Talk:Rees's Cyclopædia

If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange.Resource ExchangeWikipedia:WikiProject Resource ExchangeTemplate:WikiProject Resource ExchangeResource Exchange articles

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Wikilinking complete

I have now wikilinked all "notable" topics in the Cyclopaedia at List of Rees's Cyclopædia articles (i.e., those with minimum 15 columns). For posterity, the complete list of redirects for entries that initially came up as redlinks (except for Machinery for manufacturing ships' blocks and Manufacture of cotton) can now be viewed here (easier cases) and here (harder cases). JJB 10:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons category naming

Any advice on what to name the work as a category/template for Wikimedia Commons? Chamber's Cyclopaedia is already the one under "Cyclopaedia". Thoughts? Morgan Riley (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with same name as the articleMorgan Riley (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off contributors

Would anyone object to splitting off the long list of contributors into a separate "list" page, retaining the explanatory paragraph at hatnoting it in the appropriate section? It would make the page much shorter in length by removing the long lists from this page, much as how there is a separate page that lists the articles.Morgan Riley (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about this, providing all the subsidiary lists. eg. names analysed by article name are included. Apwoolrich (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No no, everything would be included—It's good stuff. It's just very long, so I figured much like how List of Rees's Cyclopædia articles has its own page, that all the info on the contributorship would make sense to have its own. Also, I figure that the the initial few paragraphs summarizing the contributorships would remain here in summary style, as well as on the new page. I figured a list page would be best for this, or might a normal article be more appropriate? (I don't have much experience with list pages) Morgan Riley (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

I've just created a new page listing long biographical articles in Rees. But I've made a cock-up of the page's title. Instead of reading '... articles IN Rees's Cyclopaedia', I've written '... articles ON Rees's Cyclopaedia'. Is there some helpful colleague who can put it right, please? Thanks you. Apwoolrich (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

One of the first sources listed is "Anon., Review of Vol 1 in the Annual Review and History of Literature, vol 1, 1802, pp 859–66". I'm looking at that volume and don't see it. Am I mistaken? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]