Category talk:Wikipedia glossaries

message: Dmcdevit is in the process of copying these glossaries to Wiktionary, here, and would like all the help he can get.  Please contact him for details.  --The Transhumanist 09:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help in copying these glossaries to Wiktionary 

message: :::The wrong tag was being used.  No approval is required for copying material from Wikipedia, rendering the implied proposal moot.  --The Transhumanist 09:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I propose that these helpful definitions be copied to Wiktionary. I'm in the process of doing so. Nothing will, or can, be deleted without an AfD that shows consensus for deletion. I have no idea what this opposition is for. The tag is there in the hopes that someone will help. This hostile reaction is not encouraging. Dmcdevit·t 06:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Copy to Wiktionary tag usually implies removal-after-copying-is-complete. That's all I'd ever seen it used for at least. But as long as we're leaving the contents intact, then heck yeah, copy definitions across freely :) No harm, no foul :) --Quiddity 07:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not. This is explicity why we recently renamed the template to "Copy to Wiktionary." It has always been true that transwiki has no bearing on deletion, and deletion doesn't happen without an AfD. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Here's what I found out:  Here's the Wikitionary glossary list.  Unfortunately, they call them "appendices" over there, and also unfortunately the list is a category which means the only way to add Wikipedia's glossaries to that alphabetical list is to copy them over there (if they maintained a list, Wikipedia's glossaries could be added to that list as links).  And while we're on the subject: conversely, perhaps links to Wiktionary's appendices (or the best thereof) should be added to Wikipedia's List of glossaries?  We could of course use pipes to refer to them as glossaries.  And by using interwiki links, they would appear as internal links rather than external ones.  Just a thought.  --The Transhumanist 08:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "it's to be copied without prejudice to their fate afterward". Really? Dmcdevit·t 10:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only places I've seen that type of language is in legal proceedings where a judge or arbitrator dismisses a case on a technicality but signals refiling the charges would be accepted. Also, "This page is a candidate to be copied to Wiktionary using the Transwiki process." pipes "moved" to "copied." That seems deceptive to me. However, enough editors more seasoned than I have noticed this activity, so I'm confident no glossaries will be improperly removed from Wikipedia. Rfrisbietalk 13:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To whoever is tagging Glossaries in this way on a wholesale fashion--why don't you tag an article, get comments, get the Transwiki done, and go to the next article. The "hit and run" approach is very irritating. I have enough extra work to do reverting vandals. Ryanjo 14:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please stop asuming bad faith here? "Hit and run"? We have a bot transwikiing the articles, tagging is all that's needed. I don't understand how you can possibly say it wasn't transwikied without reading the tag: "Therefore the article can be found at either Wiktionary:Transwiki:Glossary of Water Polo or Wiktionary:Glossary of Water Polo". Click the first link. This doesn't have anything to do with deletion, as the tag itself says, not just the person tagging it. "The final disposition of this article on Wikipedia has not yet been determined." Have you ever performed a single transwiki? I suggest that you educate yourself as to the process before commenting. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy to Wictionary? 

message: Now it is possible to make links and redirects directly to chapters within an article. I would appreciate it very much if you could change the bulleted lists so that each word forms a a chapter that can be directly accessed with the previously mentioned method. Thank you Wandalstouring 19:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you mean sections within an article (I don't think I've ever seen them referred to as chapters?).  If you want to link to something like :Category:Glossaries#Subcategories, or even :Category:Glossaries#E, that'd require a mediawiki software change, so please ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and they should be able to tell you what to do next. —Quiddity 20:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes to the organization 

message: Is retaining the "copy to Wiktionary" tag helpful at this point?  I do not regularly scan this category anymore; I think any additional transwiki requests would be better served by individual articles being tagged.  Since I do not pull all entries from this category, it is misleading to have the category itself marked with the 'copy to Wiktionary' template.
If OK with Wikipedians, would one of you please remove the tag?  TIA.  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 22:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Quiddity 22:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retaining tag helpful? 

message: Should this category be merged with :Category:Terminology? What is the purpose served by having two separate categories; i.e., what makes these two categories different? A lot of the "XXXX terminology" articles could just as well be renamed to "Glossary of XXXX terms". :Category:Lists of terms especially stands out as being redundant. SharkD 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed the blurb in :Category:Lists of terms that distinguishes it from this category. SharkD 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[:Category:Terminology]]?

message: The WP glossaries should be edited to give a consistent style. Since they developed in an ad-hoc, "organic" manner there are numerous styles. I prefer the style that I have used in the :Category:Glossaries on science. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency required 

message: Being discussed again, at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Glossaries. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glossaries to Wiktionary 

message: This category should be :Category:Wikipedia glossaries, while the category currently titled with the awkward :Category:Published glossaries should become simple :Category:Glossaries. --dab (𒁳) 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was at last proposed and agreed at CFD, see link in template above. :Category:Published glossaries was then renamed to :Category:Glossaries. – Fayenatic London 07:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename