Category talk:Move to Wiktionary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Transwiki by User:KevinBot 2 Backlog notice 2.1 Done some 3 Move process 4 Is a Bot still needed? 5 Semi-automated

[edit] Transwiki by User:KevinBot

See Wikipedia:Bot requests and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Bot_import_of_words_from_Wikipedia for a discussion on how to handle this big backlog. I'm thinking I'll add a user interface for my bot so that I can manually inspect each page before submitting it to the wiktionary (if they even want these words).

Two questions. Assuming the Wiktionary people want these words, should we just mark them with the Delete template when they've been moved? Secondly, if they don't want them, can we just delete them (put all 1000 on VFD?)?

am i right in thinking any user can put an image here with NO CHECKING WHATSOEVER? some pages like 44 gallon drum are listed here even though they never should have been in the first place. Some pages listed here will need merging into other articles. some outright disposal and some moving to wikitionary. Theese desicions need to be done by humans (seems to me like a vfd type page is required).

If the entries are added to the transwiki logs on both sites, then a speedy delete tag can be added to the article, with links to both. I've looked at older words in the transwiki log and see that items formatted as such were often speedy-deleted. I think as long as the entry exist in the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace, it can be deleted here, regardless of whether or not Wiktionary decides to keep it later. (Besides, with their new policy regarding first letter capitalization, they will be busy doing other things than transwiki) Unfortunately, anyone can tag anything as a move to wiktionary. I have briefly started going through the items and removing {{Move To Wiktionary}}, adding {{delete}} or stubbing, where appropriate. Whatever is left can be put up for VfD bit by bit. --jag123 08:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest that you categorize the things that you have removed the tag from but have not marked for speedy deletion, so that we can find them to put them through the VFD process. And bear in mind that some, possibly many, of the articles are here because they have already been through the VFD process and the result was Transwiki. Simply removing the tag from them is a summary negation of a consensus decision, which I strongly recommend not doing because it generates work for editors rather than reduces it. Uncle G 15:35, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  • however a vote to move to wikitionary on VFD is in many cases basically a vote to dump our crap on another project because we don't have the balls to delete it outright.
    • I agree with the above comment. I've spot checked the history of about 50 articles and only one of them has been through a VfD, based on the edit history, so this doesn't appear to be a big issue. With the number of uncategorized pages, substubs, and stubs, even if every entry had the move to wiktionary tag removed, it woudln't exactly register as a big increase. I'm not saying it's okay to compound the problem but let's keep it real here. What generates more work for editors is people just adding a move to wiktionary/cleanup/merge/whatever tag to an article instead of fixing the problem. --jag123 17:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree with it. My experience of VFD is that a Wiktionary conclusion is not a cop-out at all. "Crap" really is deleted, and not foisted off onto Wiktionary, in part because there are people around who pipe up and say "No, Wiktionary won't take that." when necessary, but in the main because people aren't shy about voting for straight deletion, even of things that could go to Wiktionary. (Recently, I was the one lone Wiktionary voter amidst a horde of Deletes.) Articles that end up being given to Wiktionary usually do so because they are dictionary entries. Similarly, my experience of the {{move to Wiktionary}} is that it is in the main applied reasonably (if only because only those who are serious actually bother to learn of it ☺). Whilst "anyone can add the tag", I don't see any evidence of mass mis-use that warrants its wholesale removal (which I presume is not what you are doing, even though what you wrote can be read that way). Uncle G 19:25, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
      • I haven't gone through the history to see which entry is here because of a VfD, but this category is definitely being mis-used. If you have doubts, go through it. Remember that anything longer than a one-line definition, even if it doesnt really expand the concept, isn't appropriate for Wiktionary. Antepartum haemorrhage is just a definition, but definitely more could be added, such as why it happens, how it's fixed, etc. Anatistical pulls 31 google hits, so afaic, it's a made up word. There are english definitions of words in foreign language. Sure, that belongs in Wiktionary, but not the english wiktionary because it's not a translation dictionary. I have to wonder why it wasn't deleted outright. Haywood Jablome? Need I say more? You can read what I wrote as support of wholesale removal if you want, but I wrote that to address your suggestion of reducing work for other editors. If everyone was concerned about reducing the work of others, {{cleanup}}, {{expand}},{{move to wiktionary}}, etc would be obselete, so quite frankly, that's a pointless remark to make. --jag123 20:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • this category is definitely being mis-used. If you have doubts, go through it. — As one of the many people who have added {{move to Wiktionary}} to articles (and in several cases then converted them to Wiktionary format) in the past I disagree that this category is suffering from mass mis-use. What it is suffering from is the arduous nature of the m:transwiki process, meaning that no-one has stepped forward to take it on, so the category has simply grown as articles have been added but none removed.
          Remember that anything longer than a one-line definition, even if it doesnt really expand the concept, isn't appropriate for Wiktionary. — Wrong. Wiktionary is happy to have long dictionary entries, discussing pronunciation, etymology, translations, multiple meanings, alternative spellings, and so forth. Being more than one line long does not automatically preclude something from being a dictionary entry. It is a dictionary entry if it discusses the word rather than the thing/person/concept. di-, which you erroneously removed the tag from, is a dictionary entry, for example.
          There are english definitions of words in foreign language. Sure, that belongs in Wiktionary, but not the english wiktionary because it's not a translation dictionary. — Wrong. You really shouldn't be performing wholesale changes in Wiktionary transwikification if you haven't even read Wiktionary:Main Page. Wiktionary accepts "all words of all languages" and is a translation dictionary.
          You can read what I wrote as support of wholesale removal if you want, but I wrote that to address your suggestion of reducing work for other editors. — No, you wrote "I have briefly started going through the items and removing {{Move To Wiktionary}}" above right at the top, not in response to anyone at all, let alone in response to me.
          quite frankly, that's a pointless remark to make — It's a very important point, that you are running the risk of just trampling over the entire Transwikification scheme merely in order to reduce the size of the category. You point to Haywood Jablome. I in turn point to realm, an article that has been speedied as "Already in Wiktionary" even though it is a type 1 disambiguation page and not a dictionary entry any more. Given your rejection of my requests to act carefully and the number of other similar deletion candidates that I've just found in CAT:CSD, I have to wonder how much has already been lost. From what I've seen from a handful of spot checks so far it appears that no checks have been performed to see whether transwikification was done properly, preserving the edit history as per GFDL requirements, before marking articles for speedy deletion. Uncle G

