Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Words from Foucault's Pendulum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Rossami (talk) 02:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this page is a list of dicdefs. Delete Wiktionary as per Uncle G. FreplySpang 03:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep Ecocruft. Umberto Eco is a semiologist so we can expect him to use lots of interesting words. Kappa 03:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)- Delete glossary. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to create a concordance, Wiktionary has plenty of room for more at Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Concordances. Wiktionary. Uncle G 05:51, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
- I'm the one who started this. I took your advice and made a concordance. I guess I'll vote for "delete." I hate how segregated Wiktionary and Wikipedia are.
- Unsigned comment by 24.215.185.52 (talk · contributions)
- They may be segregated, but that's a good thing. A dictionary and an encyclopaedia have different aims. However, it doesn't mean that they are separate, that readers don't have easy ways to navigate from one to the other. See the shiny new interwiki link at Foucault's Pendulum (book), for example. And note that whilst it would have been a bad idea to redlink every single listed word in List of Words from Foucault's Pendulum in Wikipedia, in Wiktionary:Appendix:Words From Foucault's Pendulum in Wiktionary that's actually a good and desirable thing. Wiktionary likes dictionary-definition magnets. Furthermore, notice how many of your de-linked words, that you manually added definitions to, already had definitions in Wiktionary. Concordances get definitions of their words for free in Wiktionary, which doesn't happen in Wikipedia. You've made a contribution to the betterment of Wiktionary. Thank you. Uncle G 13:09, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
- Hmm that will work fine for books which use real words, but how about things like Finnegan's Wake or A Clockwork Orange?
- Unsigned comment by Kappa (talk · contributions)
- That's a question for the Wiktionary Beer parlour. Feel free to ask. I suspect that Wiktionary would deal with such concordances in the same way that it handles the definitions of protologisms. But, as I said, put it to the Beer Parlour. Uncle G 22:22, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
- Check the talk page on List of Subjects in Foucault's Pendulum
- Hmm that will work fine for books which use real words, but how about things like Finnegan's Wake or A Clockwork Orange?
- I'm the one who started this. I took your advice and made a concordance. I guess I'll vote for "delete." I hate how segregated Wiktionary and Wikipedia are.
- Wiktionary. Megan1967 05:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki to the new concordance per 24.215.185.52 and Uncle G. I loved the book, and the Wiktionary/concordance setup is more appropriate than a WP article. Barno 16:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.