From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I have changed the definitions to what the dictionary says exactly. The definitions on the page are vague and some were just down right wrong. Please leave them the way they are now.

Wait. If the purpose is to copy and paste "what the dictionary says exactly", why have a Wiktionary in the first place?
I've seen some "vague" and "downright wrong" definitions on, myself.
That's another matter: When you say "what the dictionary says", I say "which dictionary?"
I think definitions should be defined by consensus. I am currently in a profitless, time-wasting argument with someone who thinks "unimaginative" is an appropriate synonym for "pedantic", when it is really a poor choice, like a third cousin instead of a sibling. That's what happens when stupid people read "the dictionary" without understanding that the third definition is not equal to the first and second. There are over 100 comments on's definition for "pedantic", and several of them complain that the definition given there is poor and insufficient. Wiktionary should strive to be better than that, through the power of consensus of smart people, proven through civil debate. Is that not the purpose of the various Wikimedia projects? I admit I haven't paid nearly as much attention to Wiktionary as I have the more popular Wikipedia, so of course I could be wrong. Either way, I'm pretty sure we're supposed to sign our comments, and name our sources.
--Ben Culture (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we don't copy copyrighted sources. You're replying to a comment from 2007, so I doubt the current entry reflects whatever it was at that time. Equinox 20:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that has to be the quickest I've ever got a reply on a Wikimedia Talk/Discussion page. Thank you. I meant to include "And what about copyrights?" in my previous comment, but forgot. I didn't realize that comment was so old. The current definition seems fine to me.
What I was saying in my argument (on another site) was that, while, yes, a pedant is quite likely to BE unimaginative, "unimaginative" does not adequately describe what "pedantic" means. It looks like my, er, debate partner just glanced at the one source, merriam-webster, which offers it as a third definition, and went on to try bluffing me. But even doesn't offer "unimaginative" as a direct synonym.
Thank you for your reply.
--Ben Culture (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree: a pedantic person might be unimaginative (tending to fall back on rote learning), but that's not enough for a synonym. Likewise, a jealous person might be insecure, but that doesn't make "jealous" and "insecure" synonyms. Equinox 21:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there any truth to the idea that the Finnish expression for "pedant" translates as "comma-fucker"?

I'd like this to be true, but suspect it's actually an urban myth.

Penglish (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found some sources:
Penglish (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFD discussion: June 2022–January 2023[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Rfd-redundant "Being finicky or fastidious, especially with language." Aside from the focus on language, this seems to already be included in the first sense: "Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning." It is a sub-sense at best. — Fytcha T | L | C 12:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fytcha I'd move this to WT:RFM, because it was created so that we don't put requests like this here. Theknightwho (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho: RFM is for different pages. Merging different senses belongs here, as also evidenced by the fact that {{rfd-redundant}} links to RFD. — Fytcha T | L | C 13:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fytcha That seems like an arbitrary distinction to draw, given it's the usual place to discuss whether two definitions are the same thing. Whether they happen to be on different spellings of the same word or not shouldn't change the venue. Theknightwho (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theknightwho you're in danger of converting this discussion into the equivalent of an autological term. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW I do think it's...unfortunate that there are so many places to discuss redundant senses; they also get discussed at WT:RFC and I sometimes raise them in the Tea Room. - -sche (discuss) 08:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The three senses all mean “as is typical for a pedant”, roughly corresponding to the three senses given for pedant, but in a different order.  --Lambiam 06:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Lambiam Which sense of pedant are you suggesting corresponds to the sense of pedantic we are talking about deleting? pedant sense 1 does mention "vocabulary and grammar", but it is about making an excessive show of one's knowledge, not "being finicky or fastidious". - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 06:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do not see now what I then thought I saw. Now, it appears to me that sense 1 of pedant has been split over the present senses 2 and 3 of pedantic:
    excessive or tedious show of their knowledge
    → showy of one’s knowledge in a boring manner
    especially regarding rules of vocabulary and grammar
    → especially with language.
     --Lambiam 09:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFD-deletedFytcha T | L | C 20:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]