User talk:Hydriz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to my talk page


Welcome back, and a note on quick deletions[change source]

Hello, Hydriz, and welcome back to Simple English Wikipedia -- it looks like you hadn't edited here for a long time until recently.

You recently tagged a few articles for quick deletion (QD), with the reason that they were in Simple English Wiktionary. That is not one of our criteria for quick deletion. We are pretty strict about having QD-nominated articles fit one of the defined criteria. We don't have a QD criterion for articles that are dicdefs. I think the reason is that what is or isn't a dicdef can be argued, so it's not clear-cut enough for QD and we want those discussed.

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, things were a lot different back then, as we could mark pages that have been moved over as quickly deleted. I will keep this in mind in the future. --Hydriz (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Countries[change source]

I'm trying to clean up unused WikiProjects here, and came across this one at User:WikiProject Countries. The user is blocked, apparently due to an inappropriate user name, but there's a note referring to you. The main project page has had no meaningful edits since December 2010. There was a little activity at User:WikiProject Countries/Singapore in January 2011, but I don't see anything since then. Only two users other than the hosting one link to the userbox.

So I'm wondering if we can delete this WikiProject. You might remember that WikiProjects here are unofficial, and are hosted in userspace. If you want to keep this one active, can we move it to your userspace? Even there, though, there should be some activity in it to keep it around. Several inactive WikiProjects have been deleted at WP:RFD lately. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Huggle[change source]

Hey Hydriz, looks like something weird happened with Huggle. Do you know what caused it? --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 19:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Caliburn: Huggle has some serious issues on Simple in general, from the double signature in the deletion warnings, repeated/repetitive level warnings and even the awkward revert when AGF an edit (and no custom edit summary on that either). Tropicalkitty (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it seems to have quite weird problems. I do suggest that Huggle should not be allowed to be used here. Thanks for checking those changes! --Hydriz (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

positioning templates[change source]

Supporting templates like "wikt" should go at the bottom. Convenient is just above the reflist template, because "wikt" appears on the right of the page, and doesn't interfere with the refs. The critical thing is our explanation of the term or concept. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing! Will take note of this in the future. --Hydriz (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses ...[change source]

Milk glass.jpg Mmm - Milk!
A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

... would you like some? Stewi101015 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Importing to Wiktionary[change source]

Although some of those are words, they are also encyclopedic topics that should be represented on Wikipedia, as well as Wiktionary. In short, I think those pages shouldn't be deleted, or imported at all. Rather, I think it would be better to write a unique definition on Wikiquote to supplement the page on Wikipedia, not just importing it. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep just because something is a definition of a word doesn't mean it is a dictionary definition. A dictionary definition would include things like stating something was a noun. Basically just go look at what a wiktionary page looks like and that is a dicdef. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. While it would be better to represent topics on Wikipedia with having an existing page, using {{dicdef}} implies that the page should be moved to Wiktionary. When a page is moved, either a redirect to the new page is created (soft redirect) or the creation of the redirect is suppressed (deleted), which makes it suitable to be a criteria for Quick Deletion. If a certain article deserves an encyclopedia page, it should either be expanded before the page is deleted, or the page is re-created with more content after the deletion has happened. If, for example, a user is searching for the word "clothesline" using the search box, there will be a box at the right side of the search results which showcases the results from sister projects, which then includes a definition from Wiktionary and ensures that the user is able to find what they are looking for. If the articles should not be deleted after they are moved, then I feel that it would be more appropriate to tag the article with {{incomplete}} to invite editors to expand the article. --Hydriz (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Djsasso: What you're describing is a dictionary entry, not a dictionary definition. For our purposes, a dictionary definition defines the topic without giving any other meaningful info: it does not have to have other dictionary-type info such as giving the plural or saying what part of speech it is. A current example from Category:Move to Wiktionary is Sociological imagination, which currently says only "the ability to see the relationship between individual experiences and the larger society". It might be very possible to flesh out such articles, but if this is the only info at a given time, then they are dicdefs and subject to QD. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6: It actually does, the whole point of that delete reason was to remove the types of entries that should be on wiktionary. It was not meant to remove short one line stubs that explain something. I realize you have been deleting ones like that with the speedy, but that has been incorrect and I have mentioned it to you many times. Just because something is a short one sentence explanation does not make it a dictdef. It makes it a stub. I would also point out per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Not quick deletion criteria dictionary definitions aren't a reason to speedy delete, nor are very short articles that have useful information. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I came to realize that an article being moved to Wiktionary is not considered a quick deletion criteria. Thank you all for the comments, I will change to nominating as deletion from now on instead. --Hydriz (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)