Talk:Encyclopedia/Archive 1

message: The anonymous is correct, AFAICT. It is true that Croatia was not an independent country at the time, but it is also true it was a country, and it is true that the Croats did exist at the time (perhaps not as a modern nation that they are today, but certainly in some form). This kind of confusion in old encylopedias when it comes to assigning origin to people has been known to happen - for a time, the adjective "Hungarian" was bluntly applied to all citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary regardless of whether they were Magyars, Croats, Slovaks, Romanians or other. In this case, thankfully, the etymology of the surname is fairly clear. --Joy [shallot] 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasonable remarks 

message: the edit by Anon added 
"But who was the first one to use this term in this meaning in a history? Unfortunately, it is rarely known fact that this word was firstly used by Paul Skalic (cro. Pavao Skalić ), croatian encyclopedist, humanist and adventurer from Zagreb in his book Encyclopaedia seu orbis disciplinarum tam sacrarum quam prophanarum epistemon (Encyclopaedia, or Knowledge of the World of Disciplines . . .) (Basel, 1559) . Later this word came into daily use thanks to the works of french encyclopedists." 
I don't think encyclopedia's should ask questions. Plus needs a source. Anyone have a problem with it If I revert this? Agonizing Fury 19:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is from the Encyclopaedia Britannica article "encyclopedia",It was Paul Scalich, a German writer and compiler, who was the first to use the word to describe a book in the title of his Encyclopaedia; seu, orbis disciplinarum, tam sacrarum quam prophanum epistemon . . . (“Encyclopaedia; or Knowledge of the World of Disciplines, Not Only Sacred but Profane . . . ”), issued at Basel in 1559.Thus, it appears to be correct. I'm not sure about the question thing, though.--Primetime 20:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edit by Anon

message: It is worth mentioning who invented the current meaning of the term especially when it comes from a small or less known culture such as Croatian, having more than 13 century old its own history in Europe.  83.131.3.15 04:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other recent discussion 

message: The list in this article should be moved to / merged with the separate List of encyclopedias. – Kpalion (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I definately agree.--Carabinieri 15:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree (except perhaps with respect to the last section of the list), the historical elements of this list would be very out of place there and not much use.  And the structure illustrating the development and diffusion of the encyclopedia would be lost.   The list of encyclopedias is / should be primarily current, to illustrate various subject, national, etc. encyclopedias and to serve as a current reference page.  The list in encyclopedia is largely historical encyclopedias.  I will look for ways to reformat the list in encyclopedia - take the headings out to shorten the excessively long TOC, for starters.  And perhaps move fictional.  flux.books 10:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of encyclopedias 

message: I think this is a subject that's not very well clarified. The main question to ask would be: why there is wikipedia and wikitionary?  Why make two different "libraries" that has the same purpose of giving information about words?
Isn't the definition of "words have their own definitions" getting obsolete with fast information era? I mean, of course they have some kind of definition, but it's not static anymore. You'll always find different definitions for words, why keep trying to define them differently if you can just inform, give history and data. Old definitions have years to sustain them. Trying to create new definitions is just about gathering old definitions and associating it with things around you.
Both "word library" could get together, get a new name and stop trying to make two different things that have the exact same purpose of explaining a word. It looks to me this would work much better, in theory, if there were just the disambiguation for every word that is ambiguous followed by each word's meaning data accumulated. Maybe there will also be words with plain simple definitions. Why bother creating a "dictionary" for them, if you can just put the definition and add any other information that might be relevant in the same screen (not even page)? Why bother adding more information as in a encyclopedia if a simple definition (as in "brand new words" or maybe some abbreviations) is all that's needed? Why separating that if a word without definition is just as weird to think of as a word without history?
While that's my thoughts right now, I think just an explanation on the difference and links from wikipedia to wikitionary even for words that are in both places would be a good beginning. Because words that don't exist in one are already linking to the other one automatically.
A good explanation for the difference between the terms could prevent a lot of missunderstanding and be also a good guide for both Wikipedia and Wikitionary on how we should be taking care of them.
As a side note, the confusion on that can bring to a complex chain of reactions as you can see on my talk with Quuxplusone.
--Cawas 16:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised the definition to contrast with dictionary, this should help resolve the issue you raised.  There are lots of good reasons why they are two different things, the most important being there are times when one or the other is the most useful tool for a particular need.  That is, it works - it's a distinction that is useful, not theoretical.  Conceivably the two could be mergeable electronically (a user could decide whether to have both, or just one or the other, show up on a page) and that would eliminate the issue.   For now, this works as is.  flux.books 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Encyclopedia and Dictionary 

