This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books: Reference works This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook This article is supported by the Reference works task force. English Language This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

My favorite edition of the COD used to be a dog-eared 5th edition (1964). I finally had to replace it with a 7th edition (1982), but there honestly doesn't appear to be that much difference between the two (many definitions are worded almost identically), despite the comprehensive changes that Sykes apparently made in the intervening 6th ed. (1976).

At any rate, editions of the COD after 1982 are completely different and lack all of the character and flavor of the old editions. (For example, look at the complicated definition of "catholic" in the 5th or 7th edition.) -山道子 (Sewing) - talk 16:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How is this different from the regular edition? Can someone add that to the article? (How is 1600 pages concise?) -- stillnotelf has a talk page 01:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the full version says it has 21,730 pages. 1600 pages are pretty concise in comparison. --Tango 14:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regular has 20 volumes, concise only one. --J. Sketter (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the basic things about the 11th 2009 rev edition. If someone more knowledgeable could address the last item in the template, the exact English dialect, the template would go. --J. Sketter (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the article and removed the tag. The dictionary is used internationally. Being a publication of the Oxford University Press, it may tilt somewhat toward U.K. usage, but it also documents local variations such as variations that are specific to the U.S. and U.K. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Publications other than paragraphs 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3 is irrelevant to this article. Some are derived from, or share content with, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (or its slight titular variants), but the remainder are unrelated texts, and they are all wholly different publications and would only belong in this article if it were titled "Oxford dictionaries with 'Concise' in their titles" or similar. The same applies to the External links to any titles other than the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (or its slight titular variants). —Redactur (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that it is just a list of irrelevant other works and should be removed. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]