Jump to content

Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal IV (Dicdefs)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ShaneKing (talk | contribs) at 01:28, 4 January 2005 (disagree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposal IV (Dicdefs)

(Vote) (Discuss)

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

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 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. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. —Charles P. (Mirv) 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 [flame] 20:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Ground 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. Smoddy | Talk 00:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ld | talk 00:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. max rspct 00.18 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  6. Xtra 00:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neologisms are hard to decide even by VfD. Wikimol 00:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Many pages marked with the {{wi}} tag are now good articles. SimonP 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  10. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  11. Agree with SimonP. At least make a request for a full article to be established or vote.--Sketchee 01:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Rje 02:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Meelar (talk) 02:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Sc147 03:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. Ливай | ☺ 03:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Agree with Netoholic on this one.Dr Zen 05:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Korath (Talk) 05:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 05:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Antandrus 06:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Too draconian; often these can be made into decent articles.
  22. Unfortunately, I think these are better dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --Slowking Man 07:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  23. This is the wrong way to settle the substub controversy. iMeowbot~Mw 07:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  24. Rafał Pocztarski 10:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  25. I have seen dicdefs listed on vfd become articles. Thue | talk 11:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. 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)
  27. Tuf-Kat 14:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  28. wheresmysocks 17:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  29. 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)
  30. Can be the start of a good article. Dan100 19:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  31. virtually every definition is extendable. Zain 22:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. virtually every definition is extendable. Mononoke
  33. 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)
  34. BSveen 00:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  35. 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.
  36. jni 09:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  37. Ryan! | Talk 10:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  38. 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)
  39. Xezbeth 11:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Naive cynic 12:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  41. – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  42. Mailer Diablo 16:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  43. PedanticallySpeaking 19:12, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  44. David Iberri | Talk 19:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) These are better dealt with case by case
  46. Shane King 01:28, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Dict-def or stub is sometimes a fine line. Neologisms often survive vfd anyway.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD/Proposal_IV_(Dicdefs)&oldid=9094249"