Some sentences of the section are not criteria for inclusion of senses or terms ("Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature"). Other sentences seem to suggest criteria for inclusion for names of specific entities that contradict common practice ("But articles on the specific towns (Darlington, Hastings), statue (David), escapologist (Houdini), and pop singer (Britney) are Wikipedia's job.") and duplicate the job of Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities, which governs the inclusion of names of specific entities such as London and Houdini. The most offending part of the section seems to be this: "For example: Wiktionary will give the etymologies, pronunciations, alternative spellings, and eponymous meanings, of the names Darlington, Hastings, David, Houdini, and Britney. But articles on the specific towns (Darlington, Hastings), statue (David), escapologist (Houdini), and pop singer (Britney) are Wikipedia's job". It seems to suggest that specific entities should never have a dedicated sense in an entry for a proper name, in contrast to what we actually do in London, New York, Mexico City, Nile, Europe, Atlantic Ocean and Houdini. Thus, defining place names as "place name" or "name of a continent" is not a common practice and AFAIK is not supported by consensus; instead, we define "Europe" as "The westernmost portion of Eurasia, traditionally considered a continent in its own right, located north of Africa, west of Asia and east of the Atlantic Ocean". For interest, see how "Europe" is defined in “Europe”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., and in particular at AHD: Europe, MWO: Europe, and Collins: Europe, look at AHD: Nile, Collins: Nile and Merriam-Webster: Nile, or look at Collins: Houdini.
The part that I have identified as offending was used in RFD in 2010 against Houdini, now archived at Talk:Houdini.
Let us have policies aligned with what we actually do and what the actual consensus supports. Also, let each inessential part be dropped from a policy page, so that newbies do not have to read through rambling stuff of borderline relevance, such as "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. ... The Wiktionary articles are about the words. ..." --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't really know what "eponymous meaning" means. The search google books:"eponymous meaning" finds 20 hits, several of which are not really for "eponymous meaning" but rather for the likes of "... but both stories are eponymous, meaning that they take their names from ...". User:Lmaltier does not seem to know what "eponymous meaning" refers to either, judging from his post now available at Talk:Houdini. All I have to go by are definitions at eponymous, eponym and eponymy. The use of such an unclear and rarely used term is another hint to me that the part should be removed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
google books:"eponymous sense" ("sense" being a synonym for "meaning") does not fare much better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Why does the third paragraph focus on proper names, and on people names and place names at that? Thus, why does it ignore common nouns? The principle that the definitions should not be encyclopedic applies no less to "cat", "gold", and "atmosphere" than it does to "Darlington" and "Houdini".
Furthermore, in "Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names", is it true that many places are known by names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names (but not as place names)? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)