Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Glossaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, nor an indiscriminate collection of information, is a glossary an acceptable form of stand-alone list? G. C. Hood (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• IMO all of these should be checked to exist in Wiktionary and deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, they are acceptable because, as the category demonstrates, they are widely accepted. Wiktionary is not much use to us because it is a separate project. A glossary such as Glossary of rhetoric terms works well here because the entries link easily to our articles such as absurdity. Warden (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary entries can be linked to as well, eg. absurdity. As these glossaries transwikied, they could be linked by category like English terms derived from Middle French — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• In general, they're to be avoided. I think they sometimes make sense as a navigation tool. But typically, I think they should be summarized as part of a larger article, splintered up for wiktionary, or deleted entirely. That matches up with practice. A list that acts as a navigational aid is usually kept. A list that is made mostly of non-article terms with lots of red links / non-links is usually deleted. Those in between tend to have problems with reliability and due weight, and are deleted intermittently. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• There are a few core points that are worth noting (and I'm surely forgetting some more, too). In no particular order:
  1. Glossaries in Wikipedia, link to Articles. Whereas, glossaries in Wiktionary, link to word-entries. This is an important distinction, and implies that it's worth having both. - In Wikipedia, a glossary helps the reader learn about a topic. At Wiktionary, a glossary helps the reader learn about a vocabulary's etymology/pronunciation/usage/history. - Compare the usability of browsing/learning a topic via Glossary of architecture versus wikt:Appendix:Glossary of architecture. They're not equivalent.
  2. Portal:Contents/Glossaries - Per the existing selection, we have years of precedent. Since 2002, that page has existed.
  3. At least 11 previous threads discussing this, between 2005 and 2008, are linked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Glossaries#Old threads. It's worth reading them. The glossaries continued existence summaries the result of those prior discussions. The reasons were a mix of precedent, practicality, source-ability, and others. There was somewhat of a consensus that "Word lists" (eg "Glossary of sexual slurs", and "List of words ending in -logy") should be moved to Wiktionary, but that "Glossaries of topics" were a whole different issue.
  4. Per the reality that glossaries are hard to find in Wiktionary, we have practicality. (Hard to find, because the Appendix: namespace is NOT included in the default search in Wiktionary, and they're rarely linked from single definitions.)
  5. Per the reality that pages at Wikipedia are much more likely to be updated/edited, we have practicality. (Compare wikt:Appendix:Glossary of figure skating with Glossary of figure skating terms. Or compare wikt:Appendix:Glossary of chess with Glossary of chess)

And that's just the glossary-specific points. Glossaries are a part of Wikipedia's navigational pages, which are all (separately and collectively) argued about, frequently. See my notes in Aug 2010 for a full overview of the immensely complicated issues involved. (that page of notes is a heavily-edited minimal-set of background info. Tip-of-the-iceberg.)

This was written late, with imperfect wording, but I hope it helps get at some of the core points. It'd be great if we could clarify some of the points, in consensus and policy, with pointers to background and history and decisions, to prevent rediscussing the foundation every couple of years. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder whether we could define what makes a glossary a stand-alone list and not just a vocabulary list. The only glossary I've worked on is Glossary of ancient Roman religion, where the entries are discursive, not lexical. They don't fit in a Wiktionary format. They are encyclopedic entries with footnotes to scholarship (not to dictionaries) and are written in complete sentences (unlike entries in, say, the Oxford Latin Dictionary). The glossary serves in part as an index to independent articles; in part as an incubator for articles (some articles have started as an entry in the glossary); and in part as a central location for explanations of concepts that recur in articles within the topic area, at a length that would be digressive in the main articles, without necessarily needing an independent article. The glossary came into existence before my involvement as a way to organize the material and to permit links to individual concepts (I do that often). A reader who comes via a link may find it useful to browse related entries. The entries cross-reference each other, and some are illustrated. I wouldn't hold it up as a model of anything, and those of us who contribute to it see things that need to be fixed, but it's neither a dictionary nor an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't get an enormous number of monthly page visits (usually 4,000–5,000), but I've found it very useful. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Glossary of architecture is an example of an extremely useful glossary on wikipedia. I'm in favor of such glossaries and don't get the objection. Please keep or allow. It's not an indiscriminate collection of information but instrumental in understanding articles on architecture. And provides links for understanding arcane architecture terms in articles on buildings. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Totally agree with Mathew here; glossaries can be such useful navigational aids and ease-of-reference wossnames. Keep 'em. Pesky (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Glossaries are great. In fact they verge on critical, because we often don't want a whole article on a term, but we do want to cover the term for multiple uses - and even if we have an article the gloss can be useful. Moreover Wiktionary has moved from being a useful adjunct to Wikipedia to being an important entity in its own right and doesn't always fulfil the requirements we have. Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC).
  
