I wrote:
My point is that each of those 144 "episode guide entries" is written as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional encyclopedia includes such content).
Anthony replied:
That point is not relevant, though.
Your disagreement with my point (which I expound in the text quoted below) doesn't render it irrelevant.
Similarly, we have encyclopedia articles about words. The fact that these subjects traditionally aren't covered in encyclopedias and are covered in other reference works doesn't automatically mean that their presence in Wikipedia is purely duplicative of the latter's function.
What makes something an "encyclopedia article about a word"? Sounds to me like another way to describe a "dictionary".
Are you suggesting that the content presented in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger or another dictionary's "nigger" entry is comparable (or could be comparable, given revision/expansion in accordance with the publication's standards) to that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger ?
Your opinion of what constitutes a "dictionary entry" differs from that of the English Wikipedia community at large.
I certainly haven't seen the format in question used in any dictionary (including Wiktionary).
So "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is a formatting guideline, and not an inclusion guideline? I didn't take it that way, but if you think that's what it says, maybe I should reread it.
No, it's an inclusion guideline; it explains that Wikipedia doesn't include dictionary entries. This is tangentially related to formatting in the respect that Wikipedia includes articles about words only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified.
"This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are."
Unlike a dictionary, Wikipedia doesn't indiscriminately list and define words. Only words deemed culturally/historically noteworthy are treated as "things" in and of themselves. No one is suggesting that it's okay to write a Wikipedia article about any word, provided that it's formatted as an encyclopedia article.
We use the format "Foo (word)" or similar when the word itself is not the primary topic. For example, see "Man (word)".
I guess that could work, though it would be nice to have something more standard. Instead I see:
*troll (gay slang) *faggot (slang) *Harry (derogatory term) *Oorah (Marines) *Uh-oh (expression)
That's why I wrote "or similar." As is true across Wikipedia in general, there probably are some instances in which our parenthetical disambiguation is unnecessarily specific.
Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word "computer" notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the word.
To my knowledge, we apply our general notability guideline [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideli...] and conduct deletion discussions when disagreements arise. If you believe that a subject-specific notability guideline is needed, feel free to propose one.