message: Removed the libraries comment in early history, irrelevant or even misleading to the theme. flux.books 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early history

message: The OED says enkuklopaideia was the erroneous form that led to encyclopædia.  I don't know Greek, so my transliterations may be in error.  Ortolan88
:This is puzzling. Greek enkuklopaideia becomes Latin encyclopaedia in the standard, correct transliteration. Greek ai = Latin ae; they had the same pronunciation in classical times so that's the most direct way of writing it. The change from ae to e is post-classical, when Latin ae shifted in pronunciation to become the same as long e. So if anything, e is less etymologically correct. Gritchka
:As I understand currently, enkuklos paidiea (two words) was misread by c. 1500s authors as one word and Latinized by them.  Ie, it's something of a bastardization. flux.books 12:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greek spelling is with the gamma; it is the romanization which is irregular (having to do with the pronunciation of the gamma-kappa combination in some dialects); angelus (angel) is similar in that the Greek spelling is with double-gamma. --Tkinias 02:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I've changed the transliteration "enkyklios" to "engkyklios" since the γκ-diphthong produces an [ŋ]-sound. See Greek Alphabet. Hymyly 00:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it's an alternative form, introduced more or less at the same time, and not much used.  An "archaic" form would be more or less a good description. flux.books 12:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Actually the credit for the earliest of British encylopaedist must go to Sir thomas Browne. His Pseudodoxia Epidemica  describes itself in its opening page as an Encyclopaedia and ran into six editions (1646-1676) It was  upon the shelves of many English households. (User:Norwikian)
:Discussion still in there, but obviously true only in the most literal sense in that it called itself an encyclopedia.  It is in no way a compendium of all accumulated knowledge, which is the encyclopedic vision pursued over the centuries.  flux.books 12:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First encyclopedia / first use of the word 

message: H.G. Wells talking about the idea of an encyclopedia; maybe he was referring to Wikipedia :-): , or its possible complementary meta-encyclopedia in advance Encyclopedia Systematica http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?EncyclopediaSystematica. See the link 'Simulating a global brain' there for a Wells-connex.
:Special sections of it, historical, technical, scientific, artistic, e.g. will easily be reproduced for specific professional use. Based upon it, a series of summaries of greater or less fullness and simplicity, for the homes and studies of ordinary people, for the college and the school, can be continually issued and revised. In the hands of com-petent editors, educational directors and teachers, these condensa-tions and abstracts incorporated in the world educational system, will supply the humanity of the days before us, with a common un-derstanding and the conception of a common purpose and of a commonweal such as now we hardly dare dream of. And its creation is a way to world peace that can be followed without any very grave risk of collision with the warring political forces and the vested insti-tutional interests of today. 
--(http://sherlock.berkeley.edu/wells/world_brain.html)
--User:Extro
:Wells' World Brain is mentioned in the Wikipedia's article about itself, actually: Wikipedia. -- Stephen Gilbert 18:32, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the section about those before 1700, I say yes"! Apwoolrich 13:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Maybe, maybe not.  If it's just a matter of length, that's what the table of contents is for - to find sections.  Part of the point of studying history is to inform the present.  It's clear that a lot of Wikipedians could benefit from understanding some of the history of the form of the encyclopedia, and moving the history to a separate page would make it far less likely that people would discuss the modern issues around encyclopedias in context.  That is, there are some important things to learn from the history - though the lessons are not all clearly stated at the moment.  flux.books 12:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, thinking about it, it could be a good idea.  We could summarize in a few sentences with the link to try to encourage people to read some of it.  I'd suggest including three chunks:  the early and 17-20th c. history; and the list of historical works.  It looks like most of the references list belongs with that as well, though Collison might be in both.  Of course, that would highlight the fact that the main article needs more discussion of encyclopedias. flux.books 14:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  H G Wells 

