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)

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)

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 (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

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

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

is there a way to indicate a specific definition when a word has multiple definitions? shift, v. and shift, n. have different entry numbers, but shift, v. has many many definitions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.106.20 (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

One way is simply to add text between the closing }} and </ref>; e.g. <ref>{{Cite OED|shift}} , v. III.i.21 However, since the OED Web site changed radically recently I haven't found how to use even the id= parameter; seeking shift takes you to a page with options for the verb, noun, and compounds such as "phase shift". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

Why does this point to the wrong data source?

Why does the "(Subscription or UK public library membership required)" link point to the Oxford Dictionary of NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY, and not the one for English? Can someone fix this please. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've changed this template to refer to OEDsub rather than ODNBsub (which was why it pointed to the ODNB). I've created OEDsub and its documentation page. It looks OK at first glance, please enter any bugs here or on the template's talk page. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That's great - many thanks. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Cite SOED

I don't live in the UK, and don't have an academic affiliation, so access to the online OED is not realistic. I do have a ("proper printed") copy of the SOED. (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition) Making a citation manually is extremely cumbersome, so what should I do? Could (or should) we have a Cite SOED template? Imaginatorium (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a template {{ShorterOxfordEnglishDictionary}} which gives the beginnings of a citation. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately that says 6th ed. and I don't suppose there is really much demand for six different templates. In most cases the latest should "work"; perhaps I will just make a half-baked ref to the SOED3, and some kind sould can update it to OED. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a parameter for the edition? But then, I'm not sure there really is a need for a template here: the citation looks relatively simple, and I can't think if a need to update in future. You can maybe just use the code from Template:ShorterOxfordEnglishDictionary and change the edition number, year and isbn? – Uanfala (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

This may have been true at one time, but if it was, it isn't now: I don't live in the UK, and don't have an academic affiliation, but I do have free access to the online OED, through the "eLibrary" and databases section of my public library website, where I am a (free) member. Probably a lot (millions) of people have access to the online OED who are not aware of it. Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ref anchor

Try as I might I can't understand how the ref tag is to be used on a page. Could someone point me towards a working example or provide one? As penance for my lack of understanding I will try to fix the broken ref tags flagged on the template error report once I know how they should be used. Skullcinema (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What page are you having trouble with this on? Does Help:Footnotes help? — Eru·tuon 17:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not on any specific page, I am trying to understand the use of the tag in general. I've read through Wikipedia:Citation_templates_and_reference_anchors, Template:Harvard_citation_documentation, Parenthetical_referencing, Template:Cite_book#Anchor, Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Wikilinks_to_full_references, Help:Citation_Style_1#Anchors and Help:Footnotes and their associated talk pages but can't find a similar worked example of a ref anchor being used after being generated by a CS1 template. I thought I would ask here before heading to the CS1 talk pages. BTW isn't the TemplateData default description for the ref parameter {{harvid|Reference-OED-{{{term|{{{1|}}}}}} missing a couple of curly braces at the end? Skullcinema (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the ref tag in this template is not working properly (see here for details). Skullcinema (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Skullcinema: I'm having trouble figuring out what the problem you're struggling with is. Could you provide a single example that you think should work but doesn't? --Xover (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Template needs updating

The template currently produces a citation which reads "Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. September 2005". That may have been correct when the online edition was first published, but the current online OED is updated on an as-needed basis, and no edition number nor fixed edition date is now specified. Could the template be updated, please, to output something like this: "Oxford English Dictionary (online). Oxford University Press. Retrieved 26 March 2020". Many thanks. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Wondering if this is something you might be able to look at? MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hairy Dude: I saw that you just edited the template. Would you be able to look at this? MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

{{SUBST:Date}} is broken

The access-date field is automatically populated with {{SUBST:Date}} in the visual editor. When I use this in a citation, it fails to convert. The exact process in this edit was cite > basic form > enter {{Cite OED}}. Dunno if it works outside of the citation, but that must be a rare usage. —Michael Z. 00:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Not the fault of this template. See Help:Substitution § Limitation

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn’t it the template’s fault it is trying to do something unusual and impossible in a normal editing context? I haven’t encountered any other template that tries to do this, and as far as I know none of the regular citation templates do it (maybe because it’s broken?). If the offending placeholder was removed, then this error wouldn’t occur. —Michael Z. 03:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just removed the autofill. Nardog (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Need a field for meaning line and section

There needs to be a means of identifying the particular meaning being referenced. Some entries have a large number of meanings and the user may not be sure which one is being pointed to by the template. The "horse" entry, for instance, lists 23 numbered meanings (not including lettered sub-meanings and compounds). This is causing me a problem on Flogging a dead horse page where I want to refer to two different meanings lines. Sometimes, as in this case, the meanings are grouped into higher levels with roman numerals. So, for instance the constellation Pegasus sub-meaning would be meaning=I:2b. SpinningSpark 14:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

{{cite OED}} is merely a wrapper template around {{cite dictionary}} which is a redirect to {{cite encyclopedia}}. Using the cs1|2 parameters available to {{cite encyclopedia}}, write a {{cite OED}} template that approximates what |meaning= would do; for example, the template might use |meaning= to fill |at=:

{{cite OED |entry=horse |meaning=I:2b}}

"horse". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. meaning I:2b. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |url-access= requires |url= (help) (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

or the template might concatenate |meaning= onto |entry=:

{{cite OED |entry=horse |meaning=I:2b}}

"horse (meaning I:2b)". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |url-access= requires |url= (help) (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

or whatever.

Then propose that as a solution to your problem.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Useful template?

