Template talk:Vocab-stub

I believe this template should be deprecated. Vocabulary stubs are almost by definition mere dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The existence of this template is having the unfortunate effect of encouraging people to add definitions to Wikipedia instead of to Wiktionary (where they belong). Rossami (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Vocabulary deserves an encyclopedia entry if its origin, background and usage can be discussed in more depth than you would expect from a mere definition. – Smyth\^talk 14:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there a vocab-stub that doesn't assume the article hasn't been moved to Wiktionary yet? —Tokek 13:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the markup to read about definitions or usages of words or phrases as there have been many vocab stubs that are being resent to stub by people making the assumtion that this is a marker for discussing the topic of vocabularies, not about the expanded definitions of words or phrases. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 19:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the text "Also consider copying it to Wiktionary", which had been tacked onto the end of the template. The vast majority of vocab-stubs are already on Wiktionary in the proper form, and we certainly shouldn't be encouraging people to "copy" Wikipedia articles into Wiktionary; Wiktionary has its own style and format, and transwikied content should respect that. (However, as I said, most vocab stubs are either dicdefs, which should be deleted per the usual process, or else are real stubs with corresponding Wiktionary pages already.) ((Afterthought: We could make a template for "This article may or may not be on [[wikt:{{PAGENAME}}|Wiktionary]] already", but that's getting ridiculous. Editors who care can go check for themselves, and editors who don't care shouldn't be imposed upon.)) --Quuxplusone 02:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding of use...

I think there has been a misunderstanding of this stub's use. It is not meant to be primarily for items awaiting a move to wiktionary - it is intended primarily for articles relating to vocabulary and usage that are beyond what could satisfactorily be included in a wiktionary article, and are therefore deserving of a wikipedia entry in their own right. As such, it's surprising that this stub has been deprecated, especially since to the best of my knowledge this has never been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting (which is where such a decision would have been made). I've initiated discussion on this point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting - please comment there. Grutness...wha? 22:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that there was unanimity in that discussion that it indeed isn't. If it's really been 'deprecated' for half a year, it'd be about time to delete it, no? What seems to be going on here is not so much a deprecation of the template, as implied deprecation of the topic of the articles, which completely at odds with the purpose of stub template. If it's to be transwiki'd, use {{copy to Wiktionary}}, there's absolutely no need to have a putative stub template that plays the same role (apparently now explicit, given the addition of the corresponding category to this template). See also my comments at dmcdevit's talk page. Alai 21:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated or not? In favor of which template?

The article Known Depredator currently contains the TWCleanup template. One action it suggests is:

Edit it so that the article's topic is not a particular word or other morpheme and remove this notice. Note that {{vocab-stub}} is deprecated.

So, is this vocab-stub template deprecated or not? And if so, in favor of which template?

I'm also asking about this template at Template talk:TWCleanup. Sorry I can't do more than raise the question and thanks for all your work and help! -- Geekdiva (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deprecated almost forever, in theory, although some people have tried to put it to different use at various times (see above). Basically, it's not deprecated in favor of any particular template. It shouldn't be used, and where it is, it is sort of a warning sign that the article is either mis-tagged or does not belong in Wikipedia. Stubbish Wikipedia articles are sometimes definitions, but Wikipedia also is not a dictionary, so there is an important distinction between articles which only discuss a word as a word and articles which discuss the concept behind the word (i.e., the referent) or have an obvious potential to do so.

In the former case, where the article is a dead-end definitional entry, this stub category is a mistake because the article is a mistake: it should likely be prodded or merged elsewhere, not tagged as a stub. In the latter case, where there is a stubbish, definitional article about an encyclopedic concept, this stub category is a mistake because the article should be tagged with a stub category that is relevant to the article's topic and not just stuck in this category because it happens to be about a piece of vocabulary. In short, valid articles don't belong in here because no one will look for them here, and, at the same time, many or most vocabulary "stubs" really ought to be transwikied and deleted outright, not given a tag that legitimizes them and encourages expansion. Dominic·t 10:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]