Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Dictionary definitions

Please discuss this issue and formulate suggestions here before posting them on the main project page.

Wiktionary
I am very confused why this is being proposed as a Centralized Discussion. This issue was solved long ago. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That's been the policy since before I came to the project. It could not be more clear. We are writing a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Users who want to write about the meaning, origins and usage of a word or phrase should be encouraged to make those contributions at Wiktionary.

The rest of us, on finding those articles, can immediately transwiki them to the appropriate project. The consensus for action after transwiki has evolved over time. The current consensus seems to be that we should replace the content with a soft redirect using undefined.

Yes, we have a few examples of VfD decisions in our past which contradict the general rule. 1) Wikipedia is inconsistent. 2) The community found extenuating circumstances in a very few cases. Neither of those disrupt the general rule. Dictionary definitions belong in Wiktionary. Stubs are allowable in Wikipedia as long as they are expanded past the level of mere dictionary definition sooner or later.

Wiktionary is a sister project. Like Wikipedia, it is licensed under GFDL. Any Wikipedia reader/editor can also read and edit at Wiktionary. Content can be freely transferred between the two. Wiktionary is rapidly becoming as respected an internet dictionary as Wikipedia is a respected encyclopedia. Wiktionary is no backwater. Rossami (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I totally agree, Rossami. I don't consider the Wiktionary a backwater, but I do feel that there should be a sensible work load distribution. It's just a lot of double-coverage to keep all kinds of dicdefs here when there's a designated place for them. I felt it was worth taking up here because centralized discussion won't be put those participating in the position of having to make a choice on the spot, like with an AfD. Any insecurity among most voters in those procedures tends to result in people voting keep by default, regardless of inclusion policy.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ya know what would be nice?
How about if the "No page with that title exists" message that one gets when looking for a non-existent article were worded slightly differently for searches in which an article does exist on Wikitionary? It could potentially even give the full Wikitionaty definition, or just a link to it. This would cut down on the excess dicdef articles by quite a lot. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 22:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Although that currently can not be done automatically, nothing prevents us from manually making "soft redirects" to Wiktionary for all those pages. Granted, that's a lot of pages... but if we could round up 500 Wikipedians to do 100 apiece, we could knock out the most likely suspects pretty quickly. -- BD2412 talk 03:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Soft redirects turn links that actually don't have an article blue, which I see as a bad thing. When we don't have an article on a topic, you don't just get an empty page, the page you get actually suggest other places to look including wiktionary. People need to learn how to read. We don't have to do all that work when all people need to do to find a dic def is click the wiktionary link. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and by soft-redirecting or by allowing dicdefs here, it will only confuse people. Just delete the ones which have no chance of becoming an article. Slang terms from websites and forums and slur for sexual words can all be deleted on the spot. In the last case any info should've been written in the regular titled article to begin with. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * True, you are referred to other places, but if a wiktionary article actually exists for a term that someone has tried to make an article of in Wikipedia, a soft redirect would discourage re-creation of that article. -- BD2412 talk 15:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There will be many cases where a particular title could be attached to a dicdef or an encyclopedic article. Often the two will even be on the same subject. We want to discourage the creation of dicdefs, but we certainly don't want to discourage the creation of encyclopedic articles - so it's unclear that any course of action specifically designed to discourage creation of any given page is actually a Good Thing. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 22:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Should we get rid of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary?"
Personally, I tend to feel that the "not a dictionary" policy is misguided and tends to be misunderstood or misapplied. The policy, in theory, relates to articles that could never be more than dictionary definitions. In practice, it is applied to stubs that begin by stating the obvious. My specific beef is with the way it has been misapplied to encyclopedic articles about pronouns, grammatical particles, and logical operators.

I would propose instead that the policy be entirely revised and strongly curtailed. If no other reason than "dictionary definition" is given for an article proposed for deletion, this should be a ground to speedily keep it. Articles that truly can never be more than a dictionary definition should instead be deleted as simply "unencyclopedic" in the unlikely case that such a categorization is meaningful. If an article exists in complete sentences, this suggests in itself that it is more than a "dictionary definition."

