Category talk:Definitionless terms

Should this template categorize here as well, for pages that don't exist? Category:Citations of undefined terms seems similar. Nadando 15:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea... but ask in a forum first. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

buncha sign languages
Category:Definitionless terms has a few entries for sign languages, which have no usable content. I guess they could all be deleted. --Rockpilot 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it not be easier to simply provide a definition for these? They're all valid anyway. -- Liliana • 22:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You serious? Deleting things is loads easier than defining things! --Rockpilot 22:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, no AFAICT-valid reason given for deletion. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's always acceptable to delete entries with no definitions at all. And I'd include a couple of entries that I've created. The only possible exceptions could be definitionless entries which are valid words, and have citations. Correct etymologies and pronunciations also seem like possible but weaker reasons to keep a wholly definitionless entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking back, many of these are garbage and should be deleted. -- Liliana • 21:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think some of the sign language names aren't even attestable. Anyway, if an entry's entire content is "definition requested", it should be at WT:REE or similar. Equinox ◑ 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone up to the task? -- Liliana • 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Today I deleted most of them (and I checked every single one in Google Books, and left the ones that really had loads of mentions, which were very few). Some were just non-existent; and anyway I think that creating so many "blank" stub entries to be filled in was arrogant and bad; we have enough request pages he could have used. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed. Cleaned up by . — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

RFM discussion: December 2011
Merge with Category:Definitions needed. A lot of the ones in here are not really definitionless, just missing senses. &mdash;Internoob 04:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that Category:Definitions needed is by language, while Category:Definitionless terms lumps 'em all together, better for navigation if you want to see all definitionless terms. A few issues, the names of the two categories most definitely. Plus they can potentially be merged. Further more Category:Definitionless terms only contains entries using not, albeit merging the two would lead to tens of thousands of entries in one category. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)