Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

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)

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 {{tl|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:

{{talk quote|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 (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.{{cite journal |last1=White |first1=Robert C. |title=Early Geographical Dictionaries |journal=Geographical Review |date=October 1968 |volume=58 |issue=4 |page=654 |doi=10.2307/212687 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/212687 |access-date=19 April 2023}} 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)

{{reflist-talk}}

::::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary&diff=prev&oldid=193274]. – 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, [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/London%20entry 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)

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)

Following WP:REFERS/WP:ISAWORDFOR, and this policy more generally, content should be about the subject of an article, not the word or phrase, unless the subject is a word or phrase. This seems very basic. The guidance here is a bit vague, but seems to boil down to describe etymologies only in articles about words or phrases. Yet, I see, without fail, etymologies listed, with great prominence in many articles. They are cordoned off at tippy top of the body, the first thing readers see after the lead. This may occasionally be relevant, e.g. when an etymology allows us to track how a concept has developed, or if a discussion of etymology is necessarily important to the subject's history. They are often not relevant. For an article about the vegetable "beetroot", "[the word] Root derives from the late Old English rōt, itself from Old Norse rót" is about the term rather than the subject.

I wanted to raise it here before I take any action in articles, as it seems important to many editors that these are included. Although "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful.", I can imagine if this material was removed it would receive some backlash. I think the point on scope above is sufficient for why this material should be removed, but I also will give another reason: it's Anglocentric. The article on woman, an article about "adult human females" gives a detailed history of the spelling of the English word. I think I would be justified in tagging it with :Template:Globalize; there is no discussion of the etymology of 女性, nor महिला. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:As I understand it, WP:REFERS and WP:ISAWORDFOR are primarily concerned with how to formulate the first lead sentence. If this interpretation is correct, they have little to say about the content of the body of the article. As far as the inclusion of etymologies in the body of the article is concerned, one relevant policy would be WP:PROPORTION: whether to include the etymology of a specific word in an article depends on the coverage this etymology gets in reliable sources on the topic of the article. The same logic would apply to the etymology of foreign words.

:I tend to agree with you that various articles overdo the etymological description. In many cases, a single sentence or a short paragraph is probably enough. However, this should probably be addressed on a case-by-case basis since we can't generally assume that reliable sources ignore etymologies for articles that are not explicitly about words or phrases. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks {{u|Phlsph7}}, I appreciate the comment. I'm interested to see how you respond to the comments I left at the History FAC, I hear you that this shouldn't be treated as a blanket rule and my questions there were not rhetorical.

::My point on REFERS and ISAWORDFOR is that the first sentence identifies the subject, and that these are warning editors to be careful when doing this. They distinguish defining the scope as the subject and defining it as the word, and they say it's really important you get the right one.

::On PROPORTION, I think it's possible for reliable sources to discuss a subject (I give examples above when it may be relevant), but I think citing PROPORTION is a bit of a trap, as that policy prohibits giving "undue weight to minor aspects of its subject", and this is a question of what the subject is. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, this subject-dependence makes the issue difficult to handle. For example, the reliable sources of articles on philosophical concepts often discuss etymological issues. For biographies, by contrast, the etymology of the person's name is probably only discussed in reliable sources in special cases, as mentioned by Largoplazo below. To avoid backlash for removing an etymological discussion whose length is not supported by reliable sources, one approach could be to summarize it and integrate it into a pre-existing section rather than removing it entirely. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think this is wise. To take the example of history, I'm thinking a merge out may look something like: "this professionalization [of history of the 18th century] could be witnessed in changes in how the term history was understood, becoming more closely associated with factual accounts and evidence-based inquiry than it had in earlier understandings that more prominently included narratives about the past" (clunky). Is this kind of what you're thinking? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::For decisions based on WP:PROPORTION, one can look at overview sources and check how much weight they give to the different aspects of etymology. In this case, for example, many sources mention that the term "history" comes from ancient Greek terms, so this part shouldn't be left out. You would have to do the same for the other etymological claims in the text. As far as I'm aware of the overview sources of the topic "history", one may be able to condense the text into a single paragraph, but probably not a single sentence. However, this is not a general rule: for some articles, having one paragraph may be too much, while for others, it may be too little. These decisions also depend on how long the etymology discussion is relative to the rest of the article and how prominently it is placed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:An extreme example I once encountered of a completely irrelevant etymology was in an article about a Chinese person that gave the etymology behind the two syllables of the person's given name. At least they didn't create a whole section for that, it was just mentioned after the rendering of the name in Chinese characters.

:I, subject to the specific circumstances, largely agree with you. The story behind the word (or a word) that one language, the one this encyclopedia happens to be written in, uses for a topic usually tells us nothing about the topic, at least nothing that isn't already spelled out directly elsewhere in the article. Largoplazo (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::No, I think you should leave them alone, generally (some individual cases that are over the top, that's different). As you said "it seems important to many editors that these are included". It's a wiki, editors like to write them, some readers probably like to read them, it's certainly the sort of thing you'd expect in an encyclopedia, so it is what it is. People do a lot of things here that I don't personally like, but oh well. Rules are supposed to follow common good practice, so if there's a whole honken lot of these, the solution is to change the rule to match the common practice.

::If it is common practice but not good practice that'd be different. It's heavy lifting to prove that it's objectively not good. I haven't seen a problem with etymologies. I would tend to trust that if many different editors are doing something, it's probably not terribly bad. If it is, we've got a problem with our general philosophy. And even then, it'll be constant wack-a-mole to keep hunting these down and deleting them, and putting colleagues in a cop/perp relationship ("I don't care what you think makes the article better, we've got a rule"). We want to minimize this. Herostratus (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:The point of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is that Pabulum should be a link to wikt:Pabulum and not an article. That is because there is not much encyclopedic information available for the topic, beyond its definition. If an article only provides a definition (or etymology), it should be at Wiktionary. By contrast, etymologies such as at Crepuscular animal and Omnivore provide good and encyclopedic information. Some readers will skip over them, while others will be interested. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::I just noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Etymology encourages editors to fix etymologies and its talk page mentions, for example, Talk:Beef#Etymology. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::In addition, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries designates an Etymology section as the first section to appear after the lead. So, despite the concerns Rollinginhisgrave and I have expressed, they aren't going away. Nevertheless, to avoid the appearance that they conflict with NOTDICTIONARY, perhaps that section could state explicitly that etymologies are common and fall outside of its scope.

:::Or perhaps it could at least provide that they're fine if of encyclopedic value. For example, I was just thinking Car probably wouldn't have an Etymology section and that it probably wouldn't be a good candidate for one. But then I checked and found it does have one, and realized while reading it that it kind of provides a window into how cars were originally perceived, what associations people made between them and what came before. So even though the section is about the word, it also gives some insight into the thing itself. Largoplazo (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Largoplazo}} I think this may be true, although it remains unclear to me how a globalize tag would not be appropriate (if we are including it to give insight into the development of the concept, why are we limiting it to a set of English-speaking nations). Countries are a good example: the Japanese wiki for the article Chile includes: {{blockquote|In Japanese, it is written as the Republic of Chile . Commonly known as Chili . It was once written as " Chili " . The kanji is Chiri . Its first appearance in Japanese is said to be in Nishikawa Nyoken 's "Zouho Kai Tsusho Kou" ( 1708 , 5th year of the Hoei era ), where it was introduced as "Chiika" . In later Edo period documents, Tanikawa Shikiyo's "Wakun Shiori" and Saito Hikomaro 's "Bokkyo" each use the kanji "Chika".}} My thinking here may reflect a philosophy that is not widespread: what is important about a subject should be pretty much the same regardless of the language the wiki is in. I would be interested in reading if this is out of step with community consensus. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I'll also give the example of photography: the Chinese word has an interesting etymology that [https://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.2013.10786109 has received scholarly attention], but our article of course only details the English and French. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, no, because then an etymology section would grow enormously out of proportion to the rest of their article and then the section really would amount to a translation dictionary. Imagine the etymology section for Vegetable if it translated "vegetable" into hundreds of other languages and then gave the origin for every one of them: verdura, legumbre, Gemüse, овощи, groente, зеленчук, rau, sebze, barazki, imifuno, vihannes, etc., ad nauseum. Largoplazo (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is my point. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It seemed to be the opposite of your point, seeing as how you're the one who called for a globalize tag and etymologies for the terms in other languages. Largoplazo (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Ah, sorry if I wasn't being clear. I am generally supporting the removal of etymologies from articles, so I'm not advocating for the creation of an outsized section.

