Talk:Encyclopedia

message: It says "Banglapedia (on matters relevant for Bengal)". It's not Bengal, it's Bangladesh.
:Done. Thanks for the tip. groupuscule (talk) 0 7:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A correction I cannot perform due to permissions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: cite: search Wikipedia "open source encyclopedia" ++30,000 hitsDeermouse (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: cite: search Wikipedia "open source encyclopedia" ++30,000 hitsDeermouse (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  in the lead, 

message: 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)
replies: text: Categories generally aren't linked to within the "See also" section. Nanophosis (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  21st century 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proper etymology of "encyclopedia" is disputed. 

message: "transliterated enkyklios paedia" ACTUALLY that's "paideia". 
XX  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.22.90.90 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  have correction, cant' edit 

message: I need to add a finishing touch Redrose99 (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y" citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Enkyklopaideia" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: It is a book where you can use to find about things Casory (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encylopedia 

message: 42.115.19.209 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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. 
:1) After reading all three articles on Wikipedia as a reader I do not get information what a reader of an encyclopedia is supposed to expect from encyclopedia or readers part many commercial encyclopedias might have done marketing putting those points forward so can one find any such information in any source? (I am not expecting discourses of Wikipedians but discourses of Non Wikipedian intellectuals or marketeers of traditional encyclopedias.  
:2) Another missing point is how an encyclopedic entry needs to be written features tools challenges etc. again not Wikipedian point of views but editorial or intellectual discourses of traditional encyclopedias writers or editors.
:3) How an ideal Compendium and Encyclopedia content quality is supposed to look like (beyond it's alphabetical etc organizational aspects) again not Wikipedian point of views but editorial or intellectual discourses of traditional encyclopedias writers or editors with critique of some Compendium and Encyclopedia.
:4) Is there any (Non Wikipedia) source that would say or suggest Compendium and Encyclopedia as  'up to date' state of information / knowledge ?     
 
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.
::*Sanford, Eva (1949) Famous Latin Encyclopaedias
::* Tsien, Tsuen-Hsuin (1952) A History of Bibliographic Classification in China
::*Preece, Warren (1965) The Organization of Knowledge and the Planning of Encyclopaedias: The Case of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica"
::*Sullivan, Lawrence (1990) Circumscribing Knowledge: Encyclopedias in Historical Perspective
::*Burke, Peter (1996)  Reflections on the history of encyclopaedias
::*Binkley, Peter (ed.) (1996) Pre-Modern Encyclopaedic Texts.
::*Fowler, Robert (1996) Encyclopaedias: definitions and theoretical problems
::*Twomey, Michael (1996) Towards a reception history of western medieval encyclopaedias in England before 1500
::*Harvey, Steven (1998) The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy
::*Stockwell, Foster (2000) A History of Information Storage and Retrieval
::*Toshio, Yokoyama (2007) Some notes on the history of Japanese traditional household encyclopedias
::*Würth, Stefanie (2008) Historiography and Pseudo-History
::*Burke, Peter (2013). A Social History of Knowledge. 
: Hope this is a helpful start. If you can’t read any of the paywalled articles, you can request them at WP:RX because you are using them to improve Wikipedia. 
Any takers for the task?
Thanks and warm regards.
Bookku (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any takers ? 

message: Spelt as encyclopaedia exclusively in Australia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.79.2 (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary usage 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've truncated the section, and am in the process of merging the content to the subarticle.    — The Transhumanist    19:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Merge of the history section into History of encyclopedias is (for the most part) complete. Leftover text that I wasn't sure what to do with, I've posted at Talk:History of encyclopedias#Merge of Encyclopedia#History. That leaves the history section of this article almost empty, and so a summary needs to be rebuilt.    — The Transhumanist    22:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   The History section has been rebuilt, from paragraphs copy/pasted from History of encyclopedias.    — The Transhumanist    23:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content fork 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Free encyclopedia" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Ndamulelo Netshivhambe Ndamulelomatamela (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2022 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Encyclopédie ommitted from history 

message: Look, this article from Encyclopaedia Britannica did it better than us! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopaedia Britannica