Talk:Faggot (wood)

Does this actually require its own article? As it stands, it's simply a definition, albeit a longish one. This should really be merged somewhere and deleted. Exploding Boy 21:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree, but this article could possibly expand, so I'd leave it be for a while.

I think this article belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. I'm adding the {{Copy to Wiktionary}} tag. Sverre 18:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is marked as a Biology stub. This has nothing to do with biology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.66.137 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition is there, Transwikied previously.[edit]

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fagot[edit]

i think the spelling with one g is more common 65.102.246.71 21:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]