View source for Talk:Encyclopedia

{{pp-protected|small=yes}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Education|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Literature|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Wikipedia|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Libraries|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Books |referencework=yes}}
}}
{{Former AFI|date=July 29, 2013}}
{{American English}}{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|{{To do|6}}{{external peer review | date = October 24, 2005 | org = The Guardian | comment = It was rated 5/10.  However, as noted below, they reviewed an earlier and somewhat different version of the article, and the results of that review are debated within the Wikipedia community}}
}}

== 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. [[User:Groupuscule|groupuscule]] ([[User talk:Groupuscule|talk]]) 0 7:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Ye but that’s the name of the encyclopedia [[User:ShivanshPlays1|ShivanshPlays1]] ([[User talk:ShivanshPlays1|talk]]) 21:12, 11 September 2021 (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. [[User:Gah4|Gah4]] ([[User talk:Gah4|talk]]) 05:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

: {{reply to|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''. [http://chronicle.com/article/Whatever-Happened-to/8853/ 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, [https://books.google.ca/books?id=frsePRaTgyUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=encyclopedic+text&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4mpKS0OXYAhVSz2MKHYkOC8EQ6AEITTAH#v=onepage&q=encyclopedic%20text&f=false encyclopedic texts]. This has also been used to describe the [[Bible]] and other spiritual texts. And then there are [[encyclopedic novel]]s 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. [[User:Textaural|Textaural]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Gah4|Gah4]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Textaural|Textaural]] ([[User talk: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 [[Linguistics|linguistic]] information about [[word]]s, such as their meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms, encyclopedia articles focus on [[fact]]ual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title. [[User:Pursuedbybaer|Pursuedbybaer]] ([[User talk:Pursuedbybaer|talk]]) 18:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

=== in the lead, ===
<strike through>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]</strike through>
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.[[User:Deermouse|Deermouse]] ([[User talk:Deermouse|talk]]) 16:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
:cite: search Wikipedia "open source encyclopedia" ++30,000 hits[[User:Deermouse|Deermouse]] ([[User talk:Deermouse|talk]]) 16:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Plz necessory to correct that palal tribes as baloch tribe buledi. Palal is buledi tribe. Plz correct it [[User:Shakeelpalal|Shakeelpalal]] ([[User talk:Shakeelpalal|talk]]) 19:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Encyclopedia|answered=yes}}
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. [[User:Emoritz2017|Emoritz2017]] ([[User talk:Emoritz2017|talk]]) 23:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
:{{Not done}} Categories generally aren't linked to within the "See also" section. [[User:Nanophosis|Nanophosis]] ([[User talk:Nanophosis|talk]]) 01:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

== Definition ==

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."--[[User:Daceloh|Daceloh]] ([[User talk:Daceloh|talk]]) 19:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

== 21st century ==

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. --[[User:Roly Williams|Roly]] ([[User talk:Roly Williams|talk]]) 17:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
: It is both advertizing Wikipedia and comparing it with ''Britannica''. I need to fix this. —Yours sincerely, [[User:Soumya-8974|Soumyabrata]] ([[User talk:Soumya-8974|talk]] • [[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Soumya-8974|subpages]]) 12:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

== Proper etymology of "encyclopedia" is disputed. ==

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, [[User:Soumya-8974|Soumyabrata]] ([[User talk:Soumya-8974|talk]] • [[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Soumya-8974|subpages]]) 11:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

== have correction, cant' edit ==

"transliterated enkyklios paedia" ACTUALLY that's "paideia". 

XX  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/193.22.90.90|193.22.90.90]] ([[User talk:193.22.90.90#top|talk]]) 14:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Encyclopedia|answered=yes}}
I need to add a finishing touch [[User:Redrose99|Redrose99]] ([[User talk:Redrose99|talk]]) 10:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
:You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y" citing [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. – '''[[User:Þjarkur|Thjarkur]]''' [[User talk:Þjarkur|(talk)]] 11:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
== "Enkyklopaideia" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[Enkyklopaideia]]. Please participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 8#Enkyklopaideia|the redirect discussion]] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:1234qwer1234qwer4|1234qwer1234qwer4]] ([[User talk:1234qwer1234qwer4|talk]]) 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

== Encylopedia ==

It is a book where you can use to find about things [[User:Casory|Casory]] ([[User talk:Casory|talk]]) 19:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Encyclopedia|answered=yes}}
 [[Special:Contributions/42.115.19.209|42.115.19.209]] ([[User talk:42.115.19.209|talk]]) 16:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;'''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 [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Naypta|Naypta]] ☺ &#124; <small>[[User talk:Naypta|✉ talk page]]</small> &#124; 16:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

== History ==

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.  [[User:Monkeybomber|Monkeybomber]] ([[User talk:Monkeybomber|talk]]) 03:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

== Any takers ? ==

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''' ?     

