Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

See also: Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms

WORDISSUBJECT

This section has come up at Talk:Woke § Use vs. mention. Can someone please clarify the paragraph:

In other cases, a word or phrase is still at first blush about a topic other than the word or phrase itself/ but the word or phrase is a "lens" or concept through which the topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen. When this occurs, the article often focuses on the "lens" and may not be the main coverage of the topics which are viewed through it. World music, Political correctness, Homosexual agenda, Lake Michigan-Huron and Truthiness illustrate this.

Aren't words always about something else other than themselves? I understand a word being a lens through which to view other topics, but does this reference how the word is used in everyday speech/writing or how our article on the word is written? In the latter case, using the metaphor of a lens focusing light, wouldn't the article focus on those other topics, not the lens itself? Does main coverage just mean the main Wikipedia article on a topic? Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No, not really. The encyclopedia articles are sometimes about the word and sometimes about the subject that word represents. For example, pretty much all of the articles about profanity (past, present, and bowdlerized; see, e.g., Holy cow (expression)) are about the words. Those articles are about the words themselves: who thinks they're profane, who thinks they're not, when they were popular, what they meant, etc. Those articles are not about reproduction, defecation, etc.

It might be a good idea to use profanity as an example in that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, if I understand rightly, the first sentence is talking about a Wikipedia article about a word, while the second sentence is talking about a word or phrase itself. As currently written, the first sentence is a tautology; words are always about something other than themselves. I suggest we make the distinction more explicit, for example:

In other cases, an article about a word or phrase is still at first blush about a topic other than the word or phrase itself, but the word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen. When this occurs, the article often focuses on the "lens" and may not cover all aspects of the topics which are viewed through it.

I suggest omitting the word "still", since it suggests that there are other times when an article about a word appears to be about something else. I'm not seeing this in the policy. Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, this could be made a lot shorter with no loss of information:

In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen. In such cases, an article about the word or phrase often focuses on the related topic(s), which are also covered separately in their own articles.

This seems closer to actual practice in articles like Lake Michigan–Huron, and avoids the mixed metaphor of "focusing" on a "lens", which frankly seems a little backwards. Thoughts on this? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Given no objections after a month, I've edited the section according to the last proposal above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not document the use of neologisms

I have added some content in this section. Should this new info be added to the main page?

Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create an uncommon neologism in English. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. Editors may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead.

AKK700 08:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Language and Text pages with dictionary entries in them.

Someone tried to say that the vocabulary sections of the page on the Pyrgi Tablets (a Phoenician-Etruscan bilingual from c. 500 BCE , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgi_Tablets ) shouldn't be there because WINAD and these should be looked up in Semitic/Phoenician and Etruscan dictionaries (or perhaps on Wiktionary). I didn't like that idea, and, after reading this article, I don't think this is what WINAD was intended to cover. Also, since, "Wikipedia is not a beaurocracy", I don't think Wikipedia articles should be made worse just to conform to Wikipedia guidelines. The vocabulary sections on this page cover only the words used in the inscription and are basically like the interlinear glossing common on linguistics pages (and in non-Wikipedia linguistics texts), except more detailed and a bit more awkward, and they are useful for the same reason interlinear glossing is. (I think the extra detail is warranted for philology, i.e., because there is always room for interpretation in the translation and wider interpretation of ancient artifacts, since you can't just ask the writers what they meant.)

A similar phenomenon I DO find questionable are some of the "vocabulary" or "lexicon" sections sometimes found on pages on languages, usually obscure languages. Often, if not usually, these sections are obviously useful and also not just dictionaries, e.g., the vocabulary comparisons between related languages (e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosavi_languages#Vocabulary_comparison ), or descriptions of various cross-linguistically relevant aspects of how it divides meanig into words (e.g., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language#Lexicon ), but I've also seen some cases where a page on a language just has some random words of the language with definitions for little discernable reason (e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yele_language#Vocabulary ). I actually don't think it's that bad, since it gives you some feeling of what the language is like and some ability to recognize it (though not as well as an example text does, though I suppose sometimes the vocabulary probably IS just glossing for an example, as with the Pyrgi tablets), and oftentimes these languages are so obscure that the few words given on Wikipedia might be the only ones most people will ever find (or, in the case of some poorly attested languages, could be all or most of the words that are known, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_superstrate_in_Mitanni#Attested_words_and_comparisons, if you count Mitanni Indic is a language, or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidian_language , though that's glossing of inscriptions; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language#Vocabulary has a flavor of that, but it's weird because it only gives a few but then links to a full wordlist at https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hattic_word_list , which makes me wonder why they chose to put the ones they did on the Wikipedia page). DubleH (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This could serve as WP:NEO needed example