message: I think the whole article might be better if we made "history of encycl" a new page and put a bit of detail on all the olf ones. Anyone agree? --BozMo|talk 15:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the section about those before 1700, I say yes"! Apwoolrich 13:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Maybe, maybe not.  If it's just a matter of length, that's what the table of contents is for - to find sections.  Part of the point of studying history is to inform the present.  It's clear that a lot of Wikipedians could benefit from understanding some of the history of the form of the encyclopedia, and moving the history to a separate page would make it far less likely that people would discuss the modern issues around encyclopedias in context.  That is, there are some important things to learn from the history - though the lessons are not all clearly stated at the moment.  flux.books 12:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, thinking about it, it could be a good idea.  We could summarize in a few sentences with the link to try to encourage people to read some of it.  I'd suggest including three chunks:  the early and 17-20th c. history; and the list of historical works.  It looks like most of the references list belongs with that as well, though Collison might be in both.  Of course, that would highlight the fact that the main article needs more discussion of encyclopedias. flux.books 14:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A history of encyclopedias page? 

message: Britannica defines an encyclopedia as a reference work, yet wikipedia only defined encyclopedia as a compendium. Wikipedia is not a reference work due to its open nature and lack of certainty about any article at any perticular time. 
It would seem wikipedia is redefining the word encyclopedia to include itself. whats with that??
:Why should Britannica's definition of "encyclopedia" be more accurate than Wikipedia's? Merriam-Webster defines it as follows: "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject". You are correct that Wikipedia's "open nature and lack of certainty" make it less reliable than sources backed by an authority; however, the fine newspapers and magazines (and books, court cases, and so on) at Wikipedia as a press source would disagree with Wikipedia not being a reference work, as they all have used it as such. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In which court cases has Wikipedia ever been cited as authoritative? 66.53.17.220 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a useful question here, which is whether Wikipedia should really strive to be a comprehensive discussion of knowledge, or focus on new topics, updates, matters not covered in other reference works, etc.  A huge topic, no doubt covered in many discussions elsewhere.  At some level wikipedia clearly aims to eventually cover everything, so for now it seems reasonable to call wikipedia an encyclopedia.  And again there are useful lessons for wikipedians in the history of the genre.  flux.books 14:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: It has bothered me for some time that this article does not list encyclopaedic works whose titles begin Dictionary of ... . At one time I thought these ought to be listed on the Dictionary page, but having recently re-read it, I see that it relates entirely to lexicographical works. Its a very fine article indeed, and I am loath to mess with its structure.
It has a disembiguation page which says the following, (I wrote the entry Biographical dictionaries):
* An alphabetical sequence of articles relating to particular topics, eg dictionaries of medicine or engineering. Also biographical dictionaries. These can be regarded as being encyclopaedic in their treatment, being far more than just a list of words and their meaning.
I propose that we use the Encyclopadia page to list Dictionary of ... reference works, since they are essentially the same thing. Before I begin I shall welcome comments, please. Apwoolrich 13:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes a hard distinction to draw, but see the new page encyclopedic dictionary.  Clearly many of the works you mention are more encyclopedias than dictionaries, especially early works, so they belong here as you suggest.  flux.books 14:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Dictionary of ...'  to list with the encyclopaedias? 

message: Isn't the word human in the first sentence rather redundant or repetitious. I mean if anything else ever turned up with a written compendium of knowledge we'd hardly deny them use of the word? --BozMo|talk 15:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "human" knowledge=

