Talk:Idiom dictionary/Archive 1

Removed from article:

Wikipedia serves, in part, as an idiom dictionary, as it includes definitions or explanatory histories of many stock phrases, metaphors, models and fictional characters. It does not, however, explain these strictly in terms of a simpler defining vocabulary - yet.

Nor will we ever - that is what Wiktionary is for. Now that we have Wiktionary much of the dictionary-like articles here should be moved there. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --mav

That's a nice ideology. Wiktionary is barely off the ground, and it's not clear that it can serve the function of an idiom dictionary and explain stock phrases to non-English speakers, nor put fictional characters in context, at least not without many links to the wikipedia, which just proves the point, that the wikipedia would be where English culture is explained.

Also, the origin of terms which is the function of an historical dictionary like the OED, is clearly beyond the scope of wiktionary and will have to continue to be served by longer articles in the wikipedia - for instance the political usage of the terms 'left' and 'right' in the English language, which is so insane and contradictory that it cannot be explained in simple terms in a dictionary.

The statement you removed was a statement of present fact. It is still, and will remain, a statement of fact accurate in its essentials.

As for: Wikipedia serves, in part, as an idiom dictionary, as it includes definitions or explanatory histories of many stock phrases, metaphors, models and fictional characters.

This function and use of Wikipedia as a resource is examplified by the Seinfeld article, and the notion of Seinfieldisms as a sociolinguistic category arising therein.

Yes. Another good example of where wikipedia will continue to help explain idioms, and actually do a better job of it than a conventional idiom dictionary can do, since space in such a dictionary is limited, and vocabulary even more so.

As for: It does not, however, explain these strictly in terms of a simpler defining vocabulary - yet.

Why should a "simpler defining vocabulary" be required at all? Can links to articles not express explanations and definitions anyways? Please compare with the task set out by the WikiProject Encyclopedic Network.

If you are explaining anything to a child or non-English speaker, you must do so in a short and specific w:defining vocabulary. If the role of the wiktionary is to explain English well enough for someone to read the wikipedia (a reasonable goal), then the English metaphors and culture-specific idioms fall between the cracks.

As for: Wikipedia is not a dictionary

The reference gives in turn two examples of articles that are deemed encyclopedic and explanatory; albeit (therefore) not self-contained.

Also, per number 2. in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, the preference that Wikipedia be distinct from a distionary is to be expressed by excluding articles on words that name no subject that any respectable encyclopedist would ever think of making the topic of an encyclopedia article.

Does there exist a list which is canonical in Wikipedia, of respectable encyclopedist?. If so: Is this list editable, and does it contain the names for instance of Diderot and d'Alembert?

'Respectable' by whom? There were articles on every character in every w:Ayn Rand novel in here, for instance, likewise w:Tolkien. I do not see such articles appearing in the Brittanica, and frankly, I am in favor of such iconic characters being more fully explained, as those familiar with those works tend to use them as icons, and you don't know what they're talking about unless such articles exist,e.g. referring to w:G. W. Bush as w:Gollum, or to w:Ralph Nader as w:Treebeard, or to w:Albert P. Gore as w:Wesley Mouch. When you hear this stuff, its gibberish without a good article on the character as distinct from the fictional work or author.

As for: that is what Wiktionary is for

How is to be expressed whether and that idioms which appear in Wikipedia articles rest on a definition provided in Wiktionary?

More importantly, why is the ideology of what something 'is for' more important than the actual present fact, and the actual need to explain the idioms 'somewhere'?

Thanks, Frank W ~@) R 22:26 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC).

Shouldn't most of this also appear in the wiktionary's talk pages? The line between wikipedia and wiktionary is very poorly thought out and was clearly not designed by anyone familiar with actual dictionary forms.