The discussion about wikipedia not being a "usage guide" should be entirely dropped or strongly revised. If we have articles on individual Pokemons and Bible verses, we can also have extended discussions of the nuances of slang usage; this is useful information, especially for non-native speakers of the several languages; and if it is a discussion of cultural nuances written up in complete sentences, it obviously goes beyond "dictionary definitions." More importantly, extensive discussion of the subtleties of prescriptive grammar in English and in other languages is at least as much at home in the encyclopedia side as it would be in a dictionary.

There is some inevitable overlap between the two projects in any case, and Wikipedia is not paper. The spate of "dicdef" deletions has abated somewhat, which to me is progress; but while the policy exists, some people will continue to propose deletions of perfectly good stubs, or worse, remove valid information that goes beyond anything you'd find in a dictionary from the encyclopedia, on the grounds that it discusses etymologies or usage, or merely because it is "about a word." Ultimately any article on something with a name is "about a word." -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with most of this. Wikipedia is not a language guide.  Yes, "discussion of the subtleties of prescriptive grammar" is appropriate here ... in one small group of appropriately-titled articles discussing the general cases.  Not scattered among thousands of articles on slang and neologisms and this week's Internet fads and so forth, where they couldn't readily be found by someone actually trying to research the core linguistic concepts.  Barno 01:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Smerdis, we can't constantly bring up articles, the existance of which are questioned, to justify other articles; Pokémon-stubs and Bible verses are particularly dubious articles to fight for. It's not valid justification since AfD-discussions can ignore policy, even when the decision is a completely obvious violation and not even a trace of consensus for changing it exists. Most of the time this is extended to utter trivialities like kekeke. In terms of dicdefs, I think exceptions like nigger are reasonable, but if this is abused by extending the exception to articles like blatte and banana (person), then the choice would have to be to enforce the policy completely, which is just as bad and uncompromising as the current option. Collecting completely non-notable Internet and Usenet neologisms, foreign slang and colloquialisms is not collecting information, it's hoarding trivia. It's not done because the information is extremely interesting, can't be found elsewhere or is generally requested, but because a small minority of the editor community thinks that we should be a an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It probably is true that mentioning Pokemons and Bible verses is in some sense logically fallacious --- although most of the Bible verse articles are fairly good. The point is, though, that we have the resources to be a more in depth reference than a paper encyclopedia can be about those articles that we choose to write about.


 * If your concern is with unencyclopedic trivia, neologisms, and fads, it strikes me as enough to label them unencyclopedic, neologisms, net-cruft, whatever is more appropriate. Labelling it a "dictionary definition" is redundant in these cases for which a better argument for deletion can be made.  This, by exclusion, tends to restrict the field of "dictionary definition" to valid stubs that ought to stay.  You have the perennial philosophical argument about what's a social construction and what isn't; but ultimately every article that's about a concept that is indeed a social construction is an extended definition.


 * Ultimately, I think "dictionary definition" as a ground for deletion is redundant, and tends to yield avoidable stress and rancor. "Dictionary definitions" that should be deleted tend to be deleted for other reasons.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Smerdis makes several interesting points. I have to disagree with a few of them, though. A discussion of the nuances of language (slang or otherwise) is indeed useful but I disagree that "it obviously goes beyond 'dictionary definitions'." Nuances of usage and meaning are exactly the content that I would expect in an unabridged dictionary. The argument that "Ultimately any article on something with a name is 'about a word'" also fails to persuade me. The encyclopedia article is about the object or concept, not about the name. The name is not the same as the object. Finally, I am extremely uncomfortable with his/her proposed rule that "If an article exists in complete sentences, ... it is more than a 'dictionary definition.'" Any dictionary definition can be rewritten in complete sentences without adding any content. Rossami (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it'd help if more people bothered even trying (let alone succeeding) to distinguish between "extended discussion" and "list of words". Take sexual slang for instance. It's a 65 kilobyte page, with exactly 3 paragraphs (short ones - Smerdis's first comment was longer!) of discussion. The rest is an abyssmally long list of words! I'm categorically opposed to any proposal that assists, encourages, or condones an increase in the amount of such non-article content on Wikipedia, or delays its purging. The Literate Engineer 06:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Most dic defs can also be deleted under CSD A1, but there's scores of people who don't like that provision either. Suppose for a moment we didn't have an article on apples and someone was to enter: Apple (noun) type of fruit. What would you do? I wouldn't like to get rid of WP is not a dictionary anyway, as that would encourage dic def creation here on Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 08:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Rossami makes a very good analysis of the situation. The definition of what "encyclopedic" means in these contexts is definetly very skewed and overly minimalistic. These articles are for the most part just slightly more verbose definition of usage and meaning, which equals a dicdef.
 * I would also like to bring another example to the discussion; swordfish (password). It's not quite a dicdef, but neither is it an encyclopedic article, and I feel it's part of the same trend as all these slang-'n'-slur articles.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should begin roughly where Wiktionary ends, erring in the direction of inclusion. If a word is really in use and is likely to be of sufficient general interest, and has enough information, then why not an encyclopedia article? -- BD2412 talk 14:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just so. I learned someting from the swordfish (password) article.  It references public, if not "important", cultural phenomena.  Objections seem to be that the subject is somehow too trivial or unimportant to be the subject of an encyclopedia article.  As noted above, these objections, whatever their validity, don't fit "dictionary definition" as a grounds for objection.
 * If I were asked to write an article on something I knew little about, I would begin by asking questions such as: "What does X mean; when people talk about X, what do they mean?" "What is the history of X."  "Are there any important public figures or cultural phenomena that feature X or discuss X?  If so, what is the significance of X in them?"  This method works fairly well, not only for culturally sensitive concepts like nigger and gentleman, but also for fairly successful articles like thou, lady, and honour, to take some examples from articles I've worked on.  It strikes me as still plausible to call all of these articles extended dictionary definitions; but to make dictionary entries out of them would mean to gut them and make them less informative and less readable.  This is what I don't want to see happen.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Out of the examples you've given, only "nigger" and "thou", especially the latter, might be considered obvious candidates for a transwiki. "Gentleman", "lady" and "honour" all represent subjects that are concepts that go far beyond dicdefs, just like homosexual or general.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here is the difference between definitions and encyclopedic articles about a term. Articles which simply define a term or cite common usage should be deleted, articles such as 23 skidoo which discuss the origins and development of a well known term should be kept. As a criterium, I would suggest that slang terms less than 5 years old should be deleted as neologisms even if the article is encyclopedic. --Outlander 16:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced. 23 skidoo looks to me like an excellent article for an unabridged dictionary.  It is not in a standard dictionary format but the content - meaning, usage, probable origins and derivation, etc. - are all characteristics of good dictionary entries.  On the other hand, I have yet to find a traditional encyclopedia with this kind of content.  