Wikipedia:Featured article review/Macedonia (terminology)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 09:57, 30 September 2008 [1].

---

Macedonia (terminology)

Article fails to meet the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, namely it fails WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Encyclopedia articles are not on the different meanings of a term.

This article is a mixture of definitions:

• history
• geography
• demographics
• linguistics
• politics
• Ethnic

Encyclopedia articles only have a single definition, and are not on a term. The wiktionary is a project which is about terms, and the different meanings of terms.

It's not about how big the article is the article doesn't go 'beyond a dicdef', on the contrary it goes beyond an encyclopedia definition by being about the different usages of the term.

Thus this article fails this policy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm ... that nomination was quite extensively debated at FAC; are there any other issues of concern? Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to do the notifications with {{subst:FARMessage|Macedonia (terminology)}} and post them back to here as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact it's not actually an encyclopedia article, no. The issue doesn't seem to have been brought up at the time at all. A few people said it was listy, but that's about it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Close - I've seen encyclopedia articles on the history of terms, the origin of terms, and other such things. I know the term "Republic" shows up in many encyclopedias, along with "Democracy", "Feudalism", etc, and those are just political terms. This is clearly encyclopedic and not definitional. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • You have to justify that on policy grounds, this is a policy issue. You can't just say, other articles do this. That doesn't work.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • There's no problem at all with an article that is on, or contains a history of a term. However, this article contains multiple mutually exclusive usages of the term. An encyclopedia article correctly consists of only one definition, but here it is differently defined in almost each and every section. While they are related in many ways, they are not related by the definition (except for the simple term, but that is explicitly excluded by policy.) They have to be related by one definition to be an encyclopedia article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a very good article indeed, but it's just not an encyclopedia article. It fails on what is the primary difference between encyclopedias and dictionaries.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Close This is not a dictionary article, it is an encyclopaedia article. The nomination seems almost pointed. - Francis Tyers · 06:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Close This FAR is more or less a direct result of an ongoing dispute over the proper interpretation and application of WP:NOTDICDEF. See discussion here and here. I partially agree with some of Wolfkeeper's suggestions, and I feel that we need to discuss where to draw the line with word article. However, I feel that this article is one of the few good examples of terminology articles that is genuinely compatible with the current policies. Peter ^Isotalo 06:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will close this as consensus has rapidly developed in that direction and because the nom does not directly address WP:WIAFA. There are some things that could be discussed on article talk, however, particularly reducing the number of ugly bullets in the article. Marskell (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I converted the bullet points into prose and made some minor tweaks. While editing, I noticed the prose wasn't all that great at times. There's certainly a lot of very small paragraphs that might be expanded or merged with one another.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with Marskell's statement that the nom does not directly adress WP:WIAFA, WP:WIAFA begins with the requirement that the pages in question meets our policies. Taemyr (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.