Talk:Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


A correction I cannot perform due to permissions

It says "Banglapedia (on matters relevant for Bengal)". It's not Bengal, it's Bangladesh.

Done. Thanks for the tip. groupuscule (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2017

Anzar shamsudeen (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Empty request, nothing to do - FlightTime (open channel) 13:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

you are a butt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.160.77 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedic

It seems that encyclopedic redirects here. Given that WP:MOS often mentions encyclopedic as a way to determine what should, or should not, be included, it would be nice to have a place specifically for that. What I am specifically interested in now, is that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, but I suspect that there are other distinctions to be made. Gah4 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gah4: I like your thought about including encyclopedic as something people might want to know about. I'm going to expand a bit before suggesting why it might not fit in the article. Encyclopedic is more often than not, used to to describe something rather than a thing itself. What you may be thinking of with WP:MOS is an/the encyclopedic style. McHenry talks about it this way, although its not really common. It is more usually to talk about encyclopedic projects, encyclopedic texts, or encyclopedic novels. In the first case there are things like Otlet's Mundaneum, Well's World Brain, or Bush's Memex machine; all things kind of like encyclopedias but don't fit the typical expectation, usually because of the technology they use. The second case is often used by historians who don't want to be anachronistic. There were no books understood by their authors as "encyclopedia" before the 15th/16th century. As a work around, contemporary historians call books that are kind of like encyclopedias, but were not thought of as such at the time, encyclopedic texts. This has also been used to describe the Bible and other spiritual texts. And then there are encyclopedic novels that are written with a kind of maximalism (opposite of minimalism) that try to convey the aesthetic of the encyclopedic. The Library of Babel, Ulysses (novel), Don Quixote, Infinite Jest are all examples of this.
So there's a lot there about encyclopedic but based on the variety of cases of how the term is used, I don't think it fits in this article because it exceeds meaning "an encyclopedia". Could it be its own article that is briefly mentioned in this one? I'm not sure. Textaural (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
More specifically, it is WP:NOT. So, not whether it is an actual encyclopedia, or something like an encyclopedia, but what kind of things should be in it in either case. Even more specifically, I was wondering about WP:NOTTRAVEL. There, one example is not to include restaurant recommendations. Gah4 (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
So are you thinking about adding a section that focuses on how different encyclopedias often self-describe their own encyclopedic style? I think that would be valuable contribution to the article as it is a very common thing for encyclopedias to describe what they do and do not cover. Could you draft up a sentence or paragraph of what you are envisioning? Textaural (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

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)

in the lead,

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

Devarasana halli

Devarasanahalli is a village in the southern state of Karnataka, India. It is located in the Nanjangud taluk of Mysore district. The near Nanjangud Shreekanteshwara Temple in 3Km. It is situated 4km away from taluk headquarter Nanjangud and 25km away from district headquarter Mysore. Devarasanahalli village is also a gram panchayat.

The total geographical area of village is 100.62 hectares. Devarasanahalli has a total population of 2,725 peoples. There are about 625 houses in Devarasanahalli village. Nanjangud is nearest town to Devarasanahalli which is approximately 4km away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basavanna D S (talkcontribs) 11:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

{{subst:trim|1=


Laxmi Book Publication published by Ashok Yakkaldevi

Not done please explain your proposed changes in an "please changes X to Y" way. L293D ( • ) 15:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

north west resistance was dumb like who would come up with this

the north west resistance i had to whirt a report you suck bum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.221.251.60 (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

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)

Not done Categories generally aren't linked to within the "See also" section. Nanophosis (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia&oldid=842222039"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Encyclopedia
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Encyclopedia"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA