Talk:Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

English Language

	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.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Reference works (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

About the proposed deletion of this article[edit]

This article has been tagged and proposed for deletion by Greenrd on 2007-04-13. The concern raised is that the article is 'unencyclopedic'.

I'm removing the tag, and explaining why I think the article should not be deleted.

Acronyms don't seem to be "unencyclopedic articles", by modern standards at least. The English Wikipedia features lots of them. It even includes very technical or little used ones (if you look at the disambiguation pages, you'll find that most 3- or 4-letter words are an acronym of something). Anyway, acronyms about dictionary names are definitely included (see OED, SOED, OALD, GCIDE, etc.).

I think this article only appears "unencyclopedic" because it is short, and its subject relatively less famous. BTW, both dictionaries are far from irrelevant. After all, the youngest of them has been published for almost 30 years, and provides a free online service. I'd agree that the article should be expanded, not deleted. But I believe that this still is a good starting point: it gives title, publisher and date of first publication for each possible meaning. That's enough information if you suddenly need to know what "LDOCE" is (as it happened to me, and I had to google it). Stefano 03:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, this article is neither a stub article (because it does not focus on one topic), nor a disambiguation page (because it does not disambiguate between any other Wikipedia articles). In order to fix this issue, one or more of the dictionaries must be determined to be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, and then stubbed (i.e. a stub created for it). I'll leave that to someone who knows more about the topic of dictionaries.—greenrd 10:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formally, I have nothing to except, but also consider that:

this article cannot focus on a single topic because the acronym itself might expand to different dictionaries;

this article cannot be turned into an actual disambiguation page because, at this time, information about different dictionaries is collected into a single page (an internal link is provided in the main article). Should in the future someone write individual articles written about these dictionaries, this page can be easily turned into a "proper" disambiguation page;

this page should actually be a redirect to that single page, but the information presented here would be off topic there.

As for the notability, I think mainstream dictionaries are sufficiently notable, even if there's not much to say about them (let alone enough to devote individual articles to them). Most people just need to know "what" they are, i.e. the full title and perhaps the publisher. Stefano 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

easily[edit]

the official slogan is facilmente. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polred74 senscape (talk • contribs) 21:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Learners?[edit]

Is this some insider term, or code for something? Having said that it is for "Advanced Learners", it goes on to say that the definitions are in simplified English with limited vocabulary, which suggests it is for beginners in learning English, e.g. ESL, not "advanced" learners. Does the author of this perhaps mean "Advanced ESL Learners"? The use of the Brit term "learner", rather than "student", suggests that maybe the term "advanced learner" has a local meaning there that is unknown to the rest of the English-speaking world. Please clarify.

6th edition?[edit]

Longman sells only 5th edition. You can find 6th edition on internet for free, but also with crack. I find it suspicious. Now I understand why it has been "published in 2014" ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.211.176 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any relation to HAL?[edit]

The 9000 Most Important English Words to Learn have been highlighted via the Longman Communication 9000.

Say what? Shouldn't that be clarified? – 174.7.101.229 (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]