![]() | This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
These two articles are just different editions of the same book. Wikipedia should have one article per book, not one article per edition of the book. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying: I failed to get this page on to my watchlist.
Point 1: Pre-publication status is normally a reason to not have a separate article, because until publication you don't really know how different it will be.
Points 2 and 3: There's enough room in one article to do a thorough treatment of both editions (with redirects from all possible names). A merger need not (indeed, should not) reduce the total information provided. In a typical merge, the lead says that there are two editions and outlines some common information (like why NP is important in general), and you have one section per edition that is dedicated to the unique features of each edition. Merging articles does not reduce information.
Point 4: When works are really entirely different works, then I support different articles. However, according to the authors and publisher, eight-volume edition is a major expansion of a previous work, not an entirely separate creation. The publisher claims that 20% of the new dictionary was taken word-for-word out of the old one. [1] Merging the articles also makes it easier for the reader to compare the two editions, so your goal of spelling out the differences is actually best supported by a merger, not a split.
Point 5: While the entries may read like an encyclopedia, the authors and the publisher say that it is a dictionary. Therefore I think it should follow the format used in articles like Webster's Dictionary instead of the 20-volume general encyclopedias.
I note also that Wikipedia only has a separate article for EB for the historically important 11th edition, and not for any of the other fourteen editions. In fact, looking through the Category:English-language_encyclopedias, I note that EB11 is the only edition of any encyclopedia on Wikipedia that gets its own article. That was a cleverly chosen example, but it was not a convincing one. A trip to Category:Dictionaries produces similar results. So the real question here is, "Why should NP be the only dictionary in all of Wikipedia that has separate articles for the first and second editions?"
Points 6, 7, 8, 9: Someone who isn't exactly certain which volume is in hand, or who heard a passing reference to "NP says...", is better served by a unified article. Having all the information in one article (with appropriate redirects for titles) helps readers figure out potentially confusing references. In fact, having all the information in one article increases the odds that the reader will realize that a "perfectly obvious" reference is actually a potential source of confusion, because what the reader thought was in this edition could actually be from that edition. Note again that I'm not proposing that any information be removed: merely that it's all put in one place for the convenience of the reader.
I want to add that I don't have a vested interest in the outcome here: I'm not a regular editor on this page. Having said that, I find the justifications put forth for separate articles to be fairly weak, and I still support the merge. If you can explain why NP really needs two articles when the controversial Webster's Third New International Dictionary does not, then I'm perfectly willing to change my mind.
I hope this information is helpful, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It could be worthwhile to reconsider merger at a later date, but there are so many serious practical negatives as to table merger consideration unless better arguments & data for merger can be advanced. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thomasmeeks, what I get from your list is "I don't like the merge proposal"
You've never come up with a convincing reason. So we call it an encyclopedia -- out of all the dozens of encyclopedias included in Wikipedia, only one has a separate article for an edition. That special edition, BTW, changed the meaning of encyclopedia for the whole world. It changed the tone, the style, and the expectations for every subsequent encyclopedia. Can you honestly suggest that NP2 will do that? I doubt it. I doubt you'd dare to make such an outrageous claim.
Every encyclopedia ever published has the kind of "historical value" that NP1 will have: to see what people were thinking at that time, or to verify a reference from that era. EB11 has an entirely different historical effect: it changed the future.
You say that NP is like IESBS: Fine. I see one Wikipedia article for all of the editions of IESBS. Why should NP handled like the revolutionary EB11 instead of like every single other encyclopedia? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing. I feel that readers are better served with one article and different section in that article on the different editions. We could simply create an article titled "The Palgrave Dictionary of Economics" and discuss the different editions in it. I really don't think balkanizing information is good for the organization of Wikipedia. It is irritating for readers with slow internet connections, clutters up categories, and leads to redundant information (people will want to note the earlier editions in both these articles). II | ( t - c) 22:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree the two articles should be merged. The two articles are mostly composed of lists right now which should be cut, in favor of external links to the NPs's tables of contents. And WP articles on economics topics should be citing substantive articles in the actual NP's, rather than linking to the WP articles on the NP's. Jeremy Tobacman ( talk) 06:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all very much for your useful and thought-provoking arguments for and against merging these two articles. Almost a year after the print publication of the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition, Palgrave Macmillan felt it was time to try merging them. We look forward to hearing what you think and sincerely hope this does not lead to any loss of clarity or information.
