Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Policy modification proposal: Articles about words

Per the consensus that was apparently reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fart and at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 6#Fart, articles about words are acceptable in Wikipedia, at least under certain conditions.

There seemed, during these discussions, to be a perception that this policy is strictly about definitions, perhaps due to the shortcut WP:DICDEF. However, it's obvious that regardless of that perception, "Fart" is considered by the community to be a word worthy of an article in itself, separate from the article on flatulence.

This leaves two questions: 1) What is the community consensus on articles about words, and 2) How do we modify this policy document to reflect that consensus?

Obviously, we can't answer 2) until we answer 1). Please, submit your thoughts on articles about words so we can work toward identifying consensus.

-- Powers ^T 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For the start, User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words essay summarizes the current situation pretty well (it was mentioned in the DRV, not sure whether you noticed it). Personally, I'm ambivalent as to the issue: maybe there's no real consensus, but the current practice is to keep the article if it's thorough and well written; I enjoyed reading several similar ones, although they might contravene WP:DICDEF. OTOH, enshrining parts of the said essay into policy might violate WP:BEANS: we will accept well-written articles on words, but I doubt that we want to encourage the practice in future. My thoughts on the issue are sort of Zen: do nothing unless there's an immediate problem. Duja► 08:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the essay before, but it is just an essay; it's impossible to tell how much agreement an essay has among the wider community. If it has actual currency in practice perhaps it ought to be promoted to guideline. As for the question of an "immediate problem," it's hard to say. I'd personally say that it's a problem that some articles about words get kept and others get deleted (on "this belongs in Wiktionary" grounds) without having a clear way to distinguish the two. Powers ^T 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's doubtful that there is any agreement with the essay, because almost no one has given any thought to the subject of articles about words at all. My essay does in fact describe the current situation accurately though, and simply looking around at how things are being done will provide you with proof of that. I would like to see some actual policy or guideline as to how we should deal with articles about words, but it would take a major effort by a bunch of people to get such a thing done, probably. I made some minor effort to get this done some time ago, and I found that everyone who expressed an opinion about this disagreed with everyone else. --Xyzzyplugh 12:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, the community has managed to come to consensus on more contentious issues in the past. What puzzles me most is the near-unanimity I saw in both directions on the two AfDs I started. One was near-unanimous to keep and the other was unanimous to delete. Powers ^T 21:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymologies

Wikipedia does, in fact, have numerous articles discussing specific etymologies. See Category:Etymologies, Category:Etymology. Wiktionary does not accept such discussions, they only want one-liners saying "derived from such-and-such". This page should reflect this situation. Wikipedia's etymology articles are generally branched-out from the main article on the topic per WP:SS. The point of WP:DICT is that the mere existence of a word does not warrant having a Wikipedia article about it. The converse doesn't hold at all. If a word and/or its etymology is noteworthy for some reason or other, be it only that the etymology is subject to dispute in academic literature, there can very well be a discussion on Wikipedia. A good example is witch (etymology). The etymology of witch is far from clear, and there is a considerable body of literature that can be quoted on the question. There is no way wiktionary would accept such a discussion (sadly, but that's how it is). Therefore, it belongs on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If Wiktionary is being more restrictive in their policies than you think appropriate, lobby them to change it. Frankly, I was not aware of this restriction and will support you in an effort to change it. Just drop me a note on where to join in the conversation. However, their failure does not automatically mean that we must bend and distort the mission of Wikipedia. Let's fix the right problem. Rossami (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the dictionary to make a point

