Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reference works

	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
NA	This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

From a conversation on Keahapana's talkpage:

Asian reference works

Glad you have decided to join the project! I've had some questions regarding your area of expertise for awhile and could use your input. For one thing - Category:Encyclopedias by date lists encyclopedias from the 16th-century onwards by century, but I have only two before that - Category:Encyclopedias in Classical Antiquity and Category:Medieval European encyclopedias. I did this for two reasons - 1, there were not enough examples of encyclopedias by century before 1500 to warrant century based cats, in my opinion - 2, Classical antiquity and the Middle Ages are convenient and identifiable periods for Europe. This begs the obvious question - what to do with non-Western encyclopedias before 1500? Sometimes we hear phrases like "Medieval Islam" or "Medieval China", but I've never felt comfortable with those terms because it transposes a uniquely Western periodization onto other cultures.

Then there is the problem of correctly identifying an "encyclopedia". The words encyclopedia and cyclopedia, as you'll notice if you read the articles in 16th and 17th century encyclopedias cats, were coined in the 16th century Europe and gradually gained currency there until the modern concept of an encyclopedia - an abecedarian collection of articles on general or specialized knowledge - was codified with Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, the Encyclopédie and the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Chinese encyclopedias, as I am sure you are aware, did not begin that way. Leishu appear to be more like a large collection of texts covering an "encyclopedic" range of knowledge than modern, Western encyclopedias. They also appear to have stopped being made after the 18th-century, when Western influence began to infiltrate China. My solution to the problem would be to create Category:Leishu. This could be listed under both Category:Encyclopedias by date, solving part of the above problem, as well as Category:Chinese encyclopedias, though I don't know how Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese works based on the Chinese model would fit into the picture. What do you think?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bellerophon5685, and thanks for all the good work you've done starting WikiProject Reference works. Yes, there are some thorny terminological problems with English encyclopedia and Chinese leishu "encyclopedia", and whether a comprehensive "encyclopedic" reference work is necessarily an "encyclopedia". Have you read this?

Fowler, Robert L. (1997), "Encyclopaedias: Definitions and Theoretical Problems", in Peter Binkley, Pre-Modern Encyclopaedic Texts, Brill, 3-29.

I've started working on improving the Chinese encyclopedia article and still haven't decided how to treat leishu, but translating with "Chinese leishu encyclopedia" seems preferable to "Chinese encyclopedia". While some sinologists use "Medieval China" to mean the period between Han and Tang dynasties, most don't use it owing to the Eurocentric connotations. Shouldn't your abecedarian be a-b-c-darian? The 16th-century cat has Compendium of Materia Medica, which is a pharmacopeia, and the 18th-century cat has Siku Quanshu, which is a huge collection of classical texts, but neither is an encyclopedia. A leishu cat sounds like a good idea, but while both these Chinese reference works are collated by categories, they're not usually considered leishu. Come to think of it, maybe we should move this discussion to the new WikiProject talk page, where we might get more input. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk)

Another thing to think about - are Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese encyclopedias of the pre-modern era also count as Leishu? I know at least some are directly based on Chinese sources - Wakan Sansai Zue?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Shouldn't your abecedarian be a-b-c-darian?" - niether as it turns out, in my attempt to show erudition I showed myself a fool. That, and the fact that we need a disambig page.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the Abecedarian (disambiguation) page. I had no idea the word has six extended meanings. Yes, the Wakan Sansai Zue is a leishu (Japanese ruishō), with some wonderful illustrations. Keahapana (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I. Now, given that there are Japanese leishu (is there a plural form of that word?), do you think that a potential Category:Leishu should be under Category:Chinese encyclopedias or Category:Asian encyclopedias? Do any of the other Asian encyclopedias such as Jibong yuseol or Vân đài loại ngữ count as Leishu, or is Wakan Sansai Zue the only non-Chinese leishu that we have an article about?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, CJKV languages all have leishu-type collections. In order to incorporate the lists from Chinese encyclopedia, I started this: List of Chinese encyclopedias. What do you think I should do with the many redlinks under Chinese_encyclopedia#Modern? Most of them appear to be non-notable, and only referenced by People's Daily Online publication blurbs. Keahapana (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say keep the red-linked encyclopedias for now. I've been bold and created Category:Leishu. Currently includes mostly Chinese works as well as Wakan Sansai Zue and Vân đài loại ngữ. If there is any page in that cat that shouldn't be there or is missing pleas let me know.

Also, what cats should Category:Leishu be in? Category:Chinese encyclopedias, Category:Asian encyclopedias, Category:Chinese prose texts, Category:Chinese classic texts? Perhaps you would be better qualified to say than I would?

