Difference between revisions 11743362 and 11790021 on enwiki==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? [[User:Norm|Norm]] 21:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:It should have the background just to seperate it from the article. [[User:Ilyanep| ]] — [[User:Ilyanep|<font color="grey">Ilγαηερ</font>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<font color="#333333">(Tαlκ)</font>]] 22:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:There should, for separation, notification, and to give the whole of Wikipedia a more professional look. [[User:Siroxo| ]]—[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''χ''</font>]][[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>o</font>]] 01:21, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
::And because CSS is awesome ;) [[User:Ilyanep| ]] — [[User:Ilyanep|<font color="grey">Ilγαηερ</font>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<font color="#333333">(Tαlκ)</font>]] 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. [[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])[[A| ]] 23:48, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
== div id/class="..." ==
I propose making the div id/class="boilerplate wikitionary" as opposed to just "wikitionary" [[User:Ilyanep| ]] — [[User:Ilyanep|<font color="grey">Ilγαηερ</font>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<font color="#333333">(Tαlκ)</font>]] 01:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:I concur. -[[User:Frazzydee|[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee]]|[[User talk:Frazzydee|✍]]]] 20:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
==RFC==
Does this page still need to be listed at RfC? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 06:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:Sorry, what's RFC?--[[User:BozMo|BozMo]][[user talk:BozMo||talk]] 16:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Rewording ==
I've removed the text from this notice that encourages people to reformat the article according to [[Wiktionary:WS:ELE|the Wiktionary guidelines]]. This is for two reasons:
# The Wiktionarians have expressed the view that they are happy to do the reformatting of the articles in their Transwiki namespace themselves.
# 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. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 15:37, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
== 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 afterw''o''rds. 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.--[[User:Dmcdevit|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 [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|article ownership]]. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 01:46, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
