Misplaced Pages

:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal IV (Dicdefs): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Proposal to expand WP:CSD Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:09, 8 January 2005 editGuanaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,306 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 15:17, 8 January 2005 edit undoDejvid (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,660 edits →DisagreeNext edit →
Line 117: Line 117:
#] 17:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 17:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#]] 04:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Ugh, no. #]] 04:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Ugh, no.
#] 15:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:17, 8 January 2005

Proposal IV (Dicdefs)

(Vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Misplaced Pages:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Any article consisting only of a dictionary definition (dicdef), which either already exists at Wiktionary, or is not appropriate for submission there (i.e. made-up words, neologisms).

Votes

Agree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Vamp:Willow 01:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Carnildo 02:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Antaeus Feldspar 02:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. cleduc (talk) 03:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Ben Brockert 05:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Jeff Knaggs 08:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Dori | Talk 14:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  15. P Ingerson 14:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. RickK 21:20, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Anthony Liekens 00:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. ℘yrop (talk) 03:17, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  20. gK ¿? 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. ] 03:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. —Charles P.  06:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. Gentgeen 11:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  24. Alphax (talk) 12:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Tompagenet 13:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. Proteus (Talk) 17:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Keith D. Tyler 20:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Infrogmation 21:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Weak support based on strict narrow interpretation)
  29. Rossami (talk) 23:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (If some future editor wants to write a real article, the definition can be easily copied back. A redlink is more likely to draw in new contributions.)
  30. Deathphoenix 23:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  31. SWAdair | Talk 07:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Yes--Plato 22:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  34. -- uriber 22:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  35. PaulHammond 02:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. Mikkalai 03:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  37. ] 04:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) for obvious neologisms and made-up words, plus for stuff that's already at Wiktionary. (And I mean obvious words like stuff you can't find anywhere online except some kid's blog)
  38. Belgian man 12:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) (doubtful)
  39. andy 15:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  40. Norg 15:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  41. AlexTiefling 17:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. ike9898 02:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) I would vote yes for Neologisms only
  2. Ground 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Terrible wording, as many such articles can be turned into full articles, redirects, or disambigs. Neologisms are often retained after a VFD vote. -- Netoholic @ 00:08, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  4. Smoddy | Talk 00:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ld | talk 00:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. max rspct 00.18 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  7. Xtra 00:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Neologisms are hard to decide even by VfD. Wikimol 00:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Many pages marked with the {{wi}} tag are now good articles. SimonP 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  11. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  12. Agree with SimonP. At least make a request for a full article to be established or vote.--Sketchee 01:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Rje 02:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. Meelar (talk) 02:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Sc147 03:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Ливай | ☺ 03:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Agree with Netoholic on this one.Dr Zen 05:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. Korath (Talk) 05:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 05:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. Antandrus 06:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Too draconian; often these can be made into decent articles.
  23. Unfortunately, I think these are better dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --Slowking Man 07:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  24. This is the wrong way to settle the substub controversy. iMeowbot~Mw 07:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  25. Rafał Pocztarski 10:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. I have seen dicdefs listed on vfd become articles. Thue | talk 11:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. I hate this: proposals which are actually multiple proposals mixed into one. I would say yes to the dictdefs, but neologisms listed on VfD often turn out not to be neologisms at all. David Johnson 12:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  28. Tuf-Kat 14:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  29. wheresmysocks 17:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  30. We have loads of articles consisting only of a dictionary definition, already present on Wiktionary and which have full potential to become articles. Phils 18:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  31. Can be the start of a good article. Dan100 19:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  32. virtually every definition is extendable. Zain 22:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  33. virtually every definition is extendable. Mononoke
  34. Neologisms are a little too "If I haven't heard of it..." error worthy. Odd that Mononoke's vote text is the same as Zain's. hfool/Wazzup? 23:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  35. BSveen 00:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Frazzydee|✍ 03:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC): The neologisms part made me put my vote here. If it was just "Any article consisting only of a dictionary definition (dicdef), which either already exists at Wiktionary", then I probably would have agreed.
  37. jni 09:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  38. Ryan! | Talk 10:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  39. Often dic-defs can be turned in proper articles. And unfortunately, it's impossible to decide what's a neologism on your own. This should be handled on a case by case basis. Mgm| 11:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Xezbeth 11:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Naive cynic 12:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  42. – Quadell 14:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  43. Mailer Diablo 16:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  44. PedanticallySpeaking 19:12, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  45. David Iberri | Talk 19:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  46. Francs2000 | Talk ] 20:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) These are better dealt with case by case
  47. Shane King 01:28, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Dict-def or stub is sometimes a fine line. Neologisms often survive vfd anyway.
  48. since most neologisms are completely non-notable they are already covered while dicdefs have potential to grow ping 08:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  49. Dictionary definitions can and do grow. If some articles appears that for some reason cannot be expanded, take it to VfD. arj 16:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  50. Agree with Arj. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  51. Dbiv 21:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  52. Could turn into a good article Lee S. Svoboda 21:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  53. Hapsiainen 01:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  54. Legitimate articles will inevitably be lost if a single admin can make a subjective decision on appropriateness. Wyss 04:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  55. Mackensen (talk) 05:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  56. Once again, the objections raised here must be dealt with. (Although I doubt that they can be.) →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 05:56, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  57. Dicdefs often provide a reasonable basis for an improved article. If they don't grow, there's VfD. Warofdreams 12:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  58. There's no sense in speedying a dicdef, most can be expanded on greatly. As Warofdreams said, if they don't improve, they can be VfD'ed. What would you prefer, an entry on Dishwashers stating that A dishwasher is an appliance for the washing of dishes using detergent and water, or no entry at all? They can eventually go somewhere. 12:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  59. SocratesJedi 07:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC). Substubs ought not to be deleted on sight.
  60. Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  61. Dictionary definitions are often the basis for more developed articles. Yōkai started as a mere definition, but has since expanded significantly. Josh 11:12, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  62. Henrygb 22:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  63. Many worthwhile articles start life with very little content. Delete only if the topic is inappropriate. If you don't like the content, then fix it! GeorgeStepanek\ 01:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  64. If there is a way to expand the topic, then expand it (isn't that what the whole point of a wiki is?). A start might just be to add links to the words in the definition. Only if the topic has no hope for expansion should it be deleted, and the VfD is adequate for that imho. Thryduulf 10:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  65. Superm401 17:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  66. Guanaco 04:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Ugh, no.
  67. Dejvid 15:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)