[vacri]

Firstly, just because you can find brief entries in other encyclopaedias doesn't mean that it's good form.

Secondly, I didn't demand complete excision with the kind of frothy fervor you're implying. I said a better format for these "X is type Y, discovered by Z, listed in Q" is collating them all in a list format. WP has list article like this aplenty - dense, easily digestible information on similar topics, allowing quick and easy comparison and scanning.

As for your link, one of the bold highlights is "explains subjects in greater detail than a dictionary". Another of the three definitions of 'encyclopaedia' your link provides says "with data on and discussion of each subject identified" (my emphasis). So that's two out of three definitions that quite strongly indicate non-brief articles - your linked article is wrong from it's own source material, and hasn't made the case that dictionary-like brevity is suitable for an encyclopaedia.

By your definition, this "(almost) one-sentence" article should be removed from WP, no?

What, are you trying to 'catch me out' here? Do you think that's a good quality article? It's a stub, it's not what WP wants to encourage, and it's more like a dictionary definition than either "explaining a subject in greater detail" or "discussion of the subject". Yes, I think it's a bad article for any encyclopaedia - it's quite brief, and full of technical jargon. If you didn't already know the specific jargon, it's completely useless as a "general course of instruction" (the etymology argument from your link). And if you do know the jargon, you have a pretty good chance of working it out from the name alone; the article merely confirms the topic if you're unsure, but you don't get any more insight into it.

As 'trick questions' go, this one sucked.

[dalke]

Trick question? I'm showing that my question - "Why isn't it appropriate for an encyclopaedia?" - is meaningful, by giving counter-examples from three encyclopedias. This suggests that your definition is not aligned with how the term is used in practice.

I ask that you clarify your reasoning.

You say my linked-to reference "hasn't made the case that dictionary-like brevity is suitable for an encyclopaedia". The link isn't trying to make that delineation between the two. It's arguing (and I agree) that a dictionary is a type of encyclopedia, not that they are two different things. You mentioned some quotes, in bold. The author later comments on those exact same quotes (with bold translated to italics):

> These definitions show that whereas dictionary is defined by words alone: “reference work that lists words, usually in alphabetical order, and gives their meanings and often other information such as pronunciations, etymologies, and variant spellings“, encyclopedia is defined either as synonymous to dictionary: “the term is often interchanged with the word “dictionary,” as in the present work” or by a larger extension than dictionary: “explains subjects in greater detail than a dictionary”. There is thus no conflict between dictionary and encyclopedia. They are either synonymous or only have different extensions (i.e., encyclopedia including dictionary, but covering a larger set of phenomena).

I checked with the OED, at http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/52325 . It concurs, since its definition 1b. for dictionary is (italics mine):

> In extended use: a book of information or reference on any subject in which the entries are arranged alphabetically; an alphabetical encyclopedia

Yes, I'm saying that the article for "gumboil" in WP is not a stub, does not need to be longer than it is, and very much like what WP should support. While I agree with you in that the older print definition of the term is easier to understand than what WP has, that's at most one more line, and more likely solved by rewriting.

BTW, I also looked up Gimlé in WP. That's three sentences long, so a full two sentences longer than the 'Gimli' entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Why must everything require more than a few lines to fit into your concept of an encyclopedia? Certainly Gimlé doesn't fit in a dictionary, so where else would it go?

[vacri]

This idea that dictionaries and encyclopaedias are separable things is entirely within your head - it's an argument you're projecting onto me. I haven't mentioned the word 'dictionary' at all, with the exception of one quote from your own source. You're attributing to me an argument that I'm not making - I couldn't care less whether you call an encyclopaedia a 'dictionary', an 'encyclopaedia', or a 'sauerkraut sandwich' here. I haven't said anywhere "That should be in a dictionary"

I'm talking about the function of an encyclopaedia - which your own link has sources generally requiring non-brief articles. Articles which discuss and expand on a subject. Even the etymology provided is 'general education', which implies more than mere definition of a word.

Yes, super-short articles like 'gumboil' or 'Gimle' should be rolled into larger, more comprehensive articles. There is plenty you could add to gumboil - an image to show one, demographic preponderances, common treatments, common complicating factors, all of which enhance the user's knowledge of the topic. It certainly should be reduced or modified in terms of jargon. As for Gimlé, there's no reason why it can't be rolled into a more comprehensive article on Asgard, Norse Mythology, or whatever. Check out the 'Elysium' article for ways you can expand it to make it a more useful article in its own right.

Another thing that you're missing is that WP (and myself) both view these things as undesirable, but not so undesirable that they should be destroyed as a matter of course. They're just bad articles - and contrary to what you're saying, they're far from complete.

In the case of the 'grasses' links of the OP, these are absolutely terrible articles (the irony being that they're chaff - an appropriately grassy reference). Yes, it's information, but it's very poorly laid out and hard to access or compare. It's the absolute barest information - and far, far from "general education" substansiveness. Cool, Brachiaria plantaginea is a grass, but let's have a look at the entry:

Brachiaria plantaginea [1] is a species of grass which was first described by Heinrich Friedrich Link, and got its current name of Albert Spear Hitchcock. Brachiaria plantaginea included in the genus Brachiaria, and the grass family. [2] [3] No subspecies are listed in the Catalogue of Life. (ta, google translate)

There is barely any information here beyond "It's a grass". What kind of grass? Is it grass like crabgrass? Like asparagus? Like bamboo? What are it's characteristics? Where do you find it? Is it peculiar to any animal's diets? How does it propagate? What does it even look like? Does it have defense mechanisms? Does it survive arid climates well? Are humans allergic to it at all? Not to mention that it's self-evident in the name Brachiaria plantaginea that it's in the genus Brachiaria.

It's an awful, very low quality article - regardless of whether or not you think such information belongs in an encyclopaedia, the article quality does not. Do you feel generally educated by that article? Do you feel like the thing that is Brachiaria plantaginea has been sufficiently discussed? Is the article self-contained (ha!) and explained in detail? These three questions are fundamental parts of the definitions of 'encyclopaedia' given by your original link (and which I don't particularly contest - I rather agree with them).

[dalke]

I'll repeat my earlier parenthetical comment: "Had you written that it wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia, than that's a different issue. I speak now only of the broad category of "encyclopedia"."

I mentioned dictionaries because I misunderstood you. Thank you for the correction.

"There is plenty you could add to gumboil" is of course true. It's also true for nearly every single deleted item in WP, including those which aren't sufficiently notable. It's also true of nearly every item which is currently rolled into a larger article. (Hence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recurring_The_Simpsons_... vs. http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Bernice_Hibbert )

This is an eternal debate by WP editors. Well-defined requirements and boundaries are not possible, only rough guidelines for most areas. This is one such area.

I agree that the information about B. plantaginea is weak. This is not atypical of biological entries in WP. Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabash_tree , which I chose because it's only a few lines longer than the short entry in the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica. (BTW, the Swedish entry in WP has a picture of the gourd, while the English one does not.)

After 9 years this stub entry still doesn't answer some of your questions, like "Is it peculiar to any animal's diets? How does it propagate? What does it even look like? Does it have defense mechanisms? Does it survive arid climates well? Are humans allergic to it at all?"

Worse is the line "The fruit pulp is used traditionally for respiratory problems." It doesn't say if it's actually effective, and if so, what is the method of treatment. Is it eaten? Smeared on the chest like a mentholated topical cream? Used as a suppository?

Thus your criticisms, while quite valid, should be tempered by context.

As another example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_long-nosed_armadillo is also a 4-line stub. If you look in the history you'll see it was once much more informative. This is because it copied text verbatim from http://armadillo-online.org/dasypus.html#pilosus . That source is under the CC by-nc-sa license, while WP does not accept non-commercial only license, so I believe it was rolled back for that reason.

It's relevant that the armadillo page was created by a bot in 2007, in almost exactly the current form. The main issue is likely that WP is a lousy place for species information. Perhaps it's because the primary literature doesn't meet the copyright requirements, and specialists who can create appropriate text are more interested in contributing to specialist compendiums?

For what it's worth, http://www.conabio.gob.mx/malezasdemexico/poaceae/brachiaria... says it's from Florida and Mexico to South America, with secondary distributions in the Old World. Kew gives details in (technical) English at http://www.kew.org/data/grasses-db/www/imp01488.htm .

Neither list anything about allergies, its defensive mechanisms, etc.

My own belief is that this bot information for B. plantaginea, etc. should be in an infobox of some sort, rather than free text. I feel that if I edit the text to include the information I identified, then a future bot sweep may be unable to handle the changes automatically.