Wikipedia talk:Listcruft

possiby other candidates

• List of way cool songs
• List of awesome songs
• List of totally righteous songs
• List of heavy metal songs featuring yelling, screaming, and shouting

 :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of

One of the many meanings listed when an editor cites WP:Listcruft, often in the context that an editor thinks the list or the article should be deleted, is the following:
"1. The list was created just for the sake of having such a list."
I don't view this as an appropriate reason for deletion, as it focuses on the author who created the list and their motives. The proper standards should be objective, and focused on the list itself rather than its author — e.g., is the list backed by reliable sources, are there clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, etc. Therefore, I propose removing this specific listed meaning. CUA 27 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

attracts little that is of importance or relevance

One of the ten listed meanings for Listcruft is the following:

"The list attracts the addition of little that is of clear importance or even relevance in the context of the topic."

I have no idea what that means. Can someone explain? Perhaps the statement can be rewritten to become more clear. If, however, it's a largely meaningless statement, then perhaps it should be removed. CUA 27 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish — Would love to hear from you on this topic, as it looks like you were the author of this one. See this edit from 2015. CUA 27 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's saying that listcruft involves making a list for the sake of having a list. It's like a "dust magnet" that picks up all sorts of odds and ends, seemingly at random. And when it's "done", all you have is a ball of dust. But it (the list) was fun for the creators.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:RELEVANCE, WP:CRUFT. Maybe there's a copyedit to do to make this clearer (and link to such thing as I just mentioned by shortcut).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Reply to User:SMcCandlish — Thanks for the reply, and for your openness to possible change if warranted. Looking at each of the three links you provided ... Indiscriminate is already covered by #2 on the list of meanings, so repeating it in #10 adds nothing new. Looking at cruft, the core of fancruft (information that is "of importance only to a small population of fans") is covered by #1 on the list of meanings, and I've just now added a link, so nothing new there either. Which leaves us with Relevance as the only one of the three links that may not already be covered by another listed meaning. I'm not sure if relevance is a significant problem that isn't already captured by one of the other nine listed meanings. Perhaps you could elaborate further, and maybe even give 2-3 examples of the problem? CUA 27 (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Quisqualis has already addressed this, basically. The problem identified here is of lists that attract "dust" entries that are not of encyclopedic relevance. Let's turn this around: after this long, with no one else having a problem with this section, why are you suddenly finding it so allegedly problematic? What problem is being caused?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)