Talk:Webster's Dictionary/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deleted statement

I just deleted a statement i had added a while back, which said that Webster's International included a table of recommended reformed spellings. This information came from something i had read at the time, i don't remember exactly where. Since then, i have acquired that edition, the only Merriam edition i was missing, and i have been unable to find any such table. Perhaps it was in a later printing, or maybe i've missed something, but for now, i am removing the statement. - erl - 216.19.218.38 23:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Links to Noah Webster

In the introductory paragraph of Webster's Dictionary, i replaced the word direct with official. Now i've changed my mind. I will now change it to original. Here is the sentence, with all three words shown for comparison:

"Merriam-Webster dictionaries are the direct/official/original descendants of Noah Webster's work, although many other dictionaries use the name, such as those by the publishers Random House and John Wiley & Sons."

Here is why direct and official are both inaccurate and misleading, and why "original" is better choice.

Because the G. & C. Merriam Company originally bought the rights to Noah Webster's work, and Merriam-Webster is descended from that company and has continued to publish dictionaries, M-W was the original official descendant of N.W, but since they lost their copyrights, now only the original descendant.

Other dictionaries have direct links to N.W.'s work, due to the fact that their ancestor dictionaries were based on his work as much as were Merriam's. The fact the editors of those early offspring stole, borrowed, or plagiurized N.W.'s work makes their descendants no less direct.

Here are the links to the two other companies mentioned in the paragraph:

1) From Noah Webster's American Dictionary, a direct line of revision runs from Ogilvie's Imperial, to Annandale's Imperial revision, to Wright's Century Dictionary. The Century abridgment, New Century, was Barnhart's primary source for American College, which was the basis for Random House Dictionary.

2) Ogilvie's Imperial was the basis of Webster's Imperial which became Webster's Universal. The Universal was published by World Publishing Co., which subsequently published Webster's New World Dictionary, new editions of which are now published by John Wiley & Sons.

Perhaps someone will think of an even better word.

216.19.218.5 04:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I originally wrote this comment with the word official. I knew it wasn't quite right. I finally realized original is a better choice. So, i rewrote the above comment and i will change the main article. 216.19.218.109 08:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Extraneous information clutter

I'm not going to touch it, but in the section on Webster's Third the exact dates of last definition, last typeset, etc., seem pointless and distracting. I can understand that if someone writes a book on the long work and trials endured for the production of the dictionary, this has some meaning. In fact, i suspect that the person who put that in took it from such a book. I kind of hope someone takes it out, but not so much for me as for general readers. 216.19.218.229 23:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Links to Webster's Dictionary article

I've been working on this and other dictionary articles. I am wondering what other search entries link to this article. I'm new enough not to know how to find a list of the existing redirects to it. It seems to me that there are many plausible ways one might seach for the information in this complex article, and yet arrive at no article, so i would like see about establishing a list of appropriate redirects. Perhaps this would require a new disambiguation page, or improving the one at Dictionary. Perhaps establishing a good list of redirects to the Dictionary disambiguation page, and creating a menu of redirects from there to this and a lot of other dictionary articles. If these suggestions reveal my ingorance, i'd appreciate help on this. 216.19.218.11 21:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can see the list of all links to this article, including those through redirects, at Special:Whatlinkshere/Webster's Dictionary. --Joy [shallot]

Thanks, that's very helpful. What about the idea of creating a master list of dictionary related articles at the dictionary disambiguation page ? Is this an acceptable thing to do ? Or is there such a list somewhere else already ? 216.19.218.11 22:13, 8 Feb 2005 (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. Would anyone with comments please contact me on my talk page? PedanticallySpeaking 16:40, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

This material is obsolete. PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this merger was a mistake. The Merriam-Webster unabridged dictionary family deserves to have an entry of its own, separate from the cloud of "Webster's" dictionaries that simply use the name. I would like to eventually separate this out in a sensible way.

