Talk:Cute Overload

message: A very rough page, but one that should definitely be here! (Widely viewed and an award winner - definitely does not meet any deletion criteria!) --JD79 16:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Love to help, but extended exposure to pictures of bunnies, kittens and puppies makes me queasy ;-) Fan-1967 22:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries....?  I just added links to all of the Rules of Cuteness to the page. Dracwolley 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And someone deleted that. Great.  That took me two hours. Dracwolley 10:28, 23 April 1007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone put them back - they should stay there, as there's not a concise list on the site.  This page has come pretty far! --JD79 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginnings

message: Please leave the Rules of Cuteness in the article.  They are not easily obtainable as a concise list through the CO website and therefore WP serves as a unique & easily usable source of that information. --JD79 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, the rules are linked to right in the categorie menu...all right there...in a line...one right after the other...none missing. So yes, they are extremely easy to obtain through the CO website. Leaving them in here is a blatant disregard to policy, in that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm removing them. As a compromise, I'll link to the "Rules of Cuteness" page in the external links section. --74.137.225.219 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It actually is a FAQ. It explains the rules of cuteness, which is, in essence, a FAQ. Not only it is a FAQ, but we can list it under external links to the official list, which renders the entire list here useless. If you want a full list, either go to the official site (which IS linked) or go to a fansite. Further, it can be listed as an excessive listing of statistics because, really, that's all that The List boils down to: what do the most popular images show. Ignoring all of this, the information still has to pass WP:N, which it currently does not. Considering the article has been considered for deletion, it would probably be best to focus on the verifiability and notability of the subject, as opposed to information that, in all honestly, only fans would appreciate (and that comes from a fan). --132 04:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, WP:IINFO isn't simply defined by those bullet points. Indiscriminate is the key word there. We don't just add anything to the article just because someone has the ability to add it. This article is about Cute Overload, not the Rules of Cuteness. The information in this article needs to be about why the site is notable. Things like awards, history, and popularity are good things to have in the article. A massive list of 45 random things the site owner thinks is cute is not. It is also why we don't list every product HP makes or every recipe Paula Deen has published or every city Blink 182 has performed in. The Rules of Cuteness is information that the actual website is for, not this encyclopedia's. It is perfectly acceptable to have a few examples and a link to the full set, but listing them all here is complete overkill and totally unnecessary. In addition to WP:IINFO, you may want to take a look at the last point in WP:NOTDIR. --132 13:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules of Cuteness

message: I added a separate section with a few vocab words and their "translations", and it was removed as being "fancruft". I think there were 5 different words there, so it wasn't overbearing, and I felt it added some colour the entry. CO has some, well, CUTE vocabulary and I think the section is worth keeping.
Comments? Msp0 08:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fancruft. Go to that page to look at the definition of fancruft, which is, in a nutshell, anything that only fans of the topic would care about. Considering that only people within the Cute Overload universe use the words, the vocab is the very definition of fancruft. A few examples are all that is necessary, not a list of it. Plus the creator is constantly coming up with more, which means the list would never end. To go even further, Wikipedia is not a dictionary OR an indiscriminate collection of information. The same goes for the rules. It's cluttering the page up with useless information to anyone who doesn't visit the webpage. Again, just a few examples would suffice, rather than listing every single one of them. --74.137.225.219 19:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Msp0 said, there were only a few words listed. Thus, what this user did wouldn't be fancruft, because it wasn't a full listing. It was just a small example of words used.Ingres77 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the history, there were nine words. Nine words is not a few. Even worse, they were in list format. Two or three examples are sufficient enough to get the point across and it doesn't get repetative or move in the direction of breaking policy. --74.137.227.117 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocabulary section

message: I added a See Also section so we can included related websites indexed by wikipedia. --Talltree1 13:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the only article listed there was promptly deleted, I have since removed the section. The section can be included again if another similar article is found. --74.137.227.117 03:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also section

message: I have reverted an edit expanding the "Rules of Cuteness" list beyond a representative 5. The editor has expressed as his/her "goal" a complete list of those "Rules" (some +/- 48 entries long). As was stated earlier in a discussion on this (see last entries above), expansive "lists" are not desirable in WP articles, an observation with which I concur.  Anyone else? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't see the harm in listing things like that. Sure you could go to CO's website and sift through all the web pages but it would be quicker to just view this in a list form. I guess the onus should be on CO's website to create such a page. Coolcajun (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. If the weblog itself isn't enthused enough about its "Rules of Cuteness" to present a composite list and there is no third-party sourcing elsewhere inre a composite list, why would it be appropriate for a WP article?  We don't generally do "lists" nor do we do WP:OR. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded list of "Rules of Cuteness"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cute Overload. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603205131/http://technorati.com/blogs/cuteoverload.com/ to http://technorati.com/blogs/cuteoverload.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified