Talk:Dictionary/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early unsectioned discussions

Discussion 1

Wikipedia has a 'sister' dictionary, Wictionary, but this is far from comprehensive. Is there a copyright problem with quoting other online dictionaries (Dictionary.com, Mirriam-Webster, Cambridge) in Wikipedia articles? -- Rob Williamson

Discussion 2

"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is descriptive, and attempts to describe actual usage." This is scarcely true. The OED is highly prescriptivist. It's not uncommon to see a usage marked as "illiterate" or "incorrect" (see "ain't" or "refute" in the Second Edition, 1989). Try to find a Merriam-Webster dictionary which is that blunt! Instead you'll see "though disapproved of by many speakers...." everything is basically OK. So M-W is the modern exemplar of descriptivism, while the Oxford dictionaries have traditionally been prescriptivist, though they are rapidly becoming much less so (because prescriptivism is very out-of-fashion in linguistic circles). --user:rjp_uk

It is descriptivist, in that it allows those words to appear at all. Does a word's absence from a dictionary prevent you from using it? If you are being meticulous, it might give you pause, but descriptivists would say that a dictionary's lack of a term is an error in that dictionary. --Connel MacKenzie 14:38, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion 3

I've removed the /History bit since I think encyclopedia entries should consist of more than definitions, and that therefore the history of dictionaries should go on the main page. --Koyaanis Qatsi can't we do better than "A list of words defined in terms of each other"? --LMS

Discussion 4

I tried to access the dictionnaries in the links, and I find them nothing like Wikipedia. Even in using Webster's 1913 edition as a starting point (as good as any place to start from) there continues to be an impulse to control events. Whether these controls are motivated by a desire to retain purity or to somehow derive monetary profit, they nevertheless diminish the democratisation of knowledge. Eclecticology

Discussion 5

Why isnt wikipedia a dictionary? Lir 07:12 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopedia silly. Read Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --mav

On the other hand, just as dictionaries can be encyclopedic, there is no reason that encyclopedias should not include definitions and etymological information as part of their general coverage. Just a definition is not enough, of course, but a definition in context may be just the ticket. For instance, castanet and copra include definitions, but go beyond what any dictionary would include, while train and bridge benefit from additional information on meaning, and the history and nature of Contract bridge is considerably illuminated by the inclusion of a couple of sentences on etymology. Ortolan88

Discussion 6

Discussion from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

• Dictionary - decent content and good references. Need some heading. -- Taku
  • Agree that it's close, but it needs better organization and doesn't flow very well. Could probably be expanded too, still an excellent article but I wouldn't say brilliant -- oppose Tuf-Kat 03:59, Dec 22, 2003

Discussion 7

How about these points?

Dictionaries are a collection of words/phrases (a list of entries, a repertory) sorted either in alphabetic order, or following a nomenclature (structured list of words identified numerically) with the objective of being helpful in learning/orientation, etc. traditionally in a book form. Such repertories contain various aspects/classes of knowledge associated with usualy one/each word/phrase in the list that must be possibe to search/expand to be useful. The collection itself is useful, because of the past work done in assembling such lists, saving the energy and effort for the new readers in similar need. When such lists are compiled, they should come under the check for meeting the general requirements for any information source to be useful, i.e. the items should be reliable, complete, precise, timely and exhaustive. This has not been possible or economically resonable with books, but it is highly desireable with respect to online dictionaries/tools of knowledge arranged in list format (for the sake of easy retrieval). These criteria are met by using the traditional approaches, yet checking for completion is not possible with alphabetically sorted sets. Therefore, an ambitious dictionary project shall never have an alphabetic list of items only, it should also follow a thesaurus structure, such as Longman's Lexicon and a few other book form dictionaries. Besides, bi- and muiltilingual dictionaries are impossible to maintain, if they are not using a nomenclature, or a system for the numbering the entry words that can be flexibly expanded. Most dictionaries made to this date are static, i.e they are a product of lemmatisation and decontextualisation efforts, at the end of which you have a word without context, accompanied usually by grammar and linguistic information only. Some add visualisation, cognitive points and relations too. The OED and similar projects have examples or references to the original occurence, but as a rule, the original context is got ridden of in the list. Not so, with the advent of translation memories and with the convergence of bilingual text collections and the collection of words (dictionaries). With the current trends in research and production, the dictionaries will remain static and not be of much help to people who look beyond a single word or its meaning, and want to solve their problem at syntactical level, that is in the real world of using dictionaries (as a means to help with translating from L1 into L2). And as opposed to former beliefs in using graph structure to represent the meaning of words in books and eelctronic files too, it is likely that the suitability of rings and circles will be recognised in the future design of really professional, "unbookish" electronic dictionaries. apogr

Huh? Nohat 18:09, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

---

A good start, Nohat, try again. apogr

Discussions 8

suggestion: the input to enter target word should be more central on the homepage at least, if not all pages.

