| Revision as of 02:30, 23 July 2011 editLiteralKa (talk | contribs)2,804 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:37, 23 July 2011 edit undoSnaphat (talk | contribs)304 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ******I've no interest in involving myself in an useless discussion with you. kthxbai. ]] 02:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | ******I've no interest in involving myself in an useless discussion with you. kthxbai. ]] 02:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *******Since when is calling anything wikilawyering '''not''' bad faith? ] (]) 02:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | *******Since when is calling anything wikilawyering '''not''' bad faith? ] (]) 02:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Simply a dictionary definition. ] (]) 02:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:37, 23 July 2011
Quiltro
- Quiltro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Quiltro is a term used to describe a mixed-breed dog in Chile and Bolivia, and the article is just a definition and list of trivia. I've already added mention of this term to the article mixed-breed dog. It should be noted that "quiltro" is a redirect to "mixed-breed dog" on the Spanish Misplaced Pages -- if they're not keeping a standalone page about it, even though the countries in question would fall under their scope, it makes very little sense for us to do so. Even if that's not a reason to change it to a redirect on this project, it's worth thinking about.
If this was a specific type of mix, a la potcake dog or sato, I wouldn't be nominating it; however, many countries have their own terms for the generic mixed-breed dog and they don't all need separate pages. Anna 01:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, I created the article when there was content on the word and it was called Quiltro (it has since been moved to Perro mestizo), from a version like this. Move whatever necessary to Mixed breed dog, and redirect. -- Diego talk 01:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per policy. LiteralKa (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, it's you and your wikilawyering. Diego talk 02:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would caution you to be civil. LiteralKa (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- LOL, how can that be uncivil? Diego talk 02:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well for one, I didn't say it wasn't. It is, however, the type of comment that eventually degrades into incivility. Second, you immediately assumed bad faith. Third, citing policy is not "utilizing the rules in a manner contrary to their principles." LiteralKa (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've no interest in involving myself in an useless discussion with you. kthxbai. Diego talk 02:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Since when is calling anything wikilawyering not bad faith? LiteralKa (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've no interest in involving myself in an useless discussion with you. kthxbai. Diego talk 02:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well for one, I didn't say it wasn't. It is, however, the type of comment that eventually degrades into incivility. Second, you immediately assumed bad faith. Third, citing policy is not "utilizing the rules in a manner contrary to their principles." LiteralKa (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- LOL, how can that be uncivil? Diego talk 02:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would caution you to be civil. LiteralKa (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, it's you and your wikilawyering. Diego talk 02:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Simply a dictionary definition. snaphat (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)