I think a new section to the policy should be added prohibiting the quoting of the dictionary to prove a point which is in contrarty to policies and guidelines.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not bad advice but I think it would be confusing to add it here. That sounds like something that might fit better in one of the ettiquette pages. Maybe WP:POINT? Rossami (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but this specifically relates to the ditionary maybe it could explicitly state etiquette pages such as WP:POINT.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Unless wikipedia is short of space it's unfair. An en-cycle of knowledge includes a dictionary. "Every page should have at least ... links" That would solve the dictionary requirement and the expansion requirement. See WP:TEOWINAEFKTW (The Existence Of Wiktionary Is Not An Excuse For Killing The Wikipedia). There is no good reason that wikipedia should not include definitions. Definitions can hardly threaten the Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. This is a blatant censorship project. Fuck off!
ThisMunkey (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:PTWAAC (Plug The Wiktionary At All Cost)
  ThisMunkey (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't censorship. It's a common distinction - encyclopedia and dictionary. Two different things. Wikipedia isn't going to be "killed" by Wiktionary. Think about the differences between dictionaries and encyclopedias. And what exactly is censorship, anyway? The suppression of your own personal opinion? These two reference materials: They are not one and the same. If you have specific articles in mind, then bring up your disputes there. Also, ending your comment with "fuck off!" doesn't help you prove your point in the least bit. It only seems discourteous, and probably offends other editors. It makes you seem angry, belligerent, overzealous, and incredibly passionate about yet another silly issue. Please try to restrain your emotions when editing. And... Wikipedia is full of definitions! Again, think of how encyclopedias and dictionaries are related. It has some bearing on our previous discussion.

Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Look Fuzzform, you said "take mammal for an example" so I prepared a debate on mammals relating to what we were discussing. You come back saying "what have mammals to do with it?" in a huge response/discredit. You are promoting emotional responses. And here you are discrediting my "anger, belligerence, zealousness, and my passion". There are good debates on this talk page with no replies. That may produce anger, belligerence, zealousness, and my passion. Why dont you give an argument along with your opinion? I belive you have repressed opinions. I wonder if my "fuck off" was designed to produce a light bubbly feeling amongst the crowd? The debates are not entered into. I would like to see the response at least or I will always question it. This debate has been sought after for several years. A public institution should have a pinch of PR at least.
ThisMunkey (talk) 10:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Those debates are long over. Read the archives. No one is responding in detail to your rants because you haven't asked any question that hasn't already been answered at excruciating length. Rossami (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia, by and large, includes a dictionary. The title of this project is a double negative. The project should reflect the subject does not include. Maybe the rule should be restricted to one liners and non linkers but regardless, the disscusions in favour of change to this directive are extensive, well written, and ignored for years ie: no answers, deaf ears. This is contrary to WP:PNSD which is much more important than WP:DICT. If the debate was open the policy would be fair. The debate is not entered into. Admin v Opinion. Instead it is a dictatorship policy. Some of the suggestions for change are very considerable. Any project not open to intelligent debate (for several years I may add) should be up for speedy deletion.
ThisMunkey (talk) 09:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a project. The link to the non-talk counterpart of this talk page is labeled "project page" or similar, but that's because it's an administrative part of the project termed Wikipedia, not because it's a "WikiProject" or similar. You won't have a snowball's chance of having this thing speedily deleted, but you could always propose its deletion at WP:MFD. As it's a page spelling out policy, your effort would most assuredly fail and you might well also find yourself clobbered for violating WP:POINT or similar. So I'd advise against it. If you really think that reasonable objections have been unreasonably ignored, you might instead summarize them clearly and see how people respond. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To provide a dictionary definition of a word requires a whole wiktionary box each. There are many words on Wikipedia that would suit definition for basic understanding. I dont need to explain that very far. Anyone encouraging the information to reach the public will understand the usefulness of definitions. Persons expanding the amount of correct info may, or may not understand the usefulness of definitions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of accessible information (alone). I propose that "WP:NOT" is closely related to "WP:IS". The Wikimedia Foundation covers lengths to provide on information and media in a quality manner which is little asserted. My opinion is support for that and I have gained a great deal from them.

Classic example of "head off brick wall" :-

“ Napoleon Bonaparte (steam power) :- "You are suggesting we light a bonfire under the deck and push the boat against the wind? I have no time for such nonsense!" ”

Assertion that this rule is designed not to better Wikipedia but to promote Wiktionary, taken from this page, intending to illustrate "typical" :-

“ Thanks, Menchi. I just found something addressing my question, so I think I'll work with both: Dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so please do not create an entry merely to define a term. But of course an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic. 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. If you're interested in working on a wiki dictionary, check out the Wiktionary (http://wiktionary.org) project! An exception to this rule are articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.

