This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Encyclopedia 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: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 29 July 2013 for a period of one week. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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. |
Other talk page banners | |||||||
|
It says "Banglapedia (on matters relevant for Bengal)". It's not Bengal, it's Bangladesh.
Ye but that’s the name of the encyclopedia ShivanshPlays1 ( talk) 21:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It seems that encyclopedic redirects here. Given that WP:MOS often mentions encyclopedic as a way to determine what should, or should not, be included, it would be nice to have a place specifically for that. What I am specifically interested in now, is that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, but I suspect that there are other distinctions to be made. Gah4 ( talk) 05:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Change 'which' to 'that' in the following sentence, as the clause is restrictive and necessary for the meaning of the sentence:
The appearance of digital and open-source versions in the 20th century has vastly expanded the accessibility, authorship, readership, and variety of encyclopedia entries and called into question the idea of what an encyclopedia is[citation needed] and the relevance of applying to such dynamic productions the traditional criteria for assembling and evaluating print encyclopedias.[citation needed]
replace with :
Plz necessory to correct that palal tribes as baloch tribe buledi. Palal is buledi tribe. Plz correct it Shakeelpalal ( talk) 19:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest that a link to /info/en/?search=Category:Fictional_encyclopedias be placed under the "See also" also section. Some, possibly many users may not be aware of the use of Fictional Encyclopedias as literary devices. The examples listed in the category /info/en/?search=Category:Fictional_encyclopedias could well inspire individuals to create entire fictional encyclopedias or use them as devices in their own works. Emoritz2017 ( talk) 23:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The definition in the first sentence and the cited source, do not match. The source does not mention the term "information". So according to the source it should be:"An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge from either all branches or from a particular field or discipline."-- Daceloh ( talk) 19:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The 21st century section does not meet WP's standards of style. It is written like an advert and does not have a neutral point of view. -- Roly ( talk) 17:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
In the "Etymology" section, the word "encyclopedia" comes from a scribal error of two Greek words. Howeber, in the "Renaissance" section, the word "encyclopedia" was coined by 16th-century humanists who misread copies of their texts of Pliny and Quintilian, and combined the two Greek words into one word. Please fix this! —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 11:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
"transliterated enkyklios paedia" ACTUALLY that's "paideia".
XX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.22.90.90 ( talk) 14:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need to add a finishing touch Redrose99 ( talk) 10:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Enkyklopaideia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
It is a book where you can use to find about things Casory ( talk) 19:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
42.115.19.209 ( talk) 16:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
How exactly has the genre of encyclopedia changed over the millennia? There is some acknowledgement of this, but I find it hard to believe the stated changes are the only ones over that length of time. I might be wrong, but a greater focus on those changes would clear it up for skeptics like me even if I'm wrong. Monkeybomber ( talk) 03:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
A bit different topic. We all know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While every 11 January Wikipedia adds up one more year to it's age, encyclopedias and Compendiums too add up a year more to their much longer history.
When did you last visited wikipedia articles Encyclopedia Compendium and History of encyclopedias? What is their status ? When I visited those the last two are tagged for lack citations. In Encyclopedia#Characteristics section too almost six paragraphs are missing in citations.
Actually one anon IP helped with a list of sources too on
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. If topic interests some one following is list of sources with which one can support the articles.
Any takers for the task?
Thanks and warm regards.
Bookku ( talk) 06:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Spelt as encyclopaedia exclusively in Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.79.2 ( talk) 23:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
In Britain, and the Commonwealth, the word is spelled: encyclopædia, and also encyclopaedia. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 13:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
An internet encyclopedia is just another kind of encyclopedia. The Encyclopedia article is not really long enough to justify having two separate articles, especially considering the poor quality of prose in the Online encyclopedia article. I originally redirected Online encyclopedia, but an IP user has reverted me. CD-ROM encyclopedia is an unsourced two sentence stub. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 12:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
This confusion is because every encyclopedia is in digital form. It's just that some encyclopedias are printed and others are made available online, and many printed encyclopedias are also available in digital form either online or in CD-ROM format. It's certainly confusing to have CD-ROM encyclopedia and Online encyclopedia as a separate articles and yet redirect Digital encyclopedia to the main Encylopedia article. I don't see a clean way to split these topics apart frankly. I think the topics should be merged. Whether an encyclopedia is available online or in a CD-ROM format is a question of distribution and access. It doesn't make the dictionary fundamentally a different kind of encyclopedia. For example, Britannica is now exclusively available online, but it used to be available exclusively in print, and later in multiple formats. It's not fundamentally a different kind of encyclopedia. The decision to abandon print versions was a business choice about distribution and access for customers. Coastside ( talk) 17:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)"Digital encyclopedia" redirects here. It is not to be confused with CD-ROM encyclopedia.
The history section and History of encyclopedias are both extensive and have diverged into two distinct treatments of the subject. Wikipedia:Summary style may apply. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 17:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Free encyclopedia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 27#Free encyclopedia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. EthanGaming7640 ( talk) 19:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ndamulelo Netshivhambe Ndamulelomatamela ( talk) 09:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Ndamulelo Netshivhambe Ndamulelomatamela ( talk) 09:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The encyclopedia gives us factual information. Topics contained in an encyclopedia are arranged in alphabetical order. Important words in the topic will help us find what we want to look for.
An encyclopedia is a set of books.It gives information on all branches of knowledge.Sometimes, information given are of only one subject.Topics or subjects are usually arranged in alphabetical order. 112.210.193.180 ( talk) 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Denis Diderot's Encyclopédie is missing from the history section despite it predating Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopédie had important significance in promoting the Radical Enlightenment and subsequent democratic revolutions. 172.58.27.60 ( talk) 05:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Look, this article from Encyclopaedia Britannica did it better than us! CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 14:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Encyclopedia 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: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 29 July 2013 for a period of one week. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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. |
Other talk page banners | |||||||
|
It says "Banglapedia (on matters relevant for Bengal)". It's not Bengal, it's Bangladesh.
Ye but that’s the name of the encyclopedia ShivanshPlays1 ( talk) 21:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It seems that encyclopedic redirects here. Given that WP:MOS often mentions encyclopedic as a way to determine what should, or should not, be included, it would be nice to have a place specifically for that. What I am specifically interested in now, is that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, but I suspect that there are other distinctions to be made. Gah4 ( talk) 05:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Change 'which' to 'that' in the following sentence, as the clause is restrictive and necessary for the meaning of the sentence:
The appearance of digital and open-source versions in the 20th century has vastly expanded the accessibility, authorship, readership, and variety of encyclopedia entries and called into question the idea of what an encyclopedia is[citation needed] and the relevance of applying to such dynamic productions the traditional criteria for assembling and evaluating print encyclopedias.[citation needed]
replace with :
Plz necessory to correct that palal tribes as baloch tribe buledi. Palal is buledi tribe. Plz correct it Shakeelpalal ( talk) 19:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest that a link to /info/en/?search=Category:Fictional_encyclopedias be placed under the "See also" also section. Some, possibly many users may not be aware of the use of Fictional Encyclopedias as literary devices. The examples listed in the category /info/en/?search=Category:Fictional_encyclopedias could well inspire individuals to create entire fictional encyclopedias or use them as devices in their own works. Emoritz2017 ( talk) 23:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The definition in the first sentence and the cited source, do not match. The source does not mention the term "information". So according to the source it should be:"An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge from either all branches or from a particular field or discipline."-- Daceloh ( talk) 19:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The 21st century section does not meet WP's standards of style. It is written like an advert and does not have a neutral point of view. -- Roly ( talk) 17:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
In the "Etymology" section, the word "encyclopedia" comes from a scribal error of two Greek words. Howeber, in the "Renaissance" section, the word "encyclopedia" was coined by 16th-century humanists who misread copies of their texts of Pliny and Quintilian, and combined the two Greek words into one word. Please fix this! —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 11:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
"transliterated enkyklios paedia" ACTUALLY that's "paideia".
