This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Encyclopædia Britannica article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 183 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Encyclopædia Britannica is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 8, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
|
![]() | On June 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Encyclopaedia Britannica. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
@ Mewulwe: You reverted my attempt to add a line to the lede about Encyclopedia Brittanica's struggle to compete with Wikipedia. I offered Wired as a source, which you rejected. Would this article from The Next Web be sufficient? If not, there are presumably lots of alternatives—any source that covers Encyclopedia Brittanica nowadays has to confront the presence of Wikipedia, and we have a whole section about it at Encyclopædia Britannica#Internet encyclopaedias, so I think it's pretty unquestionably WP:DUE. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
3O Response: Undoubtedly, the article should include material about Britannica in the changing landscape brought about by computerized and later Web-based encyclopedias, like, say, this one. However, I think mention in the lead is probably not needed. As of now, the lead primarily just summarizes what Britannica is, and I think that's a good fit in this article. The body can then cover the details and its history; that's a bit much for the lead. If we covered one bit of its history there, we'd really have to touch on all of it, and that would make the lead much too long.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
20:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
An assertion was added about comparing bias in Wikipedia and Britannica around July 15, 2023. There's a sweeping generalization "is known to be" but that is not supported by the reference, a Forbes article from 2015 citing a Harvard Business School working paper from 2014... There's no evidence reported on responses to the paper, and the paper contains qualifications that limit the support of the sweeping statement (such as disavowing assessments of relative correctness). Danchall ( talk) 11:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The 15th edition is kind of a huge deal, with quite a history, and a major departure for the company, and even for encyclopedias as a whole. There are tons of sources for it, and I was surprised we don't have an article for it. I added a " with possibilities" redirect to indicate this (as well as a couple of variant spellings, +/- ligatures) and hopefully someone will usurp the redirect Encyclopædia Britannica Fifteenth Edition and create an article.
As an additional issue, there is a new template available to cite the 15th: see {{ Cite EB15}}. For any questions or comments on the template, your feedback at Template talk:Cite EB15 would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I propose we change the citation style to something more comparable at Edgar Allan Poe. This is due to the high volume of books/encyclopedias being repeatedly cited. --Matr1x-101 { user page @ commons - talk - contribs} 23:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Quite a bit of this article needs to be rewritten: There is a lot of repeated information in the article; also a lot of related information spread between two or more sections, particularly relating to the digital editions.
In the section entitled "Wikipedia", comparison is made with the 699 and 65,000 "printed articles". Surely an up-to-date comparison would be with the current, online Britannica? The most recent printed articles are from the 2010 print edition, which is 13 years old.
We are told how many articles there are in the 2007 print edition: would it not be more useful to know how many were in the last, 2010, print edition?
It would be good to have an estimate or estimates of the number of articles in the current digital Britannica.
Spel-Punc-Gram ( talk) 02:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Some sources (GScholar, GBooks) mention it but never explain what it is. It exists today ( [1]) and of course early editions of Britannica were called "The Encyclopædia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information". Should this be a redirect or a disambig or a proper article? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Encyclopædia Britannica article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 183 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Encyclopædia Britannica is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 8, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
|
![]() | On June 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Encyclopaedia Britannica. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
@ Mewulwe: You reverted my attempt to add a line to the lede about Encyclopedia Brittanica's struggle to compete with Wikipedia. I offered Wired as a source, which you rejected. Would this article from The Next Web be sufficient? If not, there are presumably lots of alternatives—any source that covers Encyclopedia Brittanica nowadays has to confront the presence of Wikipedia, and we have a whole section about it at Encyclopædia Britannica#Internet encyclopaedias, so I think it's pretty unquestionably WP:DUE. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
3O Response: Undoubtedly, the article should include material about Britannica in the changing landscape brought about by computerized and later Web-based encyclopedias, like, say, this one. However, I think mention in the lead is probably not needed. As of now, the lead primarily just summarizes what Britannica is, and I think that's a good fit in this article. The body can then cover the details and its history; that's a bit much for the lead. If we covered one bit of its history there, we'd really have to touch on all of it, and that would make the lead much too long.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
20:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
An assertion was added about comparing bias in Wikipedia and Britannica around July 15, 2023. There's a sweeping generalization "is known to be" but that is not supported by the reference, a Forbes article from 2015 citing a Harvard Business School working paper from 2014... There's no evidence reported on responses to the paper, and the paper contains qualifications that limit the support of the sweeping statement (such as disavowing assessments of relative correctness). Danchall ( talk) 11:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The 15th edition is kind of a huge deal, with quite a history, and a major departure for the company, and even for encyclopedias as a whole. There are tons of sources for it, and I was surprised we don't have an article for it. I added a " with possibilities" redirect to indicate this (as well as a couple of variant spellings, +/- ligatures) and hopefully someone will usurp the redirect Encyclopædia Britannica Fifteenth Edition and create an article.
As an additional issue, there is a new template available to cite the 15th: see {{ Cite EB15}}. For any questions or comments on the template, your feedback at Template talk:Cite EB15 would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I propose we change the citation style to something more comparable at Edgar Allan Poe. This is due to the high volume of books/encyclopedias being repeatedly cited. --Matr1x-101 { user page @ commons - talk - contribs} 23:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Quite a bit of this article needs to be rewritten: There is a lot of repeated information in the article; also a lot of related information spread between two or more sections, particularly relating to the digital editions.
In the section entitled "Wikipedia", comparison is made with the 699 and 65,000 "printed articles". Surely an up-to-date comparison would be with the current, online Britannica? The most recent printed articles are from the 2010 print edition, which is 13 years old.
We are told how many articles there are in the 2007 print edition: would it not be more useful to know how many were in the last, 2010, print edition?
It would be good to have an estimate or estimates of the number of articles in the current digital Britannica.
Spel-Punc-Gram ( talk) 02:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Some sources (GScholar, GBooks) mention it but never explain what it is. It exists today ( [1]) and of course early editions of Britannica were called "The Encyclopædia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information". Should this be a redirect or a disambig or a proper article? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)