Shouldn't this be merged to the OED article, if not entirely discarded as trivia? ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's actually a very popular means of describing this dictionary, at least in academia. It certainly isn't "trivia." It's more like calling marijuana "pot." You could do a redirect instead, but I think that would be very confusing, since it's a totally different name. I think this will be clearer. ---- Consult [1] and [2]. --Upperdoes39 (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've fixed the capitalisation as per your request. I think this article has potential, but please expand it. It cant be left as a single line. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 00:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't mean to write a whole article, it's just strange that such a popular means of referring to the OED has been ignored by Wikipedia. I didn't want a redirect because that would be confusing. Give me some time though, and I might be able to whip something interesting up.--Upperdoes39 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well actually I think a redirect would be a good idea in this case. I don't think it would be confusing, we do have a lot of redirects from search terms and alternative terms that themselves don't have their own articles. You can always mention the term ("Murray's Dictionary") and its history in the main article. I think that when one "does not mean to write a whole article" (as you yourself say above) a redirect is a good solution. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to a redirect. It would give the term more eyeballs and probably make for a better article. I leave it up to Wikipedia as a whole to decide. I merely wished to acknowledge the term in some way since it was completely ignored before. --Upperdoes39 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- But please feel free to insert any relevant information into the main OED article. Any improvement, however minor, is welcome. Happy editing! 131.111.223.43 (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merged and redir'd. ThuranX (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- But please feel free to insert any relevant information into the main OED article. Any improvement, however minor, is welcome. Happy editing! 131.111.223.43 (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to a redirect. It would give the term more eyeballs and probably make for a better article. I leave it up to Wikipedia as a whole to decide. I merely wished to acknowledge the term in some way since it was completely ignored before. --Upperdoes39 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well actually I think a redirect would be a good idea in this case. I don't think it would be confusing, we do have a lot of redirects from search terms and alternative terms that themselves don't have their own articles. You can always mention the term ("Murray's Dictionary") and its history in the main article. I think that when one "does not mean to write a whole article" (as you yourself say above) a redirect is a good solution. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't mean to write a whole article, it's just strange that such a popular means of referring to the OED has been ignored by Wikipedia. I didn't want a redirect because that would be confusing. Give me some time though, and I might be able to whip something interesting up.--Upperdoes39 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've fixed the capitalisation as per your request. I think this article has potential, but please expand it. It cant be left as a single line. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 00:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)