The rest of the quote is 'I have briefly started going through the items and removing {{Move To Wiktionary}}, adding {{delete}} or stubbing, where appropriate. Whatever is left can be put up for VfD bit by bit' Do you think I'm removing the tag, stubbing the article, adding a CSD and suggesting to put it on VfD all at once? What about realm? Did I csd it? Why don't you go take a look at my comment left on the bot request page, and Kevin Rector's talk page so you can stop believing your suggestions are original, or that you're the only person who cares about doing it right. Yes, *millions* of articles were lost because no one listened to you. Are you done trolling now? --jag123 19:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

19:31, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

• If you go to the beer parlour over at wiktionary it appears that they do want the articles transwikied to a special namespace where they can go through them at their leisure. The question we need to deal with is not should we send them over, but what to do with them in our system once they've been sent over. I would recommend creating a new category (and template) named something like Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary. Then administrators can go through those articles and either delete them if they are only dicdefs or remove them from the category if they have evolved to actual encyclopedia articles. I'm copying this message to Wikipedia:Bot requests. Kevin Rector 22:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Entries in the Wikipedia:Transwiki log have been deleted before. As long as only definitions get transwikied and tagged with a speedy delete, I don't think it'll be a problem. --jag123 00:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Once they have been sent over, one should:
  • Ensure that they have been listed at Wikipedia:Transwiki log.
  • Ensure that the article on Wiktionary has had the Wikipedia edit history transferred to it.
  • Ensure that the article hasn't grown beyond just discussing the word (and not the thing/person/concept) in all of the time that it has sat here with the tag on it. Have a look at Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary. I've just tidied up a number of old requests that are invalid now, simply because someone went and did what it says in the {{move to Wiktionary}} notice and turned the article into an encyclopaedia article.
• Only then should the articles be considered for deletion. I approve of a category (although I suggest Category:Duplicated on Wiktionary). That is after all much the same as I suggested to jag123 above. In fact, I suggest that instead of slapping deletion tags on the articles as you have been, you recategorize them into that very category. This makes this a two-pass process:
  1. Go through this category and move all of the articles that (now) have corresponding Wiktionary articles into Category:Duplicated on Wiktionary. (i.e. Replace the {{move to Wiktionary}} tag with a {{duplicated on Wiktionary}} tag.)
  2. Go through Category:Duplicated on Wiktionary and see whether the article is
     • a stub (which should be sorted),
     • a real article that has grown in the interim,
     • a dictionary entry that hasn't been transwikied properly (which should be fixed), or
     • a dictionary entry that has been transwikied properly (all log entries made and all edit history copied) and can then be marked for deletion.
• Uncle G 19:31, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

