On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No, there isn't. And that's why Wiktionary can work. But articles about words don't belong in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias talk about the concept behind the word, not the word itself.
I think your "meh" example is perfect.
Wiktionary: what does "meh" mean? Wikipedia: why is "meh" even a word?
In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural history, associations etc. The word's Simpsons origins, the debate over whether it was a real word, its inclusion in the list of 20 words that "defined a decade" - all of this is interesting, notable, relevant, and probably out of place in a Wiktionary article. You wouldn't do it for just any word, perhaps, but this one even has a referenced claim to notability.
I think what I'm trying to say is: any word which is itself notable deserves an encyclopaedia article explaining why.
Steve