---

Article now refers to wikipedia as an 'advanced' idiom dictionary and explains exactly why the wiktionary cannot fulfil this function, due to both technical and theoretical problems. Do not censor this fact. Raise your solutions to it in the wiktionary pages. As it stands, the wikipedia IS an idiom dictionary and until the wiktionary's problems are solved, it must forever remain one

---

Fwappler, if it's you who jsut added a large paragraph to this article, please at least take the time to learn the conventions. Most article names are in singular form: metaphor, not metaphors. -- Tarquin 22:51 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

I moved the following:

Wikipedia serves, at present and in part, as an advanced idiom dictionary, as it includes definitions or explanatory histories of many stock phrases, metaphors, models and fictional characters. It does not, however, explain these strictly in terms of a simpler defining vocabulary, exploiting a rich English that would be incomprehensible to the usual audience of an idiom dictionary, children or students of English as a second language. There is a long-term goal to remove all dictionary functions from the wikipedia to the wiktionary, which would indeed have such a defining vocabulary for the purposes of explaining the simplest words. Even if entirely successful, it is unclear how many sophisticated literary or cultural articles could be moved to the wiktionary, or how many idioms and stock phrases and fictional characters can be properly explained within the limits of the wiktionary. One technical problem is that the wiki software still does not permit simultaneous articles on words that exist in both uppercase (or proper Name) and lowercase (noun) form, and arbitrarily capitalizes the first word of any article name. Until this is fixed, the wiktionary probably cannot fulfil all its mandated functions. Accordingly, the wikipedia will continue to serve as a dictionary at least for sophisticated concepts or where distinction of proper from generic nouns is absolutely required in titles.

since it is really a meta topic - "what is the role of wiktionary?" or "what is role of wikipedia?" would be appropriate locations for this. Chas zzz brown 22:53 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

No, it is not strictly meta, see mention of wiki in articles

---

As for: Fwappler, if it's you who just added a large paragraph to this article, please at least take the time to learn the conventions.

I didn't modify the article to be Talked about; and I observed the links which I entered in this page being viable, upon submission.

As for: [...] referring to [...] as [...]

Briefly: the Wikibriq in WikiProject Encyclopedic Network is meant as a concept to converse about such applications.

As for: [...] idioms fall between the cracks.

May be suggested that along with a choice of Editor feel there be given to the readers an option to select Idiom feel of Wikipedia articles as well.

As for: it is really a meta topic - "what is the role of wiktionary?" or "what is role of wikipedia?" would be appropriate

Thanks for the insruction on this convention. While I can't seem to find there the exact topics mentioned, "What is an encyclopedia?" might be appropriate, too.

Regards, Frank W ~@) R 23:35 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC).

---

the article now contains a large factual bit about the wikipedia as an idiom dictionary, which (to be strict) could be cut off at the word 'wiktionary' (but not before). After that, it links to things that people should read before cutting out the mention of wikipedia as an idiom dictionary, as people have now done twice.

The following text remains orphan, and since it's important, please copy it to somewhere appropriate:

the issue is now discussed here: [1], so it's reasonable to replace the text after 'wiktionary' with this link.

Even if entirely successful, it is unclear how many sophisticated literary or cultural articles could be moved to the wiktionary, or how many idioms and stock phrases and fictional characters can be properly explained within the limits of the wiktionary. One technical problem is that the wiki software still does not permit simultaneous articles on words that exist in both uppercase (or proper Name) and lowercase (noun) form, and arbitrarily capitalizes the first word of any article name. Until this is fixed, the wiktionary probably cannot fulfil all its mandated functions. Accordingly, the wikipedia will continue to serve as a dictionary at least for sophisticated concepts or where distinction of proper from generic nouns is absolutely required in titles.

Prior discussions of the capitalization problem (e.g. regarding green parties for instance, see extensive talk there and in green party) were not resolved effectively. Perhaps this time it will have to be different,if only for wiktionary's sake.

---

Wiktionary now has an Idioms category which is still small, partly because existing entries for idioms have not all been tagged with this category. As with all terms in Wiktionary, it's entirely possible for an entry for an idiom to list Wikipedia under "see also". The division of labor is usually pretty clear: Wiktionary gives concise definitions, etymologies etc., along with supporting quotations where appropriate. Wikipedia gives more detailed background information.

While a dictionary can never include everything, it may well be more expressive than one might think. For example, the entries for liberal and wiktionary:conservative cover quite a bit of ground, and could clearly be extended if we've missed out anything important. On the other hand, a discussion of just how these terms came to be used in their various senses, or a history of Liberal or Conservative parties, or on conservative forces in the sense of "conservation of energy", and so forth, would be material for Wikipedia.

In practice, there's seldom any question of what goes where. Most contributions are either clearly dictionary material or clearly encyclopedic. We try to move encyclopedic material to Wikipedia, if it seems like it would add something (often it wouldn't). -wiktionary:User:dmh