[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)

[David Levy]

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