Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of idioms in the English language (A)

Reading this AfD page is disgusting. There is very strong consensus to transwiki, yet the article was DELETED instead? Wikipedians are the ones that always complain that Wiktionary is chaotic and follows no process - doesn't that imply you are supposed to be diligent policy wonks? Why was process not followed at all, here? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was one of the people who supported transwikifying the thing, but I have to admit, we were a small minority. No consensus formed in favor. Jd2718 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I do not understand how you can reach that conclusion. Almost all of the "delete" !votes suggested dicdef/transwiki/copy to Wiktionary or similar.  Additionally, almost all of the "keep" votes suggested the same!


 * My bot (User:CopyToWiktionaryBot) can't copy it to Wiktionary if it never gets the Copy to Wiktionary tag added while it is in the main namespace! The entire AfD process can only start once the Transwiki is complete.


 * Does no one on the Wikipedia side have even the slightest notion of how a transwiki works? --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 09:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking only for myself, I have no idea, but I've only edited for just over two years, so I'm possibly not up to speed with all the necessary knowledge yet. Note that I'm not an admin. Would it help if the Copy to Wiktionary tag were added to the articles now?
 * The 'A' article has been 'userfied' to my user space (preserving edit history), the parent article and B...Z articles have not, but I have taken copies of all except the parent (which has the main, and probably most relevant, edit history) into my user space, as I can't guarantee that they would be 'userfied' once the AfD process has removed them. I would not expect the articles as a whole to be appropriate for Wikitionary, from my limited knowledge of Wiktionary, so my expectation is a long, hard, manual slog of copying individual idioms across from the articles - creating new Wiktionary entries where necessary, and updating existing ones where not. It is definitely not what I signed up to/expected when starting to contribute to Wikipedia, and it hasn't disillusioned me quite enough to stop contributing to the project(s), but it has come close. I got drawn into the language articles simply because I started adding missing knowledge and correcting mistakes - I wasn't really prepared for a philosophical and/or legalistic debate over whether they should be on Wikipedia. WLD 10:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For now, it would help if they were all tagged with Copy to Wiktionary, yes. I have the same general extectation of a long cleanup effort to get them comfortably situated in Wiktionary.  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. - WLD 19:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)