Talk:Oxford English Dictionary

RFD discussion

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Oxford English Dictionary

How is this here? --Rising Sun talk? 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably logophile nepotism. Delete, I think. Of course (deprecated template usage) OED is worth having but the expansion can link to Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 13:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth an RFV, where I think it may well pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that we prefix it with the definite article (in the assumption that it is such a well-known text that everyone knows about it perhaps?) is a good indication it should be kept - similar to the Bible, the Mahabharata, the Decameron, the I Ching, the Qur’an, the Domesday Book, the Book of Mormon, etc. Of course you do get entries like Ivanhoe, but I think this is kept because of its secondary meaning. Tooironic 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclined to say keep (for the same reason), but it is somewhat SOP - Oxford English Dictionary. bd2412 T 03:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• A proper noun and a trademark of a copyrighted commercial product. CFI (remember that?) would require that it be shown to have attributive use. Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV.​—msh210℠ 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary

On a similar note, Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. This managed to pass RFD in 2006, seemingly only because the SOED is, like us, a dictionary. --Rising Sun talk? 15:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete; if Oxford English Dictionary is kept, this is SOP - Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. bd2412 T 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a proper noun can be "SoP". It seems to be a name of a product as any book title would be. That it is a copyrighted work makes the fact of its being such particularly obvious. There is no exception to CFI for dictionaries. This would have to meet the attributive use test. Move to RfV (where it will fail) or delete. DCDuring TALK 09:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, delete (or RfV, if you can first add at least one citation that is attributive, with a widely understood meaning); “SOP” or “idiomatic” applies differently to specific proper names. —Michael Z. 2010-05-26 03:19 z

Kept and sent to RFV.​—msh210℠ 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Oxford English Dictionary

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary

Both passed RFD pending verification.​—msh210℠ 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

&

The current definition: "A comprehensive dictionary of the English language published by Oxford University Press, considered something of a gold standard for dictionaries. Abbreviated OED."

Quoting WT:RFD#Oxford English Dictionary, February 2010: "A proper noun and a trademark of a copyrighted commercial product. CFI (remember that?) would require that it be shown to have attributive use. Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)"

There is no longer any requirement of attributive use, AFAIK. So what should be verified about this term? Certainly not that it exists, right? Which section of CFI is to be applied to this term? Is this for WT:CFI#Brand names? --Dan Polansky 07:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, what verification would we have to do for other book names, like Hard Times or The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Science? We need to verify this to the same standards. Equinox ◑ 09:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a brand name to me. Even if it is not so construed, I would like to see that it has entered the lexicon as something other than a name of a specific entity. We could always use this as the test case to allow all proper nouns to be entries without any inclusion criteria whatsoever other than attestation. DCDuring TALK 10:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

At Equinox: A request for verification is only a request for attestation of the term, in doubt that the term or its sense exist. Other reasons for deletion than unattestability should be filed to RFD; such one reason is a term's being sum of parts. OTOH, the discussion of the inclusion of the name of a specific entity may lead to considering a particular tentative inclusion criterion that requires certain sort of quotations, such as those provided by EncycloPetey and mentioned below. But, in principle, this is for RFD, as the existence of the term is not in doubt, merely the term's being worthy of inclusion.

The lack of formal voted-on criteria for inclusion of names of specific entities should not mean that voters in RFD cannot use tentative criteria in their deciding whether a name should be kept. To the contrary, each voter who explains his vote provides a tentative, even if sketchy and incomplete, inclusion criterion in his explanation. --Dan Polansky 09:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dan, this came here from RFD. Equinox ◑ 21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

i've added 2002 and 2005 quotes that demonstrate use besides that of the original referent. I don't see that this can be an all-encompassing test case for proper nouns, as proper noun include many, many kinds of items. I would not apply the same criteria to Angola that I would apply to Oxford English Dictionary. --EncycloPetey 19:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this meets WT:CFI#Brand names. It certainly must, as it is a part of the definition under challenge that it is published by a commercial enterprise. If someone can propose another sense that fits the citations offered or others, let it be done. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, the 1983, 2000, and 2002 quotes explicitly refer to the product type or its attributes ("dictionary", "index", "define") I'm not sure about the 2005 quote ("order"). We would seem to need more of the surrounding text the verify satisfaction of the condition: "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent.". Finally, the very inclusion of the word "dictionary" in the brand name would seem to make it impossible for the term to satisfy the condition, similar to "Nestea" or "Quaker Oats" or "Wonder Bread" or "The Daily News". DCDuring TALK 23:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: RFV failed, entry deleted.
Re: Oxford English Dictionary: I'm adding {{look}}. Does this have to meet WT:BRAND? If so, do the entry's current citations demonstrate that it does? (If we're not applying WT:BRAND, then this should be returned to RFD, because we no longer have a citations-based rule for specific entities in the general case.)
—Ruakh_TALK 17:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, [[Oxford English Dictionary]] moved redirectlessly to [[Citations:Oxford English Dictionary]]. —Ruakh_TALK 13:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)