Wiktionary talk:What Wiktionary is not
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?
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 encyclopedia
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?
"administrators don't usually issue warnings unless edits are clearly made in good faith." --anon