Talk:Roget's Thesaurus

message: Does anyone object to moving this to Roget's Thesaurus? -- Zoe [09:17, January 12, 2003‎ (UTC)]
I've never heard of "Roget's" being used as a synonym for Thesaurus, rather than a specific thesaurus. Similarly, I've never heard "Webster's" used instead of dictionary. I suspect both are Americanisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.21.194 (talk) 01:25, April 26, 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. I'm from the UK, and neither of those words are in use as generics. (And no, we don't call dictionaries "Oxfords" as generics, either!) I'm changing the text to specify the US, but leaving the "citation needed" tag in. Loganberry (Talk) 17:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title

message: Roget's schema of classes and their subdivisions is based on the philosophical work of Leibniz (see Leibniz — Symbolic thought), itself following a long tradition of epistemological work starting with Aristotle. Some of Aristotle's Categories are included in Roget's first class "abstract relations"…
I submit the folowing sources: Jamshydf (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Para: 

message: I have added a References section to include at least one edition (Longman 1982) of the original work. This will enable me to make proper footnote references to the main body of the article.--Михал Орела (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i added the americanized edition of this work. im pretty sure this was a standard edition for years, if not decades, in american editorial and academic offices. it completely preserved the rogets structure, unlike a lot of other american editions which just use the name. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I have introduced a Notes section in order to provide citations to the References.--Михал Орела (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: I can't find any reference stating that "OED" is used as a general term for dictionaries in the US or elsewhere, that seems a very weird assertion. Given no citation I've removed that reference.Gymnophoria (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  OED 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Roget's Thesaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150121120555/http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/Roget/contents.html to http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/Roget/contents.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: External links modified

message: In the Colonies, Roget's International is considered the "official" Roget's. Up through the 4th edition, it maintained Mark Roget's "Classical" selection and organization of categories. With the 5th edition, it switched to what might be considered a more obvious relation to "the real world". This threw some people into a tizzy, claiming that the work was ruined (even though it still contained the same word lists and indexing). This needs to be discussed. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Major changes to the categories listing

message: "...a widely used English-language thesaurus, created in 1805 by Peter Mark Roget..."
Is to create the right word in this circumstances? Maybe PMR started collecting words in 1805. Is this already creating? --Delabarquera (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created in 1805?