Rossami (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rossami. "23 skidoo" isn't quite notable enough nor is the context all that unique or important. Frankly, it's not even all that interesting (and I'm a big fan of etymology overall). I would also like to wag a finger against trying to agree on absolute minimum criteria like "must be 5 years older". These kinds of criteria usually wind up being abused one way or the other and are usually completely ignored when a lot people want to get their favorite slang term an article of its own. I would prefer if the wording was a bit more ambiguous, though still fairly restrictive. Wording along the lines of "widely notable", "in common usage for an extended period of time", "well-documented online as well as in print" seems better to me. / Peter Isotalo 12:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that it has all the elements of a dictionary entry (it is a phrase afterall) but it still provides historical and cultural context a dictionary entry typically lacks. In this way it's more of an encyclopedia entry on a cultural phenomenon than a DicDef. That's my point, that dictionary elements can be a part of a proper encyclopedia article. As for notability, a quick Google search will show that it's a fairly common term. --Outlander 14:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are selling short the power and scope of a truly unabridged dictionary. Historical and cultural context are appropriate in a dictionary.  I believe that the problem is that too few people have ever seen a real unabridged dictionary.  There aren't many of them around and even the ones that say "unabridged" on the cover are too often still semi-abridged.  If all you've ever seen are the abridged dictionaries that fit on a shelf, it's easy to believe that all dictionaries are so limited.  A truly unabridged dictionary, on the other hand, has the luxury to explore the variations of usage.  I agree that dictionary elements can be part of an proper encyclopedia article.  But when all we have to add is information about the usage of the word or phrase, that's excellent dictionary content.  An encyclopedia article has to be more.  Rossami (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've seen a number of older dictionaries that claimed to be "encyclopedic" dictionaries; exactly what that meant, I don't know, but it seems to imply that they carried more information than simply definitions on at least some subjects. Then there are, or used to be, a number of single volume desk "encyclopedias."  When they mucked up the Britannica, they broke it down into a few volumes that held brief entries for a broad variety of subjects, and more volumes that contained in depth treatments of fewer subjects.  The consensus seems to have arisen that this wasn't a good idea.  Smerdis of Tlön 22:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Smerdis on this one. (And boldly changed the section heading from "wiktionary is not a dictionary" to "wikipedia is not..," since I'm pretty sure that's what was meant!) WP:NOT a dictionary is the one inclusion guideline I don't agree with, and I have never really understood the purpose of it. The distinction between "articles about anything notable/important that isn't a word" (WP) and "articles about words" (Wiktionary) seems like an arbitrary historic division to me, and all of the frequent transwiking that we do in AfD and other places seems to indicate that people want to use WP as if the distinction were not there. Of course, protologisms and various other abuses should be excluded, but we IMO really lose when terms like jailbait (which just recently survived AfD with no consensus to delete) and cock block (which could go either way) that have substantial cultural importance are deleted with the main reasoning being that they are "dictionary definitions." Can someone justify the policy from first principles without referring to the existence of Wiktionary as an alternative venue? I am interested in the reasoning. &mdash; brighterorange (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Labeling standard division between dictionaries and encyclopedias an "arbitrary historic division" just seems overly high-handed to me. Separating reference works based on usage is very logical because it's supposed to make information easier to find. Bunching all the information together is the perfect example of how to make it that much more complicated for people to find the information they want. And, how on earth are you going to convince the Wiktionary people about this? I certainly wouldn't want to get merged with other wikis.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * (1) Well, my argument is that people already do use (or want to use) Wikipedia this way. If there were no pressure to "do something" about dictionary definitions then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I totally disagree that "bunching it all together" makes the information harder to find, in fact, some of the discussion above is about how apparently difficult it is for new users to figure out that they need to go to a different site for dictionary content. Would you likewise support a separate biographic dictionary for articles about people? (2) I am not suggesting that we merge Wiktionary, rather, that we be more permissive about allowing articles about words. Many words are interesting and important, and therefore to my mind, "encyclopedic." &mdash; brighterorange (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, separation helps to keep things in a neat way. Dictionary defines terms (a table isa furniture object, usually with 4 legs used for eat (that was made up :P) and articles expand on the subject (history, elaboration, interesting facts, etc) -- ( &#x263A; drini &#x266B; | &#x260E; ) 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Orange, if people don't know what a dictionary definition is, then we should correct their mistakes and inform them about it. People have been vandalizing Wikipedia since it was first started, and in huge numbers, but we still haven't caved in and recognized their edits as either valid or constructive. Pseudo-consensus extrapolated from the actions of any amount of editors can't possibly dictate the actual meaning of real world terms, a category dictionary definitions belong to. If an encyclopedia should contain fancruft, articles on individual cricket matches and info about ridiculously non-notable topics is always debatable and a matter of wiki-internal policy, but whether or not it should be a dictionary as well is not. If we start blurring the distinction between "dictionary" and "encyclopedia" so blatantly, then we've started constucting our own reality. How compatible do you think that is with the idea of NPOV?
 * Peter Isotalo 22:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your position at all. To start from the end and work back, I think this is perfectly compatible with NPOV. Articles about words can surely be written from a neutral point of view. Why not? They do it at wiktionary. Why is it not debatable that WP should be a dictionary as well? Are you suggesting that some policies are invincible? As for "pseudo-consensus... dictating the actual meaning of real world terms," are you saying that because the meaning of words is fixed, we can't build articles about them via the wikipedia process? This doesn't make sense to me because (a) we build WP articles about fixed concepts all the time (see addition or 5 (number)), without any worry that we are or aren't dictating the meaning of these things by pseudo-consensus; (b) I disagree anyway that there is some sanctity to the meanings of words that prevents us from forming consensus about what they mean or where they came from in the same way we do for any other topic. Finally, I am not at all suggesting that we should allow things just because people want to do them. Wikipedia has no good reason to allow vandalism and vanity, and plenty of good reasons to reject it. On the other hand, we've seen that many well-meaning people want to use Wikipedia as a repository for articles about notable words, and also considerable disagreement among good editors about what constitutes a "dictionary definition". As such, I am trying to probe the actual reasons for excluding articles about words, because I want to understand why we reject them (and if that should change). &mdash; brighterorange (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * NPOV has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's a policy that dictates how content should be formulated, not how information should be organized. The point is that we have a very clearly defined goal to be an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. And, yes, for our purposes the meaning of words are "fixed" in the sense that a small group of amateur encyclopedists (including me) aren't the ones to redefine them. We are merely conduits of common knowledge, not the arbitrators of it. When we start seeing a major change in how dictionaries and encyclopedias are separated outside of Wikipedia, I'll concede to your wishes, but not as long as it's very obvious that this is just a minority POV held by certain Wikipedians that conflict with how the rest of the world views this.
 * And again, to include additions to en encyclopedia that are based on a misunderstanding of what "encyclopedia" actually means is technically no different than saying that we should keep vandalism. It just happens to be a little less damaging to our reputation. Wikipedia is not an island and I'm very worried that we're getting more and more enclined to think that we're entitled to forcing our own privately held views on a description of the outside world.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * (I totally agree this has nothing to do with NPOV, I was just responding to your question above, which I did not understand.) I think I understand your position now: You're saying that encyclopedias are not dictionaries, they cannot be dictionaries, and that because wikipedia's unchangeable goal is to be an "encyclopedia," we therefore have to agree with the rest of the world what an encyclopedia is. Well, fine, but I disagree on several counts. First of all, WP is not like other encyclopedias at all. We are only loosely an encyclopedia. The way that it's edited, the standards for inclusion, its currentness, and the way you read it are all wildly different from traditional encyclopedias. Though "encyclopedia" is an easy way to explain to a newcomer what we're trying to do, it is not really very accurate. I would say we're really building a "wikipedia", and since that's an entirely new thing, we absolutely do get to pick what a "wikipedia" is. Now, if we think about it and decide that excluding dictionary definitions gets us a better wikipedia, I am fine with that. I am interested in understanding why you, or others, think that is the case. I beieve a wikipedia should have articles on anything that is notable enough, and I believe many words (qua words) are notable enough to be worthy subjects for an article. The WP:NOT a dictionary policy makes it impossible, or difficult, to create such articles. &mdash; brighterorange (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Short version: I agree with Smerdis and Brighterorange for purposes of current policy implications. Long version: Personally, I've always thought that a dictionary is pretty much an "encyclopedia of words" and an encyclopedia is pretty much an