• Favor keeping glossaries. Glossary of equestrian terms is sourced for every entry, linked to all relevant articles, cross-referenced between US English and UK English (many things equine are described by dramatically different words in some cases), draws connections between related terms and does much the Wikt could never do. Unquestionably not a mere dictionary glossary. Montanabw^(talk) 02:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverting addition of the content policy category

We've had the same six content policy pages since Nov 2009, apart from the recent cross-listing of some legal policies. If you guys would like to remove this policy page from the list of deletion policies, that's fine with me, but this page isn't similar in any way to the other content policy pages. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Section "When word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject"

I suggest to delete the two last paragraphs of the section: they don't talk about the case that a word may be an article subject. How the heck the article, eg., "Global warming" (listed as an example) is about the phrase?

In fact the phrase "In these cases the word or phrase is still prima facie (at first blush) about a topic other than the word or phrase itself" as read directly after the firt paragraph is plain contradiction: if an article is about "a topic other than the word" then the article is not about the word.

It is a clever observation that the word and the concept denoted by the word are not one and the same. However this disctinction is not the purpose of the current policy (or, at least, not of the current section). (And there is a reason why in wikipedia, the intros of kind: "Triazation is a term that denotes the process of lenient trifurcation" are routinely wikified into" "In trisemics, triazation is the process of lenient trifurcation").

This section must talk about about articles such as cunt, jury rig, etc., which are indeed about a word, not about "a topic other than it itself".

The section must list criteria :

• which make such articles beyond dicdef, namely:
  • significant history of the word, including:
    • history of its etymology, if it is nontrivial or controversial
    • change of usage over time (witten in encyclopedic manner; not just tag "archaic"/"obsolete usage")
  • cultural impact of the word
• which make it not:
  • numerous usage examples
  • etc.

If the two paragraphs in question do indeed belong to the policy, please find a better place for them. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the section needs to be entirely rewritten, it's totally off base. And yes, it's also time to update the examples in the lead. Here's what I suggest:

"In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability.

"Examples of Wikipedia articles on words and phrases include Macedonia (terminology), thou, orange (word), and no worries."

And I'd update the examples from the lead to match these. I selected these as they are all FA's former FAs, or GAs. There are plenty more to chose from, and not just in English, for instance: gringo, gay, marijuana (word), prithee, craic, cunt, American (word), Macedonia (terminology), prithee, yes and no, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, lady, fuck, tetragrammaton, Pope (word), man (word), football (word), etc. We can chose different ones if we want.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The examples given are (I believe) articles which I think we agree should exist (with their current scope) but where they are otherwise in direct conflict with this policy. They are not just instances of the word itself being a subject, but where the common meaning of the word defines the scope of the subject, or is a "lens" which is not the primary coverage of the subject. Such a conflict means that the policy must better reflect reality. A conflict between policy and accepted reality is ALWAYS trouble. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Global warming may have been picked as an example because that article has a section entitled Etymology. The more examples, the better, to demonstrate the range of ways in which we cover such topics. Warden (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A lot of articles have etymology sections, and that has never been a problem. They also don't have much to do with articles that are actually on words-as-words. The current section is confused and confusing, and needs to be rewritten in a fashion similar to what i suggested.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The "word or phrase being a topic itself" came from the lead. I think that the rest of the wording explains the actual accepted practice. Other than maybe "truthism" (which also came from the lead) in each case they are significantly about a topic (not just the word) but in a way/scenario that some other wording in this policy does not acknowledge. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

They're not really relevant. As you say, the examples currently used are about a topic, not a word. However, there are a number of articles that are actually about words rather than the subject behind them - see all the examples I gave - and that's what this section really needs to discuss. Cúchullain ^t/c 03:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the last paragraph per Staszek's cpncerns, and rewrote the first paragraph to actually discuss articles on words-as-words. I think the second paragraph is still too wordy and confusing, but that can be fixed through editing.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the deleted paragraph should remain in the policy somewhere, even if it does not exactly fit in the subtitle. It covers a common accepted occurrence in Wikipedia.North8000 (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a minor tweak which I think would be enough to replace the deleted paragraph. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

At this diff for later readers. CarolMooreDC 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal on clarification on etymology

Add sentence in italics to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Minor_differences:

a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth. In articles about evolving concepts it is appropriate to include a history, or even an etymology, of the word or phrase."

