Talk:List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge

Inclusion of ED
Encyclopedia Dramatica should be included, not only because it has "encyclopedia" in the name, but if you look at other entries on this list such as Everything2, Illogicopedia, Uncyclopedia.--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ED is a hate site, a shock site, or if you are generous, a "satire." It has no business being listed with encyclopedias, which are compilations of knowledge.  Antandrus  (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that the inclusion criteria of this list could use some tightening. We have a lot of entries here that could go. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed Uncyclopedia, Illogicopedia, and Wikiality from the list, at least - none of these are encyclopedias by any serious definition of the word. ED would fall under the same category; it's not an "encyclopedia."  krimpet ✽  14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks as though the ones I mentioned were removed, some more should probably go such as the ones under Fiction (or fictional).--I LIVE IN A HAT (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (Crossposted from your talk page for others' reference) Please stop re-adding the link to ED to List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge. Just because it has "Encyclopedia" in the name doesn't mean it is one, any more than George Francis Train should be listed in Famous trains. —  iride  scent  14:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
If calling something an encyclopedia is insufficient for inclusion on this list, then we need to define what counts as an encyclopedia. I would propose changing the lead to the following:


 * This is a list of encyclopedias sorted by branch of knowledge. For the purposes of this list, an encyclopedia is defined as a "compendium that contains information on either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." For other sorting criteria, see List of encyclopedias.

This would permit the removal of some non-notable dictionary-style works, as well as websites such as those noted above which, while perhaps calling themselves encyclopedias and following a wiki-style format, are not themselves encyclopedias. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea; I support this. It's "encyclopedic" in every way.  This also will make it easier to defend the article the next time someone shows up to push Wickerpedia, Wankipedia, or whatever other nonsensepedia of the day is making the rounds.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "a publication is an encyclopedia if idependent reliable sources say in express words that it is". James500 (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A year and a half later, I've updated it. I used the original one I have up there, but am not opposed to it being changed/broadened, of course. the reason I didn't use that criteria is because the list, in being explicitly about "branches of knowledge," does seem like it's not for joke encyclopedias and there are plenty of sources that call ED/Uncyclopedia/etc. "encyclopedias" -- they're just not about "a branch of knowledge" except insofar as you could call "general satirical" a branch of knowledge.


