[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia has no policy on word articles

[bobolozo]

--- Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with an etymology section in
> an article if the
> word has a notable etymology. There aren't many
> words that describe a
> non-notable topic yet have a notable etymology. The
> few exceptions can
> (and often do) have articles. I don't think a
> problem exists with our
> handling of etymologies.

One major problem with what you've said above:
Wikipedia has only one article on a topic, no matter
how many synonyms there are for the major word we use
to entitle the article.

Synonyms for stupid: brainless, dense, doltish, dopey,
dorky, dull, dumb, fatuous, half-witted, mindless,
oafish, obtuse, senseless, simple, slow, thick,
thickheaded, unintelligent, vacuous, weak-minded,
witless.  Related terms: feebleminded, retarded,
simpleminded; foolish, idiotic, imbecilic, moronic.

These terms can't all have their own articles to
contain their etymologies, they would mostly redirect
to "Stupidity" on wikipedia if anyone bothered to make
redirects for them all.  If we determine that the
etymologies are notable, where do they go?  Clearly
none of them would belong in the "Stupidity" article.




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367