Talk:Caca

Why a dictionary definiton of "caca" does not belong here
The following passage is intended for all fellow editors who believe that the dictionary definition of "caca" (="feces") belongs here. It does not. This page is a disambiguation page, the main purpose of which, per WP:DAB, is to provide navigational assistance by listing all articles (or potential articles), the title of which may be "Caca". This clause of WP:DAB explicitly advises against including dictionary definitions of any sort; this is further confirmed by WP:NOT, which states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For a wiki that is a dictionary, please see Wiktionary.

No matter how "common sense" an inclusion of a dictionary definition on this (or any other) disambiguation page may seem, doing so is against the guidelines. A word may have many meanings or variations of meaning; it is highly impractical to pollute disambiguation pages (which, again, serve only as navigation assistance) with dictionary definitions. No disambiguation page is capable of providing as detailed information about a word as Wiktionary, and we do make sure to include a Wiktionary link when doing so makes sense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While I in general very much support the principle that dictionary definitions do not belong on disambiguation page, there are exceptions to every rule and a good sensible principle can be taken to illogical extremes. There is encyclopedic content for the term and it belongs on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If this dab page were titled "Cacare", I would have agreed that having the line you added makes sense. The page is, however, titled "caca", so the Latin definition does not technically belong here, because the spelling of the word you link does not match this dab's title.  It may make some sense to have it in the "see also" section, but definitely not in the main list.  I really don't see how this approach qualifies as "illogical extremes"&mdash;we have a Wiktionary link at the very top, so whoever was silly enough to look a word definition on a dab page can still find that definition by following the link.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is acceptable to include a brief introductory paragraph even in a base name dab, for providing some context. Perhaps rather than an entry, the cacare could be placed there? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a possibility, but my concern with that approach is that the rest of the dab entries do not derive from the definition we'd have in the intro paragraph. Just imagine this: "caca is feces, and it may refer to Roman goddess, an album, and a Brazilian soccer player".  Kind of sends the wrong message, wouldn't you agree? :)  Having the def in the "see also" section seems to be the safest bet.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That the entry is under "cacare" is not any different from including articles where the actual title may be different from the term being disambiguated but is rather an alternate form for the term. Guidance at DAB indicates A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. It seems extremely odd to place the entry under see also when the common form of the term is "caca" -- which is what is being disambiguated here. I'd be ok with including it as a base definition at the top of the page -- provided an acceptable phrasing can be found to clearly indicate that the other entries are not necessarily related; however, I don't really see that there is any problem with leaving it as a simply entry on the page. older ≠ wiser 00:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you (or anyone else reading this) can phrase the definition in the intro line in such a way as to make it crystal clear that the rest of the entries are unrelated, I am all for it. I don't really see how to do that, which is why I suggested moving the link to def to the "see also" section.  It does not belong with the rest of the entries because the article section being linked to and the title of this dab do not match (a requirement that is a pre-requisite of dab inclusion).  But we seem to start going in circles :(—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But there is not any requirement that the article section being linked to and the title of the disambiguation have to match -- there are many disambiguation pages where the article or the section being linked to are NOT the same as the title of the disambiguation page but are rather an alternate form for that title. That (using alternate titles) is one method of disambiguation described at WP:DAB. Linking to sections of an article is no different. older ≠ wiser 17:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But "caca" is not the alternative of "cacāre"; it is not a Latin word! It is a word that is a derivative, yes, but note how the section being linked to does not even mention that (and for a good reason, too).  And once we start talking derivatives, we venture into the domain of Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, which returns us to WP:NOT.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are looking at different versions, but that article does indeed clearly mention "caca" as a common derived form of the latin term. As for not being a dictionary, there is clearly relevant encyclopedic content that is usefully included on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser —Preceding comment was added at 23:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)