Steve Bennett wrote:
I spent quite a while trying to make sense of that guideline,
particularly the contradictory "not a list of dictionary definitions"
and "glossaries are ok" (I struggle to see any difference between the
two).
The best I can come up with is:
Wikipedia should *not* have articles describing some simple concept in
some complicated language. Like "ultrak00l people say freblejobjuice
to mean coca cola".
However, Wikipedia *should* have articles describing complicated
concepts in simple language: In the mythical sport of fishwrestling, a
bloobloop is when the wrestler takes the fish, wraps it twice around
his neck and proceeds to pin its gills to the nearest railing. This
concept was introduced in 1936 when....
The current "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is almost meaningless and
doesn't help resolve any disputes whatsoever. I can't believe I voted
to delete "List of fighting game terms" under "No lists of such
definitions" when it was totally valid under "glossary pages".
Of course, can anyone actually demonstrate harm caused by dictionary
definitions in Wikipedia?
Steve
I tend to agree with your assessment here, I think. Though I would
add that some of these lists are more appropriate in that their grouping
together has some encyclopedic value when related to some other topic.
This is not something a (traditional) dictionary could do. Terms
specific to a subject that we have an article on especially when they
are used in non-standard ways should be documented (if possible in the
article in question. If the list gets too long like any other
subsection it should be broken off.
I think the guideline should be more related to "would moving this to
wikitionary result in some sort of loss of value". If it would not then
move.
Dalf