)b

Discussions 9

I've been noticing lately that when I use google I get wikipedia pages back but from WordIQ. I also tried using the wordiq site to search for "wikipedia" and it seems to take a very long time and sends back very unuseful results.

Kstailey 12:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Plagiarism ?

Compare http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Howl with Howl. Something funny going on? Matt Stan 19:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com takes its content from Wikipedia. Why this question on the Dictionary talk page?? --Valmi 23:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merger?

Today I decided to work on extensive revisions to Webster's Dictionary and in poking around found a stub at Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition and a longer article at Webster's Third New International Dictionary. It seems to me it would be best to consolidate the second and third material at Webster's Dictionary, because it is the familiar name and it would put the history of the work, which has appeared under several names in one spot; then put in redirects under the other names. I've integrated the material at the present "Third" article with my own contributions at Webster's Dictionary. Would anyone with comments please contact me on my talk page? PedanticallySpeaking 16:40, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Six links rule

There is an interesting rule of thumb claiming that a chain between any two words in a dictionary exists, and have length of 6 or less pages. For example, let's take 2 random pages from Wiktionary: Wiktionary:俔 and Wiktionary:Fiction. These words are defined as the follows:

Wiktionary:俔

Common Meaning: Wiktionary:like

Wiktionary:Like

Synonyms (find attractive): be attracted to, Wiktionary:Fancy (British)

And now let's follow the chain starting from "Fiction":

Wiktionary:Fiction

Literary type using invented or Wiktionary:Imaginative writing, instead of real facts

Wiktionary:Imaginative

tending to be fanciful or inventive

So "俔" is defined as "like", "like" is a synonym of "fancy". The word "fiction" means "imaginative" writing and "imaginative" is tending to be "fanciful".

Any two words in a dictionary can be linked in this way, even if they seem to be completely unrelated. Perhaps someone, who knows English better than I, could find some funny examples.

This rule comes from the fact that words in a dictionary or encyclopedia are tightly related. The words used in descriptions of terms are often included in a dictionary itself. (Quote from PageRank article: PageRank seems to favor Wikipedia pages, often putting them high or at the top of searches for several encyclopedic topics. A common theory is that this is because Wikipedia is very interconnected, with each article having many internal links from other articles, which in turn have links from many other sites on the Web pointing to them.)

I found this rule in a Russian book on lexicography by Karaulov (Караулов Юрий Николаевич. Общая и русская идеография. - М.: Наука, 1976). It would be great to start a Wikipedia article on this topic, but I’m afraid it would be viewed as original research because I could find more books or articles about similar rules.

Some researches of WWW found that "on average any two Web pages are separated only by 19 clicks" [1]. It seems that Wikipedia also lacks of this information, though it’s very interesting.

May be we could put "Six links rule" in Dictionary or Lexicography? Everybody is welcomed to comment or extend this info. --Sdummy 07:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Etymological dictionary article needed

Yesterday I had cause to use some etymological dictionaries for Caucasian languages. As a linguistics hobbyist I realize I wasn't quite prepared for using such a dictionary. They seem to be sufficiently specialised that we could benefit from an article on their history, usage, etc right here in Wikipedia. Would anybody like to give it a stab? — Hippietrail 03:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary link

Shouldn't we link to the English Wiktionary instead of the generic wiktionary seeing as this is the English Wikipedia? Enochlau 03:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

True. However, it doesn't exactly fit in the "See Also" section. Neither does it fit with the "External Links". Does anone have an idea of where to put the Wiktionary?Chimchar monferno (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A Fictional Rhyming Dictionary

I think your excellent article on rhyming dictionaries is worthy of Wikipedia’s high standards.

I propose a link (which I think is distinctive) for your consideration www.benandverse.com/writings/index.htm.

My fictional rhyming dictionary is distinctive in that it attempts to teach the habit and craft of rhyming through word association. In order to implant the rhymes in the memory, I have strung rhyming words together into a pattern that suggests a scene or story.

Warning: I could make comparatively few words fit together to suggest this -- I guess more than a thousand but less than two. This must be the web’s shortest rhyming dictionary – and its rhymes are totally unrelated to poetry.

The work on this dictionary is from a section I have just added to my website, a literary miscellany, called “Phony Pearls of Fictitious Wisdom”.

My original website, “Ben and Verse,” is devoted to Ben Franklin. It received the A+ award from the www.englishwebteacher.com (together with a link from the Franklin Institute).

The original website has persisted for years; I have instructed my executors that both the original website and this new addition shall remain unchanged until long after my death.

