Talk:Greyfriars

Notability

If this isn't even a community, just a former residence hall, it's not remotely notable, is it? Do any other *dictionaries* provide entries on former residence halls? — LlywelynII 11:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho, moved discussion here for greater visibility and more viewpoints. Thank you very much for so quickly correcting my mistaken—and (you're right) much too lazy—assumption. Whenever possible, don't define terms circularly "Griarfriars sense 3: Greyfriars". Generally speaking, Wikipedia links should be used (eg) for other people who might appear in an etymology, definition, or citation but the wikilinks for the terms themselves should generally be kept on the right or (not that I like them) a #See also section with the #References. — LlywelynII 11:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@LlywelynII It's not defined circularly: it's defined by a link to the relevant Wikipedia page under the name of "Greyfriars, Oxford", because that is the name by which it is best known outside of the city of Oxford. That's also why it was labelled, because Oxford is pretty much the only place that people call it "Greyfriars" without qualification. In any event, we frequently define entries that use a shorter or ambiguous version of a term by using a link to Wikipedia, because otherwise it gets very messy very quickly. Wikipedia is much better equipped to explain proper nouns that don't easily fit into a well-defined category, like Greyfriars.

Greyfriars is still an operating institution, and was never defined purely by its status as a permanent private hall - that was never even its primary function. You have simply made the entry totally inaccurate, and plainly not bothered to read far even on second look, instead preferring to clap back in your edit summaries for a formatting issue that I had obviously already spotted. Theknightwho (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho If the existing definition is insufficient, go ahead and improve it. Don't continue to define it as Greyfriars-but-look-over-there. Our definitions aren't "See also: Wikipedia". They should stand alone to explain the terms.

It's such a basic concept I don't know quite where to point you, but start at Wiktionary:Style guide#Definitions. — LlywelynII 12:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@LlywelynII I've just explained to you that it's not a residence hall - that's a completely inaccurate description. Just stop. Theknightwho (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Right. It's a former residence hall. Or you're saying the building itself is the notable part? Regardless, explain that. — LlywelynII 12:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@LlywelynIINo, it isn't. It has never been a residence hall, and I am not repeating my explanation of what it actually is when you clearly can't be bothered to read more than two sentences. Theknightwho (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox, @Chuck Entz, @ApisAzuli @Lambiam Sorry to bug you guys, but since TKW is beyond listening to me could someone explain the basic idea of having definitions in the senses here and work out an acceptable compromise if that sense even meets notability at all? If Oxford's "private halls" aren't residential halls, the entry should still explain what they are or at least that Greyfriars is one.

If that's not the "primary" function of the establishment, help TKW work out what is, if individual friaries or whatever do meet notability. — LlywelynII 12:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@LlywelynII It's defined as a gloss, and we do not have a policy against using Wikipedia links for definitions, particularly when there is a good reason for it (which I have already given). This seems to be far more about your inability to back down than about genuinely improving the project.

It's also not a good idea to tag people who aren't involved. Please take it to the Tea Room if you want wider input. Theknightwho (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)