Talk:Dictionary.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dictionary.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Proposed merge with Reference.com
Reference.com and Dictionary.com have been part of the same company for most of their existence. The company's current name is Dictionary.com LLC. (corporate site) Ibadibam (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Merge. Both articles are short and a merge can fix that, as well as reference.com being a branch of dictionary.com like thesaurus.com.(Whose redirect should also be fixed.) 74.102.70.142 (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. They both also seem to be half-ads. ¤ ehudshapira 03:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ehudshapira, I don't feel that this is a WP:AfD matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Move to close - It's been a year and a half without any comments against merging. Any objection to closing this as merge? Ibadibam (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Merging these articles is not appropriate. Thesaurus.com and Dictionary.com used to be subdomains of Reference.com. These brands now have discrete, separate-but-equal websites that are all properties of Dictionary.com, LLC, which is a subsidiary of InterActiveCorp. The Alexa rank of each site is substantially different. Also, just because two articles are short that doesn't necessarily mean they're good merge candidates. Even if Dictionary.com was subordinate to Reference.com, merging the articles would mean that about 40% of the Reference.com article would be about Dictionary.com. —Ringbang (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose one question is whether the article should be about a website or about a company. If the article's topic is Dictionary.com, LLC, then we could have a single, comprehensive article that covers the company's suite of products with appropriate weight to each. Page length is an appropriate reason for merge per WP:MERGEREASON. The alternative is to split off Thesaurus.com from Reference.com, resulting in three short articles with a lot of duplicated content. Ibadibam (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ibadibam: I agree that something should change since the Reference.com article is now out of date and misinformative, and Thesaurus.com shouldn't redirect there. In the interest of preserving a concordant article scope and revision history, maybe the most future-proof thing we can do is to move Reference.com to Dictionary.com, LLC. That way if the ownership or site hierarchy changes again, renaming the article doesn't necessarily mean changing its scope or topic; we just move it again, and the redirect that the move makes becomes a Redirect from former name. I think that's preferable to forking Dictionary.com so that its topic (somewhat confusingly) becomes Dictionary.com, LLC, and then possibly having to fork it again in the future. This would have to be an administrator-assisted move because Dictionary.com, LLC exists (as a redirect to Reference.com). —Ringbang (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per the naming conventions for company articles, legal status suffixes like LLC are generally not included in the article title. And it doesn't seem to me that the dictionary.com domain is independently notable from the company that runs that website and shares its name. A unified page at [[[Dictionary.com]] can still make the topic very clear by leading with
...and then have one section for corporate history, and one section for each website. How does that sound? Ibadibam (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Dictionary.com, LLC is a company that provides online language and general reference resources through the websites Dictionary.com, Thesaurus.com and Reference.com.
- Per the naming conventions for company articles, legal status suffixes like LLC are generally not included in the article title. And it doesn't seem to me that the dictionary.com domain is independently notable from the company that runs that website and shares its name. A unified page at [[[Dictionary.com]] can still make the topic very clear by leading with
- @Ibadibam: I agree that something should change since the Reference.com article is now out of date and misinformative, and Thesaurus.com shouldn't redirect there. In the interest of preserving a concordant article scope and revision history, maybe the most future-proof thing we can do is to move Reference.com to Dictionary.com, LLC. That way if the ownership or site hierarchy changes again, renaming the article doesn't necessarily mean changing its scope or topic; we just move it again, and the redirect that the move makes becomes a Redirect from former name. I think that's preferable to forking Dictionary.com so that its topic (somewhat confusingly) becomes Dictionary.com, LLC, and then possibly having to fork it again in the future. This would have to be an administrator-assisted move because Dictionary.com, LLC exists (as a redirect to Reference.com). —Ringbang (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose one question is whether the article should be about a website or about a company. If the article's topic is Dictionary.com, LLC, then we could have a single, comprehensive article that covers the company's suite of products with appropriate weight to each. Page length is an appropriate reason for merge per WP:MERGEREASON. The alternative is to split off Thesaurus.com from Reference.com, resulting in three short articles with a lot of duplicated content. Ibadibam (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merging these articles is not appropriate. Thesaurus.com and Dictionary.com used to be subdomains of Reference.com. These brands now have discrete, separate-but-equal websites that are all properties of Dictionary.com, LLC, which is a subsidiary of InterActiveCorp. The Alexa rank of each site is substantially different. Also, just because two articles are short that doesn't necessarily mean they're good merge candidates. Even if Dictionary.com was subordinate to Reference.com, merging the articles would mean that about 40% of the Reference.com article would be about Dictionary.com. —Ringbang (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- When WP:Content forking is not needed, we should definitely cover all aspects of a topic in one article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree to this merge. The websites used to be Dictionary.reference.com and thesaurus.reference.com but now they are separated sites to Dictionary.com, thesaurus.com and Reference.com. Take a look at Reference.com and I don't think you will find any connection to Dictionary or Thesaurus. Doofenschmirtzable —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


