Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal IV (Dicdefs): Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
KeithTyler (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
disagree |
||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
#[[User:Diberri|David Iberri]] | [[User talk:Diberri|Talk]] 19:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) |
#[[User:Diberri|David Iberri]] | [[User talk:Diberri|Talk]] 19:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) |
||
#[[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit§ion=new Talk] [[]] 20:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) These are better dealt with case by case |
#[[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit§ion=new Talk] [[]] 20:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) These are better dealt with case by case |
||
#[[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 01:28, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Dict-def or stub is sometimes a fine line. Neologisms often survive vfd anyway. |
Revision as of 01:28, 4 January 2005
Proposal IV (Dicdefs)
The following case should be added to Wikipedia: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
- BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Vamp:Willow 01:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Carnildo 02:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Antaeus Feldspar 02:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- cleduc (talk) 03:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ben Brockert 05:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Jeff Knaggs 08:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Dori | Talk 14:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- P Ingerson 14:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Jayjg | (Talk) 17:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- RickK 21:20, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Anthony Liekens 00:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- ℘yrop (talk) 03:17, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- gK ¿? 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Gentgeen 11:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Alphax (talk) 12:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Tompagenet 13:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Proteus (Talk) 17:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 20:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree
- Ground 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
- Smoddy | Talk 00:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ld | talk 00:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- max rspct 00.18 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Xtra 00:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Neologisms are hard to decide even by VfD. Wikimol 00:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Many pages marked with the {{wi}} tag are now good articles. SimonP 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
- Agree with SimonP. At least make a request for a full article to be established or vote.--Sketchee 01:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Rje 02:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Meelar (talk) 02:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Sc147 03:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ливай | ☺ 03:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Netoholic on this one.Dr Zen 05:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Korath (Talk) 05:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 05:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Antandrus 06:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Too draconian; often these can be made into decent articles.
- Unfortunately, I think these are better dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --Slowking Man 07:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- This is the wrong way to settle the substub controversy. iMeowbot~Mw 07:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Rafał Pocztarski 10:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have seen dicdefs listed on vfd become articles. Thue | talk 11:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- 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 [T|C] 12:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Tuf-Kat 14:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- wheresmysocks 17:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
- Can be the start of a good article. Dan100 19:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- virtually every definition is extendable. Zain 22:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- virtually every definition is extendable. Mononoke
- 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)
- BSveen 00:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- 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.
- jni 09:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ryan! | Talk 10:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- 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|(talk) 11:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Xezbeth 11:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Naive cynic 12:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Mailer Diablo 16:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- PedanticallySpeaking 19:12, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- David Iberri | Talk 19:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) These are better dealt with case by case
- Shane King 01:28, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Dict-def or stub is sometimes a fine line. Neologisms often survive vfd anyway.