This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is a contradiction between the Dutch language page giving more than 200 000 headwords to the Van Dale and this page giving 90 000. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia entry Van Dale had: "as of 2005 it lists definitions of approximately 90,000 headwords"
Wikipedia entry Dutch language has: "The main Dutch dictionary is the Van Dale groot woordenboek der Nederlandse taal, which contains some 268,826 headwords."
The given source in the entry Van Dale had: "In 2005 the 14th edition of Grote Van Dale was published in the revised spelling of 2005. The editors-in-chief are drs. den Boon and prof. dr. Geeraerts. This edition comprises over 268 000 lexical entries."
Maybe some entries don't include a definition, so that there are about 268 000 entries but only about 90 000 definitions. But in that case there should be some better clarification. -Darumeis (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The edition numbering doesn't fit.
English wikipedia forgot the 1872 edition and/or mixed it up with the 1874 edition.
Foreign wikipedias forget the 1874 edition.
Possible solutions:
The 1864 edition by I. M. Calisch & N. S. Calisch could be no Van Dale (or "0th edition")
The 1872 and 1874 edition could be one edition (like the 1874 ed. just being a reprint)
The 1872 edition could have appeared in several parts in a longer time and the 1874 edition could be a completed single part edition. In this case the google digitalisation would be wrong or misleading and so would be foreign wikipedias.