message: Mention of Wikipedia should be removed from this article. According to this article, an encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge, whereas Wikipedia is simply a mass storage of mostly miscellaneous information. Of course, this is by design, or put another way, Wikipedia is incapable of making the distinction between knowledge and information. Since Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it should not be mentioned in this article.96.49.3.223 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: The dictionary states that an Encyclopedia is "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject."
However, I was told that an Encyclopedia is a collection of opinions on different subjects and their respectable branches.
After viewing a few articles, I've noticed that more on Wikipedia, the POV overrides the truth. That being, in some articles, there is no attempt to show the other side of an argument, and some articles seem to have exclusively one side, and any attempt to change it is usually reverted. Even when credible sources are given, sometimes, they aren't accepted by some users even if they meet the criteria. 
So it seems like to me only about half of Wikipedia follows the first definition, while the rest follows the second one I've heard.
This isn't really a complaint as much as it is a notation by me.
But it does raise a question, and if answered I'd appreciate a simple response if possible, is any one definition favored over the other or does Wikipedia stride under the common definition?VisioNaryD (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether Wikipedia currently or ever in the future achieves its goal, it meets the first definition by design and intent. The nature of a reference that "anyone can edit" (and I mean ANYONE) is that it will forever be in flux between scholarly work and fanatical scrapbook. I have no intention of entertaining your uncited anecdotal definition. --OGRastamon (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia 

message: User:83.131.51.211 has been given notice on his talk page concerning WP:3RR; his edits today appear to be in violation.  I haven't (yet) written him up at WP:ANI, but any subsequent revisions of the article likely merit a block.  --EngineerScotty 23:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: According to this books time-line of encyclopedias: 
:1541 Ringelbach uses the word "Encyclopaedia" in the title of his Lucubrationes
..which is half-right, it is not "Ringelbach" but "Joachimus Fortius Ringelbergius" (or "Ringelberg") who published "Lucubrationes vel potius absolutissima kyklopaideia" (Basle, 1541).  -- Stbalbach 01:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With tweaks, this works for me.  I was actually going to comment on this after reading the 1911 v. of EB, but I lacked the willpower at the time. ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  encyclopedia etymology 

message: Regarding this recent etymology addition:
:The word had already been recorded in English in 1531, meaning "course of construction," thought to be a false reading by Latin authors of the Greek enkyklios paideia taken as "general education". The modern sense of a "reference work arranged alphabetically" is from 1644(though it has a precursor in Antiquity, the Origines by St. Isodorus of Seville), and is also often applied specifically to the French "Encylopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des Sciences, des Artes, et des Métiers" (1751-65), long known as 'the' Encyclopaedia, edited by the so-called 'encyclopedists'.
It is taken word for word from Online Etymology Dictionary which clearly is a copyright work. I have asked for citations, but since the "OED" provides none and is very vague, that seems improbable. So I've moved it here until someone can verify, expand and clarify with citations and specifics. --Stbalbach 13:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent etymology addition 

message: The link to Wikipedia was recently deleted as vandalism.  Probably links to Wikipedia show up frequently as vandalism, and the anti-vandalism person (or bot) may not have noticed that it was relevant to this article.  Before adding it back I think we should get a consensus about the link being present.  If there is reasonable opposition to having the link I won't add it back.  But Wikipedia, to me, seems significant enough in the world of encyclopedias to warrant a link in this article. Rlitwin 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the link to Wikipedia in the External links undermines the intelligence of the reader.. I mean come on, is it really neccessary to link to the site they are already on, in case they hadn't realized it yet? I mean, they somehow got on to this site, and managed to search for "Encyclopedia" and came to the entry (or came to it from Google, but same difference), and they read the article, and got to the links section, and then we have to give them an "external link" to the Wikipedia main page? As if to say, "Hey, you should really check out this Wikipedia site. Here's the link. It's a great example of an encyclopedia!" It's not even really an external link. It's the equivalent to an article on toast linking the exact same article on toast, for more information on the subject. --Krakko 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SELF, particularly "Wikipedia's free content is reused in many places, online and off. Do not assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia, or indeed any website." There's print versions, CD/DVD versions, potential forks, etc. to consider. I'm sure you've seen Wikipedia content elsewhere on the Web while googling, for instance. The Wikipedia article also contains an external link to Wikipedia. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia link 

message: Are Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta, and such traditional encyclopedias Wikipedia's competitors? Their so different. At their core, these are are traditional paper encyclopedias and wikipedia is a free-content online work. If so, how do we which encyclopedia is ahead. There is no market share or sales to base a comparison. I don't think you could compare number users or articles, accuracy of those articles, or hits to the website. Wikipedia is so different from Britannica. How do we know which encyclopedia is winning.--Wikiphilia 05:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it in an internal links section.  Neopetslovette 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition 

