Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Textile manufacturing terminology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: the case for keeping skirts dangerously close to relying on the inclusion of other articles, but when it comes to lists there are rarely overwhelming arguments or majorities either way, as here - so, no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Textile manufacturing terminology[edit]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is also not a usage guide. Just as Wikipedia is not apprpriate for articles that are solely dictionary definitions, it is not appropriate for articles that are solely lists of dictionary definitions. This is a appropriate for transwiki to Wiktionary, as an Appendix (and the fine work shouldn't be lost) but it should be deleted afterward. Dmcdevit·t 23:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this has subsequently been copied to Wiktionary at wikt:Appendix:Textile manufacturing terms, and I have been assured by the Wiktionarians that it is appropriate and wanted. Dmcdevit·t 10:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, has been transwikied now; no use for this article here.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nilfanion. Vectro 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to gather together related material about a subject. This article provides a strong mechanism for doing this, where the categorization system would break the cross-domain nature of related items. Admittedly, this has moved away from the original intention I had when I started the article: I intended that it would be a collection of prose descriptions of related terms, rather than a list. Are we now going to start working our way down the 100+ items in the List of glossaries (of which this is a member) and transwiking them? I don't envy anyone stirring up that much controversy. Noisy | Talk 10:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to gather together related material about a subject." Actually, no it isn't. That argument applies to all of our sister projects as well (Wiktionary included), and a good deal of the internet. We also know that AfD inconsistent, but only generally follows trends. The existence of other articles in the same category (especially since this is a wiki, and they would only be deleted if someone took the time) is no argument that they are encyclopedic. My argument is that this argument is not encyclopedic, but is appropriate for Wiktionary, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words, which concludes that articles about a category of wrods is encyclopedic, but articles that are lists of ords and definitions is more appropriate for Wiktionary. What is your reasoning for why they are encyclopedic? Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [Part duplicate of response at the AfD for Glossary of sexual slurs.] If there was a separate wiki for textile manufacturing terminology, then there might be a reason to move it there, but the whole concept of Wikipedia (behind its central purpose of gathering knowledge to make it available to the world) is to enable access to related information, and a dictionary does not provide that cross-reference facility. Ordinarily wikilinks would provide a mechanism to move from one related term to another. However, in the case where there are a set of terms related through a central theme, but there is not enough to say about each one individually in its own article, then it seems to be a perfectly valid and useful thing to do to gather the information in a glossary which can be referenced from articles that do have enough to justify their existence, but which would be cluttered by a list. It also means that those articles can all point to a single place, rather than having the information dispersed or duplicated.
- "The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to gather together related material about a subject." Actually, no it isn't. That argument applies to all of our sister projects as well (Wiktionary included), and a good deal of the internet. We also know that AfD inconsistent, but only generally follows trends. The existence of other articles in the same category (especially since this is a wiki, and they would only be deleted if someone took the time) is no argument that they are encyclopedic. My argument is that this argument is not encyclopedic, but is appropriate for Wiktionary, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words, which concludes that articles about a category of wrods is encyclopedic, but articles that are lists of ords and definitions is more appropriate for Wiktionary. What is your reasoning for why they are encyclopedic? Dmcdevit·t 19:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Textile manufacturing terminology is a list of technical terms with their definitions, a.k.a., a glossary. The links for the terms go to Wikipedia artilces. This is a very useful resource and should stay, just like every other Wikipedia glossary in good standing. To argue against this glossary in principle is to argue against every other glossary in principle. Where is the sense in that? Rfrisbietalk 00:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/comment - Please see discussion of glossaries as a group, at Talk:List of glossaries. Thanks. --Quiddity 03:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Proponent has unilaterally changed policy about glossaries which was in place since March 2004. These glossaries of technical terms are useful and cannot be replaced by Wikidictionary entries which would not link back to Wikipedia articles on the terms or to the relevant article that includes the terms. Luigizanasi 04:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.