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_guidel…]
and conduct deletion discussions when disagreements arise. If you
believe that a subject-specific notability guideline is needed, feel
free to propose one.
--
David Levy