Talk:List of online dictionaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Reference works  
WikiProject icon 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 article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

List of online dictionaries[edit]

'Dictionaries' in general is an important topic for articles in the Wikipedia, and any related articles need to be of an academic standard. In many cases there may be clear reasons for having longer lists of examples, links, and references. If no more internal links to existing Wikipedia pages can be added, I suggest renaming this article to simply "Online Dictionary", and expanding it or further suggestion would be to MERGE the article with Electronic dictionary which already covers online dictionaries in some considerable detail. Otherwise I suggest removing the "No More Links" tags by either adding the list of online dictionaries from the categories list that already have a valid Wikipedia article, or by making a clear link to the categories page. There are Wikpedia pages in the language and lexicography sections that have far longer lists, such as, just for example Macintosh software, There are also several far more meritorious online dictionaries than some of the ones listed here.

I have copy edited the article, removed all the Point of View, alphabetised the listings and relocated them to their proper places. I invite any discussion here, or on my talk page. Kudpung (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The merge is not a bad idea. (I absolutely do not have time at present to attempt it.) I have updated and formatted the second section, using the precise titles of the publications and Web sites in question. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed the "no more links" tags following personal agreement with comments made by Kudpung which, otherwise, I would have added myself. It seems to me that there is also a neutrality issue related to the practice of allowing some links to be added to wikipedia pages while baring others. Gregkaye (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No matter how unfair it may seem, I believe it's even possible to number online dictionaries (or even dictionaries in general) according to their credibility, validity, reputation & history. I need to say one very perfect online dictionary is left out of this long list. By "! (S)" 12:32 - July 20, 2012

Esperanto monolingual/multilingual dictionary[edit]

There's such an dictionary online, called the Reta Vortaro ([1]]).Jchthys 13:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia - Online Dictionary[edit]

Picture That Dictionary - Free Online Dictionary to help people with dyslexia, poor readers and those learning English as a second language. —Preceding unsigned

Article section headings[edit]

Perhaps the section headings might read:
List of online dictionaries (English)
Chambers Dictionary - The Dictionary for Word Lovers (to be included in the list); by ! S - 12:38, July 20, 2013; List of online etymological and classical language dictionaries (English)
including: ; and
List of online dictionaries (other languages)
By the look of things this section may gain a large and some would say useful content - which, perhaps, should list dictionaries in the alphabetical order of their respective languages.
Gregkaye (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

An online dictionary of standard Italian orthography and pronunciation[edit]

I find it very useful (I'm an Italianist). It's still a work in progress, but extremely well done. Every piece of information seems to be carefully checked, and it's also very readable and interesting. It's a good resource for all matters phonetic and orthographic (relating not only to Italian, but also to many other languages), and, what is more, it has a much more general cultural interest, too.

This is the link:

I think that to add this link to the list would be a good idea. Thank you. Thomas (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Many bilingual dictionaries on one site[edit]

I think this link might be interresting to be included: . It points site that gathers together a lot of open source dictionaries content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Link farm[edit]

Article seems to have become a WP:LINKFARM of sorts. Wikipedia's not the place to advertise the dictionary site you just launched and has guidelines for external links to avoid which this article appears to run into problems with. The most common selection criteria is for each item to have its own Wikipedia article already (like Oxford English Dictionary), but I wonder if anyone has another inclusion criteria to propose (keeping in mind what Wikipedia is not -- e.g. a web directory, link farm, promotional platform, etc.). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Stesmo went ahead and removed the external links and I went ahead and removed the redlinks per above. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC) update[edit]

I don't want to perform this edit myself, as I'm participating in an RfC that has consulted this list of dictionaries, but I noticed that there's an entry for that gives Unabridged and American Heritage as the sources for that site. Unabridged is a superset of the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. While the site used to rely more heavily on other sources like Collins and American Heritage, it now uses these mainly to supplement its Random House content, particularly for slang and idioms (see their own overview). American Heritage has since become available at its own site.[1] I would like to suggest that the entry be amended to read:

and also add the following to the same list:

Thanks for considering this request! Ibadibam (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done I'm, not sure that participating in an RfC creates a COI, but then I have not looked at the RfC. I have slightly reformatted your proposal, without changing the content, to make your in-line reference appear in the list of references below for clarity. --Elektrik Fanne 15:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)