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

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

bobolozo wrote

> 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.

Wikithesauroetymologodinopedia. Why 'dino'? Because it means 'terrible', etymologically, and this is a terrible idea ...

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam