Talk:Cute Overload

Beginnings

A very rough page, but one that should definitely be here! (Widely viewed and an award winner - definitely does not meet any deletion criteria!) --JD79 16:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love to help, but extended exposure to pictures of bunnies, kittens and puppies makes me queasy ;-) Fan-1967 22:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries....? I just added links to all of the Rules of Cuteness to the page. Dracwolley 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And someone deleted that. Great. That took me two hours. Dracwolley 10:28, 23 April 1007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put them back - they should stay there, as there's not a concise list on the site. This page has come pretty far! --JD79 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Cuteness

Please leave the Rules of Cuteness in the article. They are not easily obtainable as a concise list through the CO website and therefore WP serves as a unique & easily usable source of that information. --JD79 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, the rules are linked to right in the categorie menu...all right there...in a line...one right after the other...none missing. So yes, they are extremely easy to obtain through the CO website. Leaving them in here is a blatant disregard to policy, in that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm removing them. As a compromise, I'll link to the "Rules of Cuteness" page in the external links section. --74.137.225.219 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rules of cuteness do not qualify as any of the items listed under "indiscriminate collection of information." It is not a plot only description of fictional work; it is not lyrics; it is not a list of statistics; it is not a news report; not a who's who or FAQs. The fact that you are err-ing the request and ranting about the rules "in a line" shows that you have some kind of personal irritation with this wikipage. i suggest that someone who can make rational, not emotional, decisions be in charge of this page. KittykatLA (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is a FAQ. It explains the rules of cuteness, which is, in essence, a FAQ. Not only it is a FAQ, but we can list it under external links to the official list, which renders the entire list here useless. If you want a full list, either go to the official site (which IS linked) or go to a fansite. Further, it can be listed as an excessive listing of statistics because, really, that's all that The List boils down to: what do the most popular images show. Ignoring all of this, the information still has to pass WP:N, which it currently does not. Considering the article has been considered for deletion, it would probably be best to focus on the verifiability and notability of the subject, as opposed to information that, in all honestly, only fans would appreciate (and that comes from a fan). --13² 04:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, WP:IINFO isn't simply defined by those bullet points. Indiscriminate is the key word there. We don't just add anything to the article just because someone has the ability to add it. This article is about Cute Overload, not the Rules of Cuteness. The information in this article needs to be about why the site is notable. Things like awards, history, and popularity are good things to have in the article. A massive list of 45 random things the site owner thinks is cute is not. It is also why we don't list every product HP makes or every recipe Paula Deen has published or every city Blink 182 has performed in. The Rules of Cuteness is information that the actual website is for, not this encyclopedia's. It is perfectly acceptable to have a few examples and a link to the full set, but listing them all here is complete overkill and totally unnecessary. In addition to WP:IINFO, you may want to take a look at the last point in WP:NOTDIR. --13² 13:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vocabulary section

I added a separate section with a few vocab words and their "translations", and it was removed as being "fancruft". I think there were 5 different words there, so it wasn't overbearing, and I felt it added some colour the entry. CO has some, well, CUTE vocabulary and I think the section is worth keeping.

Comments? Msp0 08:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fancruft. Go to that page to look at the definition of fancruft, which is, in a nutshell, anything that only fans of the topic would care about. Considering that only people within the Cute Overload universe use the words, the vocab is the very definition of fancruft. A few examples are all that is necessary, not a list of it. Plus the creator is constantly coming up with more, which means the list would never end. To go even further, Wikipedia is not a dictionary OR an indiscriminate collection of information. The same goes for the rules. It's cluttering the page up with useless information to anyone who doesn't visit the webpage. Again, just a few examples would suffice, rather than listing every single one of them. --74.137.225.219 19:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Msp0 said, there were only a few words listed. Thus, what this user did wouldn't be fancruft, because it wasn't a full listing. It was just a small example of words used.Ingres77 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the history, there were nine words. Nine words is not a few. Even worse, they were in list format. Two or three examples are sufficient enough to get the point across and it doesn't get repetative or move in the direction of breaking policy. --74.137.227.117 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa re-insert

I have reverted the deletion of the Alexa cite. While I have no position on the merit of the AfD, given User:ScottyBerg's familiarity with the ongoing Alexa RS/N and issues related to that discussion, his deletion of CuteOverload's rather high Alexa statistical data is quite puzzling. Please elaborate? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with that RS/N, but is a simple case of something stated as fact that is not supported by the underlying link. There is nothing in the Alexa page that states that the number of hits this website receives. 40,000 hits per day is an enormous number, and seems to be an absurd extrapolation for a website with an Alexa rank of just 11,500!ScottyBerg (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you appear to be correct that the specific cite does not support the "40,000 hits per day", "Quantcast" certainly does [[1]]...and thensome. According to Quantcast, their maximum "Global Daily People" was in the 79K range with their running average at 41.3K...and those are "directly" measured! "Just" 11,500? Globally? Good lord. Please self-revert.JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't self-revert because, as you acknowledge, the Alexa link cited is not correct. There may be validity in the one you site, however, but I just don't know anything about it and I'm reluctant to add traffic data unless we're sure it's reliable. I'd much rather see quoted in a reliable third-party source. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be validity in the one you site, however, but I just don't know anything about it and I'm reluctant to add traffic data unless we're sure it's reliable.

Quantcast, with even just a quick look, appears to enjoy the same reputability as does Alexa. This from the Los Angeles Times just 3 days ago...

By the way, CNN doesn't appear to be hurting by their editorial selections. At least looking at Quantcast, a site that measures web traffic, CNN has 21.3 million individual visitors compared to 111,000 visitors for Al Jazeera.

I can't self-revert because, as you acknowledge, the Alexa link cited is not correct.

I don't think you should need to be reminded that 1.) the preferred method of dealing with improperly sourced content is not immediate removal of the content but rather, at least for a reasonable period, soliciting the proper sourcing 2.) appropriate sourcing can then be provided when it is found. If content is shown to have legitimate sourcing, minor re-writes by any editor to reflect that sourcing would be both expected and desirable. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I couldn't disagree more. Something is obviously wrong - the Alexa link did not substantiate the supposed hit count - and it needs to be immediately removed. It being in the lead made the need for removal all the more necessary. It is not necessary to request input when one goes to the link and finds, in this case, that there was nothing in the source that provides a hit count. I was a bit chagrined to see that it was reinstated without apparent examination of the link itself, and that we are continuing to argue about this. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my suggested edit...(on edit: I have incorporated it into the article so that sourcing is accessible. Please feel free to delete what you find objectionable for further discussion)...

On May 2, 2010, it was ranked #605 in the most influential English blog list compiled by Technorati^[1](, #11,459 in Alexa's "World Traffic Ranking" ^[2] and, according to Quantcast, it receives an average of 41,300 visits per day ^[3].

The sourcing and content problems of the existing text is probably attributable to old sourcing existing at the time of the original edit. I believe the above reflects the original editor's intent and is contemporaneously sourced. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with use of the Alexa ranking as original research and dubious (for the reasons I've explained elsewhere) and I am unsure about the validity/reliability of the other indicators quoted. However, I'll let this rest pending determination of the deletion issue, which really relates to different issues, namely a lack of independent sourcing as mandated by WP:WEB. Also I think you were going to do an RFC on Alexa, as I recall. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was defering to cla68's handling of any proposed RFC as it was his expressed intention to do so. As you are probably aware, his plate appears to be rather full these days so I'm unsure when or if he's going to followup. I will, however, press to get some resolution of this issue prior to the expiration of the RS/N.

As to your RfD on this article, your objections appear to be quite easily satisfied by simply updating older recognitions this blog has received. As a matter of fact, this blog is up for another "Webby" for 2010 and the results will be announced tomorrow. Also, have you notified other contributor's as to your proposed RfD? I believe that would be an appropriate deference to their earlier contributions. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I notified the original author through Twinkle. This article has been dormant for a long time. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just manually notified the most recent contributor. You know, if you object to the deletion proposal I do believe you can remove the template. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, I'm really ambivalent about the RfD itself but I am not ambivalent about a need for adequately supporting the rationale per the RfD process. I assume you are more versed in the process and probably have a larger perspective on "blog" issues than I. I'm simply offering observations as food for thought on what appear to be your stated objections thus far and have no desire to override or impede your decision making process in that regard. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy for anyone to impede my decision making process, as I may be wrong. That is why I went through the "proposed deletion" process and not the AfD process, because any editor can object. It is a process specifically designed for uncontroversial deletions. If there is an objection, the whole matter is either dropped or an AfD commences.ScottyBerg (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, since there has been some whiff of controversy over this, I'm contemplating removing the PROD template myself. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy for anyone to impede my decision making process, as I may be wrong.

And you also may be right. I'll defer to your judgement as to the ongoing merit of the RfD. As to "controversy"? I don't think I'd elevate it to that level but its your call. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this much, nobody can accuse us of being a "cabal"! :) ScottyBerg (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5/2/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamrathomas (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I hope that this page won't be deleted as I feel that there is some cultural significance to the site, therefore it makes sense that one should be able to search Wikipedia and find information about them. That being said I agree that the entry could be improved, and I wholeheartedly agree that The Rules of Cuteness should be included here in their entirety. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamrathomas (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the website, not the list. We don't include massive amounts of trivial information simply because it exists. That information belongs either on the official website (which it is and is linked at the bottom of this article) or a fansite. This is an encyclopedia article about a website. The contents should be history, awards, real world significance, etc. Not a bunch of rules that the creator thinks makes something cute. This article is not a "catch-all" and the information is, frankly, not encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion. A small, sample list is more than sufficient. --13² 22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, copying a copyrighted list, verbatim, from a copyrighted website, is never appropriate. Even what little we have now is probably pushing it. --13² 22:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Technorati". 2 May 2010. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
^ "Alexa". 2 May 2010. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
^ "Quantcast". 2 May 2010. Retrieved 2 May 2010.

Expanded list of "Rules of Cuteness"?

I have reverted an edit expanding the "Rules of Cuteness" list beyond a representative 5. The editor has expressed as his/her "goal" a complete list of those "Rules" (some +/- 48 entries long). As was stated earlier in a discussion on this (see last entries above), expansive "lists" are not desirable in WP articles, an observation with which I concur. Anyone else? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see the harm in listing things like that. Sure you could go to CO's website and sift through all the web pages but it would be quicker to just view this in a list form. I guess the onus should be on CO's website to create such a page. Coolcajun (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If the weblog itself isn't enthused enough about its "Rules of Cuteness" to present a composite list and there is no third-party sourcing elsewhere inre a composite list, why would it be appropriate for a WP article? We don't generally do "lists" nor do we do WP:OR. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cute Overload. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603205131/http://technorati.com/blogs/cuteoverload.com/ to http://technorati.com/blogs/cuteoverload.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Technorati". 2 May 2010. Retrieved 2 May 2010.

[2] "Alexa". 2 May 2010. Retrieved 2 May 2010.

[3] "Quantcast". 2 May 2010. Retrieved 2 May 2010.

[1]

[2]

[3]