Template talk:R:OED2

OUP asset update

OED definition template seems to be broken since OUP updated their web assets... Enquire (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Brackets in citation

@LlywelynII: The brackets indicated that the full names of the editors were not actually indicated in the source but were editorial additions. There is no need to call them "silly". — SMUconlaw (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a citation of a work, not a quotation of the text of the title page. Of course they are humorously absurd. I'm fine with the links providing the full names and just using the initials; it's great to give the full names; but the brackets were silly for a citation. — LlywelynII 00:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you there, but don't think it is worth getting into an argument on the issue. Let's both work towards improving the Dictionary. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Identification

The following identification is enough:

• “R:OED2”, in The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989, →ISBN.

It uniquely identifies the work. Stating the editors does not help the reader, who wants to use the template to get to the target page in OED2, if for anything. The reader can click on the "ISBN" link to get more edition information from multiple sources, including worldcat.

Somewhat tolerable would be to add the editors back (who are not the authors anyway), but make sure the target link, the template's main reason for being, is the leftmost item shown. The most important item needs to take the most prominent place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)