Hello. I think I have one good example, "live" example already misused, for WP:NEO last paragraph, which has inline template "need example": one of the contributors linked under THE Islamic death penalty to Capital punishment in Islam in articles LGBT in Islam, and Apostasy in Islam, but it could easily be more of the same in other. They think that same applies to the Jewish death penalty which can be linked to Capital punishment in Judaism. They offered multiple references that have no mention of such terminology, (under) THE Islamic death penalty. All in all, these kinds of situations, with this sort os misinterpretation of NEO, WP:V and OR, could present considerable problem for editors, and this is a good example that terminology created by editors in passing should be avoided. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I think I have one good example for WP:NEO last paragraph, which has inline template {{Example needed}}. I came across the following phrase, "under THE Islamic death penalty" linked (piped) to Capital punishment in Islam in following articles: LGBT in Islam and Apostasy in Islam (although it could easily be more of the same in other, I haven't looked further). Editor who added this one think that same should apply to the Jewish death penalty (and linked to Capital punishment in Judaism), which, fortunately, still isn't the case. Needless to say, this construct, (under) THE Islamic death penalty, does not exist in sources nor in any dictionary and thesaurus. All in all, this is a good example that phrases and terminology created by editors in passing should be avoided. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC) OK, I proposed the example a week short of two months ago, but now, to be on the safe side, I will ask if anyone object to its inclusion - phrase: "the Islamic death penalty" - and I will check for how long we usually wait for the respond before small changes and/or additions could be made (a week, two, or more).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC) The last paragraph states:

In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.^{[example needed]}

To this paragraph the example(s) should be added:

• For instance Capital punishment in Judaism, Capital punishment in Islam are notable topics well-documented in reliable sources, and this descriptive phrase in plain English is used. Constructs such as Islamic death penalty or Jewish death penalty are neologisms.

Any feedback would be appreciated.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Geographical dictionaries

Geographical dictionaries (also known as gazetteers, though the exact meaning doesn't necessary entirely over-lap, see the "Early Geographical Dictionaries" reference below) should be included here alongside phrase-books and other dictionary-type sources: just like dictionary definitions can be included within encyclopaedia articles, we include aspects of geographical dictionary content in Wikipedia articles (e.g., in infobox content, lists etc.), but only in the context of an encyclopaedia article - Wikipedia is not a geographical dictionary per se. FOARP (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's my proposed addition, based on the listing about genealogical dictionaries:

===Wikipedia is not a geographical dictionary===

There are reference works known as geographical dictionaries. These tend to focus primarily on listing alphabetically every location or geographical feature of a particular class within a given area. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as such focuses more on the notable aspects of the history and attributes of a location rather than seeking to be an all-inclusive listing of every single aspect (physical or statistical) of a location. This means that many geographical details may be omitted (e.g., distances to other features, all-inclusive lists of sub-features), for a better-flowing, more rounded article.

Geographical articles should only be created about locations with some sort of verifiable notability. A good measure of notability is whether a geographical feature has been featured in multiple, independent, reliable sources. However, minor features may be mentioned within other articles (for example, within list-articles where the class of feature is notable even if individual features are not notable).

See also Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features).

Let me know if you have any comments. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Geographical dictionary redirects to Gazetteer, and Wikipedia:Five pillars says that the English Wikipedia includes "many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."

I therefore conclude that there is a long-standing consensus that the English Wikipedia is meant to be (partly) a "geographical dictionary". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking at your proposed text, I think it amounts to "Let's delete List of counties in Iowa and all similar pages". The purpose of that page is, to use the words in your proposal, "listing alphabetically every location or geographical feature of a particular class [i.e., the counties] within a given area [i.e., Iowa]". I'm not sure that that particular list includes "every single aspect (physical or statistical) of a location" (wouldn't that entail listing every building, every road, every hill, every type of soil, etc.?), but it includes several of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I’ve mentioned list articles explicitly as as an example of a kosher article. That would include the list-article you mention. WP:5P is 1) an essay and 2) states that we have aspects of geographical dictionaries: this is true also for dictionaries in general (we include definitions, etymology etc.) but that does not mean that Wikipedia IS a dictionary (geographical or otherwise). There is no conflict with 5P, Iowa is perfectly safe. FOARP (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think what this proposed guideline aims to do is cut down on articles like Prairie Township, Kossuth County, Iowa. This article is better referenced than most—GNIS and two 19th century books on local history—but it is still a stub that could be combined with the content of the other 27 townships of Kossuth County, Iowa, into a list within the county article. There is already a list of townships in the county article that link to the 28 township articles; just replace the list of links with a 28-item bullet list, each bullet two or three sentences. Similar processes could incorporate the other GNIS-inspired articles about features of the county. VC 13:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That would not be a case of "listing alphabetically every location or geographical feature of a particular class within a given area". This says:

• that Wikipedia should not be a geographical dictionary, and
• that a geographical dictionary typically lists "alphabetically every location or geographical feature of a particular class within a given area".

Ergo, as written, this proposal is trying to ban the creation of alphabetical lists of every location or geographical feature of a particular class within a given area.