XX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.22.90.90 ( talk) 14:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need to add a finishing touch Redrose99 ( talk) 10:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Enkyklopaideia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
It is a book where you can use to find about things Casory ( talk) 19:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
42.115.19.209 ( talk) 16:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
How exactly has the genre of encyclopedia changed over the millennia? There is some acknowledgement of this, but I find it hard to believe the stated changes are the only ones over that length of time. I might be wrong, but a greater focus on those changes would clear it up for skeptics like me even if I'm wrong. Monkeybomber ( talk) 03:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
A bit different topic. We all know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While every 11 January Wikipedia adds up one more year to it's age, encyclopedias and Compendiums too add up a year more to their much longer history.
When did you last visited wikipedia articles Encyclopedia Compendium and History of encyclopedias? What is their status ? When I visited those the last two are tagged for lack citations. In Encyclopedia#Characteristics section too almost six paragraphs are missing in citations.
Actually one anon IP helped with a list of sources too on
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. If topic interests some one following is list of sources with which one can support the articles.
Any takers for the task?
Thanks and warm regards.
Bookku ( talk) 06:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Spelt as encyclopaedia exclusively in Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.79.2 ( talk) 23:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
In Britain, and the Commonwealth, the word is spelled: encyclopædia, and also encyclopaedia. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy ( talk) 13:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
An internet encyclopedia is just another kind of encyclopedia. The Encyclopedia article is not really long enough to justify having two separate articles, especially considering the poor quality of prose in the Online encyclopedia article. I originally redirected Online encyclopedia, but an IP user has reverted me. CD-ROM encyclopedia is an unsourced two sentence stub. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 12:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
This confusion is because every encyclopedia is in digital form. It's just that some encyclopedias are printed and others are made available online, and many printed encyclopedias are also available in digital form either online or in CD-ROM format. It's certainly confusing to have CD-ROM encyclopedia and Online encyclopedia as a separate articles and yet redirect Digital encyclopedia to the main Encylopedia article. I don't see a clean way to split these topics apart frankly. I think the topics should be merged. Whether an encyclopedia is available online or in a CD-ROM format is a question of distribution and access. It doesn't make the dictionary fundamentally a different kind of encyclopedia. For example, Britannica is now exclusively available online, but it used to be available exclusively in print, and later in multiple formats. It's not fundamentally a different kind of encyclopedia. The decision to abandon print versions was a business choice about distribution and access for customers. Coastside ( talk) 17:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)"Digital encyclopedia" redirects here. It is not to be confused with CD-ROM encyclopedia.
The history section and History of encyclopedias are both extensive and have diverged into two distinct treatments of the subject. Wikipedia:Summary style may apply. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 17:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Free encyclopedia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 27#Free encyclopedia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. EthanGaming7640 ( talk) 19:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ndamulelo Netshivhambe Ndamulelomatamela ( talk) 09:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Ndamulelo Netshivhambe Ndamulelomatamela ( talk) 09:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The encyclopedia gives us factual information. Topics contained in an encyclopedia are arranged in alphabetical order. Important words in the topic will help us find what we want to look for.
An encyclopedia is a set of books.It gives information on all branches of knowledge.Sometimes, information given are of only one subject.Topics or subjects are usually arranged in alphabetical order. 112.210.193.180 ( talk) 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Denis Diderot's Encyclopédie is missing from the history section despite it predating Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopédie had important significance in promoting the Radical Enlightenment and subsequent democratic revolutions. 172.58.27.60 ( talk) 05:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Look, this article from Encyclopaedia Britannica did it better than us! CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 14:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)