This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Lucibufagin is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
So, I wrote this as a Wikipedia article, and submitted it as a draft, but when the draft was evaluated, it got accepted and moved to Wiktionary. We have lots of articles on various chemicals, including pheromones and others, and I am not entirely sure why this particular term was moved over to Wiktionary. It is a stub article, yes, but it is not a dictionary definition of a word or term, it is a description of a chemical, and the current size of any given article isn't supposed to dictate whether or not we host an article on the topic so long as the topic is appropriate for Wikipedia. Which I thought this one was. Would very much like to hear other editors' opinions. Thank you. 2602:306:CD92:4960:45C5:DEF3:1DCA:CB6E (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments.
I doubt this is really a suitable topic for a RfC. But I'm happy to comment anyway.
The draft certainly wasn't acceptable as a Wikipedia article. It was one sentence long and cited only one reference.
The former draft is now at Wiktionary, but its talk page is still here at Wikipedia. That can't be right.
The best person to answer your request is the editor who did the move, Onel5969.
Maproom is absolutely correct, this isn't the right forum. In the future, simply query the editor who made the edit in question on their talk page. But since it's here, I'll answer it here. Maproom has already addressed part of the issue in his #2 above. And based on that, and as per WP:NOTDIC, the two choices were deletion or redirection. Recently, it has been decided that creating a soft redirect to sister projects, such as Wiktionary, is the preferred way to go. Which is why I took the action I did. That being said, this is NOT saying that an article on this subject could not be created, but it would need to be an actual article, not simply a definition. Hope this helps. Onel5969TT me12:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the shortness of the article is why it was made into a Wiktionary article. The policy page on WP:NOTADICTIONARY specifically states that shortness is not a reason for moving an article to Wiktionary. Calling it "not suitable as a Wikipedia article" seems like shorthand for "too short." Please reconsider this. Does the topic have potential to be expanded into a larger encyclopedia article? I think it does. In light of that, why is it a now a dictionary definition? Is it not notable? Also, let me add this: I know you know what WP:NOTADICTIONARY says, but please do me this favor, onel5969: go to the policy page and read it again, just so the memory can be fresh. Please. I am not saying that to condescend, I am saying it because sometimes we get to think we know things that we really have forgotten. I think that once you actually look at that page again, you will change your mind about what you have written here. Look, I get that it was short, and I get that it only had one reference. Those things are not supposed to disqualify the TOPIC as a Wikipedia article. 2602:306:CD92:4960:7D79:56E:5AFB:6429 (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The draft certainly wasn't acceptable as a Wikipedia article. It was one sentence long and cited only one reference. That is saying that its shortness was one reason, and the current state of its referencing was another, neither of which is supposed to matter! The former draft is now at Wiktionary, but its talk page is still here at Wikipedia. That can't be right. Agreed. 2602:306:CD92:4960:7D79:56E:5AFB:6429 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I would ask you to go back and look at WP:NOTADICTIONARY, and the examples it gives to specifically show the difference between a stub and dictionary definition. As the article was created, it was simply the definition of the word, expanded slightly, but not including the differences which would have made it a valid stub. Onel5969TT me19:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And please make a slight effort at understanding the policy, a simple definition of a word, simply does not qualify, as per the table you posted below. If you had spent as much time improving the quality of the article as you did ranting about how unfair the world is, there'd be an article, and all the editors who have tried to reason with you would not have wasted their time. Onel5969TT me23:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles on compounds, but if it's only a sentence that doesn't seem like enough. Try adding an infobox and information about which species it's found in, like say agaric acid. --Nessie (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to say this: shortness is not the reason to make it a Wiktionary article. An article doesn't get moved over to Wikipedia from Wiktionary once it seems big enough, either it warrants a Wikipedia article or it does not. Here's more information, taken from the policy page, which seems to make clear which site the term/ article belongs on, since others may prefer not to visit that page directly:
a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth.
the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The entry octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.
Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing (synonyms)
And with that, I am done arguing here. I am finding it hard to believe the degree of resistance this has achieved. At some point someone else will come along and make this a Wikipedia article. Of that I am certain. Wiktionary isn't a proving-ground for Wikipedia articles, and was never meant to be one. And policy is supposed to outweigh isolated moments of consensus. If you want to change policy, then get consent to change policy, don't claim that consensus is outside of policy-- that is backwards. And kind of underhanded, actually. But do as you will. Adios.
2602:306:CD92:4960:45C5:DEF3:1DCA:CB6E (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another source and a factoid about it. I don't know that I have the expertise to move it beyond stub status, but I think this is definitely a valid stub. CapitalSasha ~ talk05:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