<!-- Does this supposed to concerns women? May be and may not be, depends how one looks at it. At minimum as most in this project focus largely on biographies may be biographies of women who contributed to Encyclopedias and [[Compendium]]s may interest. 
Personally, I do see it one more angle, some of contributors may be facing hurdles of some strange Wikipedia rules and in course of time internalizing them, what was participation of women in forming all those rules ? Whether all of them are logical and fair enough to women? or few of them are avoidable hurdles? If one works on the topic then handling systemic biases will become easier? If no one worked on the topic then that is good opportunity to work on. --> 

Actually one anon IP helped with a list of sources too on [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 November 5|Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities]]. If topic interests some one following is list of sources with which one can support the articles.

::*Sanford, Eva (1949) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3292821?seq=1 Famous Latin Encyclopaedias]
::* Tsien, Tsuen-Hsuin (1952) [https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/617916?journalCode=lq A History of Bibliographic Classification in China]
::*Preece, Warren (1965) [https://search.proquest.com/openview/95dc8234c204b09db6b59eafc076e5c2/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1821331 The Organization of Knowledge and the Planning of Encyclopaedias: The Case of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica"]
::*Sullivan, Lawrence (1990) [https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/488406?journalCode=jr Circumscribing Knowledge: Encyclopedias in Historical Perspective]
::*Burke, Peter (1996) [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RPJjthIDiEcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA193  Reflections on the history of encyclopaedias]
::*Binkley, Peter (ed.) (1996) [https://books.google.com/books?id=frsePRaTgyUC Pre-Modern Encyclopaedic Texts].
::*Fowler, Robert (1996) [https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004247338/B9789004247338-s002.xml Encyclopaedias: definitions and theoretical problems]
::*Twomey, Michael (1996) [https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004247338/B9789004247338-s006.xml Towards a reception history of western medieval encyclopaedias in England before 1500]
::*Harvey, Steven (1998) [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QLzwCAAAQBAJ The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy]
::*Stockwell, Foster (2000) [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VhGBCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd A History of Information Storage and Retrieval]
::*Toshio, Yokoyama (2007) [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09555808908721363?journalCode=rjfo20 Some notes on the history of Japanese traditional household encyclopedias]
::*Würth, Stefanie (2008) [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Exp50zxE0FwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA155 Historiography and Pseudo-History]
::*Burke, Peter (2013). [https://books.google.com/books?id=teiuBgAAQBAJ 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.

[[User:Bookku|Bookku]] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 06:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

== Contemporary usage ==

Spelt as encyclopaedia exclusively in Australia  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/140.168.79.2|140.168.79.2]] ([[User talk:140.168.79.2#top|talk]]) 23:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

In Britain, and the [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]], the word is spelled: '''encyclopædia''', and also '''encyclopaedia'''. [[User:NonhumanAnimalAutonomy|NonhumanAnimalAutonomy]] ([[User talk:NonhumanAnimalAutonomy|talk]]) 13:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

== Merge proposal ==

{{Discussion top|result= The result was: '''No consensus''' [[User:Cranloa12n|Cool guy]] ([[User talk: Cranloa12n|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cranloa12n|contribs]]) • he/they 15:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)}}

* [[Online encyclopedia]] → [[Encyclopedia]]
* [[CD-ROM encyclopedia]] → [[Encyclopedia]]
An internet encyclopedia is just another kind of encyclopedia. The Encyclopedia article is not really long enough to justify having two separate articles, especially considering the poor quality of prose in the Online encyclopedia article. I originally redirected Online encyclopedia, but an IP user has reverted me. CD-ROM encyclopedia is an unsourced two sentence stub. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 12:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

: I respectfully oppose.

: You stated "An internet encyclopedia is just another kind of encyclopedia", as an argument not to have two separate articles, leaving off your conclusion. Let's look at the form of this statement and replace "internet encyclopedia" with ''y'' and "encyclopedia" with ''x'', and add the conclusion you alluded to. This results in "A ''y'' is just another form of ''x'' and therefore they should be merged into one article". Now we can test the soundness of this argument by plugging in other article titles for ''x'' and ''y'', and we get....
:* A [[St. Bernard (dog)|St. Bernard]] is just another kind of [[dog]] and therefore they should be merged into one article.
:* [[Internet art]] is just another kind of [[art]], and therefore they should be merged into one article.
:* [[Geometry]] is just another kind of [[math]], and therefore they should be merged into one article.
:* [[Math]] is just another kind of [[formal science]], and therefore they should be merged into one article.
:* [[Formal science]] is just another kind of [[science]], and therefore they should be merged into one article.
:* [[Science]] is just another kind of [[knowledge]], and therefore they should be merged into one article.
: If you make this statement for every subtopic and its parent topic, you would eventually wind up with a single article ([[knowledge]]), with all other topics included.
: That a topic is a subtopic of another subject, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a merge to take place.
: You also mentioned that "The encyclopedia article isn't long enough to have two separate articles." As we can see from [[:Category:Encyclopedias]], not only is the subject "[[encyclopedia]]" long enough to have two articles, it is already divided into hundreds of articles.
: The [[online encyclopedia]] article delves into the intricacies of that type of encyclopedia, and makes it obvious that there is more erudite detail coming. It might be best not to bog down the main encyclopedia article with that minutia, and keep it as an overview of encyclopedias in general. In the spirit of [[Wikipedia:Summary style]], as a major subtopic with much territory to be covered, "online encyclopedia" warrants its own article. 
: [[WP:SPLIT]] recommends an article size of around 50K, and there are plenty of subtopics not yet covered in this parent article, summaries of which will easily push it to 50K. "Encyclopedia", by its very nature is encyclopedic in scope. You could fill an encyclopedia with information about it. {{;)}}
: [[Encyclopedia]] has other issues that warrant attention. There are many sections missing. More urgent is that the history section is a content fork of [[History of encyclopedias]], and vice versa, as they share nearly the same depth and diverge in treatment of the subject.

: I hope you find the above observations useful. Sincerely, <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash;  ''[[User talk:The Transhumanist|The&nbsp;Transhumanist]]''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 19:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
:: {{Ping|The Transhumanist}} Do you have an opinion on the [[CD-ROM encyclopedia]] article? It's currently a two sentence unsourced stub. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 22:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
::: {{re|Hemiauchenia}} I have not yet formed an opinion on that article, but I noticed that it appears to have ten sentences.  Concerning the unsourced comment you made, how does sourced/unsourced pertain to which page the content is published on? It would be just as unsourced if it were merged into the [[encyclopedia]] article. I encourage you to dive in and develop these articles. That is another way of resolving your concerns. I hope to see you in the edit histories, and look forward to working with you in interactive editing. Cheers. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; ''[[User talk:The Transhumanist|The&nbsp;Transhumanist]]''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 01:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
::Regarding the merge proposal: These are types of encyclopedias, but the current way that things are is perfectly fine as well. Just providing my own opinion, of course. I don't care too much what you do, I just read articles and make the occasional minor fix. <b style="color:#f07">Qwerty</b><b style="color:#f00">3521</b> -- [[User_talk:Qwerty3521|Message me here]] 16:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
* '''Merge''' [[CD-ROM encyclopedia]] → [[Encyclopedia]] - This is hardly a separate topic justifying a separate article.  It's a minor subtopic.
: '''Merge''' [[Online encyclopedia]] → [[Encyclopedia]] - I feel less strongly about this merge, since Online Encyclopedias are a significant enough topic to have their own article.  However, there are some messy aspects to the current split. [[Digital encyclopedia]] actually redirects to a [[Encyclopedia#Rise of digital and online encyclopedias|section of the Encyclopedia article]]. However there is a hatnote at the top of the [[Online encyclopedia]] article that says: {{tqbm|"Digital encyclopedia" redirects here. It is not to be confused with [[CD-ROM encyclopedia]].}} This confusion is because every encyclopedia is in digital form. It's just that some encyclopedias are printed and others are made available online, and many printed encyclopedias are also available in digital form either online or in CD-ROM format. It's certainly confusing to have [[CD-ROM encyclopedia]] and [[Online encyclopedia]] as a separate articles and yet redirect [[Digital encyclopedia]] to the main [[Encylopedia]] article. I don't see a clean way to split these topics apart frankly.  I think the topics should be merged.  Whether an encyclopedia is available online or in a CD-ROM format is a question of distribution and access. It doesn't make the dictionary fundamentally a different kind of encyclopedia. For example, Britannica is now exclusively available online, but it used to be available exclusively in print, and later in multiple formats. It's not fundamentally a different kind of encyclopedia.  The decision to abandon print versions was a business choice about distribution and access for customers.[[User:Coastside|Coastside]] ([[User talk:Coastside|talk]]) 17:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per {{ping|The&nbsp;Transhumanist}} [[User:Ytpks896|Ytpks896]] ([[User talk:Ytpks896|talk]]) 07:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per {{user|The Transhumanist}}. Also because the article has 10 citations and is clearly far different than a normal encyclopedia. --[[User:The Tips of Apmh|The Tips of Apmh]] ([[User talk:The Tips of Apmh|talk]]) 13:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per above. --[[User:SHB2000|SHB2000]] ([[User talk:SHB2000|talk]]) 23:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Per {{user|The Transhumanist}}. These articles are valuable, particularly for future generations who may not understand the importance of the CD-ROM and bound encyclopedia. [[User:Thriley|Thriley]] ([[User talk:Thriley|talk]]) 20:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC) 
* I would like to bring up a general social aspect about a merge. Many people who grew up with Wikipedia and other largely digital, online encyclopedias (e.g. subject/field specific encyclopedias), including myself, are less familiar with print encyclopedia. It may be important to at least link the article for online encyclopedia to the online encyclopedia section to provide a reference to this body of knowledge. {{user|Coastside}} mentions aspects of the liminal nature of the encyclopedia as well that speak to this public understanding. I do think it's important to keep them intertwined to afford a comprehensive knowledge of the the history of the development of the encyclopedia (in line with improving public understanding of the sum knowledge of the encyclopedia). I am not necessarily 'opposing' or 'supporting,' but I think understanding public perception is vital here. [[User:Breadyornot|Breadyornot]] ([[User talk:Breadyornot|talk]]) 22:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}

== Content fork ==
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, <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; ''[[User talk:The Transhumanist|The&nbsp;Transhumanist]]''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 17:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

: {{fixed}} I've truncated the section, and am in the process of merging the content to the subarticle. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; ''[[User talk:The Transhumanist|The&nbsp;Transhumanist]]''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 19:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
:: {{done}} 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. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; ''[[User talk:The Transhumanist|The&nbsp;Transhumanist]]''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 22:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
::: {{done}} The ''History'' section has been rebuilt, from paragraphs copy/pasted from [[History of encyclopedias]]. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; ''[[User talk:The Transhumanist|The&nbsp;Transhumanist]]''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 23:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
== "Free encyclopedia" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
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. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:EthanGaming7640|EthanGaming7640]] ([[User talk:EthanGaming7640|talk]]) 19:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2022 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Encyclopedia|answered=yes}}
Ndamulelo Netshivhambe [[User:Ndamulelomatamela|Ndamulelomatamela]] ([[User talk:Ndamulelomatamela|talk]]) 09:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Ndamulelo Netshivhambe  [[User:Ndamulelomatamela|Ndamulelomatamela]] ([[User talk:Ndamulelomatamela|talk]]) 09:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;'''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 [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Cannolis|Cannolis]] ([[User talk:Cannolis|talk]]) 09:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

== Encyclopedia ==

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. [[Special:Contributions/112.210.193.180|112.210.193.180]] ([[User talk:112.210.193.180|talk]]) 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

== Encyclopédie ommitted from history ==

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. [[Special:Contributions/172.58.27.60|172.58.27.60]] ([[User talk:172.58.27.60|talk]]) 05:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

== Encyclopaedia Britannica ==

Look, [https://www.britannica.com/topic/encyclopaedia this article] from Encyclopaedia Britannica did it better than us! [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 14:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

== Lead image ==

I feel like we could do better, the current version is overexposed where it's important. I like this one: [[File:Энциклопедический словарь.jpg|thumb]]
<br>A composite image might also be suitable. '''[[User:JayCubby|<span style="background:#0a0e33;color:white;padding:2px;">Jay</span>]][[User talk:JayCubby|<span style="background:#1a237e;color:white;padding:2px;">Cubby</span>]]''' 21:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)