Wikipedia:Discussing cruft
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell:
|
"Cruft" is computer jargon for excessive or needlessly detailed information. It has become adopted by the Wikipedia community in order to describe information that embodies excessive detail and triviality, to the point that it violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Many Wikipedians use "
How to talk about cruft
Cruft is a real problem, not a dirty word
Bad Example:
- I agree that this does not belong in Wikipedia. But calling it cruft is offensive. –Workingeditor 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Good Example:
- I would appreciate it if you would help me identify the cruft. This article can be cleaned up and improved. –Workingeditor 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Cruft is a real problem in Wikipedia. Excessive or needless information prevents Wikipedia from meeting its
Don't just state it
Bad Example:
- Delete this is cruft. –Crufthater 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Good Example:
- Delete this content as it is completely unverified cruft. Because no one can find reliable secondary sources on this subject we should delete it. –Crufthater00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Talk about articles, not editors
Bad Example:
- This is a lot of cruft. Are the editors of this article stupid? –Crufthater 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Good Example:
- This content is a lot of cruft. Let us work together to fix it. –Crufthater 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Civility is a standard all editors have to follow. Honest and constructive criticism is always valuable. But insulting editors is considered an act of incivility. A pattern of gross incivility may result in action from an administrator. Focus on the cruft itself rather than the person who added it.
Articles don't have feelings
Bad Example:
- Please don't call my article cruft. I worked hard on it and you're hurting my feelings. –Workingeditor 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Good Example:
- We can verify most of this article with reliable secondary sources. If there is any cruft left, we can clean it up. –Workingeditor00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Nobody likes to find out that their hard work violates the
It's not about what you like
Bad Examples:
- I hate this cruft. –Crufthater 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
- I like this article. It's useful information, not cruft. –Workingeditor 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
Good Examples:
- This article is cruft that violates specific guidelines ... –Crufthater 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
- The information is properly referenced. What is the real problem here? –Workingeditor 00:01, July 4 2008 (UTC)
What to do with suspected cruft
Be
- Tag the article with a template messagethat specifically identifies the problem.
- Discuss which parts of the information don't belong in Wikipediaand remove it.
- reliable secondary sources.
- If cleaning up cruft will result in a short stub article, consider merging the article into a larger topic.
- If cleaning up cruft will result in virtually no information, consider redirecting the article or nominating it for deletion.
- And always engage in civil, well-reasoned discussion.
Wikipedia rules that target cruft
Policy
- Wikipedia:Verifiability
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Wikipedia:No original research
- Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion
- Wikipedia:Copyrights
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
- Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox
- Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
- Wikipedia is not a directory
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Guidelines
- Wikipedia:Notability
- Wikipedia:Writing about fiction
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources
- Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms
- Wikipedia:Trivia sections
Jimbo
Notes
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT
See also
Opinions on appropriate content
- Fancruft
- Listcruft
- Call a spade a spade
- Pokémon test
- Complete bollocks
- Vanispamcruftisement
Opinions on appropriate discussion
- Fancruft
- Cruftcruft
- Don't call things cruft
- Call a spade a spade