Wikipedia talk:Listcruft/Archive 1

Parts of this article were taken or adapted from Fancruft. See that article's history for contributor information. Stifle 20:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Cruft"
How come we suddenly have an official guideline which has the insulting and divisive term "cruft" in its title? Kappa 00:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not an official guideline, it is simply a deletion criterion that some users apply. I don't consider "cruft" to be insulting and divisive, and as you'll see on the article, it is not intended to be pejorative. Stifle 10:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Insulting and divisive"? The organisers of the highly-prestigious dog show Crufts would beg to differ. 193.122.47.162 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy Dispute
I've removed the "accuracy disputed" tag from this page for two reasons. If you would like to re-add it, feel free, but please consider adding a reason to the talk page. Stifle 23:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There was no discussion of the accuracy dispute on the talk page, so it is impossible to determine what the editor who added the tag meant.
 * 2) This is not an article in the main namespace. "Factual accuracy" is meaningless.

Depressing
It's depressing that deletionists would use a page like this to encourage use of a term that insults those who disagree with it and which is used as a substitute for giving clear reasons in accordance with policy. Kappa 00:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't consider myself a deletionist. (And perhaps you should avoid 'a term that insults those who disagree with' [you] 'and which is used as a substitute for giving clear reasons' for your argument' (oops ;-) ). But I take your point, and I've expanded the criticism of the term along those lines. --Doc ask?  00:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Deletionist" is not inherently insulting, in constrast to "-cruft" compounds. Kappa 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing is inherently insulting (all language is subjective and socially constructed). As you are aware, some people are insulted by it. Anyway, I think your second argument applies to both: ie using dismissive lables is not a substitue for rational debate. --Doc ask?  01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm "Nothing is inherently insulting" - you must be a relativist or something, LOL. Kappa 01:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, another label for me? ;) Well, I suppose I find it less insulting that being called an objectivist. :)--Doc ask?  01:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've substantially rewritten the page, and made section divisions clearer. Please keep WP:NPOV in mind if/when making further edits. I assert that "listcruft" is an abbreviation for one or more of the criteria listed. I never use "listcruft" without citing a reason and linking here. Stifle 01:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, please keep WP:NPOV in mind. NPOV doesn't mean "my POV first and then a tiny sliver on other possible POVs". Stifle 12:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Does User:Kappa have the same dedication to Fancruft? Stifle 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This word could be safely redirected there. Kappa 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried a compromise wording. I suggest we keep this to describing its usage and objections to it, rather than offering advice or instruction as to whether to use it. Make the reader aware of the issues and strong feelings - but leave at that. --Doc ask?  16:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy with this wording (except for the misspelling, which I changed). Incidentally, it is a Wikipedia essay, not a guideline or the like. Score one for WP:3O. Stifle 19:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I strongly encourage Kappa to write about his misgivings about the term here on the talk page. Stifle 23:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Useful
I found this article useful because I had no idea what the word meant prior to reading it. I have seen it several times on discussion pages and the like, and, although I don't know if it should be an "official guideline" as Kappa describes it, I think it is a helpful article. Maybe there should be a redirect from listcruft (or perhaps to listcruft). Matatigre36 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cross-namespace redirects are generally considered bad. However, I'll make a shortcut from WP:LC. Stifle 11:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's one of the criteria for deletion. In fact, listcruft is a redirect currently up for deletion, as useful as I think it would be myself.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 16:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

List problems
I think I have a listcruft, Third generation Go-Go bands. It was started as a way to stop people from adding their own bands, but now that's what's happening. Can you give me some advice on how to stop the cruft-ification? I was thinking of limiting the list to band with a certain number of Google hits? Thanks. --Awiseman 17:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fictional X Lists
You know, there are a lot of lists of fictional things on Wikipedia. See for example Lists of fictional things and that's just what people have bothered to add. Maybe this page should have some mention of them? FrozenPurpleCube 04:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent deaths/Listcruft
Hi there,

I was confused when I went to Wikipedia recent deaths page today, which I do every day, and found there a reference to Listcruft. I called up this word and read the page about it, which was almost too detailed to understand, but eventually I got the message.

