[[Big Bend State]] etc.

Hi. I don't think it's a good idea to define things as "a nickname for..."; this is gloss information (e.g. colloquial, informal) and not part of the definition line. Similarly, we wouldn't define spoon as "a name for a piece of cutlery".

Equinox 17:49, 26 January 2016

I disagree, but what would you suggest as an alternative? I think this treatment is less confusing than simply listing the state name with context tags, and the other dictionaries I looked at seem to agree. Also, most of the nicknames are neither colloquial nor informal, most are official nicknames and appear in official contexts.

TheDaveRoss17:54, 26 January 2016

I suppose I'd gloss it with official nickname then, if that's a thing! like putting term of address on something like grandmamma (can't think of a real term-of-address example but did see one the other day). It just seems semantically wrong to define X as "a nickname for..." when that is not the definition of X.

Equinox 18:02, 26 January 2016

I agree that what is listed is not a definition, per se, which is a problem with content like this which is fundamentally encyclopedic. I think what you are saying is to do something like this:

  1. (official nickname) The state of Alaska in the United States.

Which is not any different except to a couple hundred people who are editors here, and I think violates the spirit of {{label}} (or whatever is the right one of those to use now). I don't have strong feelings about it guess.

TheDaveRoss18:32, 26 January 2016

The arcane {{non-gloss definition}} seems like the thing to use here. It's a pain to write out, but I would write either "{{n-g|Nickname for}} the state of Alaska in the United States" or "{{n-g|Nickname for the state of Alaska in the United States}}".

- -sche (discuss)04:20, 27 January 2016

Sounds good, I went with that.

TheDaveRoss12:33, 27 January 2016