On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I agree with your point. But it has nothing to do with whether or not the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" guideline is being widely ignored.
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 ?
It isn't comparable. Could it be comparable? I don't know.
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.
That begs the question. Wikipedia obviously only includes articles about anything only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified. But what is it that's *different* about words, which justifies the guideline, which you say is an inclusion guideline?
"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."
Sounds like formatting to me.
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."
I wasn't disagreeing with you.
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.
Wait a second. If "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is about inclusion, isn't *it* that notability guideline?
What is a reliable source for a word? Do dictionaries count? If so, then wouldn't pretty much all words have reliable sources on them?
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
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.
Well, is there interesting or relevant material published in a reliable source?
Do dictionaries count as reliable sources?
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
For the most part, an encyclopedic article about a word is just a very verbose dictionary entry - there's no need to have a word defined in both Wikipedia and Wiktionary.
So Wikipedia shouldn't have articles (verbose dictionary entries) about words?