Finally we do have a Category:Chinese literary reference works, which only has Category:Chinese encyclopedias and Category:Chinese dictionaries. Do you think this cat really serves a purpose or do you think it should be deleted? We don't have a similar "literary reference works" for any other language.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a new project like this - better to follow practices already in situ than create new precedents - encyclopedias and dictionaries are not literary reference works - strictly speaking JarrahTree 00:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Mythica

Hello folks. I see that someone recently added a template for this Wikiproject over at Encyclopedia Mythica. Please note that Encyclopedia Mythica is currently blacklisted from Wikipedia because it is by no means a reliable source. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will be a big deal - the same tag is on Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia, and they are not exactly reliable sources.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of languages by number of words listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of languages by number of words to be moved to List of dictionaries by number of words. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Article alerts

I've just set up article alerts. The page to add on your watchlist is Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference works/Article alerts. Uanfala (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Project banner

The banner should be functional now. A cut and paste from another project's assessment data page might be useful. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Public domain reference works to wikisource

I tend to think that if anyone finds any pdf or djvu files of any of the public domain reference works which have articles, it might be useful to add them to either commons or the relevant wikisource so that editors here might have easier access to useful sources about either older topics for articles on those topics, or, maybe, for "History of study of"-type articles here. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of encyclopedias

The current American Library Association "Guide to Reference" is (or at least was when I started the above) available for a free three-month trial subscription. In one day, you can download or e-mail yourself the entirety of it, if you're willing to spend the time to do so. Having that work completely included here might help a lot.

Also, if anyone wanted to link the entries in the above to existing articles, and/or if possible find free PD versions of sources available elsewhere which could be added to wikimedia commons or wikisource for easier access here, that might be of a great deal of use to editors here as well. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th-century general encyclopedias

@John Carter:, @Ringbang:, @Keahapana:, @JarrahTree:, @10W40:, @SMcCandlish:

So, I have made chronological lists for (mostly) English language encyclopedias

List of 20th-century general encyclopedias

List of 19th-century encyclopedias

List of 18th century encyclopedias

Unfortunately, when I did this, I had not looked at the previously existing Bibliography of encyclopedias, which included publishers, locations and references for each item. My immediate source was List of encyclopedias by date, which used none of these. Nevertheless, I am still of the opinion that chronological lists serve a purpose - we can see how the practice of encyclopedism evolved over time, in different places. However, I am not sure if adding extra metadata is necessary, as this is only meant to be a list, not a full bibliography. (But then again maybe it should be added?)

In any case, I have listed every English language general encyclopedia from 1703-1967, my chief sources being

Collison, Robert, Encyclopaedias: Their History Throughout the Ages, 2nd ed. (New York, London: Hafner, 1966)

Walsh, S. Padraig, 1922- Anglo-American general encyclopedias: a historical bibliography, 1703-1967 New York : Bowker,

I need assistance in two aspects - one, obviously there is nothing in these about post 1967 works, two, as a perusal of the 20th century list will show, the story of encyclopedias in the early 20th century is complicated by a number of inter-connected geneologies with the same work going through different names, expansions, abridgements and editions in the US, UK and Canada (the three countries Walsh looked at). Walsh himself seems to give up at times when he can only guess at how some titles are related. Encyclopedia selling, believe it or not, was for awhile a disreputable profession, as salesmen would slap new names on antiquated volumes and sale them at exorbitant prices. The Federal Trade Commission eventually got involved.

As you can see I "solved" this issue by making a crude succession list from interrelted titles, but if anyone else has better ideas about how to represent these genealogies, I'm open to it.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are wondering, Walshs' sources included American Library Association Booklist, Subscription Book Bulletin, National Union and LOC catalog. I scan the bibliography and put it up in Dropbox at later date.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've updated the list with

Kenneth F Kister Best encyclopedias : a guide to general and specialized encyclopedias Phoenix, AZ : Oryx Press, 1986.

This brings it up to the mid-1980s.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing aricle: usage dictionary

This used to just redirects to style guide. Now it redirects to Language for specific purposes dictionary, which is misleading; they're different topics. While there is material in there (I think I wrote it) about usage dictionaries, this is a basically a minor WP:COATRACK. The topic is also separate from encyclopedic dictionary. And it is also a discrete sub-topic of style guide that should be spun out. Should cover things like Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Garner's Modern English Usage, etc. The style guide article right now is a confusing mish-mash of dissimilar works and needs to be split up into separate subtopics via WP:SUMMARY process. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please assess

Please assess Fictitious entry. Thanks!