Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia is not a dictionary page.|
|WikiProject Policy and Guidelines|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved.|
Lists of "Local and indigenous names" for various animals
I noticed that there are several sections that contain lists of synonyms in various languages. Should these lists be migrated to Wiktionary? Jarble (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- They could be copied there, but on WP they serve a purpose. That said, many of them need pruning, to only include those that are evidenced in English-language sources as a vernacular name for the animal/plant. We don't need a list of every known name of something in every language with a word for it. Basically, there should be a 1:1 correspondence between non-English names redirecting to the article, and their appearance in the article (which means some redirs should be deleted at WP:MFD if they are not attested in English-language sources as names ever used in English). All you need for sourcing is something like a journal article reading, e.g., "The fnord (from the native Qwuertyuiop language) or rednosed frumious bandersnatch (Badersnaticus frumiosus fnorda) of northern Madagascar ...." What we don't want is a source like the following used to create a WP:LAUNDRYLIST in the article: "The frumious bandersnatch is known in Qwuertyuiop as fnord, in Abababababab as flord, in Gjsdosoifsdlfjsdfj as pnord ..." etc., etc. It needs to be used as a word-in-context in an English language sentence, not as a foreign word that English is linguistically reporting on. There's no policy "rule" about this, I'm just saying from a WP:COMMONSENSE perspective, the way to avoid WP:INDISCRIMINATE / WP:DICDEF / WP:NOR problems is to not be indiscriminate, to not treat an encyclopedia like a multilingual dictionary, and to not engage in novel analysis that posits that some foreign term is "used" in English because something in English referred to it in its original non-English context. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Reason for deleting neologisms
WP:NEO comes up in deletion discussions every now and then, and this what it currently says:
Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.
Is that really the problem? In my experience, the problem with articles about neologisms is typically either a lack of third-party coverage of the denoted concept, or in fact the lack of a clear-cut definition with people using the neologism to denote multiple distinct concepts that should not be in a single article.
- I'd support adding these additional reasons, but also keeping the present one, since it's a common problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The word cisgender at the Caitlyn Jenner article
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Caitlyn Jenner#Should all of the uses of cisgender be included in this article?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Common sense edit needed
This guideline needs to include some common sense that just because a word redirects to another word/article, that doesn't mean the word is a dictionary. It needs a common sense example. One that came up a few years ago was Hurricane because Hurricane directs to another word/article Tropical storm. Is this kind of example already clear in the article?
Second example would be a derived form. For example something in -ing or -s (plural). Travelling is that a dictionary entry because it redirects to Travel? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- We routinely make such redirects without any issue arising, so what would such a proposed clarification solve? Is there some problem you are encountering, and if so, what is it? WP:NOTDICT is about creating articles that are really just dictionary-style definitions that really belong at Wikitionary. It doesn't have much of anything to do with redirects, and the only two times redirects are mentioned, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Minor differences, it is instructing us to use them for precisely what you seem to suggest that the policy says not to use them for. So, I don't see an action item here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia use made-up or neologistic pronoun replacements in Wikipedia's own voice?
This has come up before, but here it is again: Talk:Genesis P-Orridge#RFC: is the idiosyncratic use of s/he and h/er acceptable in this article? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. Speaking from my experience of having upgraded an article to Featured status, my answer is "No. Avoid with extreme prejudice."
- Why this madness, when there are so many excellent choices? Some of them:
- Indefinite pronouns
- Pluralizing the statement and using "they"
- The gender-neutral "he"
- "he or she"