I’d consider it an honor to receive a link from the Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

John McCall Mccall63@aol.com

152.163.100.74 15:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Abridged Unabridged

Why no discussion of abridged vs. unabridged dictionaries? How many words do most modern [abridged] dictionaries have? How many words does the Merriam Webster Unabridged dictionary have? (476,000--from www.m-w.com) What determines what goes into an abridged dictionary and what gets put in an unabridged dictionary?

- Adam H. June 19, 2006

Where is Merriam-Webster?

How come the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Eleventh Edition dictionary isn't listed? That seems to be the most recent and popular dictionary nowadays, even though I have the Oxford.

- Adam H. June 19, 2006

Yawiktionary

I decided (after review of the external link policy to remove this link, until a more seasoned editor has decided to include it, or not.)

I am the creator of yawiktionary (yet another web dictionary) Please check the below link, I dont want it to be considered spam, so I am putting it in the talk pages - as described in the external link policy. The project is a "parents basement" operation, It is non-for-profit. Because I am non-neutral, I will not add the link, but let others decide weither it should be added.

I created this fork because I felt that "over-wikification" is bad for "ordinary" editors. Yawiktionary will always remain excessive wikification free.

The underlying engine, yawiki engine, is 100% Java based, and accepts RWF, (Reduced Wiki Format). The engine is not complete, not thus the wiki appears to be static (which it currently is) However, once the yawiki engine is finished, it will be followed shortly after by the launch of a yawiki rich client.

The yawiki engine is a inspired, and is essentially a derivative work of a current wiki engine.

Here is the link:

• Yawiktionary (Yet Another Web Dictionary), fork of wiktionary, uses material from Webster, Wiktionary and Wikipedia

I've seen this used as a souce on some page for definitions... it clearly is not appropriate, as it's not a reliable source, and ends up with Wikipedia using itself as its own source to prove something. DreamGuy (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I`m shure that "Farsi Dictionary Free online Persian-English and English-Persian Dictionary" should be moved from Online-only general dictionaries to Multilingual Dictionaries.

Same situation:

1. Digital Dictionary of South Asia (Hindi)
2. शब्दकोष (Shabdakosh)
3. CantoDict a Cantonese Chinese-English dictionary. Also has Mandarin pronunciations for most words.
4. MDBG free online Chinese-English dictionary Contains Mandarin pinyin for words, also has Cantonese Yale/Jyutping for individual characters. Clicking on characters will allow you to hear their pronunciation in Mandarin or Cantonese.

Thanks. PSSS: Why move it at all, when you can have it on both Web sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.32.116 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

dictionary.com

Wouldn't dictionary.com be a good link to put under the online dictionaries page? Also thefreedictionary.com is good as well.

Bostonvaulter 23:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Bostonvaulter

Dictionary.com looks like a parked page to me, why should that be included? LinguistAtLarge 19:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a parked page? I personally often use onelook.com, but all onelook is is a convenient way to search many online dictionaries at once, something like using dogpile as a search engine.--Filll 15:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In reply to the first post of this topic.

In the article, I think that they do not want to include online dictionary website. Perhaps someone could construct such a site? I know plenty of websites other than Dictionary.com and Thefreedictionary.com, such as http://www.m-w.com/.Chimchar monferno (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

External links

Do so many external links need to be on this article? I don't see the need for so many, and WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. I think the whole section should be removed, but if it can be majorly trimmed down, it would be much better than it is now. _{J Di}^talk 12:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I trimmed it to the major ones once in April and a few month earlier anonymously, and it all just comes back. I think the languages other than English, at least, should go, since they tend to duplicate what is in the whatever_language article. Tono-bungay 09:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

External links section

First, I agree whole-heartedly that we don't need a huge (spammy) external links section.

I just got done removing spammy keywords from the link text and re-orginising the list in alphabetical order. I think it looks a lot more orderly like that.

I'd examine adding a couple of good exemplary dictionaries to the list and maybe removing a couple that are currently in the list.

Currently the list looks like this:

• AllWords Full featured online dictionary.
• AskOxford The Compact Oxford English Dictionary.
• bab.la - Multilingual Dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.116.209 (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Babylon Machine Translator.
• Bartleby American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition.
• Cambridge Cambridge Dictionaries Online
• Dict.cc Online bilingual dictionary.
• Foyz A dictionary and thesaurus.
• Leo Online bilingual dictionaries.
• Merriam-Webster The Merriam-Webster dictionary.
• Oxford Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary.
• Scrabulous Scrabble dictionary and word lists.
• Super55 Multilingual Dictionary Project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.39.35 (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• [2] Some 60+ languages. Could replace interglot for example with ease.

