Talk:Encyclopedia Americana

Untitled
Inaccurate, not targeted at young teenagers. Mandel 16:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

20th c. edition a successor to 19th c. edition?
The edit by 84.172.224.145 seems to suggest that the 20th c. edition is a successor to the 19th c. edition. Is there evidence to that effect? To say that it "carried over some of the old material" begs the question, as in some sense that could be said of any edition of any encyclopedia, especially at this time when copyright laws were far less restrictive.

Certainly there are major questions of organizational continuity with other encyclopedias - lots of transfers and bankruptcies - for example, the Britannica. At some level, it's a brand, not an enterprise. However, the content there was clearly more continuous, and there wasn't a 45 year gap. flux.books 16:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The "encyclopedia" article of the Americana has a section about itself, which suggests continuity. That the new Americana carried over material from the old at least makes clear that it was a deliberate continuation of the brand, not just two entirely different encyclopedias which accidentally shared the same name. Kolokol 19:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's always healthy to take a company's own statements about itself with a grain of salt. And a suggestion isn't a fact; plus, they would of course want to "suggest" continuity as a matter of marketing.  I don't see support for the conclusion about it being intentional at this point - the name just as easily could have been a result of  the involvement of Scientific American, or merely the obvious alternative to Britannica.   There are many other variations of that name which have been published.  And sugggesting continuity, and there actually being continuity, are two different things.  Did they buy any of the rights or assets, as e.g. Britannica publishers did?  Did they have any more right to the content of the older edition, or carry over any more of the content, than any other publisher would have, at that time?  Next time I'm in a library, I'll try to find the c. 1903 edition and see what they say about it.

how much it cost

 * Is that a question? And which edition?  According to one contemporary source, the original price (1832, at which time several volumes had been issued) was to be $2.50 per volume for 12 volumes, or $30 total.  What it actually cost, I couldn't tell you at the moment.  And 13 volumes were issued. flux.books 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

British English version of EB
I'm an American and have accesss to Britannica online and the print version and both use British spelling, also. It's domain is .com, not .co.uk and it spells certain words like meter as metre. Do versions in the UK say "British English" on them? Britannica is run in Chicago but I think they try to pretend they're British because of the name of the work.--Primetime 14:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When Britannica came under American ownership it did not abandon British spelling, and it indeed did maintain a connection to British scholarship. Of course, this has nothing to do with Encyclopedia Americana. --Aaron Walden [[Image:Tsalagisigline.gif]] 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Bold about gold
The Sutter thing does not go very well with the rest of the article but I found it interesting when I learnt about it, so I WP:BOLD. Perhaps you can sandwich it with "The encyclopedia was useful for the pioneers... as shown in the case of Sutter...". --84.20.17.84 12:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

copyright
Is the old Encyclopedia Americana before 1923 in the public domain? WooyiTalk to me? 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. In the US, anything published prior to 1923 is in the public domain, and since this is an American work, it will also be in the public domain in those countries with the rule of the shorter term with respect to the US. The first mention in the renewals is in 1927, so 1923-1926 EA may also be in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GrolierBldg.jpg
Image:GrolierBldg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What years the buble are writen 2001:4455:586:3D00:F93F:C444:545D:70B4 (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)