Wikipedia talk:Things to be moved to Wiktionary

Why two sites?

Why are there two seperate sites? Why not have it all on the same site? Pizza Puzzle

I suppose because you have two separate books as well, a dictionary (one volume, definitions only) and an encyclopedia (many volumes, contains articles spanning several pages). It is however a little hard to know what to put where from time to time... Wzzrd 19:33 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the same reasoning that indicates why it makes sense to make a split into encyclopedia and dictionary in the book world can also be applied to a project like Wikipedia. What's the actual *use* of keeping the sites separate? -- Schnee 15:42 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

They are seprate as they are two different things and Wiktionary is not anoraml dictionary. -fonzy

What's the procedure?

What's the actual procedure here? Do I just list a page and forget about it? Will wiktionary experts take it from there? (hint, I've hardly used wiktionary...) Martin

Like "take a penny, leave a penny". Ellmist 02:16 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to echo Martin here - I'd be happy to do the move-to-Wiktionary thing myself, but I can't make heads or tails of the instructions or example at transwiki. Could somebody familiar with the process add a step-by-step list of how to do this? --Dcfleck 13:32, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Very circular indeed. Is there some voting process someone would like to point out please? --Herzog 00:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Moving and merging

move to Wikipedia talk:Things to be moved to Wiktionary

How does one go about moving pages to Wikiquote or Wiktionary? Manual cut and paste?

How are edit histories merged if a temp article is started?

--Jiang 12:03 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is the same as the issue of moving things from here to [Simple], currently being discussed on the village pump. Angela

Incorrect listing: global and social

Global and social are about the phenomena of adding these adjectives as prefixes to words to make phrases - which has not just a linguistic but a political element. Read the entries. There are semantics associated with adding such prefixes that simply aren't in Wiktionary's mandate - and the number of cross-links would be extreme. A stripped-down version of these articles should go to Wiktionary, but volumes could be written say on the use of the word "social" to mean "good" by the left and "bad" by the right. And they should be written, perhaps under different names (like prefix 'global' and prefix 'social') to deal with stuff like trade vs. global trade and justice vs. social justice.

• global - basically an overly long dictionary entry. This entry will always be about the word itself, rather than about something more worthy of an encyclopedia article like globalization. Chadloder 03:34, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • I read the global article ... could the applicable parts be incorporated into the globalization article? I still need to read the globalization article. Also ... couldn't this article be rewritten for a computer science perspective (as global related to variables)? I'm not sure if there is other implication for global than for CS. It's be a more abstract meaning than the one that the author of the current global article wanted to convey, but could be applicable ... mabey ... mabey not ... reddi 20:02, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Obviously it's more than just CS that the term "Global" is used in. See Global Greens for instance, or lots of other entries with that adjective. One approach for these is to rewrite them for the Simple English Wikipedia for those who don't understand the implications of taggng something as "global". It might also go into globalization but that is already a quite long article. EofT

• social - glorified dictionary entry. We already have a page on society. Chadloder 03:34, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• • Two different issues. One is a noun, one an adjective. Would you combine the two with a whole section on "social" as a term meaning social interest has been considered, all in the article on society? That might be ok with a redirect. But the article is much more than one would see in a dictionary, even the Wiktionary. If I'm wrong about that, move it *there*. EofT

From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

On October 11, Angela listed all the articles that on the Things to be moved to Wiktionary page on VfD. The following comments were made before she got sick of the complaints and removed them from VfD.

• This is ridiculous. With a few exceptions, those are all valid encyclopaedia topics. If they currently contain only a definition, that's no reason to delete them. It just means they're stubs waiting to be expanded. It's perfectly normal that an encyclopaedia article begins with a definition. --Wik 13:52, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
  • If someone wants to delete a dictionary definition: please move it to Wiktionary and fix all the links to and from the entry. - Patrick 13:18, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)"
    • Many of these have been listed since at least July. As I said, Wiktionary clearly does not want them and I would expect the Wiktionarians to be somewhat annoyed if someone who knew nothing about the way they set out their pages came and dumped the above rubbish into their dictionary, so suggesting someone from Wikipedia does this is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We can not just keep them on the off-chance some other project might want them at some point in the future. Angela 18:34, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
      • Perhaps we should think more Wikimedia-wide: if an entry has value but is in the wrong project, move it, do not just delete it. (And do not break links.) But also within Wikipedia, contents of a dictionary-like entry can often fit in a related article. The original title becomes a redirect (as Kingturtle already mentioned below) and is not deleted. Somebody who is disturbed by a dictionary entry can better do these edits, instead of listing the page here. Patrick 21:13, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • For items on this particular list that get voted for deletion, maybe rather than delete them, we should redirect them to appropriate articles. Kingturtle 19:10, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep them (all of them). If specific articles are listed for deletion with a reason, that's fine, but just posting a huge list only means that no real discussion can be had about the individual articles. -- Schnee 20:49, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This page seems to have low traffic. Moving to wiktionary means deletion from wikipedia. Hence a proper pocedure would be via VfD, especially for words that describe things, especially rare things. Mikkalai 04:15, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

This page was deprecated quite a while ago in favor of the m:transwiki scheme. Currently, that hasn't had quite the right effect either, but I've sugegested some changes on m:talk:transwiki which might make the proecess of moving and deletion a bit smoother. Angela. 17:18, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Suggested policy change

Please read over Wikipedia:Soft redirect, then add your comments to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Policy proposal for dicdefs: soft redirects. Thanks, • Benc • 11:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suffixes in the Wikipedia

I think the following articles should be moved to the Wiktionary, but I don't want to get anyone mad or have revision wars over the fact. Please see the following articles: -cide, -cycle, -cracy, -ic, -ism, -ist, -ography, -oid, -ology, -omics, -onomy, -onym, -philia, -phobia, -scope, -stan, -ware

Found while stub sorting. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look like Wiktionary articles to me. --Tagishsimon

They do provide useful lists of words that use the suffixes though, and those are pretty much Wikipedia material. The lists at least should be left. (perhaps each moved to some better name). I agreee that the definitions parts are Wiktionary material. —siroχo 00:22, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Siroxo that the lists are encyclopedic and/or an almanac-like list, which is included in Wikipedia--can't get such a list from m-w.com. Of the ones I've checked, -ography seems to be the best example of the potential these articles have to be 'pedia-worthy (oh, even better is -ology and -ism). If we're going to have a list anyway, I think some prose at the top to set context is reasonable. As for the articles they link to, I think they would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis--take a look at biography--hardly a dicdef. On the other hand, -stan and especially (at least the current contents) -ware have a bit of a "what doesn't belong in this set" flavor to them. If you check the histories, -ism, -ology, and -phobia have had contributions from dozens of Wikipedians, and the rest average almost eight different contributors. Also, the 17 articles in this series were started by at least 8 or 9 different Wikipedians. Finally, at least two have inter-wiki links from other language Wikipedias. Wholesale transfer to Wiktionary doesn't seem appropriate to me. Some of the articles are certainly less developed than others, but that can be said about most any category of articles on Wikipedia. Niteowlneils 21:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even so, if the entry is still looking like a definition, it can moved to the Wiktionary then redirected back to the Wikipedia. As it stands, a lot of the features in the Wiktionary don't exist like the features in Wikipedia -- just because the Wiktionary is new. Perhaps using a basic definition in Wiktionary would be useful then putting a "See also" to point to the Wikipedia for any words on that list. Normally, suffixes are in a dictionary, as opposed to a encyclopedia. It just seems so... out of place to me. -- Allyunion 11:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you move them to Wiktionary and redirect them back, all the links would be the same color. Most encyclopedias don't have "List of gay waitresses who shot mailmen" either, but I think these articles, as links, fit in with the precedents of Wikipedia. (personally I think just about all lists should move to a separate namespace as they're not articles but lists, but I'm in the minority on that opinion and it's not a big deal either way). anthony (see warning) 14:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In any case, I don't think we should remove the definition but keep the list. That's just silly — all of our articles start out with a definition. WP:WWIN: of course an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic. If we're going to transwiki, it should be an all-or-nothing deal. Anyway, I'm inclined to agree with Niteowlneils that the lists are at least somewhat encyclopedic, so I'm suggesting we keep the suffix series. • Benc • 05:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not all of the entries have lists, just to note. --Allyunion 07:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Imagination

While verbs, adverbs and adjectives can be hard to write about, I'd say that nearly every tangible noun could (in theory) have an article about it. In practice, this won't always happen, as very mundane things (e.g. cup) are taken for granted as everyone knows what they are, and has a rough idea how're they made.

But even with things such as cup, it has potential for types of cups used in other countries, special cups for different situations, mention of symbolic cups (e.g. Holy Grail), what people used before cups, what cups were made out of in the 1600s (for poor and the rich) stuff like that.

It's a bit of a stupid example, and i probably know less about cups that most people, but there is potential encyclopedic content.

I'd ask that before moving such "dictionary definitions" to the wiktionary, that the theoretical possibility of an article be considered, or else the next time an antiques dealer discovers wikipedia, and wants to contribute their vast knowledge of Victorian and Elizabethan crockery, they might feel they're not wanted. :-) Tristanb 03:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

#REDIRECT [[wiktionary:word]]

I suggest instead of remove, include a #REDIRECT [[wiktionary:word]] (for the concrete word definition). If later there is a lot of information, one can re-create a wikipedia article with a link to the dictionary definition.

• I'd prefer a {{wi}} tag to a redirect. Unfortunately both of these qualify as candidates for speedy deletion. 14:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This does not seem to be useable

There does not seem to be a coherent plan of how to take items off this list. Should this page even exist now that the transwiki system exists? (Even thought it doesn't work either.) Help. JesseW 09:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Old entries

Old entries should be reviewed more carefully before any transwiki attempts. Topsail might have have been a dicdef when it was listed (although any knowledgeable person should have been aware that it could easily be a lengthy article - what's there now is still incomplete), but it grew beyond that later. Stan 07:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wiktionary tag of doom

I was surprised when Courtland told me "Moving something to Wiktionary in no way bars the expansion and existence of the nominated article". It seems to me to say "This is going to be deleted from wikipedia, don't improve it unless you can make a whole (new) article". I believe this interpretation is shared by many people, especially Vfd voters. Kappa 15:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm the opposite. I see the tag as a challenge to make the article more acceptable to Wikipedia! Grutness|^hello? 23:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Grutness. It is common for articles to be expanded in reaction to a VfD, the same would apply to Transwiki. Radiant_* 11:01, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• As I pointed before in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Counsel, the actual notice itself (in its second sentence) encourages expansion, and there's plenty of evidence on this very project page that articles do expand whilst languishing in the Wiktionary queue. The idea that this is a "tag of doom" is not supported by the evidence in front of us. Uncle G 06:22, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
  • It says if you want to expand it you have to make an "encyclopedia article". That certainly discouraged me from touching them. Articles in Vfd are expanded precisely because they are under threat, but only a commited wikipedia would do that. Kappa 11:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question

I think we might be better served by just scrapping this page altogether. Its seldom used. And its not very useful, as dicdefs listed here are either tagged concurrently, and then transwikied regardless of comments, or not tagged, and then never trasnwikied even if they are dicdefs. This page just seems to confuse the process. And if many people (though it's unlikely) really do want to comment on transwiki proposals, it would be nearly as easy to just watch the category (Category:Copy to Wiktionary) for recent additions. Thoughts? --Dmcdevit 03:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd certainly like to scrap the New Requests section and let the category do the work, for the very reasons that you state. I've been working on clearing it for some time, now, with that very goal in mind. The old listings that remain need detailed attention, though. Perhaps we should rename the section to Old Requests and remove the encouragement to add new listings. I think that at the moment we should keep the page as a whole, though. Uncle G 12:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • I've been bold and implemented the change. You may want to revise the wording if you can put it better. It seems to me like most of the old ones have been transwikied. Do you mean we need to resolve what happens to them after transwikiing (as in merging, etc.)? --Dmcdevit 07:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That, listing why they have become moot (if they have), and other things, yes. Uncle G 10:45, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 5 June 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 03:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)