Peach

Wikipedia:GOODDEF

Welcome to our website. It is generaly simplier version of wikipedia. You will find there selected articles. Enjoy!

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts: WP:DICTIONARY WP:NAD WP:NOTDIC WP:WINAD

This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. The goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia. Our sibling project Wiktionary has the goal of creating a dictionary. It is the "lexical companion to Wikipedia", and the two often link to each other. Wiktionary welcomes all editors who wish to write a dictionary.

Both dictionary articles at Wiktionary and encyclopedia articles at Wikipedia start out as stubs — stub dictionary articles on Wiktionary and stub encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that the Wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles.

One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary articles are short, and that short article and dictionary article are therefore equivalent.

Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides.

Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary

In this section we compare the Wikipedia and the Wiktionary (as a concrete example of a dictionary), but the principle is that the Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not simply that it is not Wiktionary.

Major differences

One test is that an encyclopedia article's name can usually easily take many different equivalent forms, whereas a dictionary as a linguistic work is about the words in the title, and cannot usually be easily translated.

Minor differences

Note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. A full dictionary article (as opposed to a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from) or encyclopedic dictionary entry would contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed. Short dictionary articles are artifacts of paper dictionaries being space-limited. Not all dictionaries are limited by the size of the paper. Wiktionary is not paper either.

The dictionary definition trap

Good definitions

Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions:

First, those who collaborate on this opus must oblige themselves to define everything, without exception

—Diderot

Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few synonymous or otherwise highly related terms), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns.

A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term.

—Definition

A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym or a near synonym, over broad or over narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. See also Fallacies of definition.

Wikipedia is not a usage guide

Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used: e.g. freedom).

Articles that have been heavily cut to avoid becoming usage guides include gender-neutral pronoun and non-sexist language. Articles with information on how a word is used include singular they, homophobia, sexism, and SNAFU. By a simple extension of the latter, Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a hacker or a Cockney chimney-sweep; we're writing an encyclopedia. See meta:Knocking her dead one on the nose each and every double trey for a historical example. Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries (i.e., more than simply lists of dictionary definitions) on the jargon of various industries and fields; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature, because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook.

Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary

There are special reference works known as genealogical or, more often, biographical dictionaries. These tend to focus primarily on the immediate family connections (parents, spouses, children and their spouses) of the article subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such focuses more on the actions and contributions of an article subject. This means that many genealogical details may be omitted, for a better-flowing, more rounded article.

Biography articles should only be created for people with some sort of verifiable notability. A good measure of notability is whether someone has been featured in multiple, independent, reliable sources. However, minor figures may be mentioned within other articles (for example, Ronald Gay in Violence against LGBT people).

See also Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Handling problems

Fixing bad articles/stubs

A good encyclopedia article can and should begin with a relatively short but discrete explanation of what the subject of the article — the person, place, concept, event, or thing that its title denotes — is.

However, sometimes, a Wikipedia article (particularly stubs) will be badly written. Its introduction will say something such as "Dog is a term for an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." or "Dog is a word that refers to a domesticated canine.". Such articles are not dictionary articles. They are badly written encyclopedia articles, that should be cleaned up in accordance with our Guide to writing better articles. Simply replace the cumbersome phrasings such as "is a term for", "is a word that means", "refers to", with the very simple "is": "A dog is an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." "A dog is a domesticated canine."

Sometimes, also, a Wikipedia article will be badly named. Its title will be an adjective or an adverb or an inflection of a verb that isn't a noun. Such articles are only dictionary articles if they can only discuss the word or phrase, rather than what the word or phrase denotes. If they discuss what the word or phrase denotes, then they should be renamed or merged to the title that adheres to our Wikipedia:Naming conventions. For example: "supermassive" is an adjective, and doesn't by itself denote an actual subject. Supermassive black hole is an actual subject.

Stubs with no possibility for expansion

All stubs should have the potential to develop into full articles. A stub that has no possibility whatsoever for expansion beyond stub status is presenting the verifiable information in the wrong way. Wikipedia should not have single-fact articles.

This does not mean that stubs that have no possibility for expansion should be copied to Wiktionary. They are still encyclopedia articles, not dictionary articles. Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, and the solution for an unexpandable stub encyclopedia article on Wikipedia is not to create encyclopedia articles on Wiktionary.

Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, stubs that cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status should be either renamed, merged, or refactored into articles with wider scope, that can be expanded beyond perpetual stub status, or deleted if it cannot be renamed, merged, or refactored.

Misplaced dictionaric articles

Sometimes an article really is a mis-placed stub dictionary article, that discusses the etymology, translations, usage, inflections, multiple distinct meanings, synonyms, antonyms, homophones, spelling, pronunciation, and so forth of a word or an idiomatic phrase.

If Wiktionary doesn't already have an article for the word or idiom (which is unlikely), it can be copied to Wiktionary using the transwiki system, by marking the article with the {{Copy to Wiktionary}} template.

However, after copying, the final disposition of the article is up to Wikipedia. If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted.

See also

• Wikipedia:Articles about words
• Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)
• Category:Phrases - many phrase related articles can be found in the Wikipedia

References

External links

• "Shallow Page" on the MeatballWiki
• There is one exception to this rule - the Walloon Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a dictionary.