I wrote:
> The text in question (the wording of which could
be improved) is
> intended to refer to the concept of having two articles about the same
> subject (a particular petroleum-derived liquid mixture, in this case).
Anthony replied:
That wouldn't make sense. Dictionaries don't
have two entries about the
same subject. They have one entry about the word petrol, and one entry
about the word gasoline.
Indeed, and the text refers to the possibility of Wikipedia having
separate articles for "petrol" and "gasoline," which briefly occurred
in 2005. This was problematic because unlike the corresponding
dictionary entries, both articles covered the same subject (the
substance to which those terms refer).
The policy's editors weren't thinking of the highly unlikely
hypothetical scenario in which Wikipedia articles about the words
"gasoline" and/or "petrol" were written.
> > You seem to go back and forth on whether
> > [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]] is stating that articles
> > should not be formatted as dictionary entries, or whether it imposes
> > notability requirements of its own.
> If you interpreted anything that I wrote to mean
the latter, you
> misunderstood.
I asked if it was an inclusion guideline or a
formatting guideline, and
you said it was an inclusion guideline.
Inclusion guideline != notability guideline
Most elements of "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" (to which
"Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria" redirects) are unrelated to notability.
If you're now saying it is in fact a formatting
guideline, then you can
ignore all my posts after you said it was an inclusion guideline.
No, I'm not saying that. As previously noted, formatting issues are tangential.
If you're saying that it's an inclusion
guideline, and not a formatting
guideline, because it states that articles which are formatted as
dictionary entries should not be included...then you can ignore all my
posts after you said it was an inclusion guideline.
That's part of what I'm saying.
Doesn't transwiking still suck, or have the
developers finally delivered
on the features which for so long were put off until "after single user
login is finished"?
I'm unfamiliar with the situation.
I'm not actually all that sure whether or not
Wikipedians *should*
ignore [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]. I was just
defending my statement that they do.
And I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the policy.
--
David Levy