::::::::My general point is that there is a confusion of subject and the word for the subject. It would be absurd to speak at any length about the evolution of Mandarin terms for photography in the article for photography, yet we don't see the same absurdity for the English term. Because we speak English. We confuse use and mention, which is why we have WP:REFERS. If we want to have the English etymology, we should also have the Mandarin, and any other etymologies that are just as DUE. If we don't want the Mandarin, we also shouldn't want the English (this is speaking as a general practice, not a blanket rule). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 15:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::In the end, whether something is WP:DUE depends on what the reliable sources say. I'm sure there are some articles where the etymology of a foreign word is important-enough to be included, but this is probably the exception rather than the rule. So one should familiarize oneself with the sources before adding globalize tags. Your idea of removing etymology section in general is neither supported by reliable sources nor reflective of what is considered good practice on Wikipedia. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Oh yes, I won't be removing any based on the outcome of this conversation, and I agree that one should familiarize with sources before adding a globalize tag. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 16:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I see. In that case, you're reiterating your original argument after I and others have already addressed it. Largoplazo (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Any section in an article can be expanded by an enthusiast. That happens all the time. It is then up to others to look at sources and prune if required. Here is how it should work: WP:N specifies whether there should be an article on a topic. However, there are many dictionaries (reliable sources) which cover Pabulum. Therefore, WP:NOTDICTIONARY has been created to say that if the only encyclopedic information available for a topic is the word's meaning and etymology, the topic should be covered at Wiktionary and there should not be an article here. However, a topic such as Omnivore is notable and warrants an article. In that article, the etymology of the word is encyclopedic information (assuming some reliable sources have covered it) and the etymology should be included in proportion (WP:DUE) to how sources have covered it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think WP:NOTDICT is about more than this, although I'm happy to be wrong. I understand it to mean:

:#Per the use-mention distinction, words/phrases are a separate subject than word they refer to. This is seen explicitly in the major differences section, in article contents, where it says encyclopedia articles about referents, while wiktionary articles are about references.

:#Given this, if we have a few sources about a subject, sources dedicated to the meaning/etymology for the word in one language (e.g. OED/Etymonline) don't contribute to notability for the subject, but they may contribute to notability for the word/phrase, and a separate article may be DUE (e.g. orange (word))

