Talk:Blue book

merge
This article should be merged to Rainbow Books. Please comment at Talk:Rainbow Books. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 11:43Z 


 * I have commented there, but I'll repeat here: I disagree. This is a disambiguation page, not a page about a CD standard. As such, it should stay here. Telsa 18:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, "blue book" has many meanings. This is a disambiguation page and should be labeled as such. Accurizer 20:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed! I should have been more careful: I tagged many rainbow book articles in succession; this one is a disambig as you have said.  I guess the statement on the "Rainbow books" sense is already short enough as is.  I wouldn't have been so silly as to merge these unrelated blue books into Rainbow Books! -- thanks for watching out :)   &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-26 09:45Z 

Where's USAMRIID's book on biological warfare?
This was the first site I went to for information. But seriously, anyone can get it. I got it for four dollars at a book sale. If that's your concern about the article.

Lu na  ke  et  14:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Add Legal heading
In the United States,legal citation uses what is called the Blue Book.

See https://www.legalbluebook.com/default.aspx

Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC) geraldshields11

Not really a disambig page, is it?
Seems to have a lot of things which wouldn't be on it if it were really only a disambig. Can't have it both ways, now. Let's make it one or the other. LCS check (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why does "Power Media Bluebook With Talk Show Guest Directory" under the Media section link to Sonoran News, a right-wing newspaper in Arizona? Sh33na 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Still an issue, after all these years. See Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Mathglot (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Notability
It's not at all clear to me that this is a notable topic. I do not see significant coverage of the term itself, as opposed to the myriad examples of blue books, some of which are notable, and may have articles about them.

It's always about the "mycotoxin blue book", or the "Kelley blue book", or the "Oregon blue book", or the "Blue Book of Gun Values"; it's never about "Blue book" itself, describing it, explaining its history, its usage, its meaning.

Contrast that with, say, Mammal: imagine that you would only find the word mammal in reliable sources about dogs, cats, horses, or whales, but for the term mammal itself, there was nothing much other than a dictionary definition, and a list of examples like dog, cat, horse, whale, and spme other. But in fact, you can find dozens of articles, encyclopedia references, and many, many books that talk about mammals, the history of mammals, derivation of mammals, characteristics of mammals, and so on.

"Blue book" isn't like that. What is there to say about "Blue book", other than it's a term referring to other things, and here are some of those other things? What we have, is a dictionary definition, and a list of examples. That is not an article. That is a dictionary definition (which could be transwikied to Wiktionary), and a disambiguation page.

If this is to remain as an article, it needs to both be a Notable topic, and also satisfy the conditions of WP:PAGEDECIDE. To meet the first bar, we need to show several WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY, reliable sources, that are not just trivial mentions, but significant coverage. To meet the second, we would have to see if there is sufficient content available, to expand it to a reasonable article, and not just remain a permanent stub, or simply a dictionary definition and list of examples. Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is, in principle at least, a valid article. The core of the article is the lead, which cites the origins of the term, followed by a number of examples of its use. There is case for improvement, I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , several hundred thousand words in the OED cite the origin of the headword, and give several examples (sometimes many examples) of its use. And yet, only a small minority of them pass the standard of Notability in the Wikipedia sense. If you can clearly establish notability of Blue book, please do so; it will save me the trouble of having to create an Afd notice, and others the bother of having to respond to it. Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot that "What we have, is a dictionary definition, and a list of examples" - and in fact the examples are things called "Blue Book" not things that match the specified meaning. The term "blue book" doesn't appear to be a notable topic (WP:WORDISSUBJECT). Probably best to merge the "article" into the dab page. DexDor(talk) 07:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with 's reasons and way forward, and would have nominated by now for deletion/merge but I'm oversubscribed on other things; hopefully someone will do so. If anyone does, please ping me; this is a permitted notification per sub-bullets #2 and #4 at WP:APPNOTE. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Blue Book (disambiguation) -> Blue book
The current page Blue book is a pseudo-article and badly formatted disambig page. The page Blue Book (disambiguation) is a properly formatted disambig page, but is lacking in most of the content from Blue book. These pages should be merged by an experienced editor well-versed in Disambiguation formatting guidelines. (Which is, unfortunately, not me.) The lead of the pseudo-article claims that there is some historical "meaning" to the name "blue book", but the sheer mass of material after the lead and the lead itself belies the simple fact that term is simply a shorthand for a definitive reference in an industry that is published in a blue cover. See Red Book for a model of what this page should look like. PoundTales (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Closed. No interest.  2404:4404:27B3:6500:D15A:3421:C286:6A84 (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)