Is this Word Cruft?

Would you say that the sarcastic tone of the first and third paragraph of We've Got Company is appropriate? If no, any idea how to phrase this differently?

edited 15th Jan '18 3:46:47 PM by eroock

I don't know if it's Word Cruft per se, but it's certainly editorializing, which violates wiki policy. The multiple page quotes also violate policy.

Weird, those two quotes seem to have been there since pre-2012. It can be discussed in the general quotes thread.

Concerning the word cruftiness of the first two paragraphs... yeah that seems inappropriate on one level and okay on another. For example, phrasing like the following could probably be cut: "single most-used" (there could only be one most used), "across the board" (idiom), and "with aplomb" (we get it, they embrassed it). In the second paragraph, the phrase "the phrase can now be" should be revised to be less time-sensitive. That second paragraph may need revising to compensate.

The third paragraph's wording is mostly okay, imo, but the By "No", I Mean "Yes" nature of the third paragraph should be revised, I think.

Also the page looks like someone took a thesaurus to it. "Aplomb," "cadre," "gadabout," "unflappable." These aren't usual words to use. That said, those words on the page seem to originate from pre-2010.

edited 16th Jan '18 7:24:22 AM by WaterBlap

I don't think the tone is sarcastic. It's just a little bit complaining. Calling a trope dumb isn't appropriate. I don't think it's correct to say that the trope doesn't have any meaning anymore just because it's so common. It still shows off the same type of character trait.

Making a note this has been moved to Long-Term/Perpetual since word cruft is one of those evergreen clean-up efforts.

Quick question. Is it word cruft if one lists multiple aversions of a trope before listing straight examples?

For example, there are too many godawful Hate Sink entries to count which follow the "you can't hate x, you can't hate y, but you can hate z" formula. My contention is that this style of formatting is a waste of characters in an entry.

Space that could be spent describing how a character is an asshole, is instead wasted on listing aversions. (I don't know about anyone else here, but if I am reading a Hate Sink entry for a character, I don't think that whatever reason the other characters are disqualified is relevant to why this character in particular is an asshole.)

Edited by SkyCat32 on Nov 27th 2019 at 5:50:01 AM

I hope that rjd1922, ~War Jay 77, ~Willbyr & ~gjjones don't mind if I ask for their input on the above post, seeing as they have been on this site for longer than I have.

Edit: It's 22, not 92. Crap.

Edited by SkyCat32 on Nov 27th 2019 at 6:00:43 AM

I would say that's cruft, yes.

I concur that it's cruft as well.

I think it's OK to describe, for example, why Umbridge is more hateable than Voldemort, but not in the format you described.

Something like, "Dolores Umbridge lacks the charismatic traits of even Lord Voldemort" perhaps?

That's fine; listing aversions is not.

Agreed all around. The editorializing needs to be culled from this definition, and extraneous aversions need to be removed wherever theya are.

This will replace Umbridge's current word-crufty entry at HateSink.Harry Potter

• Dolores Umbridge lacks the charismatic traits of even Lord Voldemort, instead showing herself to be a self centred, power hungry, and bigoted figure. In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Umbridge demonstrates the consequences of giving power to a bigot, promoting hatred towards muggle-borns, depriving students of the capacity to learn self defense, and disrespecting the inhabitants of the Forbidden Forest. In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, she charges muggle-borns with stealing magic.

Just bumping to keep this thread alive.

We seriously needs a word cruft clean-up thread for now.

Do exaggerated descriptions (especially on Moments subpages) count as Word Cruft? For example, a Nightmare Fuel entry saying something like "THIS IS THE MOST FUCKING TERRIFYING PANTS-SHITTINGLY THING EVER".

Edited by jandn2014 on Jun 13th 2020 at 12:53:46 PM

I would say so.

I recall there was once a suggestion to propose "Bogus Caps Lock, Bold Inflation and punctuation" to Outdated Admin/ for Word Cruft.

(Checks the last post date despite being linked here) Oh well.

If an example has multiple bullet points like this, is it word cruft? Could we condense something like this into a single non-text wall-y paragraph?

• Bob killed Alice using the knife.
  • But not until the second season of Bland-Name Product!
    • And then Bob proved to be an even bigger jackass by shanking Randy in the third season!

I also heard somewhere that potholing too many Tropes is also word cruft is that true?

@jan: From my understanding of word cruft, any hyperbole that doesn't add anything to the discussion, example if I were to say Seymour Flux was the hardest story boss in Final Fantasy X that does seem like word cruft.

Edited by Klavice on Dec 26th 2022 at 4:51:10 AM

While I often confuse the two, this is the classic Conversation in the Main Page (/ Thread Mode / Example Indentation in Trope Lists). What you describe should be rewritten as a single example or separate, depending on what's logical. Word Cruft is specifically "flavor words" that only make examples pointlessly longer and can be safely removed.

There's no rule against potholing as long as it doesn't hit Sinkhole scope.

Edited by Amonimus on Dec 26th 2022 at 3:51:44 PM

I have some questions about identifying/dealing with Word Cruft. Mainly about when to remove them.

Specific examples from the Word Cruft page:

• Bogus intensifiers: Instances of "and even", "an entire", "literally" and "totally" can usually (but not always) be like totally even literally zapped entirely, for real. For the same reason, things like "brutally subverted" or "averted hard" should be brutally averted.
• Bogus qualifiers: As can most instances of "basically", "just about", and "pretty much", though a little more rewriting may be required. "Also" at the beginning of an example is also unlikely to be meaningful.

The "(but not always)" part was added most recently, in order to discourage find-and-cut reactions. If I come across any of these phrases in an example, how do I determine when/if they should be removed?

• Verbal tics: Certain tropers reflexively prepend "of course", "bear in mind" or "do note" (or in one terminal case: "of course, do bear in mind") to every single example they write. Other examples include "Not to mention...", "Heck...", "Of all things", "Natch", and "Full stop". Just mention it or don't mention it. The preamble and/or epilogue don't help.

Same question as above, especially since this one doesn't say "usually" or "most instances".

• Unnecessarily sesquipedalian verbiage: "Due to the fact that" sounds high-falutin' and fancy, but just say "because".

I assume that nearly any use of "due to the fact that" can be replaced with "because"?

• Unnecessary "clarification": "To clarify", "to expand", and "to elaborate" all look really clumsy in an article, especially when the troper who puts it in feels the need to create a new bullet for it. And even when merged into one paragraph, it makes it look like the wiki is arguing with itself. This falls under the Repair, Don't Respond umbrella.

Likewise, I assume most cases of these can be removed, since it's Repair, Don't Respond?

What about *Cough* Snark *Cough*? I see plenty of that as well.

1. Context-reliant. Some carry a meaning of making something significant, some are there just for emphasis that only makes reading harder.
2. Examples should sound like they're the first sentence in a text and also need to get to the point. "* X: Just about everyone ..." = " X: Everyone ..."
3. Don't use delay phrases that you'd only use in verbal speech. Written speech does not need pauses.
4. I don't know any good reason to use "Due to the fact that" period unless you're doing poetry.
5. Needs checking. If there's a sentence that "clarifies" the previous one, maybe it's not even an example, or two sentences are two separate examples.
6. *Cough* Snark *Cough* only exists in jokes and examples shouldn't sound like one.

Edited by Amonimus on Jan 17th 2023 at 6:56:33 PM

I sometimes see the redundant phrasing "also ... as well."