on another term maybe crap or something similar.--Allemandtando (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested using "crap" instead of "cruft" on WT:CVG, although I think it was a fair bet I was just needling Le Roi because he was sidetracking discussions with this nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep describes a real problem and is a useful essay. Eusebeus (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to nicer title if consensus can be gained on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can understand the temptation, and I agree with the sentiments presented by those wishing to delete the essay. (I am not radically inclusionist, but "cruft" is a non-reason for deleting anything). Still, I think the term has become so common in Wikipedia that some sort of page describing its meaning is of benefit. I would prefer the essay to be more condemning in the use of the term however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice or not, it's one of those "already firmly entrenched in Wikipedia lingo" things; there's nothing wrong about wanting just a little bit niceness at first (Consider how fast "vanity" guideline mutated into less accusatory "conflict of interest" guideline), but since this term has been in use for a long long time, the remaining people still offended about the term should preferrably grow some skin, if that is not too much to ask, thank you. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm mostly concerned about it seemingly like "biting the new editors" and starting people's experience here on a sour note. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Essays are meant to explain things, and this one does a good job. Telling people their edits qualify as "Fan Cruft" is too bitey? Really? I thought I was the one with paranoia. Seriously, though, I don't think anybody reads into the title that much that they just straigh leave the wiki because they don't like the use of "cruft". If they do, then it's probably a good thing to be rid of them.--Koji†Dude (C) 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep essay is legit, I don't see any reason to delete it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it legitimizes an unhelpful and subjective term that discourages people from wanting to edit and that stifles polite discussion. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Le Grand, I get where you're coming from man, but I don't think it's that serious of a problem. If somone takes the usage of the word "cruft" as insulting or mean to the point that they never want to edit Wikipedia again, they really need to grow a pair. Fast.--Koji†Dude (C) 02:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not just that it's offensive to some, but that it is used to express an opinion, i.e. I think that something is "cruft" (whatever that individual's personal perception of that term is) rather than "I think that the article must be deleted, because it is libelous, a copywright violation, a hoax, cannot be sourced after spending several minutes looking for sources, or some other compelling reason to argue for deletion. My concern is twofold, the impoliteness of the term and its weakness as an argument. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so arbitrary section break 2: Wikipedia:Discuss cruft[edit]
  • UPDATE: I don't know who else all caught the following, but a new account (not sure if it is a new account or alternate account or what) appears to have created Wikipedia:Discuss cruft in response to this discussion. --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not bad, I like it. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same here. Everyme 01:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dunno. How is that essay significantly different from WP:CRUFT? the language in WP:CRUFT is pretty well reasoned and tame. Protonk (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no need to be deleted under any circumstances. Tag it {{historical}} if it's ever made obsolete should the community decides to move on from here. - Mailer Diablo 08:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a non-controversial essay. If the nominator dislikes the name, them move it to a more agreeable name, but the content is valid. Yngvarr (c) 10:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - trying to delete this essay will not end all usage of the term "cruft" on Wikipedia. In any case, call a spade a spade. Trying to dodge the issue isn't really helpful. Yes, people need to explain why something is cruft, but you're treating the word as some type of profanity, which it is not. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reasonable people can agree that a spade is indeed a spade and anyone who claims otherwise is essentially not reasonable. What is and is not "cruft", however, is something that editors disagree on. Sincerely, --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE do not mean Wikipedia is supposed to be a utopia of niceness. I could understand if the essay was called WP:FANSHIT or something. But I don't really see "cruft" as especially offensive. What should we call it instead? WP:OVERLYSPECIFICPOPULARCULTUREMATERIALTHATISNOTAPPROPRIATEFORWIKIPEDIA? Mr.Z-man 04:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is calling edits "cruft" a breach of WP:AGF? At any rate, if what you guys want to happen is less use of WP:FANCRUFT in AfD arguments, than nominating it for deletion is a clear violation of WP:POINT and a blockable offense. Remember what Talk Pages are for?--Koji†Dude (C) 14:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a breach of AGF because usage of the term can only ever be based on the a priori auxiliary assumption that the user who made those edits is unwilling to be educated about suitability of content — or, worse, the assumption that s/he is unable to be educated, in which case it is a personal attack rather than 'just' a violation of AGF. I wager such an attempt of a conciliatory approach has not been undertaken in most cases where someone calls another user's edits cruft, so it's uncivil, it doesn't assume good faith and intelligence on the other user's part and, most importantly, it's always unuseful and demonstrates no attempt at actually improving the problem. Anyone who believes that the (clearly existing!) problem which some call 'cruft' can be solved with an iron crowbar like that should think again. Also, I take issue at the statement "you guys". Who, we guys? Also also, while I agree that this MfD is a suboptimal reaction, there's no "intention to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" whatsoever. Using words like "blockable offense" in this context is just creating unnecessary drama and is also plain wrong. Everyme 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cruft" is not a derogatory term. Curft = Anything old or of inferior quality[17]. Labeling an edit cruft in no way insults anyone or assumes any kind of idiocy. Rather, you should assume that the people using the term cruft aren't trying to insult anyone. You're taking a word out of context and blowing it out of proportion.--Koji†Dude (C) 15:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just trying to be considerate with people who take issue at the way that word is being used and find myself empathising with their position, despite (or, more accurately: due to ) the fact that I am indeed strongly concerned about the imho rampant problem of subpar popculture coverage on Wikipedia. I'm also trying to be considerate with people like myself who rightly take issue at statements like the one directly below. Everyme 15:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has only helped deletionists destroy important content.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. This kind of fighting lingo is really no better than using the term cruft. If you (rightly, imho) expect people to cease using 'cruft' in an unuseful, aggressive fashion, you yourself should consider how utterly unuseful it is to say that 'deletionists' (a term that is quite contentious in its own right) are 'destroying' (AGF, CIVIL, NPA...) 'important' (NPOV, COI, BIAS...) 'content' (NOT...at least in some cases). Everyme 14:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. WP:CRUFT doesn't have editing privileges. It can't delete pages or make comments. how does it help anyone delete anything? Protonk (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft_(second_nomination)

Leave a Reply