 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Conio should give a disambiguation page for Coño and conio.h in my opinion :\ 201.213.144.58 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
(1) A reason was never given for this merger. (2) A "merge from" was never placed on the "merge to" article Spanish profanity. (3) The suggestion was made in February, 10 months ago and no action was ever taken. (4) A link exists with a summary in the "merge to" article. (5) This article is larger than a stub.----- Adimovk5 ( talk) 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
15:43, 6 February 2007 Macrakis (suggest merging with "Spanish profanity")
This page is a mere dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the meaning and usage of the slang term (with national variations). I can't find any encyclopedic content on this page. The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.
Options to fix the page here include:
- Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
- Redirect the page to a more general page on the appropriate sub-genre of slang.
- Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the {{ wi}} template).
Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 3 for now. Rossami (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Since there is no content here, shouldn't this page be deleted? Some Guy421 ( talk) 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is sometimes an option but most times a soft-redirect is better for the project in the long term. If you delete the page, someone sooner or later will recreate it, usually in good faith but in ignorance of the deletion decision. On pages like this, they almost always recreate it making the same mistake - creating another mere dictionary definition. Leaving a pointer to the appropriate Wiktionary page points those users who want to write dictionary entries to the right place.
Soft-redirects also have the advantage of preserving the attribution history of the contributions which were made to the definition. Wiktionary is also published under GFDL and has to maintain tracability of the contribution history. Sometimes, that's easiest to manage via a comment on the Wiktionary page's edit summary alerting the readers that the content came from this page. If you delete the pagehistory here, it forces some work-arounds that are usually more trouble than they're worth. Rossami (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Conio should give a disambiguation page for Coño and conio.h in my opinion :\ 201.213.144.58 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
(1) A reason was never given for this merger. (2) A "merge from" was never placed on the "merge to" article Spanish profanity. (3) The suggestion was made in February, 10 months ago and no action was ever taken. (4) A link exists with a summary in the "merge to" article. (5) This article is larger than a stub.----- Adimovk5 ( talk) 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
15:43, 6 February 2007 Macrakis (suggest merging with "Spanish profanity")
This page is a mere dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the meaning and usage of the slang term (with national variations). I can't find any encyclopedic content on this page. The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.
Options to fix the page here include:
- Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
- Redirect the page to a more general page on the appropriate sub-genre of slang.
- Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the {{ wi}} template).
Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 3 for now. Rossami (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Since there is no content here, shouldn't this page be deleted? Some Guy421 ( talk) 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is sometimes an option but most times a soft-redirect is better for the project in the long term. If you delete the page, someone sooner or later will recreate it, usually in good faith but in ignorance of the deletion decision. On pages like this, they almost always recreate it making the same mistake - creating another mere dictionary definition. Leaving a pointer to the appropriate Wiktionary page points those users who want to write dictionary entries to the right place.
Soft-redirects also have the advantage of preserving the attribution history of the contributions which were made to the definition. Wiktionary is also published under GFDL and has to maintain tracability of the contribution history. Sometimes, that's easiest to manage via a comment on the Wiktionary page's edit summary alerting the readers that the content came from this page. If you delete the pagehistory here, it forces some work-arounds that are usually more trouble than they're worth. Rossami (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)