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. Wiktionary: what does "meh" mean? Wikipedia: why is "meh" even a word? In this example, the concept *is* the word, with its cultural history, associations etc. The word's Simpsons origins, the debate over whether it was a real word, its inclusion in the list of 20 words that "defined a decade" - all of this is interesting, notable, relevant, and probably out of place in a Wiktionary article. You wouldn't do it for just any word, perhaps, but this one even has a referenced claim to notability. I think what I'm trying to say is: any word which is itself notable deserves an encyclopaedia article explaining why. Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