Also, if you have any proposals for articles to commission for the online version of the Dictionary, I would enjoy hearing them, as we now update the online content quarterly.
You can contact me at any time about this or any other issue relating to the Dictionary. Needless to say, anyone can make changes here, but feel free to discuss them with me too. Sophia Blackwell, Palgrave Macmillan: s.blackwell@palgrave.com
First, may I express appreciation to Sophia Blackwell for a productive and cordial email exchange concerning the above section and for her elegantly simple content-merge Edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_New_Palgrave_Dictionary_of_Economics,_2nd_Edition&oldid=282076499. There it is easy to follow the content insertions from http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_New_Palgrave:_A_Dictionary_of_Economics&oldid=276402573.
Most of the many objections to merger of the articles The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (NP1) and The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Ed. (NP2 ), expressed in the top section above (by me, actually) were identified there as practically-based. I continue to believe that non-merger was reasonable but appreciate the restraint excercised by those on the other side who might have attempted a less successful merge with undesirable after-effects.
I now believe that a merge that meets reasonable concerns expressed above is possible but not yet fully realized. To meet this concern I propose an article Edit that sequences material as follows:
This keeps chronologically similar material together and facilates links from other Wikipedia articles to where in the article it is most closely referenced. Many libraries may have NP1 or NP2 but not both. Convenient sectioning should be helpful to those wishing to follow up with the most accessible library resource or which WP article has NP1 or NP2 article references.
The titles of NP1 & NP2 differ. An NP1 section heading should reflact that difference, again to make linking less confusing. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 21:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
With the above merger of the 2 editions into one article (on which see above), "2nd Edition" is no longer necessary to distinguish the 2 editions. That distinction is made in the article instead. As the one who added "2nd Edition" to the title, I'd propose to remove it. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
These two articles are just different editions of the same book. Wikipedia should have one article per book, not one article per edition of the book. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying: I failed to get this page on to my watchlist.
Point 1: Pre-publication status is normally a reason to not have a separate article, because until publication you don't really know how different it will be.
Points 2 and 3: There's enough room in one article to do a thorough treatment of both editions (with redirects from all possible names). A merger need not (indeed, should not) reduce the total information provided. In a typical merge, the lead says that there are two editions and outlines some common information (like why NP is important in general), and you have one section per edition that is dedicated to the unique features of each edition. Merging articles does not reduce information.
Point 4: When works are really entirely different works, then I support different articles. However, according to the authors and publisher, eight-volume edition is a major expansion of a previous work, not an entirely separate creation. The publisher claims that 20% of the new dictionary was taken word-for-word out of the old one. [1] Merging the articles also makes it easier for the reader to compare the two editions, so your goal of spelling out the differences is actually best supported by a merger, not a split.
Point 5: While the entries may read like an encyclopedia, the authors and the publisher say that it is a dictionary. Therefore I think it should follow the format used in articles like Webster's Dictionary instead of the 20-volume general encyclopedias.
I note also that Wikipedia only has a separate article for EB for the historically important 11th edition, and not for any of the other fourteen editions. In fact, looking through the Category:English-language_encyclopedias, I note that EB11 is the only edition of any encyclopedia on Wikipedia that gets its own article. That was a cleverly chosen example, but it was not a convincing one. A trip to Category:Dictionaries produces similar results. So the real question here is, "Why should NP be the only dictionary in all of Wikipedia that has separate articles for the first and second editions?"
Points 6, 7, 8, 9: Someone who isn't exactly certain which volume is in hand, or who heard a passing reference to "NP says...", is better served by a unified article. Having all the information in one article (with appropriate redirects for titles) helps readers figure out potentially confusing references. In fact, having all the information in one article increases the odds that the reader will realize that a "perfectly obvious" reference is actually a potential source of confusion, because what the reader thought was in this edition could actually be from that edition. Note again that I'm not proposing that any information be removed: merely that it's all put in one place for the convenience of the reader.
