On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:04 AM, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Given that the majority of Wikipedians are not subscribed to this
mailing list (or at least don't post to it), having decisive
discussions here is not very practical.
I would think that fewer participants would make
So does that mean we can restore the article on the?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
So does that mean we can restore the article on the?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The
Good example of a poor decision. If nothing else, a discussion of how
Russian does without the, or a, or an but English seeming needs them
would be very interesting.
The
On 12/28/2010 9:40 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:28 PM, MuZemikemuzem...@gmail.com wrote:
We must also take into account the popularity factor when it comes to
comparing WMF wikis. It is obvious of the advantage Wikipedia has over
all the other wikis in that is immensely more
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. The grinches did get rid of the
recipes though; not many left.
I'm ok with that one because there can be many recipes for each dish,
and it quickly becomes very arbitrary. But each word
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Interesting. I came to accept the Wikipedia is not a dictionary
guideline/policy pretty soon after reading that page - and much to my
dismay I find it
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. The grinches did get rid of the
recipes though; not many left.
I'm ok with that one because there can be many
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
No, there isn't. And that's why Wiktionary can work. But articles
about words don't belong in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias talk about
the concept behind the word, not the word itself.
I think your meh example is perfect.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
No, there isn't. And that's why Wiktionary can work. But articles
about words don't belong in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias talk about
the concept
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Wiktionary: what does meh mean?
By the way, I just want to point out that Wiktionary, like most
dictionaries, contains more than just word meanings. It also contains
usage and etymology, which seems to me to be exactly
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I think what I'm trying to say is: any word which is itself notable
deserves an encyclopaedia article explaining why.
What makes a word notable? Without looking in Wikipedia: Is argh
notable? Is ahoy notable? Is
Anthony wrote:
The failures of Wikinews and Wiktionary are probably due in large part
to imposition of too much structure - in Wiktionary the formatting
requirements...
Not sure I'd call Wiktionary a failure. But if it is, it's
arguably a failure of Mediawiki to adequately support that
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
The failures of Wikinews and Wiktionary are probably due in large part
to imposition of too much structure - in Wiktionary the formatting
requirements...
Not sure I'd call Wiktionary a failure. But if it is,
Steve Bennett wrote:
In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural
history, associations etc.
Anthony replied:
Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each of the
144 Buffy the Vampire Slayer
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural
history, associations etc.
Anthony replied:
Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
The English Wikipedia
I wrote:
The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each
of the 144 Buffy the Vampire Slayer television episodes.
Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
Anthony replied:
That might be a relevant question if we were discussing whether
or not has
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:25 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
The English Wikipedia contains individual articles about each
of the 144 Buffy the Vampire Slayer television episodes.
Can you give an example of that in a traditional encyclopedia?
Anthony replied:
I wrote:
My point is that each of those 144 episode guide entries is written
as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional
encyclopedia includes such content).
Anthony replied:
That point is not relevant, though.
Your disagreement with my point (which I expound in the
Anyway, not that big a deal. So the next problem I have is that there
don't seem to be any notability guidelines. Is the word computer
notable? If so, why isn't there yet an encyclopedia entry for such a
common word? There's certainly quite a lot that can be said about the
word.
Well,
While there may be cases where the guideline's been taken too literally, or
some cases not literally enough, the point of not a dictionary to me in
our current state is to avoid overlaps with our sister project - if we
didn't have that, we'd have tremendous duplication of content. For the most
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
My point is that each of those 144 episode guide entries is written
as an encyclopedia article (despite the fact that no traditional
encyclopedia includes such content).
Anthony replied:
That point is
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Wait a second. If Wikipedia is not a dictionary is about inclusion,
isn't *it* that notability guideline?
What is a reliable source for a word? Do dictionaries count? If so,
then wouldn't pretty much all words have
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Wait a second. If Wikipedia is not a dictionary is about inclusion,
isn't *it* that notability guideline?
What is a reliable source for a word? Do dictionaries count? If so,
then wouldn't pretty much all words have
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Reading it this way, and keeping in mind that our guidelines are just that,
guidelines, that means that not a dictionary is it's own EXCLUSION test,
aside from the INCLUSION test of notability. The same would go
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Quoted every time we've had a policy discussion regarding material that
was inappropriate for one reason or another. If you are getting a divorce
and want to describe your wife's sexual behavior in detail Wikipedia is
Are you suggesting that the content presented in
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nigger or another dictionary's nigger
entry is comparable (or could be comparable, given revision/expansion
in accordance with the publication's standards) to that of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger ?
It
While there may be cases where the guideline's been taken too literally,
or
some cases not literally enough, the point of not a dictionary to me in
our current state is to avoid overlaps with our sister project - if we
didn't have that, we'd have tremendous duplication of content. For the
Anthony wrote:
I agree with your point. But it has nothing to do with whether or not
the Wikipedia is not a dictionary guideline is being widely ignored.
In reference to the concept of an article about a word, its cultural
history, associations, et cetera, you wrote: Can you give an example
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:51 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I agree with your point. But it has nothing to do with whether or not
the Wikipedia is not a dictionary guideline is being widely ignored.
In reference to the concept of an article about a word, its
This thread seems to have spawned several subthreads, none of which
are to do with the original topic - maybe those continuing the
discussions might rename the subject line, or is it far too late to do
that now?
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
30 matches
Mail list logo
