Last modified on 29 September 2011, at 16:37

Wiktionary talk:What Wiktionary is not

Return to "What Wiktionary is not" page.

I landed here from "Wiktionary:Most common wiktionary faux pas." The material here makes little sense in that context. I seldom see people doing many of the things alluded to here. I would cite RFD as a fertile source of faux pas, but I ought not go further.

Add section about the prescriptive vs. descriptive debate?Edit

Though most people around here think of this as a descriptive dictionary (rather than prescriptive or normative), I haven't been able to find this written down anywhere. Would this be a good place to at least talk about prescription and description in dictionaries? Or maybe on Help:FAQ? --Bequw¢τ 18:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking of writing Wiktionary:Descriptivism, but haven't got round to it yet. Feel free to pre-empt me, either here there or at a better title. Conrad.Irwin 01:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No thanks, we've got plenty to do already! ;) I'm looking forward to seeing the page. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not an encyclopediaEdit

There is quite a debate over at wikipedia over what information goes in wiktionary and what goes in wikipedia. Some input from wiktionary people would probably be very helpful at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary .

Reading that, do we have any home for information like w:Fallacies of definition?--Bequw¢τ 08:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Warnings for edits of good faith?Edit

"administrators don't usually issue warnings unless edits are clearly made in good faith." --anon

It means that if a bad edit appears to be made in good faith, the administrators will warn the user that made the edit about it. If not made in good faith, no warning is issued but action is usually taken against that user instead. —CodeCat 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)