Category talk:Glossaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is organized as part of a group with the other Contents pages (category). Please direct feedback on the pages as a group to Wikipedia talk:Contents. Thank you.

[edit] Request for help in copying these glossaries to Wiktionary

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)

[edit] Copy to Wictionary?

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)

• Oppose. A glossary is a list of specialized or technical words with their meanings, not a simple definition alone. In Wikipedia, glossary pages play the role of organizing concepts related to an identified topic. This category and its included pages are a part the Contents pages project. None of the glossary pages should be moved to Wictionary. Rfrisbie^talk 14:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Strongly concur. This is far to large a change to be covered by a transwiki tag. If you really believe they should be moved, perhaps Village Pump (proposals) is the place to request it. --Quiddity 19:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose If the terms in Glossaries are split up into the mass of general dictionary terms, it will be much more difficult to access and inter-relate the entries. Many of these terms have a completely different meaning than the normal dictionary definition, and may be confusing for general users of Wiktionary, and difficult to place in context (ie: "6 on 5", "bat shot", blue ball", etc). Ryanjo 04:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

*Oppose - Quiddity's right: Transwiki'ing = article death. Integrating Wiktionary and Wikipedia is a pretty big (and important issue), and warrants looking into in greater detail. I'll let you know what I find out. --The Transhumanist 07:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I have no idea what you are talking about. A successful AfD is needed to delete an article, and transwiki has no bearing on the outcome, or even nomination, of those. I've been involved in the transwiki process for well over a year now, and can help you with whatever you are confused about. Dmcdevit·t 08:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

• • • All the transwiki'ing I've seen entailed moving pages over complete with their edit histories, and then expunging them from Wikipedia. I've never heard of edit histories getting duplicated/forked. So what you are proposing is cutting and pasting the glossaries over there? There's fewer than 200. That should only take a few hours. The transwiki'ing I've witnessed required no AfDs, and left a shadow of an article in the place of the transwiki'd version. --The Transhumanist 08:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem I've found with Wiktionary glossaries from a Wikipedia perspective is that they link to Wiktionary entries and not Wikipedia articles. The main point in having a glossary on Wikipedia is that it's Wikipedia-linkified. --08:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support copying to Wiktionary, but retain originals on Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Transwiki log clearly shows that transwiking is independent of whether or not an article is retained by Wikipedia. These glossaries would be valuable additions to Wiktionary, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be available over there in a Wikitionarified version. --The Transhumanist 09:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yupyup, we all assumed wrong. All is good, as I said above :) --Quiddity 09:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the tag to match the situation. No approval is required to copy material from Wikipedia. --The Transhumanist 09:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on this diff [1] the glossaries still look to me like they're in jeopardy by the proposed action. Rfrisbie^talk 10:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"it's to be copied without prejudice to their fate afterward". Really? Dmcdevit·t 10:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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 [[Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary|copied]] to [[Wiktionary]]''' using the [[Wikipedia:Transwiki log|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. Rfrisbie^talk 13:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I still think it will be of limited use to copy many Glossary terms to a dictionary...Glossary terms are jargon, which depend on a context--how are you going to explain "6 on 5 man-down offense" without knowing something about water polo, for example. The explanation required will need an encyclopedia article. Which is how it works already. Ryanjo 14:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• I plan to remove the Transwiki tag at the top of the Glossary of Water Polo article within the next few hours, since:

1. it hasn't been copied to Wiktionary, despite the notice that it has, and a (dead) link.[2]
2. I don't think it is appropriate to tag any Glossary as a candidate for deletion, which is what it says--no matter what the person tagging it says it means.

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)

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)

[edit] WP:CFD

This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on 2006 October 15. The result of the discussion was keep.