Wikipedia talk:Things to be moved to Wiktionary

message: What's the actual procedure here? Do I just list a page and forget about it? Will wiktionary experts take it from there? (hint, I've hardly used wiktionary...) Martin
Like "take a penny, leave a penny". Ellmist 02:16 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'm going to echo Martin here - I'd be happy to do the move-to-Wiktionary thing myself, but I can't make heads or tails of the instructions or example at transwiki.  Could somebody familiar with the process add a step-by-step list of how to do this? --Dcfleck 13:32, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
Very circular indeed. Is there some voting process someone would like to point out please? --Herzog 00:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the procedure?

message: Global and social are about the phenomena of adding these adjectives as prefixes to words to make phrases - which has not just a linguistic but a political element.  Read the entries.  There are semantics associated with adding such prefixes that simply aren't in Wiktionary's mandate - and the number of cross-links would be extreme.  A stripped-down version of these articles should go to Wiktionary, but volumes could be written say on the use of the word "social" to mean "good" by the left and "bad" by the right.  And they should be written, perhaps under different names (like prefix 'global' and prefix 'social') to deal with stuff like trade vs. global trade and justice vs. social justice.
*global - basically an overly long dictionary entry.  This entry will always be about the word itself, rather than about something more worthy of an encyclopedia article like globalization. Chadloder 03:34, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect listing: global and social

message: Please read over Wikipedia:Soft redirect, then add your comments to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Policy proposal for dicdefs: soft redirects. Thanks, • Benc • 11:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested policy change 

message: I think the following articles should be moved to the Wiktionary, but I don't want to get anyone mad or have revision wars over the fact.  Please see the following articles: -cide, -cycle, -cracy, -ic, -ism, -ist, -ography, -oid, -ology, -omics, -onomy, -onym, -philia, -phobia, -scope, -stan, -ware
Found while stub sorting.  -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Look like Wiktionary articles to me. --Tagishsimon
They do provide useful lists of words that use the suffixes though, and those are pretty much Wikipedia material.  The lists at least should be left. (perhaps each moved to some better name).  I agreee that the definitions parts are Wiktionary material.  —siroχo 00:22, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Siroxo that the lists are encyclopedic and/or an almanac-like list, which is included in Wikipedia--can't get such a list from m-w.com. Of the ones I've checked, -ography seems to be the best example of the potential these articles have to be 'pedia-worthy (oh, even better is -ology and -ism). If we're going to have a list anyway, I think some prose at the top to set context is reasonable. As for the articles they link to, I think they would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis--take a look at biography--hardly a dicdef. On the other hand, -stan and especially (at least the current contents) -ware have a bit of a "what doesn't belong in this set" flavor to them. If you check the histories, -ism, -ology, and -phobia have had contributions from dozens of Wikipedians, and the rest average almost eight different contributors. Also, the 17 articles in this series were started by at least 8 or 9 different Wikipedians. Finally, at least two have inter-wiki links from other language Wikipedias. Wholesale transfer to Wiktionary doesn't seem appropriate to me. Some of the articles are certainly less developed than others, but that can be said about most any category of articles on Wikipedia. Niteowlneils 21:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Even so, if the entry is still looking like a definition, it can moved to the Wiktionary then redirected back to the Wikipedia.  As it stands, a lot of the features in the Wiktionary don't exist like the features in Wikipedia -- just because the Wiktionary is new.  Perhaps using a basic definition in Wiktionary would be useful then putting a "See also" to point to the Wikipedia for any words on that list.  Normally, suffixes are in a dictionary, as opposed to a encyclopedia.  It just seems so... out of place to me. -- Allyunion 11:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you move them to Wiktionary and redirect them back, all the links would be the same color. Most encyclopedias don't have "List of gay waitresses who shot mailmen" either, but I think these articles, as links, fit in with the precedents of Wikipedia. (personally I think just about all lists should move to a separate namespace as they're not articles but lists, but I'm in the minority on that opinion and it's not a big deal either way).  anthony (see warning) 14:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Not all of the entries have lists, just to note. --Allyunion 07:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffixes in the Wikipedia 

message: While verbs, adverbs and adjectives can be hard to write about, I'd say that nearly every tangible noun could (in theory) have an article about it. In practice, this won't always happen, as very mundane things (e.g. cup) are taken for granted as everyone knows what they are, and has a rough idea how're they made.
But even with things such as cup, it has potential for types of cups used in other countries, special cups for different situations, mention of symbolic cups (e.g. Holy Grail), what people used before cups, what cups were made out of in the 1600s (for poor and the rich) stuff like that.
It's a bit of a stupid example, and i probably know less about cups that most people, but there is potential encyclopedic content.
I'd ask that before moving such "dictionary definitions" to the wiktionary, that the theoretical possibility of an article be considered, or else the next time an antiques dealer discovers wikipedia, and wants to contribute their vast knowledge of Victorian and Elizabethan crockery, they might feel they're not wanted. :-) Tristanb 03:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Imagination

message: I suggest instead of remove, include a #REDIRECT wiktionary:word (for the concrete word definition). If later there is a lot of information, one can re-create a wikipedia article with a link to the dictionary definition.
*I'd prefer a  tag to a redirect. Unfortunately both of these qualify as candidates for speedy deletion. 14:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  #REDIRECT <nowiki>[[wiktionary:word]]</nowiki> 

message: There does not seem to be a coherent plan of how to take items off this list.  Should this page even exist now that the transwiki system exists? (Even thought it doesn't work either.)  Help. JesseW 09:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This does not seem to be useable 

message: Old entries should be reviewed more carefully before any transwiki attempts. Topsail might have have been a dicdef when it was listed (although any knowledgeable person should have been aware that it could easily be a lengthy article - what's there now is still incomplete), but it grew beyond that later. Stan 07:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old entries 

message: I was surprised when Courtland told me "Moving something to Wiktionary in no way bars the expansion and existence of the nominated article". It seems to me to say "This is going to be deleted from wikipedia, don't improve it unless you can make a whole (new) article". I believe this interpretation is shared by many people, especially Vfd voters. Kappa 15:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary tag of doom 

message: I think we might be better served by just scrapping this page altogether. Its seldom used. And its not very useful, as dicdefs listed here are either tagged concurrently, and then transwikied regardless of comments, or not tagged, and then never trasnwikied even if they are dicdefs. This page just seems to confuse the process. And if many people (though it's unlikely) really do want to comment on transwiki proposals, it would be nearly as easy to just watch the category (:Category:Copy to Wiktionary) for recent additions. Thoughts? --Dmcdevit 03:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 5 June 2006.  The result was Keep. Xoloz 03:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD Result Notice