Talk:Wikispecies
Latest comment: 13 years ago by TeleComNasSprVen in topic Wikispecies
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Failed RFV, but linked to by the widely transcluded {{wikispecies}}. (We can always remove that link from {{wikispecies}} and consider the problem solved, but I'd like to get other editors' opinions before doing that.) —RuakhTALK 04:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think that template should either link to the Wikipedia article on Wikispecies, or an "about" page on Wikispecies, anyway. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Erm, isn't this linked from [Main Page]? --Connel MacKenzie 06:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I hope not. The main page links to, well, Wikispecies. Even the huge Oxford English Dictionary doesn't define itself or related projects in teh dictionary, though it might talk a lot about itself on its (non-dictionary) website. Self-references should be limited to non-mainspace, or places where they are legitimately needed. Making an exception to CFI is distasteful enough, making an exception for ourselves is just embarassing. Dmcdevit·t 23:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. These are linked from all over WMF projects, not just Wiktionary. The
{{wjargon}}tag is precisely for this type of entry, that can't reasonably be explained anywhere else. The deletion seems incredibly unwarranted, as you suggested a MOVE to the Wiktionary namespace, anyhow. Furthermore, how did this (or any other) fail RFV? Certainly published news outlets have discussed each of these at length; usenet must have an astonishing volume of references as well. --Connel MacKenzie 18:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. These are linked from all over WMF projects, not just Wiktionary. The
- I agree, these should be kept. —Stephen 20:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm surprised at you Connel. You think there is an attributive sense of "Wikispecies"? Wikipedia has been used as a verb like Google; Wikispecies has not. You honestly think that the Wiktionary definition of Wikispecies is linked from all over WMF? That sounds very optimistic, and rather illogical, too. Dmcdevit·t 05:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- While perhaps inconsistent, not illogical; I think you've misread why I think they need to be here. Interproject links quite naturally will link here for definitions of WMF projects, and Wikipedia for long explanations (plus flamewars, statistics, etc.) Looking at WikiCharts, it seems clear that these are looked up frequently, no matter how obvious they seem to us. Lastly, the translation links, pronunciation, etymology, derived terms and related terms belong here; they would be more than a little awkward in the Wiktionary: namespace. --Connel MacKenzie 16:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Needs to meet WT:BRAND, based on the same merits as Talk:Wikisource and Talk:Wikimedia. TeleComNasSprVen 22:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)