Wikipedia talk:Vanispamcruftisement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was nominated for deletion on 12 August 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

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)

That's what the redirect and the IPA pronuncación guide are for. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 02:48, Jan. 13, 2006

I prefer vanityspamcruft myself -- Astrokey44|talk 05:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

vanityspamcruft is good (as a name, I mean :)) --kingboyk 23:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

I too prefer the term vanityspamcruft. It has a certain clarity about it. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for the at least pronounceable vanityspamcruft. --Dhartung | Talk 16:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

You're the one that made it up...J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  23:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I like vanityspamcruft too. New users won't need to read this article to get the point. zephyr2k 03:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer Vancarlimospacecraft ;) -- Avi 01:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD criteria?

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)

Good luck trying to achieve consensus for that :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does this look like to new users

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)

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)

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)

Isn't this article itself nothing more than Wikipedia cruft? -- User:67.42.51.28 23:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement for discussion on failed attempt to delete this thing. -- PinkCake 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)