Talk:Encyclopedia

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3

Education C‑class Top‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature C‑class Top‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia C‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libraries C‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference works C‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Other talk page banners

Template:Vital article

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.

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 29 July 2013 for a period of one week.

This article was reviewed by The Guardian on October 24, 2005.
Comments: It was rated 5/10. However, as noted below, they reviewed an earlier and somewhat different version of the article, and the results of that review are debated within the Wikipedia community
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Template:Findnote

A correction I cannot perform due to permissions

It says "Banglapedia (on matters relevant for Bengal)". It's not Bengal, it's Bangladesh.

Done. Thanks for the tip. groupuscule (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic

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)[reply]

@Gah4: I like your thought about including encyclopedic as something people might want to know about. I'm going to expand a bit before suggesting why it might not fit in the article. Encyclopedic is more often than not, used to to describe something rather than a thing itself. What you may be thinking of with WP:MOS is an/the encyclopedic style. McHenry talks about it this way, although its not really common. It is more usually to talk about encyclopedic projects, encyclopedic texts, or encyclopedic novels. In the first case there are things like Otlet's Mundaneum, Well's World Brain, or Bush's Memex machine; all things kind of like encyclopedias but don't fit the typical expectation, usually because of the technology they use. The second case is often used by historians who don't want to be anachronistic. There were no books understood by their authors as "encyclopedia" before the 15th/16th century. As a work around, contemporary historians call books that are kind of like encyclopedias, but were not thought of as such at the time, encyclopedic texts. This has also been used to describe the Bible and other spiritual texts. And then there are encyclopedic novels that are written with a kind of maximalism (opposite of minimalism) that try to convey the aesthetic of the encyclopedic. The Library of Babel, Ulysses (novel), Don Quixote, Infinite Jest are all examples of this.

So there's a lot there about encyclopedic but based on the variety of cases of how the term is used, I don't think it fits in this article because it exceeds meaning "an encyclopedia". Could it be its own article that is briefly mentioned in this one? I'm not sure. Textaural (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, it is WP:NOT. So, not whether it is an actual encyclopedia, or something like an encyclopedia, but what kind of things should be in it in either case. Even more specifically, I was wondering about WP:NOTTRAVEL. There, one example is not to include restaurant recommendations. Gah4 (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are you thinking about adding a section that focuses on how different encyclopedias often self-describe their own encyclopedic style? I think that would be valuable contribution to the article as it is a very common thing for encyclopedias to describe what they do and do not cover. Could you draft up a sentence or paragraph of what you are envisioning? Textaural (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Change 'which' to 'that' in the following sentence, as the clause is restrictive and necessary for the meaning of the sentence:

Generally speaking, unlike dictionary entries THAT focus on linguistic information about words, such as their meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title. Pursuedbybaer (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead,

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 :

Digital and open source versions of encyclopedias began to appear in the late 20th century. The 21st century has expanded the accessibility and variety of encyclopedia entries, broadening user tools of research.Deermouse (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cite: search Wikipedia "open source encyclopedia" ++30,000 hitsDeermouse (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest that a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

Not done Categories generally aren't linked to within the "See also" section. Nanophosis (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

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)[reply]

window.alert("sometext"); — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.125.33.234 (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

49.197.87.32 (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dildos were were encyclopedias god Dickson favourite toy04:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)49.197.87.32 (talk)

Foodinese

A type of communication used by food lovers.(The lover of food)[[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]lWarpig23 (talk • contribs) 18:54,

21st century

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)[reply]

It is both advertizing Wikipedia and comparing it with Britannica. I need to fix this. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proper etymology of "encyclopedia" is disputed.

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)[reply]

kos omej feryal

hahhahahaa

urdu ayurvedic names in marathi or english

Gule banafsha powder bansa ke patte powder iste khuddus powder safistan lasoda powder Khatibdn (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boko no 1

To be honestly concluding the boko no 1 goes to Man Mr. Abhinav Raj singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepesh.00 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

have correction, cant' edit

"transliterated enkyklios paedia" ACTUALLY that's "paideia".

XX