Template talk:Cite OED

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Template talk:Cite OED

Is the template broken?

When I click links in articles I don't get to the words in the dictionary. --Bensin (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Cite OED

OED vs. OED1 in documentation?

Why does the example use OED1? Are we supposed to choose between OED1 & OED2, or is OED a valid option? Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Simple typo, now corrected. The three templates do different things, OED1 and OED2 refer to the 1st and 2nd printed editions and do not hyperlink. OED refers to the third online edition and does hyperlink. Choose whichever one you checked the word in. Sorry for the delay: family holiday out of reach of WiFi Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Parameter addition request

Would it be possible to add a |entry= parameter to, as it were, disambiguate OED hyperlinks? Sometimes the URL leads to a search results page; e.g. try {{OED|cotillion}}. So, for example, {{OED|cotillion|entry=42429}} would link to the verb, but still display "cotillion" in read mode. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:It Is Me Here I have altered the template so that it allows for an numeric value. I have named the parameter id= So for the example you give:

• {{OED|term=cotillion|id=42429}}
• "cotillion". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. September 2005.  (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

-- PBS (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

src: slideplayer.com

Oxford English Dictionary (OED) vs Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE) vs Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO)

I came across this when I noticed this edit, which replaced OED (on the grounds inaccessible due to subscription required) with much less reliable sources which supported a different pronunciation. The odd thing was that I recalled visiting that source (which I did not add myself) without subscription. It turns out that I had somehow got to ODO instead:

"leucistic". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Retrieved January 9, 2016. 

According to OUP on OED vs ODE, ODE is probably the better source in this case anyway and according to this, ODO is simply the online version of the current ODE. So a ref to ODO (which as far as I can tell is freely available) seems ideal.

I'm not sure how I reached ODO last time, maybe I did follow the link "More from Oxford->Oxford Dictionaries").

Anyway ... my concern is to try to reduce the chance that the bad pattern of subscription required -> replace with unreliable alternate online dictionary will be repeated across many articles. My initial thought was to make the old {{OED}} template name link to ODO as that would probably work well for most cites but that would break cite integrity horribly for any that really did need the OED. My current thought is to add text along the lines of "Consider using {{Cite ODO}} instead" to the "subscription required" message plus a |canuse-ODO=no parameter to suppress this part of the message. Obviously the new template would have to be created. I don't like the idea that Reference-OED-xxx would need to be manually changed to Reference-ODO-xxx in some articles, but perhaps that is not a significant problem.

Slightly unrelated, but why does the current template use a custom message rather than |subscription=yes?

Pinging recent editors @Matthiaspaul and PBS: Any thoughts? Anyone willing to help with the technical aspects? Is there a better place to put this suggestion?

TuxLibNit (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Do you have access to the OED?
2. My experience is that the ODO has significant differences from the OED. Not only in the words it describes, but how it describes them in particular the lack of citing usage.
3. The reason for the difference between {{ODNBsub}} and {{subscription}} is in the wording of {{ODNBsub}}: Most people in the UK have access to the OED.
4. As you say the ODO is less reliable than the OED, why add that as an alternative and not all the other possible alternatives? If a word in in the OED and is supported by a citation to the OED, whether a specific reader has access to it, is no reason to list alternatives as an option in a citation using this template. Therefore although if in certain circumstances in some articles, it mightbe desirable to add the ODO as an alternative citation, it should be done as an alternative citation in those articles, but it ought not to be added as a general item to this article.

-- PBS (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@PBS:

• I don't have easy access to the OED at the moment. I don't think that is relevant.
• I agree that the ODO and OED are completely different sources, so obviously there can and will be differences between the two. The ODO is the online version of the ODE and the ODE is a print dictionary from the same publisher as the OED but not directly related it.
• I don't think I suggested anywhere that the ODE (or ODO) is any less reliable than the OED. In fact my suggestion above is based on the premise that for many purposes the ODE (and hence the ODO) is just as good as the OED (at least in the sense that both meet wikipedia's minimum criteria for a reliable dictionary). The OED certainly contains much information which is simply not in the ODE, but that is not the same as reliability. The OUP on OED vs ODE page I linked to makes clear that these are different dictionaries with different goals and based on that the OED is clearly better for word origins and historical usage but for modern usage the ODE should be at least as reliable.
• Is there some specific guidance on selecting dictionary sources I should be aware of?
• Regarding "Why the ODO?" any freely available online reliable dictionary would do. I'm tempted to claim "because they are from the same publisher" but if they are truly independent that is irrelevant. Now I'm thinking about this aspect I believe a number of other ideas on wikipedia have fallen foul of the idea that they are promoting one site over several equally good alternatives, so maybe you have a point and this wont fly on those grounds.
• If I'm not making sense perhaps I've got an OED vs ODE typo somewhere. I can't see any though.
• I hope you don't think I'm against OED references, quite the opposite. My concern is that all across wikipedia, references to a reliable source (the OED) are gradually being replaced with references to yourdictionary.com or similar (this one is unreliable because it aggregates from a mix of sources, including unreliable ones like wiktionary). I'm quite happy for OED references to stay as-is but some editors seem to think "subscription required" means "replace me with unsourced or poorly sourced text". ... Maybe I should just stop worrying about it.

-- TuxLibNit (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

From the source you quoted "If you're also interested in how our language has developed over time or want to dig deeper into its origins or variations around the world, then the OED is the definitive resource". I can not say that I have noticed that people replace OED sources with "yourdictionary.com or similar" and if I see such sources used I either change them or challenge them. What examples do you have where OED has been replace with "yourdictionary.com or similar"? -- PBS (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@PBS:Oops, I thought I had one, this edit which I started the thread with. But clearly one example isn't nearly enough to justify this and I don't think there is a way to search for more. I guess I got frustrated and headed in a silly direction. I also misremembered. The edit actually added TheFreeDictionary.com, a different aggregator. The site yourdictionary.com did get added to that article (and stayed for months) but it was added in a different edit not related to the OED. Oh well, time to move on. Thanks for taking the time to talk this through.

-- TuxLibNit (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia