On 3/25/07, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
One way or another, some sort of policy would be better than "Rewrite into a non-word article. If not possible, delete if short, keep if long and nice looking".
Yes, I agree with this. Our "policy" regarding "dictionary definitions" is pretty flawed. Let's have a look: [[WP:NOT]]:
-- Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers. --
We're not supposed to "create an entry merely to define a term"? Sorry, but I've frequently broken this rule. Looking through my own contributions, here are some articles I obviously shouldn't have created: * [[M-ratio]] * [[Optical sine theorem]] * [[Octave species]] * [[Exposing to the right]] * [[Heaving to]] * [[Slope rating]] ...and many others. Are these really in violation of the rule?
-- 2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. --
What is [[Chess terminology]] if not a "list of such definitions"? Check out [[List of glossaries]] for more.
-- 3. Usage guides or slang and idiom guides. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep, or a British gent. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate. --
Trivially, *all* guides are explicitly disallowed by Wikipedia. So what are we trying to say about "slang and idiom guides"? Perhaps we mean that [[List of slang names for poker hands]] should be deleted?
In general, I try to pretend that this very broken "policy" doesn't exist. When someone can come up with a reasonable policy that can distinguish between dictionary entries and encyclopaedia entries, without using the self-referential terms "dictionary definition" or "encyclopaedic", then perhaps it will serve some purpose.
Steve