This template is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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 template is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages 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 template 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.
I found this barely used template, with an odd name, and renamed and expanded it. I would like to know if this is a useful idea. i can see other organizing principles (region, time period) and adding more info, such as the first pub date. i may also have some of them miscategorized, as i am not a lexicographer myself. ive seeded it in a few high profile articles. it was already present at all the ESL/Learners dictionaries.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I had added Wiktionary, but editors of the Wiktionary article pointed out correctly that its much more than an english dictionary. I think its english dict component is significant, but it doesnt HAVE to be in this template, and its placement can be misleading, so i removed it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I've reworked this, removing slang and usage, abbreviating names and replacing non-obvious ones, and removing the descriptive/prescriptive groups. Oxford gets its own group, though all but the OED could be in the British English line. Of course BrE dictionaries cover AmE and vice versa; but they label words specific to the other dialect as such, and don't label words specific to their own dialect, so it does make sense as a grouping. jnestorius(talk) 20:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to improve it, which i believe you did. i had simply tried to rescue it from complete oblivion, using my best understanding of topics like prescriptive. I agree that Oxford deserves a group. I have no complaints, considering my work on it was very basic (i do know some of the major dictionaries, thats about it)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
What's the inclusion criteria for this template? The "online" group, for example, includes a small fraction of the articles we have on online dictionaries in English. There needs to be an objective criteria or the template is based on WP:OR. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
How many on-line dictionaries with Wikipedia pages have you found? If it's not too many, too tangential, or an unmanageable amount, please add them on, as the template is not overly large. It would seem hard to define or limit the criteria when the name itself sets the criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, lots of entries in the categories. This is the sadness about not allowing categories on these templates (one of the more unusual restrictive guidelines which seem to not recognize large swatches of Wikipedia and our sister projects) because we could easily link the category in the section head or a "more..." link. As it is now, should we put all 100 plus on the template itself, or pick and choose? The worst option, which some people advocate on these type of things, is to WP:PURGE, and empty the template. I'd suggest maybe adding quite a few more, and list the section head as 'Some notable dictionaries', or to create a list of all of the entries in the category and link that in an 'above'. Just brainstorming here, it seems fine as is but you are right about selecting an inclusive criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)