It may not be an encyclopedic list which one could find in a dictionary or reference book, but surely that is the point of having a living encyclopedia which is updated constantly, like Wikipedia, to be able to find out these unusual things. Is not this type of reference engine bigger and more comprehensive that a simple place to look things up that could be found in a book? The internet is for all the world to use and enjoy, and imposing rules as to narrow minded interpretations of the word encyclopedia is limiting everyone's enjoyment of this wonderful media of communication.

Pinkphrats 10:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy vs. essay
This article should be a policy and not an essay for the purpose of writing better articles.--Sefringle 07:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely, I agree. IMO it should also be a criterion for speedy deletion (or if not, at least something to consider for AfDs) -- then, we could avoid things like this. -- BlastOButter42 See  Hear  Speak  03:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't just take an essay and "nominate it for policy", especially not one that is ill-defined or has a pejorative name. Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive; you can't write a legislative rule and expect people to follow it. Rather, you should write a page like WP:OC detailing which kinds of lists are undesirable, based upon AFD precedent. That would be a useful guideline. This page is just a lament that WP has too many allegedly-silly lists.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe. It obviously can't be a policy; it could be considered for a guideline, though it has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Wikipedia is all too obviously going to choose cruftiness over concision because there are way too many people out there whose investment in the project consists largely of trivia and cataloguing. I've just about decided to concede defeat and limit my efforts to keeping these lists in their own articles, even if the lists are mostly crap. Mangoe 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It could, more usefully, be marked controversial, or marked rejectred, or deleted, or moved to user space. I do notthink there is the least consensus on the extent to which lists ought to be used or the criteria.  DGG 02:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, this article is very controversial and needs much work on it before it should ever be considered policy or guideline. However, despite it not being policy or guideline there are administarors and others who continue nominating lists for deletion with "listcruft" as the rationale. This is frankly a wrong practice, and is a violation of WP:Point once such individuals are informed that they are nominating deletions without any policy or guideline to support them. I'm so tired of seeing this tossed out there. Also, they usually nominate it like this: Listcruft, impossible to maintain and will never be complete". Where is any of that grounded in policy? Any of it? (Mind meal 03:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC))


 * From what I can tell, there's very little policy governing lists in general. This essay may be controversial, especially among the so-called "inclusionists" (really, who comes up with these labels?), but it seems there needs to be SOME kind of further policy in regard to lists. Further, several lists HAVE been deleted by the guidelines outlined in this essay, so it's reasonable to assume there is at least SOME consensus among a number of editors as to this essay's usefulness as a guideline. From what I can tell, though, the merits of this essay as a policy or guideline haven't really been debated. I, for one, think it would be a great idea to open up discussion on the subject, and will be looking for a way to bring this discussion to fruition. Sidatio 13:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger
Oppose merging, again. This is distinctly different from fancruft. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Irony
Just for fun, does the fact that half of this article consists of two indiscriminate and trivial lists constitute an example of irony? I may have to add that to my forthcoming article List of articles with ironic self references. Please allow 10-15 minutes after article creation to start the AfD. Alansohn 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Moronic lists unlikely to be deleted from Wikipedia.

 * I think the discussion page of this article is the best place to post links to ridiculous lists that, despite being obviously against wikipedia policies and being nominated for deletion many times, are kept anyways for the stubborness of the article writers and their fellows.
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay%2C_lesbian_or_bisexual_people (unlimited, unverifiable)
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_phenomena (unlimited, 4chan, meme)
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_buildings_and_structures (unlimited, directory)
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_years_in_art (directory, unmaintenable)

feel free to add any list you think that doesn't belong to wikipedia and with little hope of seeing it deleted. 84.121.137.200 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about any list in the Simpsons universe? Anthony Rupert (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger 2

 * Oppose merging yet again; this is a very distinct topic from Overlistification. There is some overlap (as in lists of trivial intersections) but they are not the same. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)