Wikipedia talk:Define and describe

Supporters if the "define and describe" rule include: Tim Shell, Larry Sanger, LDC, Linus Tolke, drj, Mike Dill, Koyaanis Qatsi, GWO, tbc, AxelBoldt, Enchanter, Rotem Dan

Opponents include: 24 - in my experience people learn jargon far better from good examples, good in-context use. This would be a better rule: always include an "i.e." ("that is", restating the thing in different words), always include an "e.g." ("for example", giving a more specific case).

---

Tim, "to make finite" as a definition of "definition" is surely totally inadequate. That might (I suppose, I don't know & don't care) be the etymology of the word, but the word itself doesn't mean to make something finite, unless we're speaking metaphorically, which we shouldn't do in definitions. I mean, what does it mean to make a word or a concept or a thing (all three are sometimes said to be the subjects of definition) "finite"?

See fallacies of definition, last item, "Obscurity." --Larry

---

A definition establishes the boundaries of the concept being defined. Finite means having limits, and to define means to establish those limits. If a concept is not finite, if you don't know where it ends or where it begins, then you have not arrived at an adequate definition. - TS---- To LMS: Why are we arguing about a criterion for a definition when we know what it is by common sense...:-).

---

RI, good point. Nonetheless, I can't resist.

"Establish boundary" is itself metaphorical and is surely not clearer than "define" itself. It is not as though undefined concepts are in danger of being infinite somehow (which is what your view, literally interpreted, seems to amount to). My complaint is not in the substance of what you say--it sounds right to me--but in how you state it (i.e., its clarity). You can probably state the gist of what you want to say just by stating: "A concept's definition describes all and only the items in the extension of the concept." --LMS

---

I find it interesting that Mr. 24 defines "i.e." and "e.g." in his explanation of why not to use definitions. :-) --LDC