Template talk:Dictionaries of English

Expansion

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)

Questions and issues with this template

• Given that not every article in Category:English dictionaries can be listed on this template, what are the criteria for inclusion?
• On what basis are dictionaries assigned to "Descriptive" or "Prescriptive"? The current groups seem arbitrary to me.
• Names like A Dictionary of the English Language are not helpful on this template. Better would be e.g. Johnson's (1755).
• Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage is a usage guide, not a dictionary in the sense of defining an entire lexicon. A separate Category and template for these would be better for this and Fowler's etc.
• "Online" is inadequate, since many print dictionaries also have an online version.

jnestorius^(talk) 14:20, 16 April 2012 (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)