Wikipedia talk:Vanispamcruftisement

Terminology
Spam and Advertisement are the same thing, so I think this would be better as vanispamcruft which is shorter andm easier to say. --Revolución (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what the redirect and the IPA pronuncación guide are for. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  02:48, Jan. 13, 2006
 * I prefer vanityspamcruft myself -- Astrokey44 |talk 05:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * vanityspamcruft is good (as a name, I mean :)) --kingboyk 23:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the full name and whatever debate, I just want to say that this is long overdue and I would like to extend a warm thank you to all those behind this. ¡Dustimagic!  ( T / C ) 04:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I too prefer the term vanityspamcruft. It has a certain clarity about it. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Another vote for the at least pronounceable vanityspamcruft. --Dhartung | Talk 16:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But vanispoamcruftisement is pronounceable. You can call it whatever you like, of course, but the original term as coined should remain as the primary reference.  I can't believe I'm arguing about the etymology of a made-up word! Just zis Guy you know? 17:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're the one that made it up...J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 23:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I like vanityspamcruft too. New users won't need to read this article to get the point.  zephyr2k  03:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer Vancarlimospacecraft ;) -- Avi 01:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD criteria?
Anyone else think that this would work well as being one of the G-forms for CSD?--み使い Mitsukai 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck trying to achieve consensus for that :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 13:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What does this look like to new users
Does this word look like a word that wouldn't come under WP:BITE in terms of it being used on new users? Ans e  ll  Review my progress! 23:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it should be used cautiously, to avoid WP:BITE. I wouldn't use this in communicating with an article's first author that I think falls under this definition, but I would and do use it as a shorthand in AfD nominations and votes. Even then, I try to err on the side of caution and not label things as vanispamcruftisement when it's not very clearly so. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I think it's a quite useful term for articles that don't really fit any of the ideas separately but which contain elements of all of them. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't this article itself nothing more than Wikipedia cruft? -- User:67.42.51.28 23:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement for discussion on failed attempt to delete this thing. -- PinkCake 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Vanispamcruftwhatever
I say it "vanispamicruftwhatchamacallit" myself. I'm hoping that catches on. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See above. -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's brilliant.--Jay Tepper (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't a more modern term...
be "conflictofspamunencyclotisement"? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)