This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
This article is intended to be the top level article on exploration, and should basically cover the philosophy, principles, types (as summaries) of exploration over the full range of generally accepted meanings and applications of the term. Cruft, trivia and specific examples should be generally avoided.
There should be plenty of hatnotes to main and see also articles along with summary extracts. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 18:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Silikonz your edit got caught up in a big edit conflict and was deleted without a proper edit summary, but as I disagree with both your edit and your reason given, I have let it stand. Please feel welcome to discuss your reasoning here, before reinstating your edit, preferably without resorting to too many shortcuts and preferably after reading the scope statement on this page, and taking into account that the page is under construction. Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 19:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood, my concerns were notably the following: that Wikipedia first and foremost should be an encyclopedia and not a dictionary (per WP:DICDEF), and so should not read like one and elaborate exceedingly on them. Wiktionary is a user-generated source (see WP:UGC), and as such should not be relied on for reliable information. Silikonz💬19:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Silikonz, these are two separate issues, so I will deal with then separately.
If you do not think that a source is suitable, the appropriate action is to tag it as such, or even better, to provide a more suitable source. Removing the content is done if you have reason to believe that the content supported by the source is wrong. Since I have personally confirmed that the content copied from Wiktionary is accurate, and is actually better than any of the other dictionaries taken individually, I assume that you did not check for accuracy. Therefore the content you removed should not hve been removed on grounds of WP:UGC. At most, the reference might be removed. If you do that, since the text was copied from Wiktionary, please remember to ensure that the text remains suitably attributed. If you pay close attention to WP:UGC, you will notice that Wiktionary is not listed among the examples of unacceptable user generated sources. I find this significant. If you think it should be listed there, you could try proposing that on the policy talk page. If you do, please ping me as the discussion is likely to be interesting.
If you think that the topic fails the inclusion criteria on grounds of being a dictionary definition, the correct action would be to recommend it for deletion. If you examine WP:DICDEF carefully you should find several indicators that this article does not meet the criteria for a dictionary definition. In particular, WP:DICDEF states Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that Wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary entries. This article is about a concept, one of the legitimate types of topic for an encyclopedia, and it is useful to state the scope of the concept, so that the readers and editors can have a reasonable expectation of the range of information which may be included. If you have opinions on the appropriate scope of the topic, please feel welcome to contribute by listing them, preferably with the relevant reasoning. If your objection is that the definition currently provided is not suitable, you may propose a better one. I assume that you accept that the topic meets general notability criteria, but it is possible that I misjudge you on that point, in which case we have an entirely different problem. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 03:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