If the goal is "just merge those tiny articles up to Kossuth County, Iowa#Townships or make a List of townships in Kossuth County, Iowa already because m:Mergism is the true philosophy" (in the instant case, you'd just need to copy over the year of organization, the source for that year, and occasionally a sourced note about what the township was named after – it really wouldn't be difficult), then that can be done without talking about dictionaries. The only problem would be that not every editor subscribes to mergism. Some of them prefer the Least publishable unit style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

There are hella people who hate that passage ("Wikipedia includes many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers") They've discussed deleting it. But they're stuck with it. They'd never get a clear consensus to delete it. So we're stuck with the dead hand of the past on the tiller. And I'm glad! I like it! But then, in the same way we're stuck with the (IMO) silly policy NOTCENSORED. Oh well.

So, as the saying goes, "When you don't have the facts, pound the law". So that's that. Buuuut, we may have the facts anyway. So are you talking about articles likeCape Boothby. Which has never been visited by humans. Or even smaller articles. So, why? Why delete or prevent these articles? Yes you could listify I guess, but you lose some info... Would it be net better searchable by readers? Who knows!. My guess is no. And it'd be uglier. And if I'm right you're wanting to prevent even lists of stuff like this.

So, the question is, what problem would this fix? It might! Maybe it's a drag on our watching/maintaining resources or something. Tell us. But if some reader is searching on the term (very very rare I'll grant, but probably not zero), why not give her the info? See also User:Herostratus/Wikipedian's Meditation, Cape Boothby is name-checked in it.Herostratus (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Rather than being a rationale for deletion, the intention here is to dissuade problematic mass-editing in the geographical feature area. I’m thinking particular of the huge number of problematic articles that were created simply by transposing content directly from GNIS (a geographical dictionary) into Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If you say that "Wikipedia is not a geographical dictionary", that geographical dictionaries "focus primarily on listing alphabetically every location or geographical feature of a particular class", and that it's bad to have an "all-inclusive listing of every single" geographical feature, then people will certainly understand you to be proposing the deletion of alphabetical lists of geographical features.

If you want to stop problematic mass-editing in the geographical feature area, then stop problematic mass-editing. This doesn't happen very often, and when it is agreed that the situation is actually "problematic mass-editing" (as opposed to, e.g., "a couple of editors object"), then it's not difficult to stop it.

If you are concerned about transposing content directly from GNIS, then stop allowing people to transpose content directly from GNIS (e.g., propose having it listed on WP:RSP as a source of dubious factual quality).

If you want to do an end-run around Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), I can't really suggest a practical path forward. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

How can something that literally tells you to follow that guide be an end-run around it? FOARP (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"It's really bad to have an alphabetical list of all geographic features in a given area. By the way, see also NGEO" does not sound like "Follow NGEO". Also, NGEO doesn't mention lists, alphabetical or otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is meant to define the limits of Wikipedia's coverage of words and phrases, I don't think it should be its job to address issues around Wikipedia's coverage of other topics, like geographic entities, even if some of the sourcing for those topics is in a form that resembles a dictionary. Still, the proposed addition appears to be closely modelled after #Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary, a section that I find objectionable for the same reasons, but one that has been around in one form or another since 2002 [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It might be better to have the genealogical "dictionary" section WP:SPLIT to a separate page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Uanfala - "London" is also a word, one defined in dictionaries with what amounts to a geographical dictionary entry. I do not think that some words should be privileged over others: in all cases our articles should attempt to extend beyond simple definitions. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I applaud an effort to avoid mass creation but.... I think that wp:notability and the notability SNG controls this more than wp:not and covers it in more detail, as does guidance on mass creations. Trying to do something here might be an overlap/conflict. And I think that 5P (which is really more than an essay, but has no other way to label it) influences the SNG a bit. I think that townships usually are more abstract "not generally recognized as a place" (like the irrigation district example in the SNG) and excluded from getting a pass from the SNG in which case they'd need to meet GNG under the notability guideline. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC).

Whether a township is recognized as a place depends on the time and place. I know people who used townships to identify more precise locations than a county ("Oh, we grew up on a farm in ____ township back in the 1940s"), but I haven't heard anyone use them recently. Civil townships weren't a thing in cities, and I think survey townships were primarily used in property deeds. I doubt that anyone would use a township name for outsiders (or, in Iowa, since that's our example, when talking to people who are from away). It'd be like giving directions by former landmarks: only useful if you didn't really need those directions anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

...which should not be taken as saying that this is useless content that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you're looking at your grandmother's birth certificate, you might very well want an article that tells you where that township was located. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Lists of words

I can’t see any real guidance on the use of list articles for words as words. I assume an article like List of slang names for cannabis should be regarded as dictionary-like, per this policy? — HTGS (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The guideline for a list is WP:NLIST and "not a dictionary" does not apply since the article is not a dictionary definition. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)