Template talk:TWCleanup

Active discussions

Vocab-stub deprecated?Edit

I don't see anything indicating this to be true on the vocab-stub page or talk page. Even if it was true, I'm not sure that this tidbit is worth mentioning in this template. Maybe I'm missing something? SnowFire 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice you reverted me until now. Um, did you notice that Category:Vocabulary_and_usage_stubs is vastly smaller now that hundreds of entries have been transwikied? I'm not sure why you felt the need to revert first and ask questions later, but it is indeed the case. The note is necessary so that stub sorters don't put the tag back on when sorting, so that it will get tranwikied again; if i has encyclopedic value, it will fit into another category pertaining to its topic. Dmcdevit·t 01:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, reverting is not something I'd do for a normal content edit, but it is something I'd do if the claim appears to be factually incorrect. I checked the vocab-stub template and still don't see anything about it being deprecated there; someone proposes it should be deprecated on the talk page, sure, but there's no discussion or indication of anything like it being deprecated. {{see}} has a big "this is deprecated! Do not use!" warning on it, and so did {{substub}} (though now that seems to be simply deleted). Where is the discussion on deprecating vocab-stub? And if it exists, then it should probably be linked from vocab-stub, a pretty important place to put it... SnowFire 03:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
There wasn't discussion, that's been the intention all along, we only just got a reliable transwiki bot up and running. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and does not include articles on words and word usage. The vocab category has always been a place to stick dictionary definitions that need dealing with. Back when {substub} was being deprecated, and I may be dating myself, but I think that was in 2005, that category was created as a holding cell which was intended to eventually be sorted through; it was created with a {{move to wiktionary}} tag on the category itself, and has been there ever since. That never worked because people started adding things to the category faster than they were dealt with. Now we can finally clear it out and that's what is being done.Changing the stub template to a cleanup template shows that there is no implication that this category of article, about words, is appropriate, it actually needs to be fixed. I'll go add a notice to the template as you suggested. Dmcdevit·t 03:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reduce verbosityEdit

This template is too verbose. It makes any article it is in very ugly. Unless someone objects, I intend to dramatically reduce the verbiage in the template. Wikipedia is written for the public who are very confused with this verbosity. --- Safemariner 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, yes. I agree it is too long; be bold. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia:TWCleanup information to which interested users can be sent helping reduce the verbosity of this template. Please correct the verbiage there. This template will simply end up being a one liner that points to that page. --- Safemariner 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Transwikied????Edit

Transwiki implies moving a page. So far, when this template has been applied, it means that the page has been COPIED, not MOVED to transwiki. This template is not only extremely verbose and ugly, it is also quite incorrect as currently written --- Safemariner 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki does not mean moving a page in the sense that it is no longer located in its original place. That isn't possible. It's just duplicating the content on another project; you still have to go through normal deletion processes. Dmcdevit·t 23:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Then Transwiki is wrong? --- Safemariner 23:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm replying long after this conversation was ended, but yes, the meta transwiki page is wrong. That was the original idea of transwikiing, moving a page from one wiki to another. In practice, it has turned out that after the page is copied to another wiki, much of the time the original is not deleted, which is why we have renamed all of our transwiki templates, so Template:Move to Wiktionary is now Template:Copy to Wiktionary. Probably the meta transwiki page should be changed. --Xyzzyplugh 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit: Could you get the bot to move the tags to the talkpages? Thanks. --Quiddity 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Safemariner: The prior discussion about glossaries at Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/archive7#Glossaries. We (the proponents of keeping glossaries here) are still waiting for the proposal at archive7#delay for a test to see fruition (last update was at Archive 8#What glossaries are (NOT), and it appears that most of the links in his test are still pointing to Wikipedia (wikt:Appendix:Military slang)).

Hopefully, per my repeated requests, when there is some sort of finalised proposal, we will be given notice at Talk:List of glossaries and at Category talk:Glossaries. --Quiddity 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Simplified text of templateEdit

I simplified the text of this template, as people were having trouble understanding what the template meant or what to do with it. (At least one person, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Keeping_article_that_was_transwiki.27d_to_Wiktionary) If it still needs to be changed further, or if I left something out that should be put back in, feel free to change it some more. --Xyzzyplugh 06:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Still totally incomprehensible! This template seems to urge editors to do something, but what are their options? Why aren't possible fixing actions clearly listed? And most importantly: when am I supposed to remove this template? --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, changed it. Opinions? --Kubanczyk (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Vocab-stub deprecated? Revisited.Edit

I can't find anything on Vocab-stub indicating it is deprecated at this time, but I don't exactly know what to look for, either. I'm confused by this template, but then again, I'm quite tired right now and running late to get to bed (grin).

I'm also posting to the discussion over at Template talk:Vocab-stub to try to get help figuring out what is deprecated, what is not, and what template tells who to do what.

Sorry I can't do more than raise the question and thanks for all your work and help! -- Geekdiva (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Return to "TWCleanup" page.