Template talk:Move to Wiktionary
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
| Contents |
Should this template have a background color?
User:Mike_Storm recently removed the yellow background on this template, calling it "unnecessary". I disagree. The background color is there to highlight the request to move to the wiktionary. Other templates concerning removal or moving of articles from wikipedia have background colors: (See Template:vfd, Template:delete, Template:Move to Wikiquote, Template:Move to Wikibooks).
The template has had the yellow background color for over a month before it was removed, so it is only now that this is being disputed, so now is the time for discussion on the matter. Should there or should there not be a background color in the "move to" templates? Norm 21:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It should have the background just to seperate it from the article. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- There should, for separation, notification, and to give the whole of Biocrawler a more professional look. —siroχo 01:21, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed that it should have the background, but only for important templates like "move to" ones, so attention is drawn to them. By no means should stub or substub templates have backgrounds. Andre (talk) 23:48, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
div id/class="..."
I propose making the div id/class="boilerplate wikitionary" as opposed to just "wikitionary" — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
RFC
Does this page still need to be listed at RfC? Maurreen 06:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rewording
I've removed the text from this notice that encourages people to reformat the article according to the Wiktionary guidelines. This is for two reasons:
- The Wiktionarians have expressed the view that they are happy to do the reformatting of the articles in their Transwiki namespace themselves.
- Reformatting into the dictionary layout whilst still on Biocrawler discourages metamorphosis into an encyclopaedia article. And in quite a number of cases where this notice is applied a better dictionary article could (and should) be written from scratch directly in Wiktionary, rather than incur all of the bother of the transwiki process for initial article content that is going to be almost totally discarded at Wiktionary anyway.
I've also added a link to official policy, added a link directly to Wiktionary, and removed the link to the Wiktionary transwiki page. Uncle G 15:37, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
Two templates?
This template seems to imply that the article it is displayed on will be deleted (as many have) after it is transwikied. I have come across some articles that have some content that belong is Wiktionary, but the articles should stay intact, because, as is the WP policy, dictionary content is okay if it's in the context of an encycopedic article. Perhaps a second template should be created that would specify the article not be deleted afterwords. I realize the current template does not specifically say it means deletion, but many editors to large articles seem to resist the tag because of the fear of deletion.--Dmcdevit 22:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Transwikification is problematic in this regard. As I have previously noted in VFD discussions, there's a loop between the transwiki process (which ends with the article sent to the normal deletion process of the origin project) and the deletion process (which ends with the article being sent to the transwiki process). Potentially an article could circle forever (and at least one VFD voter has recently voted Wiktionary on an article, that came to VFD in the first place precisely because it had already been sent to Wiktionary). User:KevinBot and I have been transwikiing things at a furious pace recently, and we have already created several additional tags. We've also been working on what to do at the end of transwikification. See Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary. I don't think that there's a need for two tags at the start of the process, though. What there is a need for is more appreciation of the Biocrawler:Biocrawler is not a dictionary policy. I have a shrewd idea of what you are alluding to, and I think that the problem is not actually a fear of deletion at all. It has all of the hallmarks of extreme article ownership. Uncle G 01:46, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
- I can definitely see the truth in that. It's as if some people don't realize that they can access and edit and everything else on Wiktionary too.--Dmcdevit 08:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
