Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alansohn (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 20 June 2007 (Misplaced Pages:Wikistalking warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Schoolcruft. Any issues with tone or perceived civility issues should be most helpfully addressed at Misplaced Pages:Schoolcruft. Alternatively, you may want to get a sense of humor. Alansohn 05:56, 17 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Wikistalking at work here? Alansohn 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)