This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of reference work-related subjects 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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)
I wonder if a new article is necessary. Last year I deleted what was here and consolidated the material at Webster's Dictionary. I see someone has recreated this article, however. PedanticallySpeaking 15:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it's okay to have a separate article, but if so, it should definitely be longer than the section at Webster's Dictionary#Webster's Third New International. This should be the main article about Webster's Third, with just a brief summary at Webster's Dictionary. Or else this should be re-merged there and the redirect re-created. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 18:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm for keeping it all with Webster's Dictionary. Unless someone plans major additions here, I'm going to redirect this to that article, as it was until a few weeks ago. PedanticallySpeaking 20:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
This edition specifically has been the subject of two books and several articles, as well as being the most controversial dictionary of all time. Time for it to have its own article.—Chowbok☠ 01:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
