Talk:Cruft

message: How do you pronounce cruft? ? ? —Frungi 03:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Oxford Online Dictionary of American English) --Thnidu (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: who added that page?? --Shandris 10:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for Deletion: [[Crufty]] 

message: I know nothing on the specific topic of this article, but it needs a first sentence that briefly explains the word before the article splits into categories. - Emiellaiendiay 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: ===Wiktionary===
My prod just got removed. Unless someone gives me a good reason, I'm going to nominate this to be transwikied ... --evrik (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the prod, but only because I thought there should be discussion first through AFD. It doesn't need to be transwikied, it's already at Wiktionary, but deletion might be in order.--Cúchullain t/c 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did say it "should be discussed first" in my edit summary, I suppose I could have added "through AfD". Speaking of which, are you going to list it? --Cúchullain t/c 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting idea, but disambiguation pages shouldn't link to Wikipedia namespace, it's self-reference. --Roninbk t c  # 08:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For once, I actually agree.  This "word" is immature and totally not useful and so I do not see how it deserves an article.  If renominated for deletion, let me know, as I would actually probably vote to delete this useless term from Wikipedia, although I'd like to see it leave the English language entirely.  One can dream after all! :)  Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As someone who added a few references, I'd agree with deletion.  I won't claim that I spent a lot of time, or much boldness, on the article, but the longer I looked at it, the more I was thinking things like "but this is just an example of someone who used the word, not really a concept worth writing an encyclopedia article about" or "but there is no connection between this paragraph and that one, other than the presence of the word cruft in both".  The word itself is widely used (in some circles, anyway), but that's a job for wiktionary and the jargon file (as are things like etymologies). Procedurally, I'm a bit reluctant to nominate it when less than a year has passed since the last nomination. But I can at least offer my opinion here. Kingdon 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page status

message: My prod just got removed. Unless someone gives me a good reason, I'm going to nominate this to be transwikied ... --evrik (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the prod, but only because I thought there should be discussion first through AFD. It doesn't need to be transwikied, it's already at Wiktionary, but deletion might be in order.--Cúchullain t/c 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did say it "should be discussed first" in my edit summary, I suppose I could have added "through AfD". Speaking of which, are you going to list it? --Cúchullain t/c 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiktionary

message: There are a few meanings for this word, so whether if this article gets deleted or not, it would be better off changing this into a disambiguation page, and salvage the article (whether if its deleted or not) to a separate page. 
As many readers would really be looking for Wikipedia:Fancruft. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, but disambiguation pages shouldn't link to Wikipedia namespace, it's self-reference. --Roninbk t c  # 08:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to change [[Cruft]] to a disambiguation page

message: Why does this page exist? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This page is merely a definition of a slang term with a spurious etymology section. The article does not state why the subject of the article is notable and does not give any references for the information it contains.212.140.167.99 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For once, I actually agree.  This "word" is immature and totally not useful and so I do not see how it deserves an article.  If renominated for deletion, let me know, as I would actually probably vote to delete this useless term from Wikipedia, although I'd like to see it leave the English language entirely.  One can dream after all! :)  Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As someone who added a few references, I'd agree with deletion.  I won't claim that I spent a lot of time, or much boldness, on the article, but the longer I looked at it, the more I was thinking things like "but this is just an example of someone who used the word, not really a concept worth writing an encyclopedia article about" or "but there is no connection between this paragraph and that one, other than the presence of the word cruft in both".  The word itself is widely used (in some circles, anyway), but that's a job for wiktionary and the jargon file (as are things like etymologies). Procedurally, I'm a bit reluctant to nominate it when less than a year has passed since the last nomination. But I can at least offer my opinion here. Kingdon 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unencyclopedic

message: Should there be a section on newscruft? I've seen notations from other editors indicating that they removed content because it was newscruft. --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newscruft 

message: This claim is unsourced and unlikely.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruft Lab