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talk page No further edits should be made to this section Move executed at The prior contents of this Talk page have been archived into page history Crap word Now another editor has removed the content from Crap word an article that I just created by splitting off the lexical section of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