As decided, I plan to use the Wikipedia Cite book template to construct a citation for the origin of the word tonneau. But, if I'm going to generate an OED reference, I might as well try to make it a model citation that can be used elsewhere on Wikipedia.
So, rather than just diving headfirst into it, let's have a quick look around Wikipedia to see what is out there already.
There is a reference for the definition of the word tonneau on the tonneau page (reference 4) which is,
^ Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University, 2011
Moving to edit view to see the Wiki mark-up yields,
<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University, 2011</ref>
which is plain and simple; but doesn't use the Cite book template. A look over the OED page on Wikipedia reveals that the reference should probably be to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, whose 12th edition was published in 2011, rather than the full version whose
last edition (2nd) was published in 1989.
As the OED reference will cover the meaning and origin of the word tonneau I can update them both at the same time. Two for the price of one!
Perhaps there is a better Wiki reference for the OED on the OED Wiki page? It appears that reference 18 of the article is the relevant one, which is,
^
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
Craigie, W. A.; Onions, C. T. (1933).
A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles: Introduction, Supplement, and Bibliography
. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
The mark-up for the above (located just below ===Completion of first edition and first supplement===) is,
<ref name=Craigie>{{Cite book |title = A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles: Introduction, Supplement, and Bibliography |last = Craigie |first = W. A. |publisher = Clarendon Press |year = 1933 |isbn = |location = Oxford |pages = |last2 = Onions |first2 = C. T.}}</ref>
which is somewhat shorter than the full Cite book template. However, it may be that many of the fields in the template are not required in order to cite this edition of the OED.
On closer inspection, however, the title given in the citation doesn't match that given in the table at the top of the article (located at the start of the History section). Oh dear.
Time to do the research and look at the printings of the first edition and their catalogue information at some reputable libraries.
From the table titled 'Oxford English Dictionary Publications' the first edition was initially published as a serial in 10 volumes comprising 12 individual parts (actually it was released in 125 fascicles) starting in 1888 and finishing in 1928. It then was re-issued in its entirety in 1928 as a complete set of 10 volumes, followed by a single volume supplement in 1933. Finally, again in 1933, a corrected version of the first edition was re-issued as a set of 13 volumes inclusive of the supplement.
The British Library and Library of Congress catalogue entries for the 1933 issue list 13 volumes, as expected for the 1933 re-issue. But the Bodleian Library gives a publication range of 1888-1933 for 10 volumes and a supplement, so must be referencing the 1928 printing combined with the 1933 supplement.
So, in total, the printings of the first edition comprise 26 individual bound books, which, when combined with the 79 fields of the Cite book template, gives 1,975 data points. Time for a spreadsheet.
Looking at the bottom of the OED Wikipage under External Links there is a table containing a series of links to out of copyright first edition sources on the Internet Archive. In total 18 volumes are listed, which conflicts with the 13 mentioned in the table in the article and the library catalogue entries. I am assuming that this is probably due to individual binding decisions on the part of different institutions, as the linked books respect the letter boundaries of the 1888-1928 issue of the first edition.
After a bit of research and ferreting around on t'internet I can add the details for the 1933 twelve volume issue, which was also present on the Internet Archive, but which has different letter boundaries from some of the volumes of the 1888-1928 issue. It may be worthwhile adding this to the External Links section, but as the status of the copyright on the first edition of the OED is not clear I will ask first before adding it.
The relevant data and links found are,
Having completed this research it appears that there are a few more issues on the OED Wikipage;
- that the table in the History section doesn't include the issue of the supplement as an independent publication;
- that the 1933 reference has been misused to refer to both the historical introduction written by Craigie and Onions in the 1933 supplement and the whole 1933 re-issue from the four editors; and
- that the 'Completion of the first edition and first supplement' section isn't correct.
But that's another post.
Comments
Post a Comment