Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

slang and idiom guide (moved from Wikipedia_talk:What Wikipedia is not)

Rule #5 suck. I like articles about interesting expressions like Read my lips, no more taxes. Especially those that has an interesting etymology behind them. #5 seems to forbid them. BL 04:14, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I put rule 5 back as there is no consensus to remove it yet. Angela 05:02, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK!

Vote to abolish rule #5 (or drastically change it to allow expressions)
Deadline: 00.00, August 30, 2003 In favour:
BL
Oppose:
mav, Angela, User:Robert Merkel, Jiang, tompagenet

  • You need to set a deadline for this vote. --Jiang
  • Deadline 07:30 23 August 2003 (UTC). I win.

You aren't allowed to set a deadline for my vote! BL 07:46, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Vote over: One in favour. Five against. Rule 5 remains. Angela 16:25, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I moved it to the top of Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary in a support/opposition style. Seems to be standard on policy pages.
Really, rules 2-5 on page "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" are duplicating Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is non-ideal. Martin 17:57, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the trouble is some people try to create a link for almost every term used when the article is being written and it sometimes results in completely new pages being created for topics that, unfortunately, can only be explained briefly. Jam2k


Wikidictionary or Pedia?

I have in mind a series of concepts related to each other, and while some of them are pretty short, they have the potential to become much longer. So my question is whether to just go ahead and make stub articles (which are easier to look for), put them in the Wikidictionary or just use one main Pedia article to summarize.

One example is:

Principle I: Long vowels rise. Principle II: Short nuclei fall. Principle III: Back vowels move to the front.

These principles are defined by William Labov for chain shifting, something found in language change.

For this example, I would like to make 4 pages (William Labov already has a page). Is that making an excess of short articles?

TIA bab

There's always a third option: Wikibooks. What you're thinking of doing sounds like a good introductory linguistic text. --Menchi 09:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Menchi. I just found something addressing my question, so I think I'll work with both: Dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so please do not create an entry merely to define a term. But of course an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic. If you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you're interested in working on a wiki dictionary, check out the Wiktionary (http://wiktionary.org) project! An exception to this rule are articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
Don't worry. I won't. :-) --Menchi 10:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The ideal encyclopedia article is a dictionary definition. Bensaccount 03:27, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be something better than a dictionary and an encyclopedia

The phrase "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" has been bothering me since I started using Wikipedia. I've read the arguments pro and con, and the more I think of it, the more I think Wikipedia needs to be better integrated with the other wikimedia. It seems just silly to me to not be able to find the definition of any word that I don't understand in an article by simply clicking on it.

One of the best way to come up with a creative solution to a problem is to come up with a good set of criteria that clearly define the problem you are trying to solve. The discussions about "is it or is it not a dictionary" are the wrong discussion. The discussion should be what is it that people want to do, and what defines the best way to do it. Along those lines I'll try to start a list of what I think we are all looking for:

  • A comprehensive site(s) that is a repository for knowledge. Look up any subject and get information.
  • A way to move quickly and easily from article to article.
  • A way to find the many meanings of words.
  • A way to move quickly and easily from definition to definition, word to word.

There is a pattern here. The obvious missing next step is...

  • A way to move quickly and easily from article to definition and definition to article.

Several people have mentioned that it is often unclear whether an entry is the definition of a word or an encyclopedia article, something in the middle, or a combination of all of those things. Rather than have people spending lots of time trying to shoehorn ideas into these categories and decide if something belongs in Wikipedia or Wiktionary, why not leave it all flexible, changeable and undefined. An article could start as a simple definition, and gradually expand to a full article.

This comes up over and over in discussions at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Someone will say, "Delete it because it is simply a definition", and then someone else will say "But it can turn into a good article". Isn't this the natural evolution?

So here is my proposal:

  • Combine Wikipedia with Wiktionary.
  • Suggest that people continue to write using the Internal link to highlight topics that can direct readers to relevant encyclopedic articles.

but also, and this is the new part...

  • Let people click on ANY WORD that is not highlighted to get a definition or article about the word.

Wouldn't this be practical and more useable? Does it not address the criteria I've stated?

I'd like to see wikipedia be the place for one-stop information exploring. I think in the past people put a lot of thought into how to break knowledge into pieces so that it could be written about in a volume of limited size. The encyclopedia didn't have dictionary entries because it would be too cumbersome to find a single word. The dictionary didn't have long entries because it would make the book too big. In between is the OED, which is a wonderful encyclopedia about words. These differences are only because of the limitations of paper.

We are not limited. --Samuel Wantman 09:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Amen. — Lumbercutter 16:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Amen ThisMunkey (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What content should we have here?

Regularly, items appear on VfD or QD with a reason of "DicDef"; that the article is nothing more than a dictionary-style definition of the word. Lately though I've been watching the <300 byte rash of 'articles' which could be "GazDef" as they are like gazeteer listings: "XXX is a town in YYYY area of ZZZZ county" with no added value. Is it time therefore to either relax the existence of DicDefs in the hope that they will get expanded, or should we start removing entries that are solely a GazDef and have nothing else in their favour? I'm not sure either type of entry presently supply the general reader with useful information --VampWillow 10:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Granted, I don't like GazDef stubs either, but IMHO they are more valuable than DictDefs. Just add the population, maybe a map, and you already have a good article which could be found in a (cheap) encyclopedia already. However as we have no space limitations here, even for a rather unimportant town at least one screen full with text should be possible to be reached. When I exchanged the redirect Sondheim with an article as it was a bit misleading, I didn't expect that so much can be written about a village of 1000 citizens, all without ever being there. andy 12:04, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A "Dicdef" is a very concise, accurate entry on a subject. They are ideal articles and should not be deleted. Bensaccount 15:00, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If the article has encyclopedic potential. Otherwise, it belongs in the Wiktionary. All "gazeteer" items have encyclopedia potential, that's the relevant difference. -- Jmabel 17:08, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
I think the split into Wiktionary and Wikipedia has proved less than ideal. Although having Wiktionary has a separate project has allowed its style to flourish, in particular in its multilingual nature, what we haven't established is an easy and free-flowing passage of information from one project to the other. This flow was regarded as the absolute key to deciding to have no dicdefs on Wikipedia back in 2002. We virtually never link to wiktionary on wikipedia, and dicdefs are routinely deleted because "that's policy" without really much thought about how best to provide our readers with information. I propose we join up the two projects much more:
In particular I propose we make much greater use of "soft redirects". Suppose ickyflobble is a word that we can only write a dicdef about, not an encyclopedia article. Then at ickyflobble we write For a definition of ickyflobble, see our sister project Wiktionary's article: .... This will be useful to our readers. It will be useful to our editors who can now link any sufficiently non-obvious word/topic without having to worry about whether it is a 'pedia topic or a 'tionary topic. It will promote Wiktionary, which is getting better all that time and it will cut back on the mindless arguments about dicdefs on vfd. What do you think? Pcb21| Pete 18:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've set up an example at flagrante delicto. Pcb21| Pete 18:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And User:Patrick has taken it to the next logical step by using the PAGENAME magic word and a template on that page. Pcb21| Pete 22:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

....mmm wouldn't it be nice if media wiki automatically created a link? 'you are are on a page that doesn't exist yet, but here is the dictdef, feel free to add an encyclopedia entry or expand the dictionary entry' or something like that... Erich 19:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ooooh, I really like the idea that nonexisting articles do that automatically AND that existing articles automatically include a note/link at the bottom, too, "For a short definition of this word, see______." Elf | Talk 20:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
These (and dictionary definitions which haven't yet been expanded) are fine. Google and other search engines can find a stub and attract someone who knows a little about a subject here, where they may be tempted to improve it. That can't happen without having the stubby article in the first place. If it's somewhat stubby and it bothers you, Please use your favorite search engine and add another sentence. It's less work than a VfD listing and in the usual wiki way slowly improves the article. Jamesday 11:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Soft redirects

As of September 2, 2004, there's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Policy proposal for dicdefs: soft redirects that's very relevant to this page. Just thought I'd drop a note here for anyone who has this page on their watchlist but not WP:DP. • Benc • 05:14, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would say it was a 99% consensus, have been archived here without any further action. --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a very useful Collins 1 volume dict / encyclopedia

Why the hell not? A definition for a word certainly won't do any harm, and it's entirely reasonable that someone might come here looking for what a word means, then be drawn into that, or other, articles. This seems like stupid pedantry. [comment originally unsigned by 195.158.6.178, 05:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Also - separating the Wiktionary / wikipedia namespace is counterproductive

Why not merge them, with Dictionary:prefixes or tags for dict defs? The added value of the two communities working with crossover and synergies wqould be great! [comment originally unsigned by 195.158.6.178, 05:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Interesting idea. I do agree that more cross-linking is needed. However, some degree of separation is probably a good thing — we don't want a situation where people would be accidentally linking to the encyclopedia article when they meant to link to the dictionary entry, and vice versa. Believe me, tons of people (myself included) would frequently forget to add "Dictionary:" in front of their wikilinks. I'm sure this exact issue has been discussed before, but I don't know where offhand. • Benc • 06:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of different namespaces - that should satisfy the critics - you could have an option to turn off all the dictionary stuff if you hated it. 213.206.33.82 06:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What a thought -- making Wiktionary and Wikipedia the same would mean that people would start linking every single word in their articles. RickK 06:27, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Use your imagination! What if there was a dictionary tool that you could use to click on any word and that would get you a dictionary definition of the word. There would not be any need to specify which words have definitions because EVERY word has a definition. If there is an encyclopedia article for a word it can be referenced in the dictionary definition. The only need for highlighting is for multiple word titles of encyclopedia articles. I can think of several ways of how to combine the dictionary and encyclopedia funtions, I bet you can too. --Samuel Wantman 07:13, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Use your eyes — this looks terribly ugly! Also (and more importantly), Wikipedia editors carefully choose which words and phrases to wikify in order to best guide the reader to relevant related articles. We'd be undoing a lot of hard work if we wikified everything. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. • Benc • 07:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'll try again. I'm saying that wikipedia does not have to look any different than it does now after dictionary and encyclopedia functions are combined. Writers and editors will still carefully choose which words and prases to wikify, and only those would be highlighted. Those would go to encyclopedia entries (or whatever the editor chooses). What I'm proposing is some easy procedure to select ANY WORD, highlighted or not, and get a definition of the word. I just want to make it easy to look up the meaning of a word that a reader doesn't understand without making them jump through lots of hoops. I don't know enough about the implementation to say how it can or should be done. Ideally, I'd like it to be simple, The simplest would be to just click on any word that is NOT highlighted and get a dictionary definition in a pop-up window. If that is not possible, perhaps you could pick a different pointer tool, or switch a radio button that from "Find Article" to "Look up Definition", or right click on the word and choosing "Look Up Definition" from a pull down list, or click the first letter of a word, or drag a word to a dictionary, or some other method I haven't thought of. --Samuel Wantman 10:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying what you meant. I can see how such a system could be useful, but the logistics of implementing in a way that annoys the minimum number of uses are hairy. (Some issues I can think of offhand: unexpected behaivor for accidental clicks, HTML bloat, ...) In any case, this is an idea (ultimately a good one, I think) that would be more appropriate to discuss on the Meta-Wiki. • Benc • 19:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dictionaries and encyclopedias

This subject was brought to my attention when I saw people talking about Wiktionary being the proper location for numerical prefix articles:

Is a dictionary a kind of encyclopedia??

We human beings think of dictionaries and encyclopedias as 2 disjoint kinds of books. Now, what is a dictionary?? A dictionary is a book that lists words alphabetically, including their meanings, pronunciations, and, if appropriate, any usage notes or word histories. An encyclopedia is a set of books that talks about notable, non-fictional info on a variety of subjects. An encyclopedia is obviously not a kind of dictionary, but based on what I have heard frequently in Wikipedia but never anywhere else, a dictionary naturally is a kind of encyclopedia, namely, one on words. Any info relating to the classification of a dictionary as a kind of encyclopedia when it comes to defining how it is used?? Please explain with whatever detail you can. Georgia guy 01:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I am looking for the meaning of a word or phrase, I want to go to one place for that information. I don't want to have to know that foo is over in Wiktionary because no one had written a long enough article on it. Dictionary definitions can be stubs and grow into articles when the knowledgeable person comes along. Shoaler 15:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Order of definitions

I asked this at the Village Pump, but asking here is relevant as well: If an article needs to discuss or list multiple definitions for the same word what order is to be used: chronological (some dictionaries follow this), reverse chronological, or contemporary relevance, or something else? patsw 21:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In cases where alphabetical order is unworkable I think in order of relevance at the time of writing is best Pedant 15:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a biographical dictionary (among other things)

I don't know who wrote the definition of biographical dictionary on this page, but it disagrees with Wikipedias own definition in the article on the topic. Is there any factual support for the notion that biographical dictionaries "focus primarily on the immediate family connections" rather than "on the actions and contributions of an article subject". I think the opposite is more true. What I think of, and what I assume most people think of, when hearing the term "biographical dictionary" is the Dictionary of National Biography and similar works. up◦land 06:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

There are dozens, probably hundreds, of articles in Wikipedia about little known U.S. Congressman. I want to make three points about that: (a) this is a good thing; (b) isn't doing this thing exactly what a biographical dictionary is; and therefore (c) I think it'd be great if Wikipedia were also a biographical dictionary. (As for the negative thoughts about genealogical data, I also disagree? What's wrong with that? See, e.g., Delano family. Summary: Wikipedia already is, and should continue to encompass, a biographical dictionary. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom 13:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, Wikipedia must be in part a biographical dictionary. I have changed "Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary" to "Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary". Nurg 00:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary, it suggests deleting large ammounts of Category:European royalty stubs. Many of these are not rulers, but just royals who were born to certain families and got married to other royals and had children. I'm not saying there isn't a place for these, just that there seems to be a discontinuity between "wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary" and lots of articles on royals who don't seem to have done anything notable. KalevTait 03:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for policy implementation

Some substubs about potentially encyclopedic articles that only appear to be a dicdef causing it to be substandard to article criteria should just be marked as a stub, even if it has a template indicating it should be copied to Wiktionary. The Bedpan article is a recent example of this. --SuperDude 08:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a dictionary of meaning

I am not alone in thinking that there are no valid reasons for having short "dicdefs".

The reasons given for not doing this are:

  • It can go in Wicktionary
True but unimportant. Wicktionary is a comparatively understaffed and undervisited project, with no seamless integration with Wikipedia. It is about words, not about their meaning. We are depriving ourselves of useful glosses on ideas which will help to integrate the web of larger articles and provide robust entry points to the 'pedia.
  • There would be millions of entries.
Not really. Wicktionary only has 100,000 entries, 'pedia entries are only createed when needed, by and large.
  • They don't add value.
Well actually they do. When looking outside on'es area of expertise, a side trip to a definition is often useful, while it would clutter the main article.


However I do agree Wikipedia doesn't need either every word/phrase nor every meaning of those it has, although this often seems sensible from a completest point of view. References to wiktionary can be usefull, but it should be considered no more special than other external sources. Rich Farmbrough 18:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Add "or a thesaurus"

Should the words "or a thesaurus" be added to the policy after "is not a dictionary"? This would make it clear that a list of words without definitions, such as a list of terms or a list of synonyms, is no more acceptable than a single word with a definition and nothing else. The Literate Engineer 17:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggest merge

This page doesn't really add much to WP:NOT. Does it really deserve to exist in its own right? There is a perfectly good concise summary of everything that is said there on that page. See: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Suggest we merge anything that is not already covered there, and delete this page. Having too many policy pages works directly against the goal of anyone actually reading them. Stevage 12:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a long-established policy that most definitely should not be deleted. Uncle G 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you talking about changing the policy, or removing the expression of that policy on a separate article? I'm only talking about removing this redundant policy page - the material is already covered at wp:not. Is there a strong reason not to do that? Stevage 19:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm talking about what you actually wrote, which was (I quote) "delete this page". This is a long-established policy that most definitely should not be deleted. Nor is it redundant, moreover. Uncle G 11:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We can assume 'wiki' means 'fast', and 'pedia' implies encyclopedia, meaning general knowledge.

When a page is deleted:

Someones work is thrown away because someone else believes it isn't encyclopedic enough, meaning it must be something other than general knowledge.

I no longer have quick access to that (poor quality) information with my URL appending shortcuts. I want quick access to whatever valid information is there, even if its not thorough.

Which means, an admins cleanup job wasted the authors time and the potential readers time, all in the name of cleaning up Wikipedia to give a better impression to newcomers.

This isn't a reasonable policy, I don't understand how a "consensus" of reasonable comes up with these policies. More and more I think editors like you and I have far less representation than we may believe.

Ieopo 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Please explain what on Earth you are talking about. This is a very reasonable policy. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is a fundamental part of Wikipedia's mission statement. Wikipedia's goal is to create an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. The project with the goal of creating a dictionary is Wiktionary. Uncle G 11:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Paper Dictionaries and Encyclopedias contra wikipedia and wiktionary

Paper Dictionaries typically have ten times the number of words that Encyclopedias. Paper Dictionaries are traditionally a sort of micro-encyclopedia that is possible to take a along and easy to flip thru the pages to find a word.

This practical distinction totally falls apart on the web. I have not before seen any point in keeping these two types of references apart on the web.

The reasons why wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary nor a usage guide are clearly stated and understandable in this policy, and I accept that there is a consensus for it, but no reason. The only reason I can gauge for it from the policy, is that a few lonely encyclopedical articles should not be bogged down by a mass of short definitions but surely this has proven to be a fallacy now that wikipedia has ten times the number of articles compared to wiktionary instead of the other way around that one would expect from that premise.

Naturally, I have accepted the policy and I follow it, but I could someone please tell me the purpose of this policy, since the only purposes that I can think of apply strictly to paper versions.DanielDemaret 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question. I suppose the reason is to avoid entries about things being bogged down with strict definitions, etymologies, usage etc, when what we're really interested is just "what is this thing, and how does it relate to the world?" Stevage 11:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymologies?

I was just over on Snake, and I realised that the inclusion of (detailed) etymologies of words that refer to their subjects is entirely inappropriate. Since this is one of the dictionary-ish items that Wikipedia should probably avoid generally, should we mention that here? elvenscout742 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point - the same could be said about this version of Mushroom (before I excised the waffle). --Blisco 16:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Girlfriend

For the past several weeks, there have been 3 nominations for Girlfriend for Afd simply because the nominator looks at it as a dictionary definition. I want to know what some of the most common views of what to consider "dictionary definitions" on Wikipedia are. Georgia guy 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of sync

This policy is actually narrower than that of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Policymakers, please put them in sync, otherwise a broken telephone game sometimes happens. `'mikka (t) 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change to this policy

The policy as it currently reads only forbids/discourages articles which are merely definitions of terms. The problem with this is that this would allow one to cut and paste any decent quality wiktionary definition as a wikipedia article and then say, "See, it doesn't violate this policy because the article doesn't just DEFINE the word, it also gives the etymology, lists synonyms, explains the pronounciation". I find it difficult to believe that dictionary definitions are meant to be allowable as long as they also included the etymology and list some synonyms, since these things are commonly part of a good dictionary definition. If "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" actually means that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, then the policy should be amended to reflect this. --Xyzzyplugh 15:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - the article never seems to clearly define in what sense Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I would add text like this at the start -
"Wikipedia articles provide information on things, ideas and events. They don't generally provide definitions or information on individual words in a language - that is the purpose of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. For example, the article apple describes the fruit, not the etymology and spelling of the word. However, some words become notable for historical, cultural, linguistic or other reasons and it is reasonable for information on these words to be covered in Wikipedia."
That's a very rough draft but do people think that would be useful to include? Dave w74 00:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Some terms such as religion cannot be properly defined but are clearly useful in daily life. There is no agreed upon defintion of religion. I think this article should state this. (I am personally quite confused about this) Andries 01:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be a dictionary?

Why not merge Wiktionary into Wikipedia? —Ashley Y 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, I want to know about the Crusades, and sometimes, I want to know about the word "crusade". Those are pretty different questions (one historical, one etymological), and I would think anybody familiar with encyclopedias and dictionaries would turn to the appropriate source for the appropriate question. Should an article about a series of wars and an article about a word in English really be the same article? I don't see why. A dictionary documents words; an encyclopedia documents the things in the world to which the words refer. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your suggestion though. How would you handle merging, for example, Crusades with Wiktionary:crusade, and with Wiktionary:Crusade, for that matter? Or is that not what you had in mind? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, except that people don't really viscerally get this distinction w/r/t their activities on Wikipedia. See for example Talk:Interim, or Mythical National Championship, or Freeway versus Motorway (which require two articles only because of differing terms in different locales) or other articles where I've tried to point out WINAD only to get responses about how the content on the article in question is interesting or plentiful. No one argues based on encyclopedicity or on conformance to WINAD; they just argue that someone beefed up the article so now it's obviously OK, or that someone on Usenet is going to look up this term so it must be OK. As far as I'm concerned WINAD is a dead letter and I'm not going to bother trying to apply it any more. Sorry if I'm playing the martyr; if there's something wrong with my interpretation of WINAD then please set me right. - PhilipR 19:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It probably won't get support, but I kind of like this idea. It would be very possible, and have a lot of benefits. Basically, Wiktonary would get it's own namespace. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[See also #Wikipedia can be something better than a dictionary and an encyclopedia.] — ¾-10 16:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)