Reasoning:

• I was not even aware this "prohibition" existed because it is not invoked very often.
• Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Propose_adding_guidance_on_etymology_sections There was strong opposition to adding anti-etymology to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and various support for allowing these kinds of histories and even etymologies. (I won't give examples at this point; see the What Wikipedia is not talk page thread.
• In short, this prohibition should not be used to delete any and all mention of a word's long history of evolution, especially when the meanings change over time or there is a struggle over the meaning, which often happens in social and even hard sciences. CarolMooreDC 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with what it says, and note that it applies to a special case. But if this even needs saying we have a bigger problem to fix. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles in Category:Definitions - an AfD with implications

Hi all, please join in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom - based on the discussion so far, the outcome of this may have implications for the existence of definition-related articles. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Related AfD

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurist. The article is entirely about the word, nothing about the people who are called "jurists." The keep voters seem to be totally clueless about the "not a dictionary" policy. If this is normal on WP why bother having the policy at all? -Borock (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Then again maybe it's okay in this case. The main purpose of the article seems to be to support the category "jurists" which is useful. Borock (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Traditional African religion

We have/had a really bad opening line in this article, which an editor insists on restoring: "Traditional African religion refers to the indigenous religious beliefs and practices of the people of Africa." I've tried explaining that this defines a word/phrase rather than the topic, and so is a dictionary-style definition, and also that it's a bad definition in the sense of being circular, but he just doesn't understand. The explanation we have in this guideline isn't the clearest, and he keeps quoting it to insist that WP articles should begin with a dictionary definition. Any comments? — kwami (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd never realized that the first sentence of WP:REFERS is a mere statement that this type of first sentence exists: the rest of the section to me makes it clear that they exist but shouldn't most of the time. Assuming that's the intention, the wording of the guideline should be changed. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd forgotten about that page. That's clearly the intention, as clarified further down, but the point isn't obvious from the start. Maybe change are sometimes found in the introduction to are sometimes used inappropriately in the introduction ? They aren't always inappropriate, e.g. in dab pages or in a content article on a word. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure that guideline shouldn't be on the NAD page—that's where I always start looking for it, anyway. Your wording is a definite improvement; I would support an even stronger admonition, but perhaps it's unnecessary: should not be used to construct the lead sentence of an article, with a few exceptions. A couple of phrases might bear rewriting too: it is more correct to say ("correct" in the comparative degree?) might be better as "more effective", "more direct", or just "better", and this is not literally true isn't figuratively true either, so maybe it is more accurate to say? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Should be added to NAD; the editor just commented that REFER is not a guideline while NAD is. It's not clear he meant it shouldn't be followed where NAD does not say the same thing, but that would be an easy argument to make if you really wanted to fight consensus.

We should also prob'ly do s.t. about "one-word synonym" too. If the title phrase is descriptive (as at "traditional African religion"), then we might get a series of synonyms, one for each word in the title (such as "indigenous religious beliefs of Africa"), which someone could argue is not a violation because it isn't one word, even though it's almost completely useless as a definition. I'd argue it's circular, but we don't have a clear explanation of what we mean by "circular". — kwami (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:REFERS seems to be a just practical way to implement NAD, so I don't know how much further consensus we would need to move/add it here. I'll leave an alarming edit summary to see whether someone else cares to express an opinion. As for the immediate issue: The simple but often difficult solution (after exorcizing "refers to" constructions) is to write the sentence without making "is/was" the main verb. The current FA manages not to say "Ancient Egyptian deities are the gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt", for instance. It's the lexicographical impulse that's keeping the first sentence of the article in question running in circles. Maybe the sentence needs to say something more affirmative/informative than stating a mere equivalence? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it should go under where a "good definition" is called for, or at least cross-ref'd there.