Don't worry. I won't. :-) --Menchi 10:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) The ideal encyclopedia article is a dictionary definition. Bensaccount 03:27, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

”

What could be more "mere" than defining a term. Such is the main content in support of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" versus "Wow, wouldnt the definitions be such a good add to the most bestest encyclopedia?" Any circumference of the english language would include its definition. Invalidate and restrict that if you will, as you do, it is no less clear. Hoary, your view on the validity of the project/placing it etc. is insightful but I am concerned with its result/intention. What in your opinion is the intention of the policy? In your opinion, what is the result of the policy? What is the best policy for the encyclopedia as it grows into a definitive collection of human knowledge (new page every minute, new edit every second)? Can any one do better than "that was done years ago", "we just said so", "is not"? Is debate irrelevant?
ThisMunkey (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you think dictionary definitions are valuable. I do too. People just in search of a dictionary definition may find it in a dictionary; that dictionary may be Wiktionary.

Yes, a WP encyclopedia entry may incorporate something akin to a dictionary definition where the latter is helpful to content that's genuinely encyclopedic.

To link to a Wiktionary entry you certainly do not need a box; you can do it like this.

The intention of the distinction is pretty well explained in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary: which part don't you understand or agree with?

The result: An avoidance of confusion between encyclopedia and dictionary functions, and an avoidance of a plethora of mere dictionary definitions, many of which would almost certainly be bad, and whose number (eventually one per lexeme) would obscure the location of the relevant encyclopedia entry.

There need not be a distinction between encyclopedia and dictionary: the encyclopedia–dictionary hybrid is a familiar item. But one reason why the hybrid works in (for example) various Larousse publications is that these are planned; Wikipedia is not. The best policy for this encyclopedia is to deprecate dictionary definitions.

If you care to reply, please be concise (no chunks by other writers) and avoid layout gimmickry (no "big" tags). -- Hoary (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The policy is that the introduction of each article should contain a definition of the term as used to describe that particular topic. The point of NOTDICT is that the article isn't about a word it's about a subject. So we don't have a single article on all the different meanings of the article name. We have it one of them, and another article on another and so on.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

These are good answers. The definition link should be a part of Wikipedia:Your first article thereby in a sense, the dictionary is a part of the encyclopedia. For me words like plethora and lexeme would be much easier with a simple link to definition. Just because it's complicated or I dont understand it does not disqualify it but a definition is a welcome compromise. The chunks by the other writers were relevant and the stylising were hardly offensive, Hoary. The easy dictionary link is not mentioned at all on this (WP:DICT) page either, where it is at least appropriate. Agains thank you both for an actual answer. I hope that someone closes the debate by considering putting the information on the [[wikt| ] ] tags on Wikipedia:Your first article and WP:DICT.
All best
ThisMunkey (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude

I just tried cleaning up or deleting the article Dude which focusses on the word and its usage. I got nowhere because it seems that editors are too fond of its explanation that you can pronounce the word in different ways, Bill and Ted use it a lot in their movies and similar slang dictionary stuff. This policy seems to be a dead letter. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Change to Guideline status