:I've looked through a few Brittanica articles, and I'm not seeing etymologies. The most I see is when they can say "The term was coined based on the Latin XXX, literally YYYY". There is certainly no "[the word] Root derives from the late Old English rōt, itself from Old Norse rót". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::You are way over-thinking this. Orange (word) exists because reliable sources have written about it in the terms shown in that article. Another example is Gropecunt Lane—a street name that hasn't been used for hundreds of years. Wikipedians love that kind of whimsical topic. There are many such articles which exist because (in the opinion of editors), reliable sources have established the notability of the topic, and there is information that can be written beyond the definition or etymology or a word. A typical Brittanica article has much less content than the corresponding article here—we do things differently in several ways (another being that their authors are free to write their opinions). Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There's been many examples where I come back to a conversation I didn't understand in the moment, and only in retrospect understand where I was going wrong. I don't understand how you're handling the reference/referent distinction laid out in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Major differences, but I am repeating myself so I won't press the matter. No one is obligated to satisfy me. Thanks a lot for your time. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} Also, there's actually no reason for Wiktionary to not be a dictionary, to some degree. Yes it is true that we don't want articles whose titles are different words (or just different spellings) for the same thing. And we do want different article for most homographs. Fine. Those things are necessary for the Wikipedia to work. That is why we say that the Wiktionary won't do those dictionaryish things. But there's no need to make a shibboleth of it. The Wikipedia works fine whether or not there are etymology sections. So it's not really a "not a dictionary" question but a "is this a benefit to the reader" question. Herostratus (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Herostratus}} We have made a shibboleth of it. We're writing on the page "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". I strongly agree with you that the purpose is serving the reader. Have a look at Spice which I'm working on. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spice&oldid=1282761838#Etymology I removed] the etymology section, which indiscriminately gave shifting spellings and where the English word comes from. But I have since written Spice#Definition, which includes a history of the word, because the scope of the article is tied to that history. But it's intentional, it's not just listing an etymology for the sake of giving the reader more slop to gobble up. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::It's a difficult question. I myself have removed over-long etymologies from the lede and put them into a separate section. Having only minimal etymologies in the lede, and moving them to a separate section if not minimal, makes good sense I think. (And sometimes, yes, they get too far down into the weeds and need to be trimmed back altogether.)

::It is arguable that an etymology section, if it exists, is minor and should be moved to the end of an article. However, it seems like people don't do this. It's reasonable not to. Birth and death dates and locations (for persons) can be pretty minor but are by convention are in the lede. "Early life" sections for persons, often of secondary value, come first in an article. Granted this makes sense cos of chronology, but still. I think that if there is an etymology section, it seems to come first by convention and that's OK, the reader can skip it easily enough. Unfortunately I don't see a way to have a good rule about this. Just like any other situation where too much detail is given for a minor point, it's got to be done on a case-by-case basis I guess.

::I suppose we could have an RfC about moving etymology sections to the bottom of articles, but common practice seems to be to not do that, and so I'd let it lie. Herostratus (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi

(Firstly I've never attempted to raise isssues with/change a policy before, so sorry if I breach any etiquette, also sorry for cross-posting: I'm going to put this also on the talk page for WP:REFERS and the guidelines page "Writing Better Articles" as I think part of the problem here is that these different policies/guidelines say slightly different things.)

I seem to end up doing a lot of work on wikipedia articles that are about terms rather than concepts - just my thing. Two examples are the article on "chick lit" and the word "goy." I'm being increasingly troubled by people editing the first sentence of these sort of articles citing WP:REFERS or WP:ISATERMFOR - eg this mornings example, changing "Chick lit is a term used to describe a type of popular fiction targeted at women." to "Chick lit is a type of popular fiction targeted at women."

I'll explain at the end of this comment - by way of illustration - why this is problematic.

These policies do rather reluctantly and in passing admit that there are many wikipedia articles about terms where these policies need to be treated differently? Dont apply? The problem is that surely a policy is a policy and by definition should apply to nearly all articles - that's certainly how people are undrstanding them. So I think these policies need to becomoe guidelines. The one policy that could remain - but probably needs revised text about it is #UMD- which could be just about alerting people to consider whether an article is principally about usage or mention, word or thing.

Finally I should say, I do understand why "Dog is a term for a mammal of the order canis" is deeply annoying.

If people agree with this perhaps more expert editors could advise how one changes a policy.

Example from chick lit article - why we need "is a term for" and cant just say ""Chick lit is a type of popular fiction targeted at women." 1) the article is substantially about the term - how it evolved, how its been received and used over time. 2) chick lit is a disputed term - many of the authors who write this type of popular fiction have angrily rejected the term - stating it unproblematically "is" this type of fiction, is not NPOV.

Thanks

Atrapalhado (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello. Regarding your approach, you should never initiate the same discussion in multiple places. If the discussion concerns multiple pages, initiate it in one place and then post a short notice at the other locations with a summary of the issue and a link to the discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)