Mark Foskey 03:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There should be separate articles. Gene Nygaard 02:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is about the dictionaries published by Noah Webster and his successors at Merriam-Webster. In passing it mentions there are other dictionaries calling themselves "Webster" but is not about a "cloud" of dictionaries. Before the merger, there were short stubs at the other pages. Since these other dictionaries are the direct descendants of one another, this material belongs together. PedanticallySpeaking 20:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep individual article at Webster's Third New International Dictionary. This is a major, current reference in the English language, with lots of connections in "What links here". It deserves its own article, with direct links to it from all articles making reference to this specific work, not some link throwing them into a crazy mixed-up hodgepodge of loosely related dictionaries over time. There are a hell of a lot more factors in the existence of a Wikipedia article than the mere flow of the story of their history. Some of these other factors include linking from other articles (and the associated backwards searching through "What links here"), categories, and interwiki links. Gene Nygaard 23:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Create an article for Webster's Dictionary (1913) (whether that's the appropriate title or not, it is the way it is usually referred to in articles incorporating text from it) to keep all references to this public-domain version whose text has been copied into a number of Wikipedia articles separate, easy to find through what links here, and listed in categories so that it can be found. Gene Nygaard 23:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Possibly re-create Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition as well, another landmark in the history of English dictionaries. Gene Nygaard 23:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gene. Webster's Third New International Dictionary has a lot of articles linking to it. IMO, there is no question such an important reference should have its own article. Combining the Webster's dictionaries into one article would be like having one article for all the Oxford dictionaries. Note the Oxford English Dictionary article's See Also section. --Dforest 01:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why was this merged against consensus

I thought this was resolved. The consensus here was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping a separate article for Webster's Third New International Dictionary. But I just discovered that it was nonetheless merged back in December. I want to know why. Gene Nygaard 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that there was a consensus on this subject. I had deleted the article in 2004 without objection in order to merge it. Others posted a recreated article last fall and the last version before I made it a redirect did not have anything the Webster's Dictionary article lacked. In fact, the new article was actually far less detailed than the Webster's Dictionary article. My concern was that by creating articles for every edition or name change we are going to make it hard for people interested in the subject but not deeply into lexicography to find what they want. Most people speak of "Webster's Dictionary" and not "Webster's Third New International" and the like. It was my understand we put things under the most commonly referred to name. That is the purpose of the merger, to keep related material together for ease of access to the information. PedanticallySpeaking 14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You were the one who started the discussion of a possible merger on this talk page. It was your obligation to check that before performing the merger. Then you later merged them, on 30 Dec 2005 (two months after the discussion above), against the consensus here--But for some reason, the revision history is missing from the article you merged; it doesn't even appear to ever have been created, never editied, yet you were able to merge it? How is that?

When people talk about "Webster's Third New International Dictionary", they don't usually say "Webster's Dictionary". Rather, they say or write "Webster's Third" or "W3d" or whatever. That's because they want to identify a partular dictionary, one of the best. Saying "Webster's dictionary" has almost nothing to add to saying "dictionary"; it is totally useless at identifying either a particular dictionary, or a particular family of dictionaries; it isn't even sufficient to identify a publisher.

Just because we have an article on encyclopedia, that doesn't mean we should merge Encyclopædia Britannica with it.

We need something to be able to link to when identifying this particular dictionary. Gene Nygaard 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I initially posted comments on possible merger. Upon conferring with others interested in the subject and advised to "be bold" I deleted the existing article in October 2004. In August 2005, User:Mark Foskey recreated the article. The version deleted was largely unchanged from his posting when I deleted it for the reasons detailed above. As for having something to link to, you do not need a separate article. Simply link to Webster's Dictionary with a numeral sign, like this Webster's_Third_New_International_Dictionary#Webster.27s_Third_New_International. I also disagree there was a consensus. I contacted Mark Foskey on October 30, 2005, declaring my intention to delete the page. He did not reply to me and two months later I acted. Again, I do not agree there was a consenus, let alone an "overwhelming" one, when the comments section consists of three messages from yourself, one person who did not object to my proposal, and one other. As for the Third New International, yes, when people speak of that dictionary, yes they will use the precise name. But my point is that in general, people speak of "Webster's Dictionary" and because the new article on the Third was a stub that did not contain anything of note, that is why I deleted it. PedanticallySpeaking 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)