So they don't apply to the entirety of Code.Why shouldn't all the definitions throughout the code of each chapter be compiled into definitions chapter 1 ?
So they don't apply to the entirety of Code.
The one that came to mind when I made that comment was 240.2 Tap Conductors. The thought was it does not apply to service conductors or grounding electrode conductors [250.30(A)(6)]. Upon reading it again, I see it specifically excludes service conductors and limits the definition to implementations of 240.4... even though it does not have to, should the reader understand the definition only applies to Article 240. But it just goes to show you that even the author perceived a non-limiting definition would likely be taken out of context in other Articles.Can you give an example of how that would be a problem? I, too, think all the definitions should be in one location.
When a definition is removed from one Article and placed in Article 100 it often takes at least three Code Making Panels (CMP) and often more to agree to the shift to make sure that the Panels don't step on each other's toes. Occasionally, some people would attempt to revise NFPA "standard" definitions.
I personally hate the idea of Section 500.2 definitions being moved to Article 100 where they will become subject to "refining" by people who have absolutely no idea what they are doing.