From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer science (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


nn cruft d The preceding unsigned comment was added by SPUI (talk • contribs) .


How do you pronounce cruft? [kɹʊft]? [kɹuːft]? —Frungi 03:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[kɹʌft] (Oxford Online Dictionary of American English) --Thnidu (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion: Crufty[edit]

who added that page?? --Shandris 10:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we should delete the whole article. It's a great word and I've heard it's used in places like MIT. Faseidman 18:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


I know nothing on the specific topic of this article, but it needs a first sentence that briefly explains the word before the article splits into categories. - Emiellaiendiay 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Page status[edit]


My prod just got removed. Unless someone gives me a good reason, I'm going to nominate this to be transwikied ... --evrik (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the prod, but only because I thought there should be discussion first through AFD. It doesn't need to be transwikied, it's already at Wiktionary, but deletion might be in order.--Cúchullain t/c 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ahhh, well your supposed to sate why the prd was removed ... --evrik (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I did say it "should be discussed first" in my edit summary, I suppose I could have added "through AfD". Speaking of which, are you going to list it? --Cúchullain t/c 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Should this get a soft redirecto to wikitionary? --evrik (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to change Cruft to a disambiguation page[edit]

There are a few meanings for this word, so whether if this article gets deleted or not, it would be better off changing this into a disambiguation page, and salvage the article (whether if its deleted or not) to a separate page.

As many readers would really be looking for Wikipedia:Fancruft. --Arnzy (talkcontribs) 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but disambiguation pages shouldn't link to Wikipedia namespace, it's self-reference. --Roninbk t c # 08:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Disambig with a soft redirect to wikitionary? --evrik (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Why does this page exist? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This page is merely a definition of a slang term with a spurious etymology section. The article does not state why the subject of the article is notable and does not give any references for the information it contains. 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For once, I actually agree. This "word" is immature and totally not useful and so I do not see how it deserves an article. If renominated for deletion, let me know, as I would actually probably vote to delete this useless term from Wikipedia, although I'd like to see it leave the English language entirely. One can dream after all! :) Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
As someone who added a few references, I'd agree with deletion. I won't claim that I spent a lot of time, or much boldness, on the article, but the longer I looked at it, the more I was thinking things like "but this is just an example of someone who used the word, not really a concept worth writing an encyclopedia article about" or "but there is no connection between this paragraph and that one, other than the presence of the word cruft in both". The word itself is widely used (in some circles, anyway), but that's a job for wiktionary and the jargon file (as are things like etymologies). Procedurally, I'm a bit reluctant to nominate it when less than a year has passed since the last nomination. But I can at least offer my opinion here. Kingdon 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am very skeptical of the etymology. I am a CS professor at Harvard, and have been hanging around Harvard CS since I was an undergrad starting in 1964. I checked with a couple of even older timers -- one of them the professor who was my undergrad advisor, and he has been in Harvard CS since the late 1940s. None of the three of us ever heard this etymology until we saw it on the Wikipedia page. The citation is very speculative and very weak -- it simply states that "MIT or Lincoln Labs people may well have coined the term as a knock on the competition," without any evidence that anybody remembers anybody actually doing that. And I doubt that Cruft Hall was enough of a landmark outside Harvard for such an allusion to have made sense. So the etymology, which is the most useful part of the page, is probably bogus and should be deleted before it gains credibility. Harrylewis (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A possible note on the etymology, I have heard this term used for construction debris (leftover bits of wood/metal/shingles/whatever) since I first started working in high school (1980s) but I don't have any references at hand to cite. It might be someplace to look for it though. I also think this article might be better suited to Wiktionary BTW. BearGriz72 (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Fancruft & use of "cruft" on Wikipedia[edit]

Fancruft redirects to this article, but the article says nothing about fancruft, & only deals with cruft in terms of programming languages & URLs. I think that - given the widespread use of the term 'cruft' by Wikipedia editors on talk pages & edit sunmmaries, a term which some newcomers may not be familiar with - this article should say more about the concept of cruft & fancruft within wikis & websites (see WP: Cruft & related links at the bottom of it). Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The term is unused in the real world. We try not to document Wikipedia's own practices in the article namespace. There's no real reason for fancruft to point anywhere, given that it's never supposed to be encountered on articlespace or indeed outside of Wikipedia discussion pages, but it redirects here to give people an idea of what "cruft" means (and it's fairly simple to divine the meaning of "fancruft" from that point). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this article does a great job of explaining it, since it suggests the word is mostly used for unnecessary programming code (rather than article content). N00bs on Wikipedia who encounter 'cruft' for the first time in editorial notes like "removed cruft from article", & who then look it up here, might believe the phrase referred to faulty coding in articles (e.g. for sections, pictures, references) whereas it usually refers to excessive or impartial content. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Still, it isn't articlespace's job to teach Wikipedia jargon to people. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should avoid self refrences as to cruft of Wikipedia, also as per WP:UNDUE relating to mentioning of content and some issues shown at WP:BIAS relating to bias that being a wikipidaian gives you (Wikipedians generally favor wikipedia and free software and may give related articles a non-neutral view).--Ipatrol (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


Should there be a section on newscruft? I've seen notations from other editors indicating that they removed content because it was newscruft. --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Cruft Lab[edit]

This claim is unsourced and unlikely.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)