Anthony wrote:
It was a question. Not even a question which I posed to you.
This is a public discussion.
I certainly didn't mean the question as a statement that A implies B. I'm still not even sure of the answer to the question.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
Wiktionary's rules wouldn't allow a comprehensive discussion of the word? Probably not. And that's probably a big part of the reason why Wiktionary is doing so poorly compared to Wikipedia.
Perhaps so.
Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia's "Black people" article and "Nigger" article cover the same subject?
No, of course not. I'm suggesting that they are titles which are different words for the same thing (synonyms).
The terms' contexts differ wildly.
Do you advocate that we redirect "Nigger" to "Black people"?
An article about the word "gasoline" and an article about the word "petrol" wouldn't cover the same subject either.
Agreed.
So if [[gasoline]] was about a petroleum-derived liquid mixture, and [[petrol]] was about a word commonly used to refer to gasoline, it would be fine?
No, because the primary topic for both "petrol" and "gasoline" is the aforementioned petroleum-derived liquid mixture (so both titles should lead directly to its article).
Conversely, the word "nigger" is known primarily as a slur applied to black people, *not* an accepted synonym for "black people."
A "Petrol (word)" or "Gasoline (word)" article would be fine, provided that reliable sources and Wikipedia consensus back the assertion that the word itself possesses cultural/historical significance warranting an encyclopedia article. This probably isn't the case.
Of course words aren't excluded! As for "dictionary entries" being excluded, do you mean articles formatted as dictionary entries, or do you mean articles containing the content of dictionary entries (usage, etymology, meaning)?
I'm referring to articles formatted as dictionary entries and articles whose subjects should not (according to consensus) be presented in any other manner.
Of course, for most words, nothing beyond a dictionary entry is appropriate.
What counts as "beyond a dictionary entry". Are you talking about length, or content?
The latter. The aforementioned "Nigger" article contains a great deal of material that one would not find in any dictionary with which I'm familiar.
But again, I acknowledge that Wikitionary isn't bound by this convention and _could_ contain such information if its scope were expanded.
As I noted, a dictionary indiscriminately lists and defines terms from the language in which it's written.
Not all dictionaries. In fact, most dictionaries are selective, not comprehensive or random.
My point is that a dictionary typically lists and defines terms with little regard for their societal impact. "Door" is included because the object that it describes is a common, everyday thing, *not* because of any special attributes on the part of the word itself.