Talk:Encyclopedic dictionary

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Definition not clear

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)[reply]

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. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 22:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This sounds like it may be the same as a lexicon (as in a reference work, not a language's lexicon generally). Lexicons differ from dictionaries as they tend to include much more detail—especially in usage, grammar, and etymology and history—than an ordinary dictionary would (which is more interested in definitions with usage only briefly noted as plurals, gender, and parts of speech). — al-Shimoni (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]