expanded "dictionary of words, proper nouns and phrases" and that the difference has always been arbitrary, based on the need to edit down to fit within specific paper volume sizes, and to allow faster reference through the dictionary pages. We don't need arbitrary divisions between our online reference works, and since we aren't turning paper pages, the time it takes to jump to the item you're looking for is no longer a factor. Computer cross-referencing, linking and indexing are amazingly powerful, truly liberating technologies that we're not taking full advantage of. Eventually, I don't think there will be divisions between Wikipedia and Wiktionary because there shouldn't be any. Unfocused 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose Let's not start including dicdefs. Johntex\talk 08:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Since this is not a vote, your opposition would be much stronger if you explained your reasoning. I am actually interested in why people think the proposed view is wrong. &mdash; brighterorange (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose getting rid of "not a dictionary". We already have Wiktionary. No need to duplicate. ERcheck 02:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose as ERcheck. Weighing in with my own voice, I think the arguments in favor of people "wanting to use Wikipedia in this way" (i.e., as a dictionary) is symptomatic of two facts: (1) Wikipedia is more famous and gets more press coverage as the heart of the Wikimedia projects, and (2) not enough use has yet been made of wict:foo links and Wiktionary templates such as the Template:Wiktionarypar series.  I believe as these trends reverse over time, which I fully believe they will, this whole argument will largely moot itself as a problem of merely cleaning up after the noobs.  There is value, as stated above, is distinguishing between articles about words (Wiktionary), and articles about the things represented by words (Wikipedia).  There is a long history of separation between these sorts of reference works, and I think that since Wiktionary exists, it should be used as it was intended, rather than allowing its existence to be mooted by including all or most of the content it should have over here.  The arguments in favor of killing WP:NOT would have made far more sense prior to the advent of Wiktionary.  Let's use the tools we've got.  That said, let's also not get rid of stubs masquerading as dictdefs in a knee-jerk fashion when it is possible and reasonable to expect that the article in question can and will be expanded beyond what is possible and permissable elsewhere.  Smerdis gives some good examples of the sorts fo questions to consider in such expansion above; I will however warn that, in that context, "X" must be treated not as the word, but as the conceptual object represented by the word: Wiktionary gets the article on chair, Wikipedia gets the one on chairs.  --Kgf0 20:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We should definately get rid of the phrase. Wikipedia can absorb some dictionary definitions without any trouble. In fact, we shoud merge Wictionary and Wikipedia to create an all round reference work. I have one of these that Collins puts out, it's a dictionary, some of the entries also have encyclopedia entries. Very useful! Trollderella 19:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of saying "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". The distinction is of no value on the net. I'd like to see the whole of the dictionary merged into Wikipedia. Bhoesicol 03:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel a bit guilty here because I recently added the testosterone poisoning article. With respect for the idea of annotated dictionaries, I think we have to consider user habits.  Should ambitious articles lose most of their audience until the public discovers what an annotated dictionary can be?  What about all those existing stubby ditionary articles - who's going to annotate them?  Very few people browse an annotated dictionary the way one would browse an encyclopedia.  If an article does nothing more than define a well known word or phrase, transwiki it.  If an article goes beyond that in some legitimate way - gets into culture and history - then call it encyclopedic.  I call Schadenfreude encyclopedic. Durova 08:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dicdefs cannot be speedy deleted; indeed direct copies of Wictionary cannot be speedy deleted: the last time this was discussed was in Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/8 where a majority came out against the proposal.  It is clear that a lot of people disagree with using "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" either because they think it is wrong or because they think it is a good source of stubs. --Henrygb 17:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Defining words in an encyclopedia entry
One thought I had, on reading this discussion, was that I often click on wikilinks when I am reading an article, but not just to read an encyclopedia entry for that link. Sometimes I am just not sure what a word or term means, and I just want to read a definition before returning to the main article. Is there a way to do this in Wikipedia? Can you wiktionary link an obscure word that may not have a wikipedia entry, but does have a wikitionary link? Or should you explain the word in the encyclopedia entry? In some cases, explaining in context is best, and in other cases, providing a link is best (some readers need the explanation and will follow the link, others will already know what the word means).

