On 3/25/07, bobolozo <bobolozo(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
One way or another, some sort of policy would be
better than "Rewrite into a non-word article. If not
possible, delete if short, keep if long and nice looking".
Yes, I agree with this. Our "policy" regarding "dictionary
definitions" is pretty flawed. Let's have a look: [[WP:NOT]]:
--
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia
articles are not:
1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary,
please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article
should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an
article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is
information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia.
An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings
of individual numbers.
--
We're not supposed to "create an entry merely to define a term"?
Sorry, but I've frequently broken this rule. Looking through my own
contributions, here are some articles I obviously shouldn't have
created:
* [[M-ratio]]
* [[Optical sine theorem]]
* [[Octave species]]
* [[Exposing to the right]]
* [[Heaving to]]
* [[Slope rating]]
...and many others. Are these really in violation of the rule?
--
2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation
pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify
differing meanings of a word.
--
What is [[Chess terminology]] if not a "list of such definitions"?
Check out [[List of glossaries]] for more.
--
3. Usage guides or slang and idiom guides. Wikipedia is not in the
business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't
teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep, or a British
gent. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia
article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among
similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some
special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be
appropriate.
--
Trivially, *all* guides are explicitly disallowed by Wikipedia. So
what are we trying to say about "slang and idiom guides"? Perhaps we
mean that [[List of slang names for poker hands]] should be deleted?
In general, I try to pretend that this very broken "policy" doesn't
exist. When someone can come up with a reasonable policy that can
distinguish between dictionary entries and encyclopaedia entries,
without using the self-referential terms "dictionary definition" or
"encyclopaedic", then perhaps it will serve some purpose.
Steve