Talk:The Bee's Knees
 | This is an archive of past discussions about The Bee's Knees. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on August 24, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Dictionary definition
The contents of this page have never risen above the level of a mere dictionary definition, something which Wikipedia is not. The page at its fullest had the definition, origins and usage of the phrase. All that content has already been moved to Wiktionary. The deletion discussion shows community ambivalence to this page. The edit history shows that the page has been largely unmaintained and had unreverted vandalism for a significant period of time.
Until someone actually has something encyclopedic to say on this topic or until the policy against mere dictionary entries is reversed, readers are better off with a redirect to Wiktionary (where editors have the proper tools and processes to ensure that dictionary entries are well written and maintained) than with a duplicated and lower quality entry in Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted your unilateral action. This article has already survived one deletion round. If you feel strongly about it, I suggest your prod it or afd it and we'll go through the process again. --evrik (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't need to prod or AFD the page because I don't think that the page necessarily needs deletion from the project's history when a redirect will suffice. Merging, redirecting and transwikiing are not deletion.
In accordance with all Wikipedia's policies and practices, I saw a problem, was bold and redirected the page. You apparently disagree with that decision have have reverted it. Fair enough. Per bold-revert-discuss, I explained my reasoning in detail (above). Nothing in that process is inapproprate or deserves the prejorative description "unilateral".
Now, can we stop arguing over process and discuss the merits of the situation? As I said above, I see no content to this page other than what is already and better covered in a dictionary entry. If you disagree, on what basis do you disagree? Rossami (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)- If you want to get rid of the page. Go through the process. --evrik (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am going through the process. Redirect is not deletion. If you don't trust me, go ask another administrator to weigh in on the matter. I recommend user:Uncle G or user:Splash but you can talk to anyone you like. Refusing to address the issue is not helpful. Rossami (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Refusing to address the issue? Rossami, this article survived an afd. Before you go and unilaterally change the article please have the courtesy to stop acting bold and build some consensus for your unilateral changes. --evrik (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- It did not "survive an AFD", the deletion discussion was closed as "no consensus". Regardless, the AFD discussion is irrelevant because no one is deleting the page! The history is still there in full. Turning a page into a redirect is not the same as deletion. I really don't know how to say that any clearer. Rossami (talk)
- Refusing to address the issue? Rossami, this article survived an afd. Before you go and unilaterally change the article please have the courtesy to stop acting bold and build some consensus for your unilateral changes. --evrik (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am going through the process. Redirect is not deletion. If you don't trust me, go ask another administrator to weigh in on the matter. I recommend user:Uncle G or user:Splash but you can talk to anyone you like. Refusing to address the issue is not helpful. Rossami (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to get rid of the page. Go through the process. --evrik (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't need to prod or AFD the page because I don't think that the page necessarily needs deletion from the project's history when a redirect will suffice. Merging, redirecting and transwikiing are not deletion.
- (outdenting) Now, do you have a reply to the substantive question? How is this page not a dictionary definition? How are readers better served by a duplicate definition than by a polite pointer to the right place to find a dictionary definition? Rossami (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Normal editing actions do not require lengthy discussions or votes. Deletion does, but deletion on Wikipedia refers to the removal of information, not moving information to some other spot. It is a long-standing tradition that Wikipedia Is Not A Dictionary (WP:WINAD) and that "dicdefs" belong in Wiktionary instead. >Radiant< 09:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
In the intervening decade+, it's become rather routine to link to Wiktionary definitions, so I've put one in at the disambiguation page, with more contextual information that we had. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
mergeto tag
user:Jreferee has added a {{mergeto}} tag to the page. While I appreciate the sentiment, please note that there is no content left to merge. This page was transwiki'd to Wiktionary - a slightly different process. Rossami (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I added a TWCleanup tag to the article to reflect the above comment. -- Jreferee 21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Bee's Knees[broken anchor] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)