Forum:200XCruft

Forums: Index > Village Dump > 200XCruft

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6287 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Okay after reading Hinoa's opinion on 200XCruft on VFD I find I agree. it isn't a valid reason to request the deletion of an article. So I propose we stop the use of 200Xcruft as much as possible. Damn this is a short entry... -- (Bonner) (Talk) 13:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts?

Yeah, we've been through this a fair bit before, and we already came to that conclusion, but some people still haven't been listening. I suggest they should listen. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 13:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying a page is "2005cruft" by no means implies that everything written in 2005 is crap. It implies that, when said page was created in 2005, they would've ICU'd it if they had it and it would've been deleted if they had an ICU then. They didn't. It just means that the page was not good when it was created, and has been essentially unimproved since 2005. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 13:56, Sep 2, 2007

Well, Hinoa said when he cleans out VFD, he won't delete anything with 200X Cruft being the reason, isn't that enough?--Sir Manforman 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No. -- Mitch 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good old Hinoa. As ever, the calm voice of reason. -- Hindleyite Converse 14:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If by "voice" you mean "hammer". Seriously though, 200Xcruft is a completely terrible reason to justify a delete vote. It's so old, total crap, so... 2005cruft. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ever thought that people can read for themselves...you know, before voting? -- Mitch 00:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of writing "200XCruft" just write "This piece would have been OK in 200X, but it is too undeveloped/badly written/random to meet current quality standards." That's clear, simple, and straightforward -- and it is what I think most people mean by the shorthand. ----OEJ 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Frankly, I don't see why the edit summary has ANYTHING to do with whether or not a page should or shouldn't be deleted. If it sucks, kill it, if not, don't. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:15, Sep 4, 2007

Well said OEJ/TLB. Now can we instate that "infinite bans for use of the words 2005cruft/2006cruft on VFD" rule? Pleeeeeeeease? Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 06:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's tempting, but no. I won't be that much of a jackass. —Hinoa talk.kun 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, if we stop deleting pages because the deletion request was accompanied with the word "200Xcruft", what's next? If a page is a bad list and it's described as "listcruft", will that not be deleted either? What about vanity on QVFD summarized as "vanitycruft"? The VERY few times that I've put a page on VFD, I usually won't even write a summary, just say delete and sign. At least that way, nobody will yell at me for using the "wrong word". P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:08, Sep 4, 2007

Mmm... slippery-slope !logic. Seriously though, I am not the only admin who does VFD. It's a token gesture more than anything else. Doesn't means I still don't hate it, though. —Hinoa talk.kun 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)