In view of my recent experience and the discussions above, it seems that this article is more of a guideline than a strict policy. I propose to change the wording to reflect this. Any objections? Colonel Warden (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I object strongly. The fact that we have currently have inconsistent enforcement of the policy is not all by itself enough reason to abandon the goal. Encyclopedias and dictionaries serve different purposes and rely on different standards and tools. The separation between Wiktionary and Wikipedia remains a good one.
Looking into the history of the discussion you reference above, I think the mistake was attempting to take the discussion directly to AFD. In my experience, the community is far more willing to consider a transwiki followed by a soft-redirect to the appropriate wiktionary page. There is often good content that belongs somewhere, just not in Wikipedia. If you clearly make the case that all the good content is being moved where it is still fully accessible and, better, even more likely to get the care and attention it deserves by Wiktionarians, the community will usually agree to the move. Going directly to a deletion discussion creates a stigma and unnecessary hard feelings. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was not taken straight to AFD and there is already an entry for Dude in Wiktionary. Anyway, it's not just that we have erratic enforcement but it seems that we do not have a consensus for the goal. The debate in this case was a Snow result. The overwhelming majority of the editors were simply not interested in this policy. Maintaining it as a full-on policy is not justified. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am still not seeing significant support for this policy here or elsewhere. To be a policy, this needs more overt support. Guideline status still seems more appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, by definition, an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is, by definition, not a dictionary. To reduce this policy to guideline status would be implying that in some cases an encyclopedia can be a dictionary, which is incorrect. That's why we have Wiktionary. The Dude article recently nominated includes detailed information about the word itself merely to introduce the article. The bulk of the article is about how it has been used in other contexts, such as in popular culture, and is information that would not be found in a dictionary. The bulk of the editors in the discussion were not showing disinterest in the policy as you claim. Most of them claimed that this was more than a dictionary definition, as it is, and that there was no grounds for deletion based on that policy. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The policy states, Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary articles are short, and that short article and dictionary article are therefore equivalent.

My impression is that many editors, such as those commenting upon Dude work on this basis - if the article is short then it is a dicdef; while if it is long it is an article. But this is not correct. If you look at a major dictionary such as the Oxford English Dictionary, you will find that entries on words can be huge, with much detailed citing of sources, etymology, usage, pronunciation and so on.

The real test, as the policy explains is whether the article is about the word or whether it is about the concept or topic that the word denotes. The policy goes to great lengths to explain this difference but this seems to go right over the head of most editors. And that's why we have articles on Dude as well as Man, Shit as well as Feces and Nigger as well as Negro, Black People, African American, Colored, etc.

You can easily recognise such articles because they tend to start by saying that "XXXX is a word which means...". The article is thus about the word XXXX and explains it in the way that a comprehensive dictionary would. And in some cases, such as Hacker, much energy is expended over what that meaning is - pedants love to argue about the meaning of words.

Since you (Hersfold) think the same as most editors, the policy should be aligned with our actual practise. Either the strict policy should be relaxed to guideline form, or it should be reworded to reflect our actual practise. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You can easily recognise such articles because they tend to start by saying that "XXXX is a word which means...". The article is thus about the word XXXX and explains it in the way that a comprehensive dictionary would.

Often times, a larger article will still maintain the original stub-like introduction after it has been expanded. Or theres the possibility that the article was in fact, badly written. If the article adheres to your example, a change needs to be made in the article. We simply need to make the article read more like an encyclopedia entry, and less like a dictionary defintion. And I dont see a change in this policy in the near future. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Colonel, I didn't say a damn thing about length. My arguments above focused on the fact that the article includes more information than would be found in a dictionary, pocket sized or not; the fact that the article does include more than just the word, but also the concept it embodies. Simply because I may think similarly to other editors, does not mean that we all fit perfectly into the stereotype you appear to have developed. Let me, in fact, quote from the deletion debate some of the responses that were made which has nothing to do with length and focused on the point I tried to make above:

• "Dude" is as much an idea and recurring social trope as it is a word. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back
• [A]rticle is more than just a dicdef, and word has historical and cultural significance. --ZimZalaBim
• WP:DICDEF prohibits articles on words that are just dictionary-like definitions. This article is not. --seresin
• [T]he current article is not well written, but I contend it is possible to build a reasonable article about the word "dude" from proper soucres. [...] The fact that the current article is below standard should encourage us to improve it, not delete it, as long as we can find good sources to work from, which I think we can here. --Gwernol
• The word's cultural relevance and linguistical impact is more than sufficient to keep its place. If the article isn't great quality, it can always be restructured or improved upon. --Experimental Hobo Infiltration Droid
• However, clearly the word possess notability. It's an example of vernacular with culture significance. --Wisdom89
• Articles shouldn't be written by citing the dictionary, but the journal article in American Speech [1] listed in the external links section strongly suggests this is an encyclopedic topic, even if not presently a very good article. --cab

Since most of the remaining !votes (that weren't simply WP:ILIKEIT) were generally "per [one of the above seven] [plus other comments]," you can definitely see that while we may all think alike, we think in accordance to policy, a policy which does not need downgrading to a guideline simply to make a WP:POINT. As SynergisticMaggot says, if you have an issue with a particular article, fix that article or mark it for cleanup if you're not willing to do it yourself.

