Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Body parts slang

Body parts slang
This page is simply a repost of the wikipedia page Body parts slang. There is no new information, and the page is not in the form of a book. --Whiteknight T C E 17:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * delete -- I was suspecting it was a dupe. Is a dupe suitable for speedy-delete? I think it should be; we've had a few. AlbertCahalan 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- no longer a dupe. I think the VfD loss on Wikipedia is revealing though; people were obviously scraping up lame excuses because they didn't care for the subject matter. Voting is never fair or unbiased. AlbertCahalan 01:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I didnt want to assume it was a speedy delete, i'm not as well versed in policy yet as i need to be to start making deletions. --Whiteknight T C E 02:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Forking of Wikipedia content, particularly when it is a direct copy from Wikipedia and the links don't follow WB:NP or any attempt to turn this into a book has been done, it is ripe for a speedy deletion. I also propose that Sexual slang be added to this speedy delete as well.  I'll give it two days for somebody to defend why these pages should be here, then I'll do the deletion myself unless another admin beats me to it. --Rob Horning 04:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Two days, and then It's a race! --Whiteknight T C E 14:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia voted to delete Body parts slang. Thus Body parts slang is now not a copy of Wikipedia content. But I support a speedy-delete for the same reasons (WB:WIW - not a dictionary, no original works) that Wikipedians voted using. --Kernigh 01:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * These were excuses. The list is obviously not a dictionary entry, and is obviously neither fiction nor original research. AlbertCahalan 01:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The module can be improved. The module is more than a dictionary entry, and at least part of the module is not original research. Also, while Wikipedia has rules against slang guides, Wikibooks does not. WB:WIW: ...we do allow and encourage projects that require dictionaries at their core... --Kernigh 18:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am an outspoken critic of Wikipedia when editors on that project dump stuff here on Wikibooks that they don't want to deal with, making us having to clean up their trash. And while Wikibooks does not specifically have rules against dictionaries, Wiktionary would be a much more appropriate place for something like this as it is mainly an index to either dictionary or encyclopedic entries, which is against Wikibooks enforced policies.  Demonstrate how you are going to turn this into a book and not a Macropedia and I might support keeping this Wikibook here.  As a mere list it is not appropriate for Wikibooks.  None of the links follow the naming policy for modules nor do I see any way that even if links were to modules like Sexuality:Gräfenberg Spot that the sub topics would be anything other than encyclopedic articles.  --Rob Horning 23:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not planning to contribute content to "body parts slang". --Kernigh 21:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, but you are defending it, Kernigh. The dictionary part of what you quoted comes straight from Wikibooks is not a dictionary, so this is already treading on a thin line of reasoning.  There is no reason this information can't be put onto Wiktionary as a Wiktionary Wikiproject.  The question I raise is why must it be here, and why is it inappropriate for Wiktionary or some other place including Wikicities?  --Rob Horning 00:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the Wikibooks is not a dictionary rule is intended to prevent the creation of sub-stub articles for various random words. Imagine each one of these words getting a book to itself. Using the rule to argue against the book we are voting on now is surely an abuse of the rule. AlbertCahalan 20:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am changing my vote now. The contributors seem to be making a thesaurus entry, not a book. I am suggesting that "Wikibooks is not a dictionary" implies "Wikibooks is not a thesaurus" because Wiktionary has a thesaurus. This is different from the reasoning of Wikipedia voters, in which case they were able to invoke their policy against slang guides. --Kernigh 01:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that I will try to post to both Wikipedia and Wiktionary about this. --Kernigh 03:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (but Keep until WB:WIW is changed --Kernigh 03:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)) both Body parts slang and Sexual slang -- Belongs at wiktionary:Wiktionary:WikiSaurus, for example wiktionary:WikiSaurus:sexual intercourse. Since (so far) none of the contributors is giving attention to this Vfd, I suppose that I will forget about Transwiki. We should amend WB:WIW to say, Wikibooks is not a thesaurus. I think I will suggest that now... --Kernigh 01:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Update I have posted on wiktionary:Wiktionary:Thesaurus considerations with my new Wiktionary account. I am trying to avoid finding this on wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. --Kernigh 05:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is just a grocery list of terms. It's a very far cry from a textbook or other instructional resource. While it's true that it's well-defined enough that others could reasonably contribute to it that should not be our only criteria. --MShonle 01:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - is not a book --Derbeth 19:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I suggest that this would be good impetus to change policy to state that wikibooks is neither an encyclopedia, a macropedia, a dictionary or a thesaurus. How many votes do we need to drop the axe on this page? --Whiteknight T C E 03:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What is Wikibooks has stated, quite explicitly, that Wikibooks is not a dictionary, for over a year now. Uncle G 17:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment/Update - I posted a discussion on wikt:Wiktionary:Beer parlour to see if the folks on Wiktionary even want this content. I would prefer if some editors from that project add some comments here before a transwiki, but I also believe that to keep or remove are independent decisions between the two projects.  --Rob Horning 16:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough we already have thesaurus entries for various body parts over on wictionary, for example wikt:WikiSaurus:breasts (edit I'm sure that link ought to work, here it is another way: []) . Perhaps there is the odd snigger but it would seem the logical home. So I would reccomend that it is transwikied & we will split it down into the various parts, merge with the current articles, put a category in to link them together & everyone will be happy. Though I understand there is a bit of a backlog on the transwiki so a little patience might be in order. :-) MGSpiller 01:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not that odd. One of Wiktionary's functions is to be "the lexical companion to Wikipedia" (and indeed to Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikisource, and Wikiquote) and acting as a thesaurus of slang terms is one way that it has been fulfilling that functions for quite a while now.  The list of cannabis slang terms was moved from Wikipedia to Wiktionary.  The list of slang terms for the human penis was moved from Wikipedia to WikiSaurus:penis. There's no backlog on the transwiki queue from Wikibooks to Wiktionary, by the way. There's a backlog on the transwiki queue from Wikipedia to Wiktionary, because I haven't touched it for a while. &#9786; Uncle G 17:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've no idea why the anonymous editor copied and pasted the Wikipedia article here. (It wasn't a proper transwikification.)  There was an apparent attempt to do the same with a list of sexual slang that Wikipedia has grown, which I put a stop to.  Neither belong here, and both belong in Wiktionary. Wikibooks is not a dictionary, and it furthermore seems foolish for individual Wikibooks modules to be dictionaries when there is a perfectly good dictionary of all words in all languages right next door where lexicographic work can be done.  Wiktionary can be "the lexical companion to Wikibooks" just as much as it can be "the lexical companion to Wikipedia".  There's no need to keep this.  I'm very probably going to be the one transwikifying this to Wiktionary.  If I do, I'll transwikify the Wikipedia original, that has the full edit history, not this copy. Uncle G 17:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ... as I've just done. Neither Body parts slang nor Sexual slang were properly transwikied in the first place, and there seems to be a consensus to delete both here after a week of discussion.  So I have. Uncle G 00:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Because the users most familiar with Wiktionary voted Delete, and the contributors never came to defend the pages (despite vfd notice on both pages), I will accept the deletion. Another note: no one at Wiktionary has commented about this yet at the beer parlour or thesaurus considerations pages. --Kernigh 03:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Uncle G at about 00:31, 2 November 2005. See above. --Kernigh 03:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I consider myself a Wictionarian for the moment & created an account here to comment on this rather than Beer Parlour. Perhaps one day I'll come back & do some work here. For the moment I'm tidying this up in Wictionary, just for interest I'll post an update when it's up to Wictionary's normal standard.MGSpiller 00:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)