On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair(a)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_guidel…]
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(a)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(a)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?