190:", which had been tacked onto the end of the template. The vast majority of vocab-stubs are already on Wiktionary in the proper form, and we certainly shouldn't be encouraging people to "copy" Knowledge articles into Wiktionary; Wiktionary has its own style and format, and transwikied content should respect that. (However, as I said, most vocab stubs are either dicdefs, which should be deleted per the usual process, or else are real stubs with corresponding Wiktionary pages already.) ((Afterthought: We could make a template for "This article may or may not be on ] already", but that's getting ridiculous. Editors who care can go check for themselves, and editors who don't care shouldn't be imposed upon.)) --
22:
71:
53:
178:
319:
and not just stuck in this category because it happens to be about a piece of vocabulary. In short, valid articles don't belong in here because no one will look for them here, and, at the same time, many or most vocabulary "stubs" really ought to be transwikied and deleted outright, not given a tag
299:
It's been deprecated almost forever, in theory, although some people have tried to put it to different use at various times (see above). Basically, it's not deprecated in favor of any particular template. It shouldn't be used, and where it is, it is sort of a warning sign that the article is either
314:
In the former case, where the article is a dead-end definitional entry, this stub category is a mistake because the article is a mistake: it should likely be prodded or merged elsewhere, not tagged as a stub. In the latter case, where there is a stubbish, definitional article about an encyclopedic
208:
meant to be primarily for items awaiting a move to wiktionary - it is intended primarily for articles relating to vocabulary and usage that are beyond what could satisfactorily be included in a wiktionary article, and are therefore deserving of a wikipedia entry in their own right. As such, it's
231:
It appears to me that there was unanimity in that discussion that it indeed isn't. If it's really been 'deprecated' for half a year, it'd be about time to delete it, no? What seems to be going on here is not so much a deprecation of the template, as implied deprecation of the topic of the
209:
surprising that this stub has been deprecated, especially since to the best of my knowledge this has never been discussed at
Knowledge:WikiProject Stub sorting (which is where such a decision would have been made). I've initiated discussion on this point at
157:
as there have been many vocab stubs that are being resent to stub by people making the assumtion that this is a marker for discussing the topic of vocabularies, not about the expanded definitions of words or phrases.
246:, there's absolutely no need to have a putative stub template that plays the same role (apparently now explicit, given the addition of the corresponding category to this template). See also my comments at
82:, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the
240:
133:
I disagree. Vocabulary deserves an encyclopedia entry if its origin, background and usage can be discussed in more depth than you would expect from a mere definition. –
120:. The existence of this template is having the unfortunate effect of encouraging people to add definitions to Knowledge instead of to Wiktionary (where they belong).
281:
260:
266:
293:
273:
Edit it so that the article's topic is not a particular word or other morpheme and remove this notice. Note that {{vocab-stub}} is deprecated.
328:
315:
concept, this stub category is a mistake because the article should be tagged with a stub category that is relevant to the article's
254:
225:
210:
199:
116:
I believe this template should be deprecated. Vocabulary stubs are almost by definition mere dictionary definitions.
83:
78:
58:
300:
mis-tagged or does not belong in
Knowledge. Stubbish Knowledge articles are sometimes definitions, but Knowledge also
170:
33:
194:
181:
127:
148:
236:, which completely at odds with the purpose of stub template. If it's to be transwiki'd, use
39:
144:
Is there a vocab-stub that doesn't assume the article hasn't been moved to
Wiktionary yet? —
277:
So, is this vocab-stub template deprecated or not? And if so, in favor of which template?
284:. Sorry I can't do more than raise the question and thanks for all your work and help! --
8:
289:
219:
325:
124:
191:
304:, so there is an important distinction between articles which only discuss a word
301:
138:
285:
247:
214:
159:
117:
321:
121:
187:
145:
134:
269:
currently contains the TWCleanup template. One action it suggests is:
251:
204:
I think there has been a misunderstanding of this stub's use. It is
308:
and articles which discuss the concept behind the word (i.e., the
70:
52:
86:, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
177:
320:that legitimizes them and encourages expansion.
155:about definitions or usages of words or phrases
261:Deprecated or not? In favor of which template?
186:Removed the text "Also consider copying it to
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
312:) or have an obvious potential to do so.
280:I'm also asking about this template at
211:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Stub sorting
21:
19:
15:
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
92:Knowledge:WikiProject Stub sorting
14:
341:
95:Template:WikiProject Stub sorting
176:
69:
51:
20:
76:This template is maintained by
255:21:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
182:19:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
149:13:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
118:Knowledge is not a dictionary
294:13:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
7:
195:02:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
10:
346:
200:Misunderstanding of use...
153:Edited the markup to read
329:10:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
64:
46:
213:- please comment there.
128:06:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
79:WikiProject Stub sorting
282:Template talk:TWCleanup
226:22:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
140:14:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
98:Stub sorting articles
302:is not a dictionary
241:copy to Wiktionary
34:content assessment
222:
114:
113:
110:
109:
106:
105:
337:
267:Known Depredator
245:
239:
220:
180:
173:
168:
163:
100:
99:
96:
93:
90:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
47:
25:
24:
23:
16:
345:
344:
340:
339:
338:
336:
335:
334:
263:
250:'s talk page.
243:
237:
202:
175:
171:
166:
161:
97:
94:
91:
88:
87:
12:
11:
5:
343:
333:
332:
275:
274:
262:
259:
258:
257:
201:
198:
169:
142:
141:
112:
111:
108:
107:
104:
103:
101:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
342:
331:
330:
327:
323:
318:
311:
307:
303:
298:
297:
296:
295:
291:
287:
283:
278:
272:
271:
270:
268:
256:
253:
249:
242:
235:
230:
229:
228:
227:
224:
223:
216:
212:
207:
197:
196:
193:
189:
184:
183:
179:
174:
165:
164:
156:
151:
150:
147:
139:
136:
132:
131:
130:
129:
126:
123:
119:
102:
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
316:
313:
309:
305:
279:
276:
265:The article
264:
233:
218:
205:
203:
185:
160:
154:
152:
143:
115:
89:Stub sorting
84:project page
77:
59:Stub sorting
40:WikiProjects
29:
192:Quuxplusone
188:Wiktionary
306:as a word
310:referent
286:Geekdiva
248:dmcdevit
234:articles
215:Grutness
162:xaosflux
30:template
322:Dominic
122:Rossami
125:(talk)
36:scale.
317:topic
146:Tokek
135:Smyth
28:This
290:talk
252:Alai
221:wha?
217:...
206:not
172:CVU
292:)
244:}}
238:{{
326:t
324:·
288:(
167:/
137:\
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
