I wrote: > > My point is that each of those 144 "episode guide entries" is written > > as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional > > encyclopedia includes such content).
Anthony replied: > That point is not relevant, though. Your disagreement with my point (which I expound in the text quoted below) doesn't render it irrelevant. > > Similarly, we have encyclopedia articles about words. The fact that > > these subjects traditionally aren't covered in encyclopedias and are > > covered in other reference works doesn't automatically mean that their > > presence in Wikipedia is purely duplicative of the latter's function. > What makes something an "encyclopedia article about a word"? Sounds > to me like another way to describe a "dictionary". Are you suggesting that the content presented in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger or another dictionary's "nigger" entry is comparable (or could be comparable, given revision/expansion in accordance with the publication's standards) to that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger ? > > Your opinion of what constitutes a "dictionary entry" differs from > > that of the English Wikipedia community at large. > > > > I certainly haven't seen the format in question used in any dictionary > > (including Wiktionary). > So "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is a formatting guideline, and not an > inclusion guideline? I didn't take it that way, but if you think that's > what it says, maybe I should reread it. No, it's an inclusion guideline; it explains that Wikipedia doesn't include dictionary entries. This is tangentially related to formatting in the respect that Wikipedia includes articles about words only when encyclopedia-formatted articles are justified. "This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." Unlike a dictionary, Wikipedia doesn't indiscriminately list and define words. Only words deemed culturally/historically noteworthy are treated as "things" in and of themselves. No one is suggesting that it's okay to write a Wikipedia article about any word, provided that it's formatted as an encyclopedia article. > > We use the format "Foo (word)" or similar when the word itself is not > > the primary topic. For example, see "Man (word)". > I guess that could work, though it would be nice to have something > more standard. Instead I see: > > *troll (gay slang) > *faggot (slang) > *Harry (derogatory term) > *Oorah (Marines) > *Uh-oh (expression) That's why I wrote "or similar." As is true across Wikipedia in general, there probably are some instances in which our parenthetical disambiguation is unnecessarily specific. > Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there > don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word "computer" > notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a > common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the > word. To my knowledge, we apply our general notability guideline [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline] and conduct deletion discussions when disagreements arise. If you believe that a subject-specific notability guideline is needed, feel free to propose one. -- David Levy _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l