Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadir
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 02:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Nadir[edit]
This is a dictionary definition only, and I don't see how it can be expanded to a proper encyclopedia article. Wikitionary already has an entry for this.--DannyZ 03:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep so astronomy articles can link to it. Gazpacho 04:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Has both astronomy and astrological articles linking to it so should be expanded to explain its significance in a science and longstanding body of belief respectively. Capitalistroadster 05:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, the word is used in many other articles (such as France, Diastolic, Budd Schulberg, and Noel Edmonds) in its figurative sense without editors seeing a need to wikilink it. Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Valid topic. Megan1967 06:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but if there isn't much more to add, move content to Wiktionary, leaving only {{wi}} on the Wikipedia page. AFAIK that is the closest available approximation to a cross-wiki redirect. (If I'm wrong I'd love to hear it.) DanielCristofani 10:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're wrong inasmuch as Wiktionary already has nadir, which has no need of this content, which answers the question posed on Talk:Nadir, which covers the word in three languages, and which also includes its use as a proper noun. ☺ Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
- When I said "move content to Wiktionary", I meant to add it to the Wiktionary article, not to replace what was already there. When I wrote my comment, the Wiktionary article looked like this and certainly could have used such an addition, which I notice you have performed since my comment. Anyway, when I said I would love to hear I was wrong, I meant I would love to hear that there was a smooth way to turn Wikipedia entries into redirects to Wiktionary entries. DanielCristofani 22:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And that version of the page answered the question posed on Talk:Nadir and covered the word in three languages, as I said. I didn't "move content to Wiktionary". This article (until I rewrote it) didn't cover people named with the proper noun "Nadir" (a point that I obviously made too subtly) and didn't include any etymological information, so my additions of etymologies and proper noun senses to Wiktionary (with my hat on as a Wiktionarian whose attention was drawn to the article by this discussion) could not possibly have been moved content. As my edit history comment tells you, I added content from Webster 1913, not from Wikipedia. It has been my experiences that:
- moving individual meanings from Wikipedia to Wiktionary is largely pointless — Wiktionary usually improves when Wiktionarians notice that an article needs cleanup or expansion. This very case is an example. I, with my Wiktionarian hat on, was prodded, by this debate, into looking at nadir, and noticed that it needed expansion, so I added some Webster 1913 content into it.
- Wikipedia is generally bad at writing dictionary content — I've seen Wiktionary come up with better dictionary articles on words in a handful of days than Wikipedia was able to grow organically in years. Quite a lot of those turned up when we were cleaning out the 1200-or-so article backlog in the transwiki queue.
- This was yet another case of Wikipedians saying "move to Wiktionary" meaning moving an individual meaning of a word into an existing Wiktionary article. (It has been said before.) And as I said, Wiktionary is simply not in need of such content. Uncle G 14:04, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
- I am not concerned to deny most of this. When I said "such an addition", I did not mean necessarily an addition of content transferred from Wikipedia, but an addition that would convey the same information the Wikipedia article conveyed. My point has been that:
- If a Wikipedia article can never be more than a dictionary definition, in some cases the best move is to turn it into a cross-reference to Wiktionary, rather than a redirect to some vaguely related Wikipedia article; and
- before doing this, it would be wise to make sure the relevant Wiktionary article has all the information the Wikipedia article did.
- Maybe I was not clear enough about this. In any case I seem to have elicited responses appropriate to something I was not trying to say. DanielCristofani 22:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not concerned to deny most of this. When I said "such an addition", I did not mean necessarily an addition of content transferred from Wikipedia, but an addition that would convey the same information the Wikipedia article conveyed. My point has been that:
- And that version of the page answered the question posed on Talk:Nadir and covered the word in three languages, as I said. I didn't "move content to Wiktionary". This article (until I rewrote it) didn't cover people named with the proper noun "Nadir" (a point that I obviously made too subtly) and didn't include any etymological information, so my additions of etymologies and proper noun senses to Wiktionary (with my hat on as a Wiktionarian whose attention was drawn to the article by this discussion) could not possibly have been moved content. As my edit history comment tells you, I added content from Webster 1913, not from Wikipedia. It has been my experiences that:
- When I said "move content to Wiktionary", I meant to add it to the Wiktionary article, not to replace what was already there. When I wrote my comment, the Wiktionary article looked like this and certainly could have used such an addition, which I notice you have performed since my comment. Anyway, when I said I would love to hear I was wrong, I meant I would love to hear that there was a smooth way to turn Wikipedia entries into redirects to Wiktionary entries. DanielCristofani 22:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're wrong inasmuch as Wiktionary already has nadir, which has no need of this content, which answers the question posed on Talk:Nadir, which covers the word in three languages, and which also includes its use as a proper noun. ☺ Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
- Keep, there would be plenty of ways to expand this, such as how it is used in astronomy for starters. --bainer 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Its a dictionary definition of a term therefore it belongs on Wiktionary, not WP --Cynical 13:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Can be expanded -- 152.78.254.131 13:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, very notable astronomy term, can be expanded. — JIP | Talk 13:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with zenith. One can't discuss one without mentioning the other. Radiant_* 15:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be nice if we had a horizontal coordinate system article that could discuss both the zenith and the nadir without having to pick either as the primary title? ☺ Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
- Rewritten article as disambiguation. Uncle G 18:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
- Comment. Well done Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 21:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Disambiguation pages a great help in WP, especially in sorting out common words with various uses, such as this one. -Acjelen 21:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.