| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Words category. |
|
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
comments
editwhat is the point of this category? articles about the concept of "word" surely? Why is Mannaz listed here, then? Sure, it's a word, but so are thousands of other article titles. dab (ᛏ) 10:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
agree: no point in listing concrete words here
editI agree: no point in listing "normal" words here (else > 90% of all pages would be listed here), and "special" words (foreign, short, long, strange,...) should be listed in the appropriate subcategory. As I see it, this category is
- a place to list more specific categories of words
- a place to list ("meta") articles about aspects of words
but definitely not the place to create a list of concrete words. — MFH:Talk 14:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
If an article discusses the word itself (i.e. ain't or normalcy), this category seems appropriate; if it discusses the word's meaning (i.e. concrete), this category shouldn't be applied. JayW 22:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
wiktionary?
editIsn't this exactly what wiktionary is for? -- nae'blis 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes and no. Wiktionary has a very tight format, great for quick access to certain kinds of info, but not suitable for discussions of complex aspects of words. We recently had a case where two paragraphs were moved from the Wikipedia article on Britain to the Wiktionary article, on the grounds that they discussed the etymology of "Britain" and were therefore "about words". Within an hour someone working on Wiktionary had asked on their talk page: "where did all this encyclopedic information come from?" So let's not assume that there are no cases where discussions of words don't belong in this medium. We don't do dictionary entries, but just the same, we often do words. --Doric Loon 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)