Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal IV (Dicdefs)

Proposal IV
Proposal IV makes claims about Wiktionary's submission requirements that don't appear to be accurate &mdash; see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, Wiktionary:Neologisms, and Wiktionary:List of protologisms, for a start. It would be better to phrase the proposal as simply "Any article consisting only of a dictionary definition (dicdef), which already exists at Wiktionary." Otherwise, there will be problems with admins deleting definitions because they have mistaken ideas about which words qualify for Wiktionary. There are cases where judgment on recently coined terms is in order, but speedy deletion is not the proper venue for that. Factitious 12:26, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see something that describes what a "dicdef" is. Strictly speaking,a dictionary definition includes parts of speech, pronounciation, etymology, etc.  What we usually call a "dicdef" tends to be a one- or two-sentence description, slightly less than a stub.  Where does a definition cross into becoming an encyclopedia entry? -- Netoholic @ 19:22, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)


 * Can we restrict this only to articles which already have a Wiktionary definition? Reason: Either the definition needs to move to Wiktionary, which means that although you'd want to delete the Wikipedia page eventually, it would hardly be a candidate for "speedy deletion". If the dicdef isn't acceptable to Wiktionary, then more thought needs to go into where to store the information, and the process shouldn't be rushed. Grobertson 18:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comment above that dicdef should not be rushed through. If it can put into Wiktionary, sufficient time should allowed for appropriate formatting/editing. The appropriate tag then is instead of speedy. Enochlau 03:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Take it to Wiktionary instead
I voted against this proposal because dic-defs can always be moved to Wiktionary for evaluation. Peter O. (Talk) 02:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * This was my reasoning also. I'm all for an expedited transwiki and deletion here, though. (If transwikis aren't usually "expedited", that is. I haven't looked into current practice at all.) &mdash;Korath (Talk) 07:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Precedents already has some interesting examples of dictionary definition articles which can and can't be kept. It reads: "Should dictionary definitions that have potential to become real articles be kept? - Yes". These were examples kept by vote but would they haved survived as CFD? The Reason page is still a series of definitions of the term with a bit history of history and examples filling out the article. :) --Sketchee 10:55, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)