340:
this is the case if we go from not having a WP entry for "Pourquoi" to *having* an entry which says "Knowledge (XXG) does not have an ..." but adds a link to
Wiktionary. Never mind the logical conundrum of an entry which claims not to exist: the proper way to do this is *not* to have an entry, but for the WP "not found" message to say "Try Wiktionary" if indeed there is an entry there. This means a bit of work, in getting a regularly updated headword list from Wikt, but is surely easily done. Meanwhile, can anyone explain why "Pourquoi" should have an entry and not "Perché" for example? (Somehow amazing neither of these are names of songs!) (For the non-romanticists: "Pourquoi" is the French for "Why", and "Perché" is Italian.)
366:, an article for a simple word or term that does nothing more than define it has been created repeatedly, which is a nuisance since it means we have to go through the deletion process every time. Posting the page once and for all as a redirect to Wiktionary will prevent the next person who would be inclined to create a definition-only article if it didn't already exist from creating one. I don't know where you got the idea that there's something about
429:
I think that since the page generated by this template is 'fake', in the sense that it claims itself not to exist, it should include a specific explanation of why it is there -- to prevent people repeatedly generating inappropriate stub articles. I cannot believe, though, that this is a good way to handle this long-term. Is there no way a page can be made hard to create? Sort of empty-protected? Anyway, I apologise for generating a fuss.
428:
Ah, now I understand _your_ explanation perfectly. But the original message is not clear, partly because it breaks the "Assume good faith" assumption -- I read the "likely to be re-created" as meaning there was likely to be a (genuine) article (which doesn't make any immediate sense for 'pourquoi').
339:
I confess I have not investigated this template and its supposed purpose very carefully. But I really cannot understand what the explanation quoted above (in its current, ungrammatical form) is supposed to mean. I suggested originally that all this can add to human knowledge is an extra indirection:
320:
is for: "Do not place it on every possible word. It is only for dictionary definitions and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created." This page has been created a couple of times before.
184:
487:
per
Largoplazo's reasoning. Wiktionary soft redirects are exactly for this purpose and are also useful for readers looking for basic information on the term. Alternatively, we could redirect to
137:
178:
144:
288:
17:
231:
65:
246:
314:
110:
105:
519:
199:
40:
114:
215:
No content, just a link to
Wiktionary. (The most this can every contribute to human knowledge is an extra redirect!)
166:
249:. Moreover, some redirects are valid since they might get an article in English Knowledge (XXG) in the future. --
97:
53:
434:
345:
272:
220:
254:
160:
230:
If you're going to delete this redirect than you might as well delete the nearly 1200 other redirects in
515:
496:
370:
that would prevent someone from according it the same treatment if the same conditions prevailed as for
36:
264:
470:
407:
379:
326:
156:
500:
475:
438:
411:
402:
another such redirect created by the same user because that page had no previous creation history.
383:
349:
330:
300:
276:
258:
240:
224:
192:
79:
454:
430:
341:
268:
216:
206:
250:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
514:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
491:, which also has the defn, but the Wiktionary entry seems like a better fit for this term. --
399:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
492:
61:
57:
465:
403:
375:
322:
488:
172:
293:
235:
101:
70:
131:
457:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
374:. The distinction for which you're asking for an explanation doesn't exist.
93:
85:
508:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
287:
I've never seen one of these at AfD before. They don't go to
267:. (try it) Lo and behold, Wiktionary suggests its sister.
127:
123:
119:
191:
464:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
205:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
522:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
289:Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
232:Category:Redirects to Wiktionary
362:It's intended for cases where,
1:
263:Hmm. I tried looking at one:
539:
501:23:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
476:17:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
439:17:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
412:11:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
384:11:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
350:11:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
331:07:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
301:19:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
277:14:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
259:14:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
241:14:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
225:03:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
80:06:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
245:Not a valid argument per
56:, should be discussed at
511:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
364:for whatever reason
315:wiktionary redirect
247:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
52:. Redirects, even
48:The result was
478:
299:
66:non-admin closure
530:
513:
473:
468:
463:
459:
319:
313:
298:
265:AvtokinitĂłdromos
238:
210:
209:
195:
147:
135:
117:
34:
538:
537:
533:
532:
531:
529:
528:
527:
526:
520:deletion review
509:
471:
466:
452:
317:
311:
236:
152:
143:
108:
92:
89:
73:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
536:
534:
525:
524:
504:
503:
489:Pourquoi story
481:
480:
479:
461:
460:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
398:By the way, I
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
355:
354:
353:
352:
334:
333:
304:
303:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
213:
212:
149:
88:
83:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
535:
523:
521:
517:
512:
506:
505:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
483:
482:
477:
474:
469:
462:
458:
456:
451:
450:
440:
436:
432:
431:Imaginatorium
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
351:
347:
343:
342:Imaginatorium
338:
337:
336:
335:
332:
328:
324:
316:
310:This is what
309:
306:
305:
302:
296:
295:
290:
286:
285:
278:
274:
270:
269:Imaginatorium
266:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
243:
242:
239:
233:
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
217:Imaginatorium
208:
204:
201:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
158:
155:
154:Find sources:
150:
146:
142:
139:
133:
129:
125:
121:
116:
112:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:
87:
84:
82:
81:
78:
77:
72:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
510:
507:
484:
453:
404:—Largo Plazo
376:—Largo Plazo
371:
367:
363:
323:—Largo Plazo
307:
292:
251:Magioladitis
214:
202:
196:
188:
181:
175:
169:
163:
153:
140:
74:
49:
47:
31:
28:
493:Mark viking
467:‑Scottywong
179:free images
50:wrong venue
516:talk page
54:soft ones
37:talk page
518:or in a
472:| chat _
455:Relisted
372:pourquoi
294:Milowent
237:Elassint
138:View log
94:Pourquoi
86:Pourquoi
39:or in a
400:PRODded
185:WPÂ refs
173:scholar
111:protect
106:history
368:perché
157:Google
115:delete
62:WP:AfD
60:, not
58:WP:RfD
200:JSTOR
161:books
145:Stats
132:views
124:watch
120:links
16:<
497:talk
485:Keep
435:talk
408:talk
380:talk
346:talk
327:talk
308:Keep
273:talk
255:talk
221:talk
193:FENS
167:news
128:logs
102:talk
98:edit
71:ansh
291:?--
207:TWL
136:– (
76:666
64:. (
499:)
437:)
410:)
382:)
348:)
329:)
318:}}
312:{{
297:•
275:)
257:)
234:--
223:)
187:)
130:|
126:|
122:|
118:|
113:|
109:|
104:|
100:|
68:)
495:(
433:(
406:(
378:(
344:(
325:(
271:(
253:(
219:(
211:)
203:·
197:·
189:·
182:·
176:·
170:·
164:·
159:(
151:(
148:)
141:·
134:)
96:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.