Talk:A Short History of Nearly Everything

message: My copy of the book has a footnote at the end of the sentence containing the "erronious" number of cells that explains that the number is less than the figure given.  What the "ten thousand trillion" refers to is the mathematical amount of cells that would be reached if none died in that amount of time (which Bryson admits that they do- in the footnote).  I feel like the article is being somewhat unfair toward Bryson on this point and suggest amending the section.  How do you all feel about that? -Kanogul (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of cells 

message: There is a new version of this out, the illustrated version.  I happen to have it and would be willing to provide a picture of the cover if anyone thinks it would prove useful.   JohnCub 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New cover.

message: I seem to recall from my science class days that glass is a supercooled liquid in just the way that Bryson has described, therefor the error is an error. Fetu's dad 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supercooled liquid.

message: (Sorry, I should have checked the talk page first.)
Complete nonsense, since when is it Wikipedia's job to keep ALL book current? Do we also update the plot sections of novels if we find an inconsistency? Bonkers, can't be done, and shouldn't be done.  --84.132.159.132 (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Corrections" 

message: Is the book really published in 2004? Article Bill Bryson had the year 2003 in the bibliography list until someone changed it to 2004. According to http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/0767908171 the publishing date was 2003-05-06. 81.197.12.28 15:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:2004 books?

message: :Image:Bill bryson a short history.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bill bryson a short history.jpg

message: This is a nitpick, but the title has  before and after it.  Can this be removed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SrCarlos (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Errors 

message: The title of the paperback I have is "[Image from space of partial Earth]*".  At the bottom of the cover is the note "* A Short History of Nearly Everything".  This appears on the spine as well, with the "*" coming before the image of Earth rather than after.  Rgrds.  --64.85.214.93 (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book title 

message: There is currently a statement in the article that those those already familiar with the history of science may find the book uninteresting. While this idea may be a worthwhile one put a slightly different way, it does not follow from the article cited.
The author of the review does suggest that the non-groundbreaking nature yet exploratory tone may come across as patronizing and irritating to those already familiar with the facts. However, later in the article the author also suggests that the stories of the discoveries (and discoverers) covered by the book are well told, and to the point that those already familiar may enjoy them yet. 
I'm not sure how this nuanced distinction can be appropriately included in the article, except perhaps to say that it is a book written for laypersons, and as such, may not hold the same informative value for experts (the same article could be used as a citation for this statement).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.18.167 (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement is a pov with anything but a source to support. Bryson is now in the Royal Society mainly for this book, a strong evidence that scientific audience found it quite amusing and well written. Michele Gardini (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative Reviews