message: I don't see why we have four bullet points. The first one contains three parts:
* "Encyclopedias can be general [and] can also specialize in a particular field ..." - this seems to duplicate the second bullet about scope. 
* ""General encyclopedias often contain guides on how to do a variety of things ...". While true, this does not define an encyclopedia. Neither does gazetteer. 
* Examples like Britannica and Great Soviet. These do not describe "four major elements" and should be discussed in their appropriate context, as Britannica already is. 
The last bullet point doesn't state any defining criterion for an encyclopedia but the mere fact that there are modern versions; it rather belongs in section Modern encyclopedias. Any objections if I delete these two bullets and move the examples that are not covered in context under See also? — Sebastian (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Four major elements 

message: I think the word "round" in English should have been extended to the meaning "full, complete" at mid-14c.at earliest(online etymology dictionary).
In the sense of the contemporary English it may be 'literally translates as a "well rounded" 'extended the the word "round" but is it really said just like literally meaning "well-rounded"in the sense of the time when the word ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία had been created in old Greek?
I couldn't find the related description from the link.
Henry George defines as "ordinary, everyday" by the third definition.I think this meaning is more appropriate.
online etymology dictionary also said "general" (from en "in" + kyklos "circle").
Therefore I recomend it should be described:
"enkyklios" (ἐγκύκλιος), meaning "ordinary, everyday" entended to "in circle(ἐγ + κύκλιος)"[9] + "paideia" (παιδεία), meaning "education, rearing of a child"[10]. Together, the phrase translates as a "general knowledge" derived from "lessons whom audience takes in the circle ".
Sorry for my poor English. I'm Japanese who tries to add this sentense with the page of 百科事典, encyclopedia in Japanese and has difficulty with the interpretation of the word "round" and "well-rounded" used in this page.
--219.211.122.141 (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: literally translates as a "well rounded" ？

message: "the spellings encyclopaedia and encyclopedia both see common use, in British-/Commonwealth- and American-influenced sources, respectively." doesn't mean much.  I guess it means "encyclopaedia is commonly used in the British Commonwealth, while encyclopedia is commonly used in the U.S."  Not only is it inaccurate and awkwardly worded—it's just wrong.  The two spellings are about equally used in the British National Corpus.  And the Canadian Encyclopedia is a Commonwealth source.  Webster's 3rd doesn't exactly say that "the digraph is rare in the U.S.," but rather regards encyclopaedia as an also-ran.  JackLumber.  19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version is also awkwardly worded: the prior version (I think) is intended to clearly distinguish between British/Commonwealth English and American English ... and the above seems just as subjective an assessment as any.  Also-ran is rather obtuse wording.  If clearer wording isn't produced, I will restore content from previously.  Lastly: no, I'm not related to that user.  Psychlopaedist 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I said is a *fact*—it's not a subjective assessment.  See e.g. Pam Peters's Cambridge Guide to English Usage, page 181.  That alleged "distinction" between British/Commonwealth and American is just phony.  JackLumber.  21:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please source it in the article then, as editors are supposed to do.  Also note that there appears to have been at least some background/discussion about the original note (with some rigmarole), so I'll do a little digging and make edits if needed.  Thanks. Psychlopaedist 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a couple sources—to wit, Oxford, Chambers, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage.  Yet you and Anthony have a lots of things in common---the edit summary style (RE: ; cpyed), the latinate username (cf. Ex post factoid, Cogito ergo sumo), that space-ellipsis points-space " ... ", an interest in Canada, Quebec, Toronto, Asia, Southeastern Europe, geography, encyclopedias... JackLumber.  22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Regarding your other points, I guess we do have things in common, but please note that the editorial abbreviations used are apparently fairly common in Wikipedia.  Ah well.  Beyond that, I can't comment further.  Psychlopaedist 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate

message: The article gives the variants of the word as "An encylopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia".  To be honest, I've never seen the first.  A google search does bring a lot up, but does if I meant "encyclopedia".  Is this what the article means, or is missing the second 'c' an actual variant?  Jameshfisher 21:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a typo. Corticopia 22:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the typo was introduced on March 6, 2007, and I see that it was fixed on March 31, 2007. 69.140.164.142 11:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling variant used in title page not mentioned? 

