Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-45692830-20200511054726/@comment-45692830-20200513032737

As stated, "identification can be based on simple dictionary definitions", "but when it comes to what you actually put in the lead, or elsewhere in the article, you stick very closely to what the sources say".

The principle of calling something a "blender" is only true because we need to call every article something. To say that it does the same thing as a blender IRL is a textbook example of a violation of T:NO RW.

Indeed, this is similar to what is said in Thread:238917. "If you look at the article Vegetable, the Doctor specifically defines the word in the story, so that definition is part of the article." "There's a big difference between creating an article and writing it. The writing of it should observe T:NO RW in that details not given about an thing in the story shouldn't be added to that article."

When it was pointed out that there was an article that didn't follow this guideline, as it actually had the definition which wasn't listed in universe, the response was that the article was wrong and it just needed to be edited, but there are only so many active users.