--- Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@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