This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of reference work-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This page is not clear at all about the definition of its subject. Of the links cited, the first three are encyclopedias, while the last is a dictionary. Would anyone care to explain? The way, the truth, and the light 04:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The explanation is contradictory, since all dictionaries are relatively encyclopedic, and all encyclopedias are dictionaristic--both have elements of each other, which is why I think Wikipedia and Wiktionary should merge. Having to jump back and forth between them is annoying and unnecessary. ∞ΣɛÞ²(τ|c) 04:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that isn't really a comment on the article, is it? I agree that dictionary definitions should be integrated into Wikipedia, though that doesn't completely replace the need for a separate dictionary. The way, the truth, and the light 19:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the comment is on the article, of which Wikipedia is an example of. A separate dictionary is unnecessary if separate dictionary-definition-specific pages are created (if even necessary). I mean encyclopedia articles contain etymology/history of the term/phrase anyway, which dictionaries do also--to a lesser degree. There's no reason a general history can't be in the Wikipedia article and a longer, more explicative technical/detailed etymology also be included. ∞ΣɛÞ²(τ|c) 22:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think references to some modern day encyclopedic dictionaries would be nice. The concept is rather interesting, but it doesn't really tell a lot while there is nothing to compare to. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)