Category talk:Vocabulary and usage stubs

This category is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Stub sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Stub sortingTemplate:WikiProject Stub sortingStub sorting articles

Linguistics

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles

Building a consensus on the use of this category

The definition of what belongs in this category has been problematic to editors, including myself, in the past, I am opening this Section in the hopes that editors will chime in as to what they feel belongs in this category, and what they feel do not. This may lead to changing the current and future use of this category, clarifications of its description, or nothing at all, other then a clear statement here.

Currently we have the following definitions listed:

This category is for stub articles relating to the meanings and usages of words and phrases.
This vocabulary article is a stub about definitions or usages of words or phrases. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it, or considering moving it to Wiktionary.

One of the policies to be concered with here is Wikipedia is not a dictionary, noting:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. If you're interested in working on a wiki dictionary, check out our sister project Wiktionary. Wikipedia articles are not:

Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; If you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., are used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a l33t cracker or a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

So the question is, What is a vocab stub for?

Is it for sorting a short article to become a defintion?
- Remember we are not building a dictionary.
Is it for short articles that are about the use of a certain use or phrase?
Is it for short articles about etymoligies and histories of words?
Is it for something else?

One of the driving forces of the Stub Sorting Project is to attract editors to short articles in fields they are experts in, with the intention of getting these stubs to blossom to full articles.

Please comment below as to the best use of this category. Thank you! xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kybernetès, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive9#.7B.7Bvocab-stub.7D.7D, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brownie points for what this stub category is for. Uncle G 13:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{vocab-stub}} should be restricted to articles that discuss the word rather than it's referent. e.g. etymology, origins, used and connotations etc. Brownie points and SNAFU are good examples of this. Circeus 17:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that discuss the word are what Wiktionary is for. Uncle G 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A dictionary does not discuss or explain. It defines and states. Circeus 20:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong. That's a preconceived and very narrow notion of what a dictionary is that doesn't match up to what Wiktionary actually does. Wiktionary is not paper, either. Uncle G 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is litte definition as to what the usefulnes, if any, of this category is; benig a temporary holding area for stubs waiting to be moved to wikitionary (paraphrase) is pointless, we already have a categor for that Category:Move_to_Wiktionary, why duplicate efforts here? xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because, initially, this was a holding area for substubs that might be candidates for being tagged for transwikification, but that might be disposed of in other ways. It was a quick first pass. The second pass has yet to be performed. Uncle G 16:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CopyToWiktionaryBot

How would you (Wikipedians) like me to proceed? I can wholesale copy this category once, but then what? I'm sure you don't want me to remove {{vocab-stub}} from each entry, right? Nor would you want me to remove the {{move to wiktionary}} template from the category page, correct?

My main concern is that I do not wish to copy (nor attempt to copy) the same entries over and over again. Some advice would be appreciated. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, any comment at all has the potential of helping... --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 04:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, does your bot put a {{transwikied to Wiktionary}} tag on the articles' talk pages? (I think it should, if not.) That would be a useful way of weeding out the ones that have already been copied, but had their cleanup tags removed. I think that the tag should stay on the category, though really we need to eventually fix it so there isn't a category made for things that aren't realy encyclopdic usually. Dmcdevit·t 08:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While marking the talk page would be helpful, no, my bot currently does not add that. It only replaces templates that exist on a given page. (Does Wikipedia require fresh approval for also adding that, or can I just do it?) For all the members of this category, that would be {{vocab-stub}}, which is not a tag I should remove. The problem I encounter, is that I end up not having any cetegory I can check, to see if there are more entries I need to move (without first inspecting the various talk pages.) So, I'm open to ideas. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 11:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was that Category:Transwikied_to_Wiktionary would be added by {{transwikied to Wiktionary}} on the talk page, and you could leave the stub in place, checking only by the existence of that category whether it has been transwikied or not. Maybe it's not possible to check the talk page for categories with your bot? (I'm not technicaly trained.) I don't have any other great ideas. Dmcdevit·t 19:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to seek help in #pywikipediabot. I am spazing out a little too much on the talk page new section addition, right now. (Plus, I keep forgetting that I have this pending task.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 15:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well. OK, I have a thing to add a talk page message to every page I transwiki now. I'm at a loss, what to do about the prior entries though. I suppose I could check to see if the page has been deleted already. Anyway, I expect to move all of these after a few more minor tests. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]