On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
This thread seems to have spawned several subthreads, none of which are to do with the original topic - maybe those continuing the discussions might rename the subject line, or is it far too late to do that now?
Agreed.
Also, it might be helpful to move this discussion on-wiki, so that other interested parties can participate.
Earlier this year, when one editor was beati^H^H^H examining this issue closely, dozens of relevant links and examples were collated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary/Draft_R... and much discussion took place (in various locations). The last 2 threads on the talkpage might be helpful for interested people to read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary/Dr... If the editors who object to articles-about-words can help fill in the Table of Evidence in that last talkpage thread, it might move this discussion forward. As it stands, the precedent, practice, and RS references, all support the inclusion of a few articles about notable words in an encyclopedia. (What a "notable word" is, is where some opinions differ, and is what WP:GNG is for. It is generally agreed that just being listed in dictionaries is insufficient for standalone notability).
WP:NAD hasn't changed much, since it was written in 2001-2003, and needs to be understood in that context (and needs to be updated, but everyone was exhausted by the last disagreement, so no progress has been made on that, yet).
One way of looking at it, is as a simple case of Quantity of Reliable&Verifiable Content (aka notability). For example: Subsection in Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#Etymology Split-out comprehensive subpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry_%28etymology%29 Wiktionary's coverage: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chemistry
Other words are notable by themselves, and do not have a "parent topic". eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou
In contrast, the vast majority of words only have enough content for a single sentence, or section, within the article about the topic, eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant#Etymology some editors believe that even that should be removed, and that all etymological information should be banished from Wikipedia. This is not practical, because our articles AND our projects are generally intended to be comprehensive by themselves (to successfully standalone, eg if printed).
Relatedly, Wiktionary is /not/ an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedic_dictionary If someone were to copy all the content from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thou it would simply be deleted.
and other much repeated points.
Hope that helps. Please help us clarify the wording of WP:NAD to make these issues clear. Quiddity (I'm still on wiki-break, but will try to follow this topic, as I'm familiar with many of the recurring questions and answers)