And finally, if you're going to over-generalize, at least do me the favor of bothering to read my comments so that you can do it properly. I do greatly dislike being misquoted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a personal matter and others have made similar points as you can see from the discussions above. No doubt I have failed to express myself clearly enough. As for the Dude article, I still fail to see the concept that this article describes that is not adequately covered by other articles such as Dandy, Dude ranch and Man. The article seems to exist purely as a vehicle to discuss the word qua word. The supposed cultural issues aren't covered well or at all and, in any case, are better treated in articles such as Valspeak, California English, Youth culture, Surfing, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So improve the article, don't change the definition of Wikipedia. Yes, the use of the term in those various cultural contexts is better explained in those other articles, however someone looking for "Dude" isn't going to type "Youth Culture" (etc) in the box, and we can't have "Dude" redirect to all umpteen of them. I agree the "popular culture" section needs to be trimmed to only the most notable and verifiable bits. I agree that the article needs to be expanded and improved to include more information on those cultural concepts. I agree that the article is in fairly shoddy shape at the moment. I do not agree that it serves only as a dictionary definition, and I do not agree that this is grounds to go fiddling about with policy. Would it be possible for you to provide more examples of dicdef articles, so we're not just arguing about this one?

I do apologize if I seemed a bit blunt earlier. I don't like waking up before 9:00, but my 8:00 Physics lecture (during which I pay little attention to the lecture itself, as you may notice by the timestamp above) rather necessitates my consciousness. Occasionally the diplomacy switch goes a little haywire before I've had breakfast in those cases, however that is no excuse for being rude. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a fresh example, in which I am on the other side of the argument:Eyesore AFD. Editors are using this policy to remove material when it seems that they really don't understand the difference between a stub and a dictionary definition. It seems that they focus too much upon length rather than the difference between a word and the concept that the word stands for. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So, to put it plainly... its the editors who are confused. Right, I fully understand that. This still doesn't mean that a change is necessary in the policy. A simple template could be made informing participants in AFD's to make careful observation of the context in what wikipedia is not or more to the point; this talk pages main article (is only one example of changing the minds of participants). But nonetheless, once a large portion of nominations are disputed on the grounds that the article can in fact be improved through additions which no longer make them appear to be dicdef's, I believe other editors will not rush to nominate so many articles citing this policy. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The examples discussed here and the numerous cases at AfD, confirm that the functions of a dictionary and an encyclopedia overlap. One often cant define a word well without explaining what it signifies, and one can't discuss something without defining t. It is perfectly reasonable to write an encyclopedia article beginning with a definition, & in fact that advice is often given. Unless someone can actually propose a real guideline, we had better mark this an essay. DGG (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark what exactly an essay? The argument was for a reduction of the policy down to a guideline. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry I meant a guideline.DGG (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in this or any other policy has ever said that a good encyclopedia article can't begin with a definition. What we've always said is that an encyclopedia article can't also end that way. An encyclopedia article must be more than a mere dictionary definition. If we can't find anything to discuss beyond merely lexical information, then the page belongs at our sister project, Wiktionary. That's long-standing policy and I personally don't see any likelihood that it's going to change anytime soon. Rossami (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude begins and ends with stuff that is just about the word, qua word, and it is still here. When you try to use it, the policy doesn't work. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I just made a test. I walked through Wiktionary using its random page feature. It took a while to get to an English word as it seems to be mostly full of foreign verb forms. Then I reached the word apocalyptically. I then went to the root word, Apocalypse which literally means revelation. Checking Wikipedia, I find that we don't just have a corresponding article, Apocalypse, but we also have separate articles for all the synonyms, Revelation, Doomsday, Judgement day, Armageddon, Ragnarok.

• So, here's a challenge. Is there any headword in the dictionary that one couldn't make an article about? Colonel Warden (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)