Wikipedia talk:Vanispamcruftisement

message: 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)
replies: text: I prefer vanityspamcruft myself -- Astrokey44|talk 05:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: vanityspamcruft is good (as a name, I mean :)) --kingboyk 23:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I too prefer the term vanityspamcruft. It has a certain clarity about it. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another vote for the at least pronounceable vanityspamcruft. --Dhartung | Talk 16:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: You're the one that made it up...J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  23:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like vanityspamcruft too.  New users won't need to read this article to get the point. zephyr2k 03:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: 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)
replies: text: Good luck trying to achieve consensus for that :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  13:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CSD criteria?

message: Does this word look like a word that wouldn't come under WP:BITE in terms of it being used on new users? Ansell Review my progress! 23:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Isn't this article itself nothing more than Wikipedia cruft? -- User:67.42.51.28 23:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement for discussion on failed attempt to delete this thing. -- PinkCake 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this look like to new users

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

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