You are still abusing {{vocab-stub}}. Please stop. Wikislap is an article about an action, a wikislap, not an article about vocabulary and usage. {{vocab-stub}} is not a miscellany. Please stop treating it as if it were. Uncle G 05:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• ABUSE seems a bit harsh... This is a stub about a neologism, specifically the use of this word or phrase, as is indicated in the stub marker. {{vocab-stub}} is not listed as a category template about etymologies or social acceptance of words, it is specifically about definitions or usages of words or phrases, which is all this article is at this time. Had this been an article about the history of wikislaping, its popular use, or anything other then talking about its definition I'd agree that a better place for this would be in {{WWW stubs}} but it simply lacks material for that. I think that this article will grow one day and no longer be a stub, as it is specific to this site. I am certainly not going to get in to an edit war about this, but would appreciate further commentary from you on this. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it's not harsh. Abuse of the category is exactly what this is. Wikislap is a encyclopaedia article about an action, a wikislap. It's not a dictionary article about a word at all. A dictionary article about a word or phrase would give the etymology, usage, translations, synonyms, antonyms, related words, pronunciation, part of speech, inflections, and so forth of the word or phrase. (Indeed, see the dictionary article hyperlinked to at the start of this paragraph.) Wikislap is an article about wikislaps. That the article lacks information on the history of wikislapping doesn't magically make the article into an article about the word. It just makes it a stub. A stub encyclopaedia article about an action and a dictionary article about a word or a phrase are two quite different things. See use-mention distinction. That the word used to name the action is a neologism doesn't magically make the article an article about a word or phrase, either. It just makes it an article that is probably original research.

    {{vocab-stub}} isn't a miscellany, and articles that are simply short are not articles about words or phrases. Uncle G 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    • I agree that {{vocab-stub}} should not be used for misc. dumping of articles that don't have other homes. I also agree that this is not a (potential) dictionary article. Obviously we disagree on what a vocabulary stub is, I take it to be any short article about meanings and usages of words and phrases, in this case the article is so short that it would be hard for anyone to tell where it will end up, as currently it is simply a definition, and other then the notion that I think it will grow to something else, I would have flagged it for a move to Wiktionary and been done with it. This article could grow to be large, and depending on the editors could end up being more about the usages and definitions of the word; or could be more about the act, its use, it's history etc. It will probably have more potential as the later, so I'm retagging it, but as {{Web-stub}}, in the only effort of the stub sorting process: to attract more potential editors. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU
      • Wikislap is not a "short article about meanings and usages of words and phrases". And it is not "about the usages and definitions of the word". It's a short article about wikislaps. The fact that you cannot tell what stub category an article about wikislaps belongs in does not magically make the article one about the meanings and usages of words or phrases. An article that only contains 1 sentence telling the reader what a wikislap is is not an article "about meanings and usages of words or phrases". It is a stub. Articles are not articles about words or phrases simply because they are short. Uncle G 07:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Again, I agree that this is a stub, but perhaps your crystal ball is working better then mine, and know that this stubs development cycle will not end up being an article about the phrase, or usage of it. Stub sorting is more of an art then a science when the original editors don't give much to work with, and cleary we disagree on what constitutes a vocabulary stub, we are not building a dictionary, so the lack of dictionary typing information on a stub doesn't disqualify it as a vocab-stub in my book. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 07:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
          • A crystal ball isn't needed to see that it isn't about a word or a phrase as it stands right now. It is about an action. we are not building a dictionary, so the lack of dictionary typing information on a stub doesn't disqualify it as a vocab-stub in my book. — That's a very odd book, then. If we aren't building a dictionary, then it follows that stubs won't grow into dictionary articles. A different book seems to be in order. ☺ Uncle G 12:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • We will have to continue to disagree on your use of abuse here, I feel that abuse denotes motive, where a word such as misuse , or a differently phrased comment, may have been more civil. I am not looking at dumping articles into a category where they will get lost. This may not have been your intention, but hopefully it is obvious that we are both working to build a better encyclopedia here. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 07:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)