If it is not already possible (please tell me if it is), then it would be great to have wikitionary "in the background" for wikipedia. I've seen some sites where you hover the mouse cursor over a word, and a mouse-up provides a brief definition, or you click to read more about that word or term. But even just a way to tag words with wiktionary links would be great.

Carcharoth 22:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, you can do a wiktionary link as an external link. -- BD2412 talk 22:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You can create a Wiktionary link using the format  foo . It will look like egg.  As you can see, the color of the link is slightly different and when you float over the link, you can see that it's really a wiktionary link.  Rossami (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Really? I did not know that! Guess you learn something new every day. -- BD2412 talk 19:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Notes from Wiktionary
The following is the opinion of one Wiktionarian.

If Wikipedia would like to include selected lexicological information in Wikipedia, that's fine with us. Some words do have stories, cultural significance, and what-have-you that extends beyond the usual scope of a dictionary, even a non-paper one. We do endeavor to include etymological information, usage notes, and so on about words, and sometimes this matter runs toward the encyclopedic. That much is up to the Wikipedia community, though.

Wiktionary is unquestionably a distinct project, though. Have you seen us lately? We have over 100,000 articles now, in English alone. We are actively working on certain things that are more dictionary-specific than you may realize. First, while we still have much work to do in this regard, we would like very much to have a sufficiently consistent format to allow machine readability and parsing. One project driving that effort is the Ultimate Wiktionary.

Definitions, which may sometimes read like a tiny encyclopedia article, are the core of a traditional dictionary, but Wiktionary is not paper, either. We can include things like audio, translations into many languages, citations, usage notes, and the like. Wikipedia, by contrast, does not routinely include data like part of speech, language, pronunciation, inflections, or variant spellings. This matter is essential to a dictionary, especially one that may someday be used by spelling-checkers, translation algorithms, and so on.

Some things interested Wikipedians can do to help the Wiktionary:
 * Come see us now and then. Tell your friends.  We welcome Wikipedians.
 * Learn to edit an article (some basic formatting for those already familiar with Wikimarkup) and do a few, especially if a Wikipedia article, or part of one, smells like a dicdef.
 * Upload pictures to Commons whenever possible so that we can use them, too. You have a lovely micrometer there, for instance.
 * Send likely transwikis our way, but please try to use enough judgment that it doesn't become a garbage dump for useless little stubs.
 * Point out lists of words/articles on Wikipedia, if they might make good seeds for Wiktionary articles, categories, or glossaries.
 * Use foo or the wiktionarypar templates to link to us, when it's appropriate.
 * In Wiktionary, use to link a corresponding Wikipedia article.

Thanks for noticing us! &mdash;Dvortygirl (talk)

Kadavul
The Kadavul Vote for delete confuses me. On one hand, it is a dic def. On the other hand, the dic def is that it is a name for God. Granted, it is the tamil name for god, and indeed it is the tamil muslim name for allah if you must be precise, but it is referenced by lots of people all over the world, including hindus in india, people in oman making plays, in america, and so forth. Whilst it is a dic def, should it be deleted? We do have an article on god, as well as on all of God's names here. So should this one remain?

It's in another language (sort of) which confused me a bit as well. But then again, most tamils can speak English quite well, so it has mixes of both languages in most articles about it. Zordrac 08:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the current version is a mere dictionary definition. It might be expandable if there were aspects to discuss which were significantly different from the topics discussed at Allah.  The concept of Allah is encyclopedic and is well beyond a mere dicdef.  If, however, there is nothing new to say and this is merely an alternate name for Allah, the correct answer for our encyclopedia is a redirect.  (Which does not preclude also creating it as a Wiktionary entry.)  Rossami (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Well, I rewrote the article (partially) but I stopped myself from going beyond a stub because I realised I didn't know what I was doing.  Sure, I can do google searches and get links and stuff, but it took me a while to figure out that Kadavul meant Allah.  To begin with I thought it was a Hindu word for God.  So I just left it as a stub.  But from what you are saying, it seems to warrant being kept.  The refs that I looked at said enough to suggest its a lot more than just a dictionary definition, and indeed that it seems to have its own independent entity beyond just Allah, because Tamils seem to consider it in a different way.  After all, Indian Hindis were referring to it as Kadavul, whereas they could have easily called it Allah.  There was obviously some reason why they called it Kadavul, and why they have an English-speaking Indian gameshow called Kadavul. I'll vote keep on it thanks for the help. Zordrac 05:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)