| ← Older revision | Revision as of 04:17, 31 January 2012 |
| Line 414: | Line 414: |
| | ::I've removed the ambiguous "dig up" and left the cited literal sense. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 04:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | | ::I've removed the ambiguous "dig up" and left the cited literal sense. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 04:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | == [[cruft]] == | + | == <s>[[cruft]]</s> == |
| | | | |
| | Rfv-sense: content that is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. | | Rfv-sense: content that is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. |
| Line 423: | Line 423: |
| | ::Those three seem to have it meaning "useless content". If that's what's meant here, this sense needs to be drastically reworded; OTOH, perhaps it's really part of one of the other senses (in which case it needs to be reworded). I didn't (yet) look further at the bgc results, though.<span class="Unicode">​—[[User:Msh210|msh210]]℠</span> ([[user talk:Msh210|talk]]) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC) | | ::Those three seem to have it meaning "useless content". If that's what's meant here, this sense needs to be drastically reworded; OTOH, perhaps it's really part of one of the other senses (in which case it needs to be reworded). I didn't (yet) look further at the bgc results, though.<span class="Unicode">​—[[User:Msh210|msh210]]℠</span> ([[user talk:Msh210|talk]]) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
| | ::: It could be the second one, but I would argue the second one inappropriately packs a very specific code definition in with [[clutter]]. It seems to me to be a very Wikimedia sense, which is why we don't find many cites. I think there needs to be a third definition, but this one seems unsupportable.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | | ::: It could be the second one, but I would argue the second one inappropriately packs a very specific code definition in with [[clutter]]. It seems to me to be a very Wikimedia sense, which is why we don't find many cites. I think there needs to be a third definition, but this one seems unsupportable.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
| | + | |
| | + | :RFV-failed. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 04:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| | == [[love bomb]] == | | == [[love bomb]] == |
