Talk:Crap (word)

Crap (word)
Now another editor has removed the content from Crap (word), an article that I just created by splitting off the lexical section of Thomas Crapper.

This now gives us a second page used only to contain a redirect to Wiktionary, which is exactly what was avoided with the above move/merge request. Really, I don't understand why the word is not encyclopedic given that we have fuck and shit among others.

Also, I don't really understand that disambig cleanup. Why remove unlinked and redlinked topics just for that reason? - unless they're spam or vandalism, they're not hurting us and might prove useful to someone. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere when you first raised it, they were removed because they led nowhere. If there is no target article there is nothing to disambiguate so there is no entry on this page - all according to mos:dab and common sense imho. :) Abtract (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. I think you're making disambiguation pages significanly less useful with that approach. The purpose of such pages, as I see it, is to distinguish different things that the reader might be looking for - even if we don't have an article on it, or never will. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am less concerned about the redlinks. As long as there is a reasonable likelihood that an article will someday be created at a title, we're allowed to have redlinks.  On the other hand, if a link stays red for a long time, that might be evidence that we don't have anything encyclopedic to say.  There's a balance somewhere.  I feel very strongly about lexical content, though.  Articles which only discussion the meaning, origins and usage of a word or phrase belong at Wiktionary.  The editors there have far better tools, resources and supporting policies to verify lexical content and are better structured to make the information available to our readers.  Wikipedia, on the other hand, is explicitly not a dictionary.  To the extent that we have good articles that are about words (rather than about the concept behind the word), those articles focus on the extensive social implications of the word, etc.  They include content that goes well beyond the merely lexical. That's not to say that we don't have lots of poor-quality articles that should either be improved, deleted or moved to Wiktionary.  Wikipedia is a work-in-progress (which means that the precedent you cite in the other words is a weak precedent at best).  I think Truth improved the Thomas Crapper article by moving that content off of the page.  I just disagree with the chosen destination.  That content should have been moved to the Wiktionary article instead.  Rossami (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're going to do that, though, why even have the page Crap (word)? Why not just restore my headline? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All I can say is read mos:dab. It is full of useful info on what dab pages are for and how they should (and shouldn't) be constructed. Having said that some of the members of the dab project find it difficult to understand the implications of the guidelines so it won't be surprising if you struggle. Good luck. Abtract (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did; it does not say what you are apparently claiming, in fact, it includes examples of entries that will never have an article.
 * I reverted some of the changes, eliminating the link to the now-useless crap (word). I did not bring back the list of acronyms, even though I think that they are even useful. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's up to you what you do now ... if you read mos:dab (several places) it will become clear that 1) this is not a dictionary, 2) if the lead is to be more than a simple may refer to it must link to the primary topic 3) if there is no target article there can be no entry. 4)therefore the primary topic must have an article. Please don't continue to press when you are not supported. :) Abtract (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I too have read that page of the MoS many times and also think that you are taking a more strict interpretation than is generally accepted, especially in your bullet 3. The consensus that I've seen is that there "should be no entry" but there are exceptions where they are helpful to our readers.  (Determining helpfulness is, of course, an ambiguous decision thrashed out by the editors in question on the Talk page.)  I was ambivalent on the helpfulness of some of the acronyms and am still thinking about whether the page is better without them or not.  Rossami (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I'm not going to debate it anymore ... time (and other editors) will tell. Enjoy. :) Abtract (talk)