message: Where it says "Encyclopedias of at least one volume in size exist for most if not all Academic disciplines, including, typically, such narrow topics such as bioethics and African American history," I suggest substituting a better word for "narrow."  69.140.164.142 11:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choose better word? 

message: I suggest the article be expanded to include more information that would assist readers in making comparative judgments regarding the quality of the various encyclopædias that exist.  If there are objective, published studies comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia with the accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica, for example, or the accuracy or comprehensiveness of different published encyclopædias, then please add citations (or if already mentioned in the existing citations, expand the text!) 69.140.164.142 11:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. See Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. Any others should be done likewise as this is a general top-level summary article. -- Stbalbach 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings? 

message: The brethren of purityWightman (1953), Growth of Scientific Ideas, Basra 960 wrote the influential Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, which had enormous influence at the time. I would like to insert it in temporal order, which means it lies in the middle of an existing paragraph currently dominated by Christendom. Would anyone object if I refactored this? --Ancheta Wis 17:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity 

message: Is this link correct?  My computer comes up with an error message.  I've tried several times to-day, and each time, it takes over three minutes before finally giving an error message. Kdammers 04:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1911 encyc brit 

message: Wikipedia is one of the most popular if not the must popular encyclopdia in the world, there should be a headline on Wikipedia and other online encycopedia's, not links to them, but information about them.
Nikro 02:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: Encyclopedias play a role in fiction and popular culture. Just think of the Encyclopedia Galactica in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy or the essays of Jorge Luis Borges. Some other articles have a section on "Xyz in popular culture" or similar. How or where should this be expressed with regards to encyclopedias (and dictionaries, for that matter)? Is there already an article on this subject? Hmm... there is a :category:Fictional encyclopedias. But no article? --LA2 08:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In fiction 

message: I noticed a link to Encyclopaedia and Hypertext in the External links section. Is this important enough to include in the article? Foxjwill 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessary external link? 

message: In the History / Early Encyclopedias section, the author of the 1240ish De Proprietatibus Rerum is erroneously given as Bartholomeus de Glanvilla. On the follow-through link, however, it is explained that this 14th (!) century monk was often confused with the 13th (!) century Bartholomeus Anglicus, the actual author of the encyclopedia. Could this please be changed? Thank you.62.131.11.37 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bartholomeus Anglicus / Bartholomeus de Glanvilla 

message: Hi!
I wanted to link to a Celtic encyclopedia but when I wrote "Celtic encyclopedia" withtin the tag the Wiki code returned the phrase "encyclopedia". Consequently, I had to write "Celtic Celtic encyclopedia" to achieve "Celtic encyclopedia" and this feels a bit awkward. Could anybody please tell me why it is necessary to ignore the first word before encyclopedia?
Sponsianus 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the | symbol you are using after the web address.  You don't need it for external links (I've just discovered).  If you put one in, Wikipedia thinks it (and the word after it) is part of the address.62.172.108.24 (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  link question 

message: I always think of encyclopedias as having a moral or cultural purpose.  That is they are intended to somehow make the world a better place, not being just a way to sell books.  Could something about the purpose encyclopedias are put together be mentioned in the article? Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose

message: Shouldn't the second letter in "ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία" be a Nu, "ν"? Why is it a Gamma? Or did the G become an N? I know this is more of a Greek question than a question regarding the word encyclopedia, but alas I feel if I asked it there no one would know what I was talking about.  Feel free to send me a personal response if you don't want to crowd the talk page. Merç. Arthurian Legend (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Agma. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία 

message: Should the entry include mention of the byzantine encyclopedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suda
Gimme danger (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of the Suda 

message: Wikipedia is very difficult to use,there are no easy shortcuts for everything,that means that their search engine could not respond to every thing with full details,other than that its an phonetic inception of new idea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftypowernap (talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficult to use. 

message: There is a new development in encyclopedias that has been brought about by the internet, and that ought to be mentioned in the article. Apart from the growth of Wikipedia and About.com which can be thought of as alternative encyclopedias with a popular input, there are a growing number of micro-sites, such as Universe Review, kNOW, and Knowledge 2008, which, though not authoritative or exhaustive like the large encyclopedias, are closer in spirit to the original cyclopedias of the Renaissance, and whose aim is to provide an all-round education/summary/broad overview of knowledge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.228.195 (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New developments 

message: I added a fact tag to the claim that encyclopedia is traditionally spelled encyclopædia with the edit summary: "traditional according to whom? also updated source which was a dead link" and User:AnnaJGrant reverted it with the following summary: "That was the traditional spelling of encyclopedia.." Unfortunately, saying so isn't a good source for citing information. Also, I updated a broken link in my edit which was reverted. Can we be more careful with our bot generated tools please? Thanks! —scarecroe (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than get into a British vs. American spelling debate, I've just added a wiktionary link. See also WP:ENGVAR JGHowes talk -  12:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea! Pundit|utter 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  traditional spelling 

message: Let's try this for size, and see where we get. An encyclopedia in ancient times was the contemporary scholars' best effort to describe the physical universe and perhaps to categorize it. Given that definition, probably the earliest encyclopedia was the Chinese Book of Changes, the I Ching. The understanding of the I Ching as a fortune-telling device came perhaps later, in less-educated times, but was not the original intent. --Dan (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to suggest the Tung Shing; and that its omission here seems both serious and sinophobic.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I know that all of you really like Wikipedia(you're editing it of course). But the fact is the Section Encyclopedia#Free_encyclopedia is not neutral and should be rewritten to include more currently running encyclopedias. A whole new article (possibly called Open-Source Encyclopedia or Free Encyclopedia) may be justifiable.
::Spitfire19 23:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's not neutral, but only because it centres on Wikipedia too much - the language used about Wikipedia is perfectly neutral, but it acts like Wikipedia is the only free encyclopedia - it hasn't been updated since the advent of Citizendium and Knol. :Category:Online encyclopedias should be a good start - most free encyclopaedias are online AFAIK, any other distribution method would be impossible to sustain without payment. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is finally resolvedSpitfire19 (Talk) 03:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Free Encyclopedia" is NPOV 

message: "By preserving Latin and Greek texts which would otherwise have been lost, they helped to rekindle the search for knowledge and methods of natural philosophy which would revive again during the Renaissance."
So: lots of Arabist studies were going on during the Renaissance? Certainly news to me. (Would like to see where medival encyclopediasts would be without them-we would still be quoting "The Wedding of Mercury & Philology", I suppose).
Perhaps less esoterically, the actual Renaissance encyclopedias seem to have been fitted into the Age of Enlightenment (17-19 cent) to the degree they are mentioned at all.
Really do not have time for edit war, links to Olaus Magnus etc: could someone please take a look at things? 21:58, 30 June 2009(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.80.230.148 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Period piece 

message: Encarta was last published in 2009 so I listed Citizendium instead. Plz do not see this as a POV standpoint towards Larry Sanger. SpeakFree (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizendium instead of Encarta 

message: I think this article is affected by a nationalistic bias, particularly in two sentences.Firstly there was written that sir Browne's work was the first to be titled encyclopedia. This information was evidently incorrect, since Aventinus and Skalić used this title before. Likely, Browne was the first one in English. So I added the words "in English". However, I have no source about that.Secondly, the article says that Harris was the first one to write an alphabetical encylopedia. That, too, is incorrect. In fact, it's evident that also Moréri, Furetière and Bayle's works were alphabetical (not to mention Etymologiae or Suida)  and theirs, too, like Harris', were specialistic dictionaries more than true encylopedias. So, also in this case I think that Harris was the first in English. The reason why I'm so angry about the nationalistic bias in this article is that it's been translated in many other languages, so that these deceitful informations have been spread throughout the wikipedias. Lele giannoni (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationalistic bias

message: What makes a scholarly encyclopedia? is broken and now points to the general Duke library website [], rather than to http://www.lib.duke.edu/lilly/artsearch/guides/discussion%20guides/scholarlyencycl.htm Robertekraut (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unresolved link 

message: Undid several of the latest revisions because of vandalism.
RealityApologist (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism revert 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Encyclopedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203022708/http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?title=21st&query=encyclopaedia to http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?title=21st&query=encyclopaedia
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121221131406/http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified