Talk:List of online encyclopedias

Parapsychology encyclopedia
Somewhere on this list, some one should include the encyclopaedia of Parapsychology done by the Society for Psychical Research, available at https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk. Rollo August (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC on expanding list
Hi All, I would like to expand this list with online encyclopedias that do not have  their own Wikipedia articles. I believe they are relevant to Wikipedia but don't necessarily need their own articles (other encyclopedia lists also have items without an article). I would use this list compiled for Wikidata properties - plenty of important, academic encyclopedias. When I tried to start expanding the list, my edits were reverted by. See our discussion about this here. One of his concerns was that the list would be filled with fan wikis - this can be avoided easily that the list only includes non-open reference works. Anyway, could you chip in and tell if it's okay for me to expand the article? Thanks. Adam Harangozó (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This RFC seems to want to throw out the current inclusion criterion (has a preexisting Wikipedia article), and it sounds like the OP has a substitute criterion in mind, but it isn't clearly articulated here. The criterion (whatever it is), should at least be clear and easy to understand. Keeping this list limited to online encyclopedias that have a prexisting Wikipedia article is clear, easy to evaluate, and prevents a flood of material about non-notable websites. - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria in this case makes the list a lot less useful and up-to-date. I think encyclopedias edited by researchers, univiersities, academic organisations are fairly easy to articulate as criteria. Also, check the articles last edits - two items were removed which have their own Wiki articles so they were included but they were not actual encyclopedias. --Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you would remove everything under 'Pop culture and fiction', and all other open edit encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, Nupedia, Baidu Baike, Citizendium and so on? MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of those are already in the List of wikis, we could link there.Adam Harangozó (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * User:MrOllie - You seem mistaken; the criteria is “ encyclopedias accessible on the Internet or formerly accessible on the Internet”, there is nothing saying it needs to be a WP article. Where did you see that idea ?   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a very common inclusion critera, and the way that various users (for example User:Rhododendrites ) have been maintaining the list. - MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:MrOllie - it is not however a criteria stated for the article, so despite what Rhodo confusing you, and it is common to not make such a requirement. