Template talk:Vocab-stub
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe this template should be deprecated. Vocabulary stubs are almost by definition mere dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The existence of this template is having the unfortunate effect of encouraging people to add definitions to Wikipedia instead of to Wiktionary (where they belong). Rossami (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. Vocabulary deserves an encyclopedia entry if its origin, background and usage can be discussed in more depth than you would expect from a mere definition. – Smyth\talk 14:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is there a vocab-stub that doesn't assume the article hasn't been moved to Wiktionary yet? —Tokek 13:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Edited the markup to read about definitions or usages of words or phrases as there have been many vocab stubs that are being resent to stub by people making the assumtion that this is a marker for discussing the topic of vocabularies, not about the expanded definitions of words or phrases. xaosflux Talk/CVU 
19:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Removed the text "Also consider copying it to Wiktionary", which had been tacked onto the end of the template. The vast majority of vocab-stubs are already on Wiktionary in the proper form, and we certainly shouldn't be encouraging people to "copy" Wikipedia articles into Wiktionary; Wiktionary has its own style and format, and transwikied content should respect that. (However, as I said, most vocab stubs are either dicdefs, which should be deleted per the usual process, or else are real stubs with corresponding Wiktionary pages already.) ((Afterthought: We could make a template for "This article may or may not be on [[wikt:{{PAGENAME}}|Wiktionary]] already", but that's getting ridiculous. Editors who care can go check for themselves, and editors who don't care shouldn't be imposed upon.)) --Quuxplusone 02:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Misunderstanding of use...
I think there has been a misunderstanding of this stub's use. It is not meant to be primarily for items awaiting a move to wiktionary - it is intended primarily for articles relating to vocabulary and usage that are beyond what could satisfactorily be included in a wiktionary article, and are therefore deserving of a wikipedia entry in their own right. As such, it's surprising that this stub has been deprecated, especially since to the best of my knowledge this has never been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting (which is where such a decision would have been made). I've initiated discussion on this point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting - please comment there. Grutness...wha? 22:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- It appears to me that there was unanimity in that discussion that it indeed isn't. If it's really been 'deprecated' for half a year, it'd be about time to delete it, no? What seems to be going on here is not so much a deprecation of the template, as implied deprecation of the topic of the articles, which completely at odds with the purpose of stub template. If it's to be transwiki'd, use {{copy to Wiktionary}}, there's absolutely no need to have a putative stub template that plays the same role (apparently now explicit, given the addition of the corresponding category to this template). See also my comments at dmcdevit's talk page. Alai 21:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
