[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is not a dictionary (was: Re: Old Wikipedia backups discovered)

[quiddity]

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> This thread seems to have spawned several subthreads, none of which
> are to do with the original topic - maybe those continuing the
> discussions might rename the subject line, or is it far too late to do
> that now?

Agreed.

Also, it might be helpful to move this discussion on-wiki, so that
other interested parties can participate.

Earlier this year, when one editor was beati^H^H^H examining this
issue closely, dozens of relevant links and examples were collated at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary/Draft_RfC_on_words
and much discussion took place (in various locations).
The last 2 threads on the talkpage might be helpful for interested
people to read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary/Draft_RfC_on_words
If the editors who object to articles-about-words can help fill in the
Table of Evidence in that last talkpage thread, it might move this
discussion forward. As it stands, the precedent, practice, and RS
references, all support the inclusion of a few articles about notable
words in an encyclopedia.
(What a "notable word" is, is where some opinions differ, and is what
WP:GNG is for. It is generally agreed that just being listed in
dictionaries is insufficient for standalone notability).

WP:NAD hasn't changed much, since it was written in 2001-2003, and
needs to be understood in that context (and needs to be updated, but
everyone was exhausted by the last disagreement, so no progress has
been made on that, yet).


One way of looking at it, is as a simple case of Quantity of
Reliable&Verifiable Content (aka notability). For example:
Subsection in Main article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#Etymology
Split-out comprehensive subpage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry_%28etymology%29
Wiktionary's coverage:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chemistry

Other words are notable by themselves, and do not have a "parent topic". eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou

In contrast, the vast majority of words only have enough content for a
single sentence, or section, within the article about the topic, eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant#Etymology
some editors believe that even that should be removed, and that all
etymological information should be banished from Wikipedia. This is
not practical, because our articles AND our projects are generally
intended to be comprehensive by themselves (to successfully
standalone, eg if printed).


Relatedly, Wiktionary is /not/ an
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedic_dictionary
If someone were to copy all the content from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou
to
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thou
it would simply be deleted.


and other much repeated points.


Hope that helps. Please help us clarify the wording of WP:NAD to make
these issues clear.
Quiddity
(I'm still on wiki-break, but will try to follow this topic, as I'm
familiar with many of the recurring questions and answers)