User:Dan Polansky/All words in all languages

Wiktionary motto is "all words in all languages". However, there are limitations, natural and artificial.

Natural limitations
Wiktionary only allows attested words to be included. Thus, we can only include what we have knowledge of. Astronomers without telescopes could not dream of documenting all stars in the universe, nor can we dream of documenting all words that were ever used and that have been lost without trace.

Artificial limitations
WT:CFI adds artificial limitations that are unnecessary. There is enough space in the database. These limitations usually have not been properly justified; they are mostly based on previous dictionary practice. When Wikipedia generously allows a full article for Gondor, we could generously allow a simple dictionary entry. Sure, by being so inclusive, Wikipedia is not like "real" enyclopedias; it can do so much more, and who is not interested in Gondor does not need to read or maintain the article.

Attributive compounds
Hyphenated attributive compounds are excluded. But if they are words, they should be included. Admittedly, they are generally of very low value given their predictability. However, some could have interesting translations.

Names
Proper nouns, proper names and names are subject to various restrictions and are felt by many to be not dictionary material proper. Indeed, general dictionaries usually do not aspire to comprehensively cover names. Some claim names are not words, contrary to their obvious wordhood and all sources. Single-word names are words. If we exclude many names, we do not even pretend to try to include all words in all languages.

Geographic names
Hauptstraße is a word, a name of a street. It is currently included but the policy WT:CFI excludes it. It could be included even if not attested in figurative use. It is much more lexicographical than Orange County, which is included.

Company names
Microsoft is a widely used word. Attested single-word company names could be included: all words in all languages. The company name policy was not voted and an attempt at removing it failed. It was argued it risks including promotional material, and yet, it is Wikipedia with its articles that is much more liable to serve as promotion than a dictionary entry with a single definition line. Wikipedia notability guidelines could be adopted to limit inclusion. The number of independent quotations could be increased. Further limits could be invented, better than the current WT:COMPANY policy nearly equating to "exclude all company names".

Brand names
Nike is a widely used word and so is Firefox. Attested single-word brand names could be included rather than being treated by the restrictive WT:BRAND policy, which contains 7 separate requirements to be fulfilled for inclusion. At least, meeting WT:BRAND is not so hard as meeting WT:FICTION.

Names of organizations
Greenpeace is a word. It is not protected by WT:NSE and can be deleted on a whim. Why not include single-word names of organizations?

Names of fictional entities
Gondor is a widely known word. Attested single-word names of fictional entities could be included. One could figure out some restrictive criteria, but not so restrictive as the current WT:FICTION. Why not all words in all languages? See also.

Polish Muminek (Moomin) is in an orthographic dictionary; we could have it.

Names of literary works
Lysistrata is a word, used repeatedly in adaptations of the play. It is not protected by WT:NSE, subject to whimsical deletion. Why not include it? All words in all languages.

Wikipedia and Wikidata
Some lexicographical content for names is in Wikipedia and Wikidata. It is there by accident. Wikidata translations have no tracing to sources and no attesting quotations. See also.

Conclusion
There are unavoidable limitations of coverage of all words in all languages, but some of the self-imposed limitations are entirely avoidable. Why pretend to include "all words in all languages" in the first sentence of WT:CFI, and then arbitrarily curtail it far beyond practical necessity?