 * One other thing. I included in the lead the word "notable." There have been thousands and thousands of encyclopedias published over the years. It would be very strange indeed if this list weren't limited to notable encyclopedias only. As it stands there are a whole lot of unsourced redlinks and external links (in violation of external linking guidelines). I'm going to [somewhat] boldly go in and remove them pending sourcing that would indicate notability and perhaps a forthcoming article. As an aside: my research area right now is in encyclopedias, so I'll be copying these down anyway as possible articles to create in the future -- I'll go ahead and then copy that list of removed items to the talk page in collapsed form should anyone want to add them back with sources. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia "notability" should never be used as a selection criteria. Firstly it is a self reference, and therefore circular reasoning. Secondly it is so subjective that it is probably inherently unverifiable (we have, for example, never agreed on exactly what constitutes significant coverage). Thirdly, have you ever seen a reliable source say, in express words, that a topic satisfies our notability guidelines (which is what would be needed to avoid OR)? Notability, in its ordinary meaning, should only be used as a selection criteria if there are reliable sources that describe the encyclopedias as "notable" in express words. James500 (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And the fact that there are thousands and thpusands of encyclopedias in not a reason to exclude any as Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. James500 (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Either I'm misunderstanding your point or the issue you're raising is more with fundamental Wikipedia policies than any particular application thereof. We have notability criteria for a reason, of course, and it's applicable to list articles -- the common debate is how to implement it in the inclusion criteria for a given list. I don't understand "self reference" and "circular reasoning" at all -- these are just the policies that prevent Wikipedia from bleeding into the rest of the web as a free-for-all for whatever anybody wants to add. See the common selection criteria from the WP page about stand-alone lists in particular. For the purpose of a list, notability is almost always determined by the existence of a Wikipedia article (operating under the assumption that an article about a topic that is not notable would be deleted). Another way is to require sources be cited sufficient to demonstrate notability. List of Viking metal bands isn't meant to include a band I just put together with my friends -- there has to be an inclusion criteria (i.e. it's not enough to demonstrate that the band is Viking metal; it also needs to be notable enough to include in an encyclopedia). That we've never agreed upon what constitutes significant coverage just means it's a gray area open to discussion and is based on consensus informed by other policies and by precedent -- it doesn't mean ignore it. have you ever seen a reliable source say, in express words, that a topic satisfies our notability guidelines (which is what would be needed to avoid OR)? Notability, in its ordinary meaning, should only be used as a selection criteria if there are reliable sources that describe the encyclopedias as "notable" in express words. -- Not sure where you're getting this. Notability is a Wikipedian measure of something akin to importance that is measured by the quantity and quality of sources about a given subject -- the existence of those sources, not the declarations of notability they contain. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The common selection criteria are not mandatory, so you still have to establish local consensus for the use of that particular criteria here, which you haven't. I can't see any reason whatsoever to confine this list to notionally "notable" entries. As regards your example, a band that you have just put together with your friends will not be verifiable with independent reliable sources (we will not look at your personal website). Why we should require significant coverage is very unclear. A more sensible criteria would be inclusion in a professionally published bibliography of encyclopedias, or the existence of a reliable book review, or so forth. James500 (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So indeed your proposed inclusion criteria is "verifiable existence"? Putting aside the question of notability, standards, precedent, and all of that for a moment, in what way would this page then differ from Bibliography of encyclopedias? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that a merge is not in order ("bibliography" can be defined as a type of list) an index of enclopedias with WP articles would be acceptable (as a navigation page) provided it is expressly labelled as such. That would be unequivocally verifiable because they either have one or they don't. It might be acceptable to say that this is a select list, without explicitly mentioning Wikipedia notability. Otherwise I would oppose any explicit selection criteria that isn't based on real world concepts not invented by (unreliable) Wikipedia and especially one based on Wikipedia notability which is not so much a gray area as a gigantic black hole (GNG seems to say that significant coverage is more than a single sentence but less than two large books which each have several hundred pages). And did I mention that anyone who read the present lead would think it was talking about real world notability? James500 (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So how would you determine which encyclopedias belong on a "select" list? ...Because that question sure sounds like one that led to the years of consensus-driven discussion and debate to devise and shape the various notability guidelines. It seems you simply don't like WP:N. That's a fine stance to have at the policy pages/village pump, but at the articles the question is how best to apply relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including notability. There are many ways of doing that, but you're saying you wouldn't support subjecting it to a Wikipedia-devised standards (to the point of considering a merge -- or delete, since I can't imagine anything here isn't at the bibliography article). For any list, there's the question of what to include in terms of the scope of the list (e.g. is it an encyclopedia that exists?) and in terms of importance/significance/notability. If you're not willing to touch the latter except in a way that pointedly dismisses guidelines built by the Wikipedia community, that kind of halts discussion. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that there appears to be a conflict between NOR and CSC and, if that is the case, the policy trumps the guideline. I suggested that it might be acceptable to have what is essentially a list of encyclopedias that you think satisfy the notability guidelines as long as you don't say that they are "notable" in express words in the mainspace (because that would be an unverifiable statement). This would involve using weasel words such as "select". And I am not "dismissing" any guidelines, as CSC doesn't purport to be mandatory. The guideline actually says that we can use any reasonable selection criteria. The obvious one would be what I suggested "does it in fact have a WP article?" That could not result in any form of OR. James500 (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you perceive a conflict between NOR and CSC, you should take that up on the relevant policy/guideline page, because if they both exist as more than an essay then most people do not think they conflict (there is a process for making something a guideline, which involves consideration of other policies). Regardless, I didn't understand -- or misread, perhaps -- that you suggested the "does it have a WP article" criteria, which to me is the ideal indicator of notability for list purposes (though I don't just propose that by default because I've seen many instances of people arguing notability for a list article despite not having an article--which indeed becomes challenging). What do you think about this: we remove "notable" from the lead but rather than replace it with something like "select" we just add an html comment for someone to see when editing ( one of those things ) indicating any addition should already have an article (or an edit notice)? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 17:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

lists of encyclopedias
I started to work on this article, but ran into some organizational challenges. Looking more closely at other encyclopedia-related lists, I think we can do better. So here's a proposal:

This list has the problem of dividing by language, by medium, by general vs. specialized, and tries to take on subdivisions of specialized encyclopedias. It seems like only the "subject" section of this list is actually what the title purports. List of encyclopedias by language is kind of a mess, with a handful of some offshoot language-specific articles (some of which do not appear to merit being spun off), but also very spotty and inconsistent in its coverage. I would like to turn List of encyclopedias by language into List of general encyclopedias by language and axe all of the general encyclopedias from this list (moving them over there) such that it's just for subject-specific works]]. Thoughts? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this is a good idea. James500 (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Mere existence is good enough?
User:7&6=thirteen "Mere existence is good enough" -- this is pretty contrary to how Wikipedia generally works. We already have the many Bibliography of encyclopedias articles which attempt to list all encyclopedias... by branch of knowledge. The default, however, is to follow things like WP:CSC and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory, book catalog, etc.). As with anything else on Wikipedia, verifiability does not mean inclusion. What exactly is your proposed inclusion criteria? As an aside, your username seems to break ping and, apparently, u? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Bible
What is the meaning of Jesus Valarie Stelly Jones (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)