I'm on board with what Uncle G is saying. However, Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary was made before he suggested Category:Duplicated on Wiktionary so I would recommend that we stick with it. Also, I would recommend that we add {{Transwikied to Wiktionary}} to the talk page of the page that has been transwikied. That way if it every get's back to VFD no one will every wonder if the page should be transwikied. The Transwikied to Wiktionary template has Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary already, this means that the category will be full of talk pages, but whoopdee doo. Whatcha think? Kevin Rector 07:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one other thing. If a person is going through the Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary (step 2) and the article is not being deleted because it's evolved or something, the template should be taken off of the talk page and replaced with a notice that it has completed the transwiki process fully (I'll let you decide if we should make a pretty template for that). Kevin Rector 08:01, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog notice

I was only reducing the backlog notice every multiple of 100. A less round figure gives an illusion of accuracy where there really isn't one, given that additions and subtractions are occurring all of the time. (For example, there were several articles added to the category within the past twelve hours.) Anyone who really cares about the exact number can perform a count themselves, anyway. ☺ I propose that the attention notice be commented out when the figure goes below 50. Uncle G 19:51, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

I agree. I only did the 329 because I was feeling silly and at that exact moment there were exactly 329 and if any are added or removed it's still only "about 329". Kevin Rector 23:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the "attention message" since now that there are fewer than 200 they will all fit on the one page. I will continue later to clear the rest of them up. Kevin Rector 04:56, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

YAY! Thanks for your hard work here! Radiant_* 13:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Done some

About 20 got rid of. Just so you know. --Expurgator 13:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move process

Could someone please explain the steps one takes to move an article to Wiktionary? --Fang Aili 02:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• m:transwiki Uncle G 17:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is a Bot still needed?

Hey, I know how to do some programming. Do y'all still need a bot to move these things or has someone else started work on this? It might take me awhile to get up and running and cause an increased server load when I first run it on the live internet but it can be done. I've got the week off from school this week so in between homework I might be able to piece a bot together. ~Matt F ^(talk) 04:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, no new bot has done anything with this recently. However, almost all of the entries in here require more than simple 'bot work. They have to be formatted for Wiktionary and verified. I'm doing a fair bit manually, which is slow and I'm not winning the race against this page - articles are being added in quicker than I can move them out! There's already quite some backlog at Wikt:transwiki anyway. But give the bot a try anyway, we'd all appreciate that I think. --Dangherous 13:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No. But thanks for being willing anyways. :-) TheProject 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automated

On August 12th, I ran my script to import the category members from this category to wikt:Transwiki:'s namespace, using wikt:Special:Import. This method copies all edit history + all revisions.

My question for Wikipedia is: should I replace the template on these pages here with some other template like {{this has been moved to Wiktionary}} if there is something like it? Or should it just be {{delete}}?  :-)

Also, of note: I did not import the sub-categories yet. (Mainly, because I haven't figured out the syntax for the query API, and instead massaged the list by "hand".) When the kinks of moving stuff are worked out, I'll do another pass. Eventually, I'll probably do these monthly.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 16:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)