This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Encyclopedia Dramatica should be included, not only because it has "encyclopedia" in the name, but if you look at other entries on this list such as Everything2, Illogicopedia, Uncyclopedia.-- I LIVE IN A HAT ( talk) 14:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks as though the ones I mentioned were removed, some more should probably go such as the ones under Fiction (or fictional).-- I LIVE IN A HAT ( talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If calling something an encyclopedia is insufficient for inclusion on this list, then we need to define what counts as an encyclopedia. I would propose changing the lead to the following:
This would permit the removal of some non-notable dictionary-style works, as well as websites such as those noted above which, while perhaps calling themselves encyclopedias and following a wiki-style format, are not themselves encyclopedias. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
How about something along the lines of "a publication is an encyclopedia if idependent reliable sources say in express words that it is". James500 ( talk) 13:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
have you ever seen a reliable source say, in express words, that a topic satisfies our notability guidelines (which is what would be needed to avoid OR)? Notability, in its ordinary meaning, should only be used as a selection criteria if there are reliable sources that describe the encyclopedias as "notable" in express words.-- Not sure where you're getting this. Notability is a Wikipedian measure of something akin to importance that is measured by the quantity and quality of sources about a given subject -- the existence of those sources, not the declarations of notability they contain. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The common selection criteria are not mandatory, so you still have to establish local consensus for the use of that particular criteria here, which you haven't. I can't see any reason whatsoever to confine this list to notionally "notable" entries. As regards your example, a band that you have just put together with your friends will not be verifiable with independent reliable sources (we will not look at your personal website). Why we should require significant coverage is very unclear. A more sensible criteria would be inclusion in a professionally published bibliography of encyclopedias, or the existence of a reliable book review, or so forth. James500 ( talk) 04:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Assuming that a merge is not in order ("bibliography" can be defined as a type of list) an index of enclopedias with WP articles would be acceptable (as a navigation page) provided it is expressly labelled as such. That would be unequivocally verifiable because they either have one or they don't. It might be acceptable to say that this is a select list, without explicitly mentioning Wikipedia notability. Otherwise I would oppose any explicit selection criteria that isn't based on real world concepts not invented by (unreliable) Wikipedia and especially one based on Wikipedia notability which is not so much a gray area as a gigantic black hole (GNG seems to say that significant coverage is more than a single sentence but less than two large books which each have several hundred pages). And did I mention that anyone who read the present lead would think it was talking about real world notability? James500 ( talk) 09:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I started to work on this article, but ran into some organizational challenges. Looking more closely at other encyclopedia-related lists, I think we can do better. So here's a proposal:
This list has the problem of dividing by language, by medium, by general vs. specialized, and tries to take on subdivisions of specialized encyclopedias. It seems like only the "subject" section of this list is actually what the title purports. List of encyclopedias by language is kind of a mess, with a handful of some offshoot language-specific articles (some of which do not appear to merit being spun off), but also very spotty and inconsistent in its coverage. I would like to turn List of encyclopedias by language into List of general encyclopedias by language and axe all of the general encyclopedias from this list (moving them over there) such that it's just for subject-specific works]]. Thoughts? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not think this is a good idea. James500 ( talk) 01:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
User:7&6=thirteen "Mere existence is good enough" -- this is pretty contrary to how Wikipedia generally works. We already have the many Bibliography of encyclopedias articles which attempt to list all encyclopedias... by branch of knowledge. The default, however, is to follow things like WP:CSC and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory, book catalog, etc.). As with anything else on Wikipedia, verifiability does not mean inclusion. What exactly is your proposed inclusion criteria? As an aside, your username seems to break {{ ping}} and, apparently, {{ u}}? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the meaning of Jesus Valarie Stelly Jones ( talk) 00:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Encyclopedia Dramatica should be included, not only because it has "encyclopedia" in the name, but if you look at other entries on this list such as Everything2, Illogicopedia, Uncyclopedia.-- I LIVE IN A HAT ( talk) 14:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks as though the ones I mentioned were removed, some more should probably go such as the ones under Fiction (or fictional).-- I LIVE IN A HAT ( talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If calling something an encyclopedia is insufficient for inclusion on this list, then we need to define what counts as an encyclopedia. I would propose changing the lead to the following:
This would permit the removal of some non-notable dictionary-style works, as well as websites such as those noted above which, while perhaps calling themselves encyclopedias and following a wiki-style format, are not themselves encyclopedias. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
How about something along the lines of "a publication is an encyclopedia if idependent reliable sources say in express words that it is". James500 ( talk) 13:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
have you ever seen a reliable source say, in express words, that a topic satisfies our notability guidelines (which is what would be needed to avoid OR)? Notability, in its ordinary meaning, should only be used as a selection criteria if there are reliable sources that describe the encyclopedias as "notable" in express words.-- Not sure where you're getting this. Notability is a Wikipedian measure of something akin to importance that is measured by the quantity and quality of sources about a given subject -- the existence of those sources, not the declarations of notability they contain. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The common selection criteria are not mandatory, so you still have to establish local consensus for the use of that particular criteria here, which you haven't. I can't see any reason whatsoever to confine this list to notionally "notable" entries. As regards your example, a band that you have just put together with your friends will not be verifiable with independent reliable sources (we will not look at your personal website). Why we should require significant coverage is very unclear. A more sensible criteria would be inclusion in a professionally published bibliography of encyclopedias, or the existence of a reliable book review, or so forth. James500 ( talk) 04:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Assuming that a merge is not in order ("bibliography" can be defined as a type of list) an index of enclopedias with WP articles would be acceptable (as a navigation page) provided it is expressly labelled as such. That would be unequivocally verifiable because they either have one or they don't. It might be acceptable to say that this is a select list, without explicitly mentioning Wikipedia notability. Otherwise I would oppose any explicit selection criteria that isn't based on real world concepts not invented by (unreliable) Wikipedia and especially one based on Wikipedia notability which is not so much a gray area as a gigantic black hole (GNG seems to say that significant coverage is more than a single sentence but less than two large books which each have several hundred pages). And did I mention that anyone who read the present lead would think it was talking about real world notability? James500 ( talk) 09:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I started to work on this article, but ran into some organizational challenges. Looking more closely at other encyclopedia-related lists, I think we can do better. So here's a proposal:
This list has the problem of dividing by language, by medium, by general vs. specialized, and tries to take on subdivisions of specialized encyclopedias. It seems like only the "subject" section of this list is actually what the title purports. List of encyclopedias by language is kind of a mess, with a handful of some offshoot language-specific articles (some of which do not appear to merit being spun off), but also very spotty and inconsistent in its coverage. I would like to turn List of encyclopedias by language into List of general encyclopedias by language and axe all of the general encyclopedias from this list (moving them over there) such that it's just for subject-specific works]]. Thoughts? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not think this is a good idea. James500 ( talk) 01:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
User:7&6=thirteen "Mere existence is good enough" -- this is pretty contrary to how Wikipedia generally works. We already have the many Bibliography of encyclopedias articles which attempt to list all encyclopedias... by branch of knowledge. The default, however, is to follow things like WP:CSC and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory, book catalog, etc.). As with anything else on Wikipedia, verifiability does not mean inclusion. What exactly is your proposed inclusion criteria? As an aside, your username seems to break {{ ping}} and, apparently, {{ u}}? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the meaning of Jesus Valarie Stelly Jones ( talk) 00:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)