" Template:polltop > 
 :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.  

 The result of the proposal was move.    

 Crap (disambiguation) → Crap —(Discuss)— This is now a misplaced disambiguation page. It would be more useful for Crap to go directly there rather than simply the reference to wiktionary is is now. Note that this is sort of a merge request as there should be a short definition at the top of such a disambiguation page. —The way, the truth, and the light (talk)  

 * support the wiktionary thing can be a box.    

 * Support — The definition should only be the Wiktionary box.    
 :The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

 Move executed at .  The prior contents of this Talk page have been archived into page-history.    

 == Crap (word) == 

 Now another editor has removed the content from Crap (word), an article that I just created by splitting off the lexical section of Thomas Crapper. 

 This now gives us a second page used only to contain a redirect to Wiktionary, which is exactly what was avoided'' with the above move/merge request. Really, I don't understand why the word is not encyclopedic given that we have fuck and shit among others. 

 Also, I don't really understand that disambig cleanup. Why remove unlinked and redlinked topics just for that reason? - unless they're spam or vandalism, they're not hurting us and might prove useful to someone.    
 :As I said elsewhere when you first raised it, they were removed because they led nowhere. If there is no target article there is nothing to disambiguate so there is no entry on this page - all according to mos:dab and common sense imho. )    
 ::Well, I disagree. I think you're making disambiguation pages significanly less useful with that approach. The purpose of such pages, as I see it, is to distinguish different things that the reader might be looking for - even if we don't have an article on it, or never will.    

 :I am less concerned about the redlinks.  As long as there is a reasonable likelihood that an article will someday be created at a title, we're allowed to have redlinks.  On the other hand, if a link stays red for a long time, that might be evidence that we don't have anything encyclopedic to say.  There's a balance somewhere.   I feel very strongly about lexical content, though.  Articles which only discussion the meaning, origins and usage of a word or phrase belong at Wiktionary.  The editors there have far better tools, resources and supporting policies to verify lexical content and are better structured to make the information available to our readers.  Wikipedia, on the other hand, is explicitly not a dictionary.  To the extent that we have good articles that are about words (rather than about the concept behind the word), those articles focus on the extensive social implications of the word, etc.  They include content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.  That's not to say that we don't have lots of poor-quality articles that should either be improved, deleted or moved to Wiktionary.  Wikipedia is a work-in-progress (which means that the precedent you cite in the other words is a weak precedent at best).  I think Truth improved the Thomas Crapper article by moving that content off of the page.  I just disagree with the chosen destination.  That content should have been moved to the Wiktionary article instead.     
 ::If we're going to do that, though, why even have