I tried to use this template on geoduck; nevertheless if I use it I get:

"geoduck". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

Note that Wikipedia library doesn't give me the access to the OED; whereas if I link directy to the page

geoduck

it works. How could be fixed it? Thanks in advance.-- Carnby (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried using the |id= parameter as suggested in the template's documentation? Like this:

{{Cite OED|geoduck|id=77740}} → "geoduck". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

That works for me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

OED Web site change

The OED Web site changed radically a while ago; either I have missed something, or this template has become less useful. The id=parameter does not seem to work, generating a 404 error in references [later correction: old references with ID work, but numbers sometimes displayed in URLs such as "tab=factsheet#22890905", and DOI codes, are not IDs, and IDs are not available]. Seeking, for example, "shift" goes to a page with subpages for many meanings, verb, noun, and phrases such as "phase shift". The OED Web page for the verb suggests the reference (click on "Cite" at top left) “shift, v.”. Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, April 2023, <https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1081218589>. ID numbers work if you have them (so existing uses of {{Cite OED}} work), but I don't (yet) know how to find them; for example https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/61863 works, but is redirected to https://www.oed.com/dictionary/end_n. For words with multiple meaning for the same part of speech (e.g. several nouns), URLs like https://www.oed.com/dictionary/sook_n2 work, but https://www.oed.com/dictionary/sook_n does not. Other examples: "slide" leads to URLs ending in "slide_combform", "slid_adj1".

The problem would be solved if there is a way to find the entry IDs that have been dropped.

An advantage of the new site for users is that basic information on a word is available without logging in.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

For new uses, using the number in the DOI seems like a good idea, as the whole point of a DOI is to be stable. A problem with old URLs is that the redirection is flawed: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/144742, the pith helmet example in the doc, redirects to https://www.oed.com/dictionary/pith_n, not https://www.oed.com/dictionary/pith-helmet_n. If this is unique to compounds with spaces, then we should go through the transclusions and update at least those. (The doc says it was the ID for pith.)

I wonder if there's a pattern to the DOI IDs in such a way that the previous IDs can automatically be converted to DOIs. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be—https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/1 is https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/7382069290, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/4 is https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/5800573069. Nardog (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Written before Nardog's comment) A solution to the problem posed by the new OED Web format: modify the {{OED}} template to allow the id= parameter to take 3 types of value:

• A number of 6 (I think) digits or fewer, which will, as before, generate a URL like https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/61863
• A number of 7 or more digits, which will generate https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1081218589 . I think the "10.1093" holds for all entries; the user would have to find the final number using the OED entry's "Cite" button.
• An alphanumeric + underscore value, which will generate https://www.oed.com/dictionary/shift_v . The "shift_v" would be read from the URL in the browser's address bar.
• Alternatively, add a url= parameter (either id= or url=, not both). Any of the URL formats above could be supplied by the user.

It might be possible to jump directly to an OED tab (in the new format there are tabs for meaning, etymology, etc.); this would require an extra optional parameter, e.g. {{Cite OED|shift|id=shift_v|tab=etymology}} for https://www.oed.com/dictionary/shift_v?tab=etymology, similarly for https://www.oed.com/dictionary/shift_v?tab=factsheet#22890905

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

All DOI IDs appear to be 10 digits. Some of the entry IDs from the last update are 9 digits, e.g. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/104006160. So the cutoff must be <9. Nardog (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think supporting links to specific tabs is a good idea. Unregistered users can see at least some content on the factsheet tab, but not on others. And who knows how long the current URL scheme is going to stick. Nardog (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should start supporting inputs like shift_v. We should encourage using the DOIs by all means, so as to avoid this exact situation in the future. Nardog (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(Again written before previous comment. I will stop commenting for now to avoid crossover) "who knows how long the current URL scheme is going to stick." Or any scheme, like the discontinued (but still supported) ID. Perhaps the preferred option should be id=sook_n2? Maybe the OED people should be asked: how likely is it that the id=sook_n2 will be maintained for a long time; how stable are the DOIs; is there a way in which people can still easily find the old IDs? I am throwing off all suggestions I can think of at this stage (brainstorming), not trying to push for any. Pol098 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment that doesn't affect the template: people will have to be warned in the documentation not to use the "22890905" from a URL like https://www.oed.com/dictionary/shift_v?tab=factsheet#22890905 , which as far as I can see doesn't identify a word. Pol098 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The whole point of a DOI is to be stable and avoid link rot so we should prioritize it. Nardog (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

We seem to be homing in on the DOI as preferred (though it does require people to know to click "Cite" instead of reading the URL). Would it be better to multi-task the id= parameter (if <=9, >9), or to add, say, doi_number=1081218589 or doi=10.1093/OED/1081218589 (will all DOIs reliably start with 10.1093/OED/? Maybe ask OED). It seems to me that the whole DOI is the way to go. Pol098 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's go with adding the conditional. It'd be a shame if all future uses of the template had to type a long parameter instead of id.

will all DOIs reliably start with 10.1093/OED/? Yes. As explained in Digital object identifier#Nomenclature and syntax, 10.1093 is the prefix for OUP as the registrant. Nardog (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I see it's all done and documented. That was quick! Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Subscription or participating institution membership NOT required now

The template adds "Subscription or participating institution membership required" to the citation. Since the change this year, basic information is available without login; logging in gives more. Perhaps change the text to something like "Basic information; subscription or participating institution membership required for full details"? This is fairly important, as non-OED-subscribers are otherwise discouraged from clicking the link. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog: Just in case you hadn't seen it: for OED, Subscription or participating institution membership NOT required now. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)