Your second point is what I've always understood "circular" to mean, so perhaps we could use it as an example there. There are bound to be exceptions, such as opaque but entrenched jargon where we could best introduce the topic by giving a more transparent synonym. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems we've attracted no additional input. I see this discussion as related, and have mentioned ours. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I would personally rewrite this as something like "The religious beliefs and practices of ingidenous Africans include many traditional religions." As with other examples, I believe this is a purely descriptive title, encompassing many different African religious traditions. There's a little bit of WP:REDUNDANCY in my example, but I believe some redundancy is needed to make sure the intro is clear. I agree about the point of circular synonyms. I think the idea of adding WP:REFERS to WP:NAD is a good idea, but I think it needs to be even-further integrated with MOS:BOLDTITLE per this discussion. Having the intro sentence just define the title definitely does not seem to be the intended goal of BOLDTITLE and WP:BEGIN. (Specifically footnote 7 of BEGIN in this case; I seem to have referenced that one a lot recently.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about that wording, because of the redundancy, but it's definitely an improvement, and I restored it after it was reverted. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this a dead letter?

WP:NOTDIC is routinely ignored for articles that are simply long dictionary entries. See, for just one of the latest examples, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go (verb) (2nd nomination). There is a long-standing conflict between the plain reading of this guideline and actual practice among the community. For whatever reason, the community refuses to delete dictionary entries that look like encyclopedia articles. How to resolve this conflict? Powers ^T 15:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is key: "That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term.". FWIW, even though I've fought to keep certain word articles, I would have probably !voted to Delete that example as it doesn't seem to meet the criteria. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem keeping articles that include significant information on social and historical significance. But AfDs where such an argument holds sway are vanishingly rare. Powers ^T 15:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was had not even two months ago, or probably just one month. Do we need to go over it again?Camelbinky (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 106#Time to get rid of WP is not a dictionary? for the May/June 2013 discussion. (Note, we do still need to re-examine/rewrite aspects of this policy, to avoid the confusion that this recurring discussion is a symptom of. That should be in a new thread though). –Quiddity (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the policy recommendation is sound. But many editors still seem to think that this policy only prohibits dictionary definitions. I see it constantly. "This is more than a dicdef". Well, yes, it also has pronunciation, usage notes, etymology, etc. But all of that belongs in dictionaries. Encyclopedias don't need articles on mundane words that only have the usual lexical research as sources. Powers ^T 00:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Go (verb) is a good example, though, when considering any revisions. Does this type of article (with the current content) belong on Wikipedia? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Go (verb) definitely needs to be deleted. I think someone once asked if it was possible to make these types of articles into redirects to the wikidictionary article. So, is that possible? Can we just change ones like that Go article and maybe preemptively create redirects for certain words?Camelbinky (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The next step for that would be to take it to Deletion review.

One core issue is: Wiktionary doesn't want "encyclopedic dictionary" style content - if there's a consensus amongst Wikipedians that the content isn't wanted here either, then we can make some kind of decision. However, I disagree that there is a consensus. I would also point at this table of evidence that currently suggests there is a precedent amongst other encylopedias for containing "encyclopedic dictionary" content, and also point to Wikipedia:Five pillars which says that Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." I agree that it's a grey area, but I believe it should remain a grey area because articles often grow from unlikely beginnings. If an article is bad or misleading, then delete it, but purging an entire subset requires a vast amount of forethought by many people. An RfC would be indicated. –Quiddity (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I respect your ideas Quiddity, but have some philosophical issues- 1)who cares what Wiktionary wants in their universe? Not our concern, I still believe preemptively linking certain words to their project would be best, words that have had their articles already deleted or have not been made yet. No RfC would be required. 2)We're not a democracy and consensus or not clearly Go (verb) is not what should be in Wikipedia under even the biggest stretch of an imaginative use of WP:IAR. How is it not an orphan, who would link the word go in an existing article to this article?! An RfC for deleting articles that clearly should not be there is surely taking democracy to the extreme in Wikipedia. Talk is cheap and accomplishes nothing. Be bold. 3)WP:5P has nothing to do with... anything, especially policy. It's an essay and even as an essay it mentions how Wikipedia has features of an almanac, gazetteer, etc, which I might point out are features common to a general purpose encyclopedia anyways. An article on the letter A, is common to encyclopedias, the word go however is not.Camelbinky (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So what can we do? Do we need to reinforce the tenets of this policy, or modify it to reflect current practice? Powers ^T 19:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)