Template talk:oed1923

This was previously used on reformist (linked here so I can find history.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Eclecticology disagrees with this template
He claims that the entire OED 1st ed. and the first supplement are public domain because they were published in England which has a 70-year copyright for corporate works (see talk:reformist). I don't know anything about international copyright treaties, so I can't comment on that. If Eclecticology is right, the template needs to be revised before use. Dfeuer 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:oed1923
UK law applies. All the original OED went into the public domain at the end of 1998. The first supplement went into the public domain at the end of 2003. Eclecticology 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So why is the template nominated for deletion? We attribute Webster's 1913 in the same manner, don't we?  --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Without attribution, you are violating the GFDL! --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that there should be no attribution. A simple reference in the reference section of the article should be enough.  The same could be said about the Webster template.  Generally, I don't go looking to change those, but if I'm editing for some other reason, I do replace that ugly box with a normal reference. Eclecticology 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The edit summary here says only "pointless template" (edit at 07:40 UTC - note that MediaWiki will display your timezone when following this link.) Five minutes later, I warned about the GFDL above.  Seven minutes later, you added a link to a non-existant template: R:OED then created that shortly after.  This is bizarre.  Why didn't you just correct this template and rename it to R:OED?  Why create in effect, a gap in edit hostory by deleting this template instead of just correcting it?


 * Furthermore, why the unannounced policy change for attribution? We've always tagged Webster entries that way, with no objection.  Is there a conversation on the topic hidden somewhere not obvious to me?  I concur that the references may be more intuitive and look better.  But shouldn't something like that be discussed?  Moreso, since you've reverted this twice now, it is obvious there is some contention or confusion on the matter: why isn't this a community vote?  How are people to know that you've decided it should now look otherwise?


 * I suppose you'll make an excuse, or say you didn't see the warning. If recent events hadn't transpired, I'd be inclined to make that assumption for your benefit.


 * It would be acceptable to me in this situation, if you temporarily delete template: R:OED and move template:oed1923 there, then restore it to the state you feel is appropriate. (Presumably that would be moving back over-redirect and restoring earlier version, retaining redirect so that viewing history is more consistent.)  And announce the policy change somewhere.


 * --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January 2018–May 2020
Used on exactly one entry: apologism. I believe we have for that now? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It probably is intended to indicate use of the out-of-copyright earlier volumes of the OED. Arguably it should be more widely used, not deleted. DCDuring (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, no, we should not be copying content from the OED. The template should be deleted after is reworded so it no longer copies the OED, if indeed it still does. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should we not copy out-of-copyright works, like MW 1911, Century 1913, and OED 1923? If it weren't for such copying our coverage and even quality would be much worse than it is. It's hard enough to update older definitions without acting as if we could surpass these past lexicographers starting from a clean slate. We should have our creative hands full working on on new words and new definitions of old words. DCDuring (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When I see your "creative hands" doing any substantial work improving English entries, I'll try to remember to take you seriously. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I mostly work in Translingual and English vernacular names. I found working on basic English words too hard. What do you work on? DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any substantive response to my question above? Corrections to my statements above? DCDuring (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You of all people are complaining about non-substantive responses? We can and should define based on the evidence, and despite being the best we have, the OED is not really that wonderful of a dictionary. We are on track to be able to exceed them in coverage and quality for English etymology, scientific vocabulary, and more, while avoiding their penchant for dated, poorly written definitions and dictionary-only words. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I repeat my request that you address the actual issues at hand. Perhaps you can vent your spleen at me in some other forum. It might help to consider, just for English:
 * how many contributors you would deem capable of generating acceptable definitions variously:
 * from scratch
 * from out-of-copyright works
 * from the typical definition that we now have.
 * how many definitions of each such origin or lack a contributor is willing to produce on average in a year.
 * how much work of each type for these contributors to do:
 * how many definitions we lack
 * how many unacceptable definitions we have from out-of-copyright works
 * how many other "poorly written definitions".
 * It's then just simple arithmetic to determine how long it will take to finish a dictionary of 2018 English that met your standard of quality and purity of origin. This ignores other kinds of work needed to bring English L2 sections to a uniformly acceptable standard.
 * The same kind of analysis might be applied to other languages. It would be particularly appropriate to consider the output we could manage in dead languages without copying from reference works. Presumably we don't copy from in-copyright works (eg, Oxford Latin Dictionary) in any language. Do we dispense entirely with copy-and-paste from Lewis and Short? We certainly don't spend much effort on preventing COPYVIO, let alone copying from out-of-copyright sources. Perhaps you might encourage such policing. DCDuring (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete or (my weak preference) move to Template:R:OED1923 and reformat to be like Template:R:Webster 1913 rather than like Template:Webster 1913. We should indeed not just copy information from the OED or Webster without checking the information for correctness, and when we're adding information that we've checked for correctness, the entry shouldn't use this template but rather a "R:" template (just like with the two Webster templates). But a "R:OED1923" could be useful if we want to source an etymological detail that's supported by that dictionary and either it isn't in the modern OED anymore (maybe we're sourcing a line like "until the earl 1900s, it was thougth to derive from XOED1923 but it is now thought to derive from Y"), or the adding editor simply doesn't have access to the modern OED but can indeed cite the older OED. - -sche (discuss) 18:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Deleted, replace with a reference template (R:OED) in the one(!) entry which used it. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)