Template talk:Copy to Wiktionary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Should this template have a background color? 2 div id/class="..." 3 RFC 4 Rewording 5 Two templates? 6 Wiktionary criteria for inclusion 7 Updating the text in the box 8 Move vs. copy 9 Link to Wiktionary:PAGENAME 10 Move to Wiktionary is now Copy to Wiktionary 11 More rewording changes? 12 Copy to

[edit] 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 Wikipedia a more professional look. —siroχo 01:21, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

And because CSS is awesome ;) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:24, 9 Sep 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)

[edit] 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)

I concur. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 20:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Does this page still need to be listed at RfC? Maurreen 06:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, what's RFC?--BozMo|talk 16:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bit late now, but for anyone reading this who doesn't know, see WP:RFC ProgMania 03:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

1. The Wiktionarians have expressed the view that they are happy to do the reformatting of the articles in their Transwiki namespace themselves.
2. Reformatting into the dictionary layout whilst still on Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Wikipedia 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)

[edit] Wiktionary criteria for inclusion

When I click on the 'Wiktionary criteria for inclusion' link, it opens a wiktionary dictionary definition page on the words 'Criteria for inclusion'. A page has not been created yet for these words. Perhaps someone could make a page on wikipedia about the wiktionary policies for words or whatever and then fix up this link to go to that newly created page. DarthVader 03:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it. It was a broken link because whoever put that in forgot to link to the Wiktionary namespace, so instead it just went to the definition namespace. --Dmcdevit 05:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I thought that something like that was the case. DarthVader 07:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Updating the text in the box

I add the word "following item" to the text-box, because maybe for example in a disambig page you just need to move a few items to Wikitionary and not the whole page. See the example in Keyword disambig page. User:Sepand 2005-09-07 14:16:37

• That wording is misleading. The transwikification process is not, and cannot be, that fine grained. It's the whole article or nothing. Uncle G 15:05:23, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
  • Right, it would be nearly impossible to pick out the individual edits to transfer and be able to preserve the contribution history for copyright. I changed it back. Dmcdevit·t 19:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I said take a look at Keyword which I cleaned it up. I placed that "Move to Wikitionary" there, But someone should just move the items below the place I announced "Move to Wikitionary" and not the first two items. Then I will make a new template named "Move Following To Wiktionary". Sepand
    • If you do, it will be useless. Forking a template won't magically make the impossible possible. I repeat: The transwikification process is not, and cannot be, that fine grained. It's the whole article or nothing. Uncle G 09:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move vs. copy

Can we not have a slow motion edit war here without any talking? "Move" is a misnomer and just not the meaning we are trying to convey. There is rampant fear that this little template, or transwiki itself means an article will be deleted. This is because that's what "move" means. From Wiktionary (of course) "To take something and put it to new place." As in it's not in the original place anymore, deleted. The truth of the matter is that it is simply copied there as well. Any deletion or redirection or merger or anything else is a separate editorial decision, and deletion itself certainly requires an AFD consensus. I do not see a reason for the insistance on using "move". The fact that the template and category are misnamed is not a good reason. In fact, how about if I propose we rename it all? Dmcdevit·t 05:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• I second the proposal to rename the whole thing to "Copy to wiktionary". Kappa 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• I also find "copy" to be more accurate (for all the "Move to X" templates and categories). While I don't use this template anymore (I just perform the transwiki myself), when I did, it was always to request a bot-assisted transwiki, with an intention to tag the article as a stub or redirect it afterwards. To get rid of a dictdef entirely, the most efficient way is to afd it and clearly state you want it transwikied in your nomination, since transwikis requests that result from afds and get properly listed in the transwiki queue get preferential treatment. Anyone who thinks this tag is a shortcut to deletion should take a look at the backlog at WP:TL. A rename and reword to copy might also decrease the likelihood that an already-transwikied article will be tagged again. —Cryptic (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm happy with renaming this template and the associated Category:Copy to Wiktionary category from "move to" to "copy to". What do you suggest we do about Template:Transwikied to Wiktionary, Template:Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished, Category:Moved to Wiktionary, and Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary? Uncle G 16:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't put much thought into it - as I implied above, I only transwiki stuff in the post-afd queue or things that I notice myself on new-page patrol, and wasn't aware of these two templates and their categories at all. I don't see much use for Template:Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished/Category:Moved to Wiktionary; these are redundant to a {{wiktionarypar}} or {{wi}} on the article itself instead of the talk page, which not only has direct use for our readers, but discourages well-intentioned editors from retagging it for another transwiki. We have the transwiki log for those who specifically want to find dictdefs to redirect or delete.

    Template:Transwikied to Wiktionary and Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary are tougher. If their only purpose is to discourage retagging, they haven't been doing a very good job - too many editors stumble across these articles, glance at them, tag them as a dictdef, and move on, without checking the history or talk page. I'd suggest squeezing the template into a wiktionarypar-lookalike so it can be placed on the articles instead of their talk pages, but there's a lot of stuff in it. We can't even cut the interwiki link down to wikt:Transwiki:Whatever, since the Wiktionarians tend to delete the redirects out of the Transwiki: pseudonamespace. —Cryptic (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

    • the Wiktionarians tend to delete the redirects — This has come up at Wiktionary. Connel MacKenzie made a good argument for not doing this. I certainly don't do it myself. But we haven't convinced all other editors yet. Uncle G 01:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• When I tagged -chezia yesterday, its content was "-Chezia is a suffix used at the end of a medical word. it means defecation, elimination of waste." I would like that moved to the Wiktionary and deleted from the Wikipedia. How about having a different tag for articles where you only want the content copied? If you do vote to rename, you will need to change this template, Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary, Category:Copy to Wiktionary and the other templates and categories mentioned above. Also, when I fixed the wording, I didn't realize I had fixed it before. It should not say "copied" unless the name of this template and the relevant page and category are renamed. -- Reinyday, 02:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned above, if you want it to be deleted after it's transwikied, you need to send it to afd, unless it's a candidate for speedy deletion (which only the very shortest dictdefs will be). If you just tag it {{move to Wiktionary}}, it will sit in the category, possibly for quite some time, until someone gets around to copying it to Wiktionary; afterwards, it will be listed in the transwiki log and nothing else will happen to it. There's no special template for "Copy this article to another project and then delete it here". I agree that -chezia lacks encyclopedic potential, so I'll afd it for you, but please stop assuming that your job is done after applying a transwiki tag. The backlog is truly terrifying. :) —Cryptic (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm late to the discussion but I disagree with the conclusions presented so far. "Moved" means moved. Yes, we should generally be removing the leftover from Wikipedia after it has been transwiki'd to Wiktionary. Dictionary entries belong at Wiktionary. Encyclopedia entries belong here. Removing the dicdef does not prevent the later creation of a real encyclopedia entry but I see little purpose to keeping the dicdef. The transwiki process does not require us to use a full or complex AFD process to delete the leftover because the content has not, in fact, been deleted from WikiMedia. It has merely been moved from one project to another. Rossami (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's what the meta page says; however, proposals to allow admins to speedy articles that have gone through the transwiki process have failed spectacularly several times. —Cryptic (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'm also late joining this discussion. Disclaimer: Wiktionary sysop, wikt:User:Connel MacKenzie. A result of the change in wording is causing entries to be reentered on Wiktionary, rather than transwiki'ed. Is the the desired result? If not, could someone reword it to emphasize that Transwiki has not been abandoned? --Connel MacKenzie 21:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain what you mean; I can think of three possible interpretations:
    1. Words are being copied directly to main-namespace Wiktionary entries and not noted in the transwiki logs. I've seen this too, and it's very annoying at least on our end of things - in particular, it's resulted in articles being transwikied again after they've already been copied over, since the transwiki log doesn't show up in the article's whatlinkshere.
    2. The same words are being transwikied to Wiktionary multiple times. Also annoying, but I don't think it's a result of this change.
    3. Words are being copied to Wiktionary while in the dictdef stage, but retained here and allowed to expand as well. I don't see a problem with this. —Cryptic (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm concerned about #1: words being copied directly. --Connel MacKenzie 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The link you added to Wikipedia:Transwiki log on the template should help, then. If not, additional links to [[wikt:Transwiki:{{PAGENAME}}]] and wikt:Wiktionary:Transwiki log might. Hollering at the folks who do direct copying is always an option, too, if they logged in at Wiktionary. (Even if they edited as an anon, they're likely to have edited the article here at around the same time... assuming the article here hasn't been deleted yet.) —Cryptic (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Wiktionary:PAGENAME

It seems obvious to me, but wouldn't this work a lot better if there was some link like [[Wikt:{{PAGENAME}}]], maybe worder like "Please [[Wikt:{{PAGENAME}}|check]] that Wiktionary doesn't already have an entry". --Dangherous 11:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia article titles have the first letter forced to uppercase. Wiktionary has fully case-sentive article titles (in order to allow for the distinction between English proper and common nouns, and in order to handle German correctly, for exampls). An interwiki link from a Wikipedia article will usually link to the wrong capitalisation. Uncle G 09:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A link to [[wikt:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}]] should work, but more importantly is to link [[wikt:Transwiki:{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}]], IMHO. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Wiktionary is now Copy to Wiktionary

For the reasons listed above, at Template_talk:Move_to_Wiktionary#Move_vs._copy, I have moved this template to Copy to Wiktionary. I have similarly renamed the Move to Wikisource, Move to Wikibooks and Move to Wikibooks Cookbook templates, and possibly will rename some others. There are mentions in various articles and help files and such around wikipedia which mention "Move to Wiktionary" which will need to be changed, I will do that after some time has passed, waiting first to see if there is some major disagreement to this change. --Xyzzyplugh 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Do any of the other sister projects use Special:Import in an automated or semi-automated manner? The word "Copy" is causing increasing ill-will each time it is misinterpreted. It is being misinterpreted more often, I think, as a direct result of this renaming. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More rewording changes?

I'm starting to get settled into the new (semi-automated) transwiki process. Unfortunately, it requires a Wiktionary Sysop to effect it. I think the wording of this template is misleading from the outset; "Copy to Wiktionary" should be "Transwiki to Wiktionary (copied via automated process)" or something. Wiktionary is still seeing helpful souls errantly copying content over, sometimes caught and deleted (to wait for the Special:Import to happen later.) Could a Wikipedian here take a shot at rewording this, please? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that people reading the word "copy" will get the impression that it is OK to copy it themselves. This is demonstrably true, as many do get copied by well-intentioned contributors. It is misleading to have the word "copy" in the title anywhwere, really. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy to

Shouldn't this be called "Move to Wiktionary"? — Omegatron 21:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)