# Should Wiktionary have entry sections for collocations?

For the purpose of this debate, "collocations are combinations of words that occur with much higher frequency than would be expected by chance" and we add that they are such combinations as do not deserve a dedicated entry.

## Wiktionary should have entry sections for collocations
### Pro

* Pro Users are expected to be interested in collocations given there are commercial publishers of collocation dictionaries: LTP Dictionary of Selected Collocations, Language Teaching Publications, 1997; Oxford Collocations Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2002; Oxford Collocations Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2007; Oxford Collocations Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2009; English Collocations in Use, Cambridge University Press, 2008; A Collocation Inventory for Beginners, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2009.
* Pro There are collocation dictionaries online: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/argument, https://ozdic.com/collocation/argument, https://www.wordreference.com/englishcollocations/argument. Publishers would not make them available if readers were not interested.
* Pro Czech definition dictionaries SSJČ, SSČ, ASCS, ASSČ and LSSČ feature collocations, although they are not calling them that. Inconclusive yet suggestive.
* Pro As per Wikipedia, literature has mentioned already in 1933 that collocations are useful for language learners. To wit, "In 1933, Harold Palmer's Second Interim Report on English Collocations highlighted the importance of collocation as a key to producing natural-sounding language, for anyone learning a foreign language."
* Pro Collocations are a great tool for testing adjectival definitions. One can consider all nouns an adjective collocates with and verify that each noun is covered by at least one of the definitions and that the definitions are well formulated for the use with the noun. In this role, they are a tool for editors.
* Pro An overwhelming majority in an English Wiktionary vote expressed appreciation of collocations. Inconclusive yet suggestive.
* Pro Collocations are supported in Polish and German Wiktionaries, probably because people are interested in them. Inconclusive yet suggestive.

### Con

* Con Entering collocations is a relatively slow process and relatively small number of editors seem to be interested. Thus, one cannot hope to achieve interesting coverage of entries with collocations in reasonable time. Rather than having such a class of information only haphazardly covered, it is better not to have it at all.
** Objection One could apply this kind of logic e.g. to small languages: they are not expected to achieve interesting coverage any time soon. And yet, they are not forbidden.
** Objection One could apply this kind of logic e.g. to IPA in English entries: only a small fraction of them can be expected to have the IPA entered any time soon. And yet, the projects are slowly but surely entering IPA for English.
* Con For languages without collocation dictionaries, this is original research.
** Objection This is not a harmful form of orginal research; the frequency determination is reasonably objective and easy to do using corpora.
** Objection In general, Wiktionaries do allow original research based on quotations of use, and here, based on frequencies that can be found in corpora. Thus, being original research is alone not a damning circumstance.
* Con There is a risk of endless debates about which collocation is of high enough frequency to be included.
** Objection Reasonable editors should realize that borderline cases are not worth a protracted discussion.
** Objection We can address this issue after we meet it rather than giving up before having even tried.
* Con Wiktionaries have greater problems than lack of collocations.
** Objection That is no grounds for prohibiting people from entering collocations if they so desire.