Talk:Shorter Oxford English Dictionary

RFD discussion 2006

The following information passed a request 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.

---

• 17 November 2006: Requests for deletion (kept)

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary

Sorry to do this, but I don't think this should belong in Wiktionary. I was tempted to RFD Wiktionarian too, but didn't. --Expurgator t(c) 17:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Then Oxford English Dictionary will also have to go. And what about all these bands? The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, ... — Vildricianus 17:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about these. Are you nominating them? Could we define clearer criteria? Davilla 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bah, yes, no. Feel free to discuss a bit :-). Dunno, later perhaps. — Vildricianus 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic. Delete after transferring contents to SOED, which can stay. Davilla 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, what? There is more than a little lexical difference between SOED and Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. SOED should indicate what it stands for, the majority of the content should be at the long form. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, like this? ASCII, AAFPRS Davilla 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes, I think so. It might be considered a little unreasonable to go through them all, but this does match the tradition of having separate entries for each spelling, inflection, etc. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep If a short form meets the CFI all longer forms should automatically meet the CFI if they can be attested as used. --Patrik Stridvall 21:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course keep. In fact, we should have short entries for most good dictionaries and encyclopedias - and not just the English language ones. SemperBlotto 07:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete; it has nothing to do in a dictionary. Neither has the neologism Wiktionarian. Jon Harald Søby 18:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Belongs in Wikipedia. I don't see why we should have "short entries for most good dictionaries and encyclopedias". As for Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, they should be deleted too. And in theory, the page for Wiktionary should be deleted, but I'm sure we can make an exceptio for that, seeing as its OUR GODDAMN DICTIONARY! And The Beatles should also be deleted, but again, we cn make an exception as they're, well, The Beatles! --Dangherous 18:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A dictionary is not a list of products or publications. — Hippietrail 21:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Turns out to be a borderline one. I say delete, per HT again. —Vildricianus 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep, as per the three previous discussion on the topic. (We need these archived better!) --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's funny -- in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary down below, Davilla claims that the result of previous discussions has been "delete". Who's right? (And where are those other discussions?) –Scs 22:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I only meant as per comments in previous discussion. I'll revise. Davilla 15:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You've registered a first "keep" above as well. I take your second to be meant only as additional supporting comments. Davilla 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete We are not listing names of books. That is for Wikipedia if they have the energy. Andrew massyn 18:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Delete, link SOED to w:Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. --Dangherous 09:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC). Already had my say. --Dangherous 09:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm relisting Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. I'd like to have another word about it, here on this page. Not just a word, no, I'd like to hear some good arguments for having these "short entries for most good dictionaries and encyclopedias". Why should we do so, and not, for instance, have "short entries for popular US Senators" ? Because we are a dictionary? Then we should as well include "short entries for popular wikis", because we are a wiki. PS: I don't want to hear 'delete' or 'keep', I want arguments. — Vildricianus 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Keep no consensus to delete.
2. Keep we should list all Senators, not popular ones.
3. Keep relevance to this subject (writing a dictionary) is unquestionable.
4. Keep this nomination is a specious relisting.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 18:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Specious relisting? I've been soliciting decent arguments for weeks, without having heard a single one. Check the various Beer parlour, CFI and RFD topics before calling this "specious". Of course there's no consensus to delete, like as there is no consensus to keep. Can you (in a neutral way) determine from the above whether to keep or delete? And what? Senators? Oh my. — Vildricianus 12:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a specious relisting. As even Richardb pointed out not too long ago, if there is a single objector, the entry can be kept, unless the community as a whole is getting upset by it. As this one is pretty evenly split, it is clear that there is no consensus to delete. There is no such thing as needing consensus to keep here on Wiktionary. The decrepit annihilation of something useful is not simply the opposite of permitting something harmless to exist. Do European Senators have a minor role, compared to those with the same title in the US? --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was about to quip that senators in English-speaking European countries ruled universities and nothing more; then I remembered that English is one of the official languages of Eire. On checking Answers.com, I found "the Senate or Seanad Eireann (60 seats - 49 elected by the universities and from candidates put forward by five vocational panels, 11 are nominated by the prime minister; members serve five-year terms)", so I suppose there are a few, but in the UK we hear of US senators much more often! --Enginear 09:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to removing the RFD tag from this (and related) entries? --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No objections. —Stephen 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No objection. --Enginear 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the tag and let it fly free. SemperBlotto 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all. Removing tags. --Connel MacKenzie 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

RFD discussion 2010

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)