I want to add that I don't have a vested interest in the outcome here: I'm not a regular editor on this page. Having said that, I find the justifications put forth for separate articles to be fairly weak, and I still support the merge. If you can explain why NP really needs two articles when the controversial Webster's Third New International Dictionary does not, then I'm perfectly willing to change my mind.
I hope this information is helpful, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It could be worthwhile to reconsider merger at a later date, but there are so many serious practical negatives as to table merger consideration unless better arguments & data for merger can be advanced. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thomasmeeks, what I get from your list is "I don't like the merge proposal"
You've never come up with a convincing reason. So we call it an encyclopedia -- out of all the dozens of encyclopedias included in Wikipedia, only one has a separate article for an edition. That special edition, BTW, changed the meaning of encyclopedia for the whole world. It changed the tone, the style, and the expectations for every subsequent encyclopedia. Can you honestly suggest that NP2 will do that? I doubt it. I doubt you'd dare to make such an outrageous claim.
Every encyclopedia ever published has the kind of "historical value" that NP1 will have: to see what people were thinking at that time, or to verify a reference from that era. EB11 has an entirely different historical effect: it changed the future.
You say that NP is like IESBS: Fine. I see one Wikipedia article for all of the editions of IESBS. Why should NP handled like the revolutionary EB11 instead of like every single other encyclopedia? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing. I feel that readers are better served with one article and different section in that article on the different editions. We could simply create an article titled "The Palgrave Dictionary of Economics" and discuss the different editions in it. I really don't think balkanizing information is good for the organization of Wikipedia. It is irritating for readers with slow internet connections, clutters up categories, and leads to redundant information (people will want to note the earlier editions in both these articles). II | ( t - c) 22:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree the two articles should be merged. The two articles are mostly composed of lists right now which should be cut, in favor of external links to the NPs's tables of contents. And WP articles on economics topics should be citing substantive articles in the actual NP's, rather than linking to the WP articles on the NP's. Jeremy Tobacman ( talk) 06:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all very much for your useful and thought-provoking arguments for and against merging these two articles. Almost a year after the print publication of the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition, Palgrave Macmillan felt it was time to try merging them. We look forward to hearing what you think and sincerely hope this does not lead to any loss of clarity or information.
Also, if you have any proposals for articles to commission for the online version of the Dictionary, I would enjoy hearing them, as we now update the online content quarterly.
You can contact me at any time about this or any other issue relating to the Dictionary. Needless to say, anyone can make changes here, but feel free to discuss them with me too. Sophia Blackwell, Palgrave Macmillan: s.blackwell@palgrave.com
First, may I express appreciation to Sophia Blackwell for a productive and cordial email exchange concerning the above section and for her elegantly simple content-merge Edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_New_Palgrave_Dictionary_of_Economics,_2nd_Edition&oldid=282076499. There it is easy to follow the content insertions from http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_New_Palgrave:_A_Dictionary_of_Economics&oldid=276402573.
Most of the many objections to merger of the articles The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (NP1) and The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Ed. (NP2 ), expressed in the top section above (by me, actually) were identified there as practically-based. I continue to believe that non-merger was reasonable but appreciate the restraint excercised by those on the other side who might have attempted a less successful merge with undesirable after-effects.
I now believe that a merge that meets reasonable concerns expressed above is possible but not yet fully realized. To meet this concern I propose an article Edit that sequences material as follows:
This keeps chronologically similar material together and facilates links from other Wikipedia articles to where in the article it is most closely referenced. Many libraries may have NP1 or NP2 but not both. Convenient sectioning should be helpful to those wishing to follow up with the most accessible library resource or which WP article has NP1 or NP2 article references.
The titles of NP1 & NP2 differ. An NP1 section heading should reflact that difference, again to make linking less confusing. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 21:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
With the above merger of the 2 editions into one article (on which see above), "2nd Edition" is no longer necessary to distinguish the 2 editions. That distinction is made in the article instead. As the one who added "2nd Edition" to the title, I'd propose to remove it. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)