Anthony wrote: > It was a question. Not even a question which I posed to you.
This is a public discussion. > I certainly didn't mean the question as a statement that A implies B. > I'm still not even sure of the answer to the question. Okay, thanks for clarifying. > Wiktionary's rules wouldn't allow a comprehensive discussion of the > word? Probably not. And that's probably a big part of the reason > why Wiktionary is doing so poorly compared to Wikipedia. Perhaps so. > > Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia's "Black people" > > article and "Nigger" article cover the same subject? > No, of course not. I'm suggesting that they are titles which are > different words for the same thing (synonyms). The terms' contexts differ wildly. Do you advocate that we redirect "Nigger" to "Black people"? > An article about the word "gasoline" and an article about the word > "petrol" wouldn't cover the same subject either. Agreed. > So if [[gasoline]] was about a petroleum-derived liquid mixture, and > [[petrol]] was about a word commonly used to refer to gasoline, it > would be fine? No, because the primary topic for both "petrol" and "gasoline" is the aforementioned petroleum-derived liquid mixture (so both titles should lead directly to its article). Conversely, the word "nigger" is known primarily as a slur applied to black people, *not* an accepted synonym for "black people." A "Petrol (word)" or "Gasoline (word)" article would be fine, provided that reliable sources and Wikipedia consensus back the assertion that the word itself possesses cultural/historical significance warranting an encyclopedia article. This probably isn't the case. > Of course words aren't excluded! As for "dictionary entries" being > excluded, do you mean articles formatted as dictionary entries, or do > you mean articles containing the content of dictionary entries > (usage, etymology, meaning)? I'm referring to articles formatted as dictionary entries and articles whose subjects should not (according to consensus) be presented in any other manner. > > Of course, for most words, nothing beyond a dictionary entry is > > appropriate. > What counts as "beyond a dictionary entry". Are you talking about > length, or content? The latter. The aforementioned "Nigger" article contains a great deal of material that one would not find in any dictionary with which I'm familiar. But again, I acknowledge that Wikitionary isn't bound by this convention and _could_ contain such information if its scope were expanded. > > As I noted, a dictionary indiscriminately lists and defines terms > > from the language in which it's written. > Not all dictionaries. In fact, most dictionaries are selective, not > comprehensive or random. My point is that a dictionary typically lists and defines terms with little regard for their societal impact. "Door" is included because the object that it describes is a common, everyday thing, *not* because of any special attributes on the part of the word itself. -- 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