To remove: (maybe) Foyz, Dict.cc & maybe Babylon (the focus is different)

Possible candidates for inclusion: http://wordreference.com http://tomisimo.org http://diccionarios.com These 3 along with Leo have been a pillar in my attempts at foreign language learning. (Glad to see Leo's still in the list)

This is just my opinion, what do you all think? LinguistAtLarge 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal list. I would reluctantly remove Leo even though it's great, because if we open the door to bilingual dictionaries we will get an endless list. If we are to have a list of major multilingual dictionaries, I would have yourdictionaries.com (English version of diccionarios.com), wordreference, majstro, lookwayup, logos.it, and EuroDicAutom. Tono-bungay 02:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Scrabble Dictionary link removed

I am undecided if this is a good or a bad thing. What do you think?--Filll 19:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I hadn't looked at it earlier. Tono-bungay 10:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It came right back, this time in the body. Anonymous user from India, please make a case here why that Scrabble Dictionary link (also from India) is important. Tono-bungay 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that anyone who wants to put in information about scrabble dictionaries should do it on scrabble-related pages, if it is not there already. When I look at the list of dictionaries, it is already getting pretty long.--Filll 15:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries for mobile devices

I was wondering if you would consider adding a link(maybe a section) for dictionaries for mobile devices. Here is the link : Dictionaries for mobiles

Dictionary Through A Lens image

In the "Prescription and Description" subsection, there is this image. As nice as it is, I don't think it fits in that section, or anywhere really. It doesn't clarify anything as far as I can tell. I am hesitant to remove it myself, as it does make the article look nicer. Any thoughts? --Goyston 02:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it, unless the article gets so many images it becomes hard to read. Then remove it.--Filll 05:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

List of online dictionaries

I have moved external links to point to the already created List of online dictionaries article. This will decrease the amount of links popping up in this article Vlllkkkez 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this decreases links. The new links page is resurrecting a page that had been deleted because it was mostly link spam without content. I'm not thrilled about seeing it come back, away from the watchful eyes of the lexicographers who monitor this article. Tono-bungay 05:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I shall invite here the admin who undeleted it. --Quiddity 06:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was asked why I undeleted it? Answering: it is useful and it was repeated many times ad nauseam: lists do not replace categories and vice versa. By the way, I deleted "major multilingual" as Original research: who says they are major? Must be wikipedia article. `'mikka 06:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

..And the wikipedia articles all have their relevant external links. Merge tags duly added. --Quiddity 07:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it. Wissahickon 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I did it. Wissahickon 05:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

---

BT, NT, RT

I wish this entry explained Broad Term (BT), Near Term (NT), Related Term (RT), and so on. Thanks to anyone who can add it. --Bruce.norman.smith 02:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Onelook

I found out we have a WP article for this, so it might be better as a "see also" link rather than an external link. I do wonder about the tremendous number of links. Shouldn't a separate article for organizing some of these be created?--Filll 22:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

word source

Can you add word.sc to the list of online dictionaries? It does for online dicts what google did for search engines. Very clean and simple layout, fast to load.

History section needs organizing.

The history section seems to be a bit disorienting, as it jumps between different kinds of dictionaries --Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 09:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks

Something should be mentioned about trademark terms in dictionaries, and the fact that some companies have sued or threatened to sue dictionary publishers over various definitions, like McJobs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.142.217 (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Description vs. Prescription

The following quote is included under Dictionary:

“In the long run, however, usage primarily determines the meanings of words in English, and the language is being changed and created every day. As Jorge Luis Borges says in the prologue to ‘El otro, el mismo’: ‘It is often forgotten that (dictionaries) are artificial repositories, put together well after the languages they define. The roots of language are irrational and of a magical nature.’”

There are many ideologues and academics who have become sorcerers of the “magic” of word meaning. This does not include the “legalease” found in legal documents that confound the average reader (but are actually intended to control the meaning precisely). Nor does it include government (especially military) descriptions that substitute common, easily understandable and descriptive words with less common words with vague meanings that are none-the-less accurate and consistent with widely accepted definitions. The sorcerers I mention are those who are engaged in combing through the popular usage of words and selectively pruning that set in a way that establishes definitions that are friendly to a particular ideology or political philosophy. This pruning of word usage may be a conscious effort or not, but it alters the meanings of words and probably controls social thought processes and is probably more sinister. Words and their meanings are the tools we use to communicate with others and the tools we use to reason. A popular quote says, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.” The sorcerers have identified that there is not just a choice between hammers, screwdrivers and wrenches, but that the tool’s shape can be modified slightly over time. As a result, even “Descriptive” dictionaries are deceptively “Prescriptive” in a progressive rather than conservative way. See the Wikipedia entry on . (I should probably post this comment there as well.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.106.94 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverse dictionary

Anyone interested in adding an article on this? Samantha of Cardyke (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(Intro) Alphabetical?

Should we change

"A dictionary is a book of alphabetically listed words in a specific language, with definitions, etymologies, pronunciations, and other information;[1] or a book of alphabetically listed words in one language with their equivalents in another, also known as a lexicon."

to "A dictionary is a book of collated listed words in a specific language, with definitions, etymologies, pronunciations, and other information;[1] or a book of collated listed words in one language with their equivalents in another, also known as a lexicon."

I suggest this for the very obvious reason that not all listings in dictionaries are in "alphabetical" order: some languages don't have an alphabet, some don't even have a standardised method of collation (like Japanese or Chinese) and a number exist, and some listings even in languages with an alphabet may not use the alphabet. An example of the last is Cambridge listing of "3-D". "3" is not part of the alphabet, and if it were in a print dictionary (and it's likely in many) could not be considered alphabetical order in the true sense of the word. In the case of the English example, I do realise that this is still popularly referred to as alphabetical order, but it isn't really. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 16:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be better for the lead to quote this OED definition?

A book dealing with the individual words of a language (or certain specified classes of them), so as to set forth their orthography, pronunciation, signification, and use, their synonyms, derivation, and history, or at least some of these facts: for convenience of reference, the words are arranged in some stated order, now, in most languages, alphabetical; and in larger dictionaries the information given is illustrated by quotations from literature; a word-book, vocabulary, or lexicon. (2nd ed., 1989)

There's an apt circularity in using a dictionary to define one. Keahapana (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I just now edited the intro para to chang "alphabetic list" to "list...often alphabetical", and removed the second mention of "alphabetical." That was before I saw the discussion here. But I still feel good about my change :-) (not all dictionaries are alphabetical). Mcswell (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I wrote Jack Lynch, Professor at Rutledge Univ. of 18th Century Literature. His talks includes works involving dictionaries. He responded (concerning definition of dictionary) with

"dictionary" has had a wide range of applications over the centuries. Since 1631, the word "dictionary" has been used with this meaning:

By extension: A book of information or reference on any subject or branch of knowledge, the items of which are arranged in alphabetical order; an alphabetical encyclopædia as a Dictionary of Architecture, Biography, Geography, of the Bible, of Christian Antiquities, of Dates, etc.

There are all sorts of reference works we'd be likely to call other things -- encyclopedias, gazetteers, and so on -- that have been called dictionaries by their makers. In these cases,

the essential sense ‘word-book’ is supplanted by the accidental one of ‘reference book in alphabetical order’ arising out of the alphabetical arrangement used in modern word-books.

. My reason for contacting Professor Lynch was the result of a curriculum director denying my published phonetic dictionary to her school relating that the reference book was not a 'real' dictionary. Now the dictionary is in public library collections in Canada, Mexico, The Netherlands and, of course, since it's an American English Phonetic Dictionary, is in over 400 U.S. public libraries. I am the lexicographer and would like to include "Gabby's Wordspeller & Phonetic Dictionary" into the dictionary collection. And, since it's the only known phonetic dictionary currently in existence in either book or digital form, it has no category to list itself. Does it belong in a sub-category or does it require it's own category? There may be others come along now that this one has made the light of day.--Damefrank (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Scrabble a type of dictionary?

The person that originally added Scrabble as a type if dictionary is a vandal. I reverted the edit because the link points to a game, not a dictionary. Although Scrabble does have one dictionary produced especially for the game I don't think that makes it a type of dictionary, it is merely a compressed version of already existing general dictionaries. The main use of the so called "Scrabble dictionary" is as a word list, and experienced Scrabble players know that the meanings are laughable at best. I guess the inclusion of the Scrabble link does not materially harm the article but IMO it does not do any justice either. I would still prefer to see the link either removed or to point directly to the Scrabble dictionary (and not the game). HumphreyW (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the link to the one and only Scrabble dictionary and inserted it into the article. I also changed the link description to the more generic "word game". HumphreyW (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Erya is not a dictionary

Erya is not a dictionary, but a list of diverse words grouped by meaning. It is not a thesaurus, though, because it is intended for use reading canonical texts, rather than writing. Charmii (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Pertinent External Links

if it was of me, i'd add http://wordweb.info/free/ to the list of links, because this just is one of the best dictionaries. they call it an "offline lexical database," and the wordnet website http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ offers a linux-compatible download, too. princeton has put several millions in its creation, and this is the dictionary i recommend to everyone who needs a dictionary on their computer. Twipley (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage dictionary

I've redirect that here, but it probably needs a little explaining how Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage or The Cambridge Guide to English Usage differ from "normal" dictionaries. Pcap ping 11:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Author of the first English Dictionary.

HELP!

I have just dotted the "ii" about who wrote the first English Dictionary. It wasn't Samuel Johnson, but Samuel Johnson Jr., a non related contemporary.

As soon as I saved this change, I received the following message:

"Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dictionary, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. HumphreyW (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betty_VH"

I couldn't write to Mr. HumphreyW, as he has no user page. ("A page with this title has previously been deleted.")

I suggest information be checked before being deleted!

Please check the article on Samuel Johnson Jr. (which, I have just noticed, has received a claim for deletion for alleged "fake bibliography". Based on what? Who checked the bibliography?)

Your article about Samuel Johnson Jr. makes claims that are untrue. It has no references, and links to blogs. Please see WP:EL and WP:RS HumphreyW (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Humphrey, there are legitimate references, which were checked. One of them is under the NY Times domain ( http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CE3D81438E433A25756C0A9679D94699ED7CF ; this page leads to a PDF format fac-simile of the article featured in the Oct 15, 1989 edition), The 'blogs' are official blogs of American universities. The "claims" are not "untrue"; they are only "unknown".

--Betty VH (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if the claims for Samuel Johnson Jr. are true, that still doesn't make it the first dictionary. Since Samuel Johnson Jr. is stated to be born on 1757, and Samuel Johnson (no Jr.) is credited with production of his dictionary in 1755 (two years before Samuel Johnson Jr. was born). So, either way, you can't go changing this article to state that Samuel Johnson Jr. made the first dictionary unless you are also claiming that Samuel Johnson (no Jr.) did not actually write a dictionary? HumphreyW (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That NY Times link only seems to claim that Samuel Johnson Jr. was "the author of the first dictionary by an American author published in this country", so I've no idea why Betty VH thinks it supports their claim of his having written the first English dictionary.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I have never said that, Syncategoremata. I just corrected the information about Samuel Johnson in this article. Unfortunately, it should not refer to the famous Dr. Samuel Johnson, but to a modest schoolteacher whose father shared the same name. There are many scholarly references to that. I said "unfortunately", because collecting the feathers of a lie is impossible, as you certainly know. When I first found that piece of info, I was as mystified as you are -- perhaps not as indignant as you seem to be. At least, not indignant enough to take it as plain "gibberish" before researching seriously. After researching, I was convinced.

BUT: When everybody believes a lie is The Truth, it is hard work to make them accept the real truth. If correction is accepted, this will not be the only article to be changed in this encyclopedia. The fight for restablishing the authorship of "the first English language dictionary written by an American" will be as hopeless as some similar other ones. Once people are convinced of something... who can unconvince them? Not me, certainly.

--Betty VH (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Johnson_Jr.

The article re-establishing Samuel Johnson Jr. as the real author of the first English dictionary compiled in the US was discussed and "The result was keep."

In the article's discussion page, you can read: "This page was nominated for deletion on 30 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep." There were 7 votes; 5 Keep and 2 Strong Keep.

Now what? Were do we begin the work to use the contents of all those legitimate references? I first came to the 'dictionary' article to link to that page because I found, in the one about Samuel Johnson Jr., the message "This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions are available. (April 2010)".

The first and obvious article to link to it was this one, and I did it. Then I intended to go to Dr. Samuel Johnson’s biography, to “put it right”. But, before I got to that point, the information here was "reverted".

Now I feel uneasy about correcting the wrong information. I can see in "History" that most 'contributions' here are limited to reverting whatever anyone wrote.

I don't want to face another long discussion about it. That article can't be challenged anymore, but here -- and in the biography -- the trouble is just one piece of info.

Can anyone help and correct the informatiom about the authorship of the first American dictionary of the English language?

Thank you!

--Betty VH (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the change by Betty VH that is in question.

You are correct that SJ jr. contributed to the lexicographical field, but the edit you made here previously is terribly confusing. SJ jr. did not write A Dictionary of the English Language (1755), but rather, he wrote A school dictionary (1798). Hence, SJ jr. also did not write the first English dictionary, as your edit stated.

If you can add an accurate and non-confusing paragraph about SJ jr., as the man who compiled the first English dictionary in America (or the first American dictionary. NYT puts it both ways), then that should be perfectly fine! It might be worthwhile to also mention Noah Webster's 1806 and 1828 dictionaries.

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

putting it under another perspective.

Above the article about Samuel Johnson Jr. , that lexicographer not related to the Rev. Dr., one can read:

"This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions are available. (April 2010)"

Quite.

But, when I tried to "un-orphan" it, a while ago, starting with this article (namely: Dictionary), which was the natural choice for a start, such confusion was craeted that I don't dare to do anything about it, even now that it has been established that those references are not fake nor invalid (I agree that "NY Times, 1898" souns farfetched like hell).

Would any usual editor of this article please introduce that data somewhere?

All the best!

--Betty VH (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Science Dictionaries" section

The whole section "Science Dictionaries" should be eliminated. No known Chinese dictionaries exist from before about the year 100 C.E. Moreover, compendia of knowledge, which existed in many ancient literate cultures, are not the same thing as dictionaries. Charmii (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How are dictionaries made?

Just noting, that after looking through the article I couldn't find any information about how are dictionaries made and I really think that there should be a whole section named "making of dictionaries" or something like that.--tired time (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource link proposal

• Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

This is my link proposal. Per the request in that section, I didn't post it in the external links section directly, and perhaps someone here will do it. I have included both link styles so you can choose one most suitable for the page if you do decide to include it there. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why so much attention to Webster?

It seems awfully America-centric to devote a significant subsection of the History section to Noah Webster. I don't see anything in the piece that indicates why his contribution was so important, and his efforts are little-known outside of the US. 134.82.60.49 (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

this is the English language Wikipedia and all English speakers are shaped by the Websters dictionaries--which have a large sale in UK, Canada, and worldwide.Rjensen (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So what? I don't see an OED subsection, and it is easily the most well-known and trusted dictionary of the English Language. Giving Webster his own section *is* american-centric, no matter how you want to spin it. He didn't write the first dictionary, he didn't write the best known, or the most trusted, he just wrote the *American* one. The history section should be re-written to take emphasis off of him. 86.7.224.60 (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This question was my first thought as well. The history section is too focused on English language dictionaries overall. 184.17.242.187 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It does not help readers when we erase good info--better is to ADD info on other dictionaries. Fact is, the RS give a great deal of attention to Webster because he used the dictionary--successfully--to shape American English, and Wiki says we should follow the RS. If people think the OED is more influential then they should summarize the reliable research that makes that claim. Rjensen (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that ultimately creating English dictionary (as a separate article) would be the best solution to that; there's already a Japanese dictionaries page. We had a similar issue with passive voice vs. English passive voice. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Visual Dictionary

This is my proposal, it is a visual dictionary, but it can be used as every online dictionary, but this one has with images. (The image are useful to me to understand the german words clearly.)

• Pictual (website)

--SPQRes (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Need to distinguish lexicography from metalexicography better [3]. Also need to discuss the 1990s hypothesis that monolingual dictionaries were first [4]. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Poki765, 17 May 2011

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Baseball Watcher 00:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Online dictionaries- other

• Dictionary for lot of languages
• Dictionary English-Hungarian and Hungarian-English

Poki765 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Template

I expanded Template:Dictionaries of English and have added it to this article. the end sections of lists of dictionaries may not need to be here if the template is a better format (or both can coexist). I know this article isnt about english dictionaries, but "English dictionary" redirects here. there is a template for chinese dictionaries as well, but that may be too esoteric to place here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we add Wordnik.com?

I think wordnik.com should be included among the online dictionaries. Can I add it? Sikelianos (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Sikelianos

Not sure why, it just aggregates other online dictionaries. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For'g'ue or For'q'ue

Is the author of citation #17 Forgue or is it Forque? Text says one and the citation says the other. Thanks. Gnostics (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

Phonetic dictionary is a short stub that could be merged into this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Really, you removed PROD to merge one line? — Lfdder (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No merge has occurred at this time, hence this discussion. If the article is deleted, a merge wouldn't be able to be performed. Are you for or against the merge? Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. — Lfdder (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dictionary/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Not sure about the Babylonians inventing the first dictionary - found a tertiary source stating Chinese scholars compiled one in 1109BC (http://www.sentex.net/~ajy/facts/firsts.html). Also, even if this isn't accepted, can we not change the wording? 'The first dictionary ever written was done by the Babylonians in 6th Century B.C' sounds like a child's written it...

Last edited at 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Worldview tag

It's understandable to a certain degree that an article on dictionaries in the English language Wikipedia will have material on English language dictionaries. I don't suggest that material be removed. I suggest that material about dictionaries across the world be added to present more of a worldview to the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Would including dictionaries considered culturally significant or seminal in their respective languages/cultures be a good standard? (e.g. the Deutsches Wörterbuch or DWB, written by the Grimms, as an exemplary dictionary of the German language) --SfRattan (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

yes that is an excellent idea Rjensen (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Poking around Wikipedia, as well as my University's library, there's certainly a lot of information about culturally significant dictionaries. The Dictionary#History area also has a pretty good historical coverage of dictionaries worldwide, some of which might be redundant down the page in a list of notable non-English dictionaries. Would it be better to keep with the list format or look at adding new subheadings so that each selected dictionary can have a blurb with some background and further article links? I like the latter because it would be more informative, but am not sure if it would chop up the end of the article excessively (especially given how many subheadings and brief paragraphs would come from fleshing out everything in the current list). -- SfRattan (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY style is the way to solve size problems. - Build the text, until it gets too big, then split it out.

Subheadings can be prevented from appearing in the TOC, with {{TOC limit}}.

So, write away! –Quiddity (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been doing a hella lot of work on the article for Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi, who wrote the first Arabic language dictionary, and since I still have several academic sources to work through before I'm finished expanding the article I may end up creating a separate article for his dictionary. If that is the case, would other concerned editors favor the creation of a History subsection giving a brief overview of Arabic dictionaries with some blurbs about those of Ibn Duraid, Ibn Manzur, Fairuzabadi etc.? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Lawi Legal Dictionary

I add this dictionary because is the biggest open online legal dictionary in the world, with cross references to several legal encyclopedias. It is available at legaldictionary.lawin.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.227.217.232 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

New Dictionary

I have a proposal for a new online dictionary which I think should be in the list of online dictionaries. It is unique because of its 28 languages in 616 combinations (not through English) and it also serves as an educational dictionary because it offers grammar overview, examples of use, connotations and collocations, phrases... The content is also moderated.

the dictionary is dict.com

Would you agree?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac e3 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dictionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309181613/http://angli02.kgw.tu-berlin.de/lexicography/b_history.html to http://angli02.kgw.tu-berlin.de/lexicography/b_history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wordsmyth . The Premier Educational Dictionary-Thesaurus

Wordsmyth.org seems to be overlooked ... http://wordsmyth.net

It seems to be an original dictionary specially created for computer use (and later internet usability). It's used in some of the Wikipedia references already when it comes to defining a term, BTW. Jansegers (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

scrabble dictionary

Ive never played scrabble, not much interested but came across, a couple of times, of term scrabble dictionary. It would be addition to the article, whether it's a two sentences or a whole section. 213.149.51.252 (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Unabridged diectionary

Please add a section about "unabridged dictionary", since it is a common term. Thanks. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

First dictionary to note part of speech?

Clearly, some words can be nouns or verbs; the meaning of the word depends on which. What's the earliest dictionary to distinguish lexical entries according to the part of speech or grammatical class? The next level of detail is diathesis alternation -- transitive and intransitive verbs can have different meanings. What's the first dictionary to try to tackle that? More generally, is there a history of theories of how lexical entries should be formulated? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hyperwebster

Dictionary proposed by Ian Stewart; lists every single possible word of any length formed from the 26 letters in the english alphabet. It's mathematical idea.31.217.9.36 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

May I join you in offering Dr Stewart my most enthusiastic contrafibularities. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Haha. Blackadder (1987), Blackadder wishes Dr. Johnson his "enthusiastic contrafibularities". Johnson then, upset, quickly adds the alleged word to his manuscript.

Even though it's just a thought experiment, it's interesting and definitely worth adding. https://www.latg.org/2018/06/09/hyperwebster#.XFJM8irQjIU http://uneedtonoparadox.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-hyperwebster-dictionary.html http://ravi-bhide.blogspot.com/2011/07/hyperwebster-uncountable-dictionary.html 213.149.62.238 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Picture dictionary

Not sure if that is the same as visual dictionary but there is an article, Picture dictionary. So add who can cause it's protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.62.238 (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

for blind people?

What is the situation? Are there any?

came across this ...small, portable, talking dictionaries are opening up new realms of possibilities for people who are blind or visually impaired.

Braille dictionary ?? 213.149.62.238 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition

I suggest inclusion of Webster's New World Dictionary (College Edition) in the list of "Major English Dictionaries," since it is (to quote the Wikipedia article covering it) "...the official desk dictionary of the Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and United Press International," as well as "many other newspapers." The AP's stylebook calls for the use of "...Webster's New World College Dictionary's first reference after the AP Stylebook for spelling, style, usage and foreign geographic names." (See AP Stylebook.) Though by no means among the largest English-language dictionaries, it is one of the most commonly known and widely used one-volume (desktop) dictionaries: "...by the year 2000 more than 80 million people were using the college edition alone." (See this article.)

Filursiax (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Wordbook

The lead included "wordbook" as a synonym. Among books listed on Amazon, about 70,000 have the word "dictionary" in their title. About 7,000 have the word "lexicon". And only 500 have the word "wordbook". Similarly, in Google nGrams, wordbook is about 800x less common than dictionary. So wordbook isn't a common synonym for dictionary. I have removed it. --Macrakis (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Request addition to "Other types"

I would appreciate it if someone added a definition of "analytical dictionary" to "Other types", or wherever appropriate. I don't know the definition, so I cannot do add that. Olan7allen (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2021

97.102.54.75 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

OWNED BY CHARLIE AND ABIGALE HUNNAM€£¥^<HUNNAM CORPORATIONS>€#|Rewrite per CHARLIE HUNNAM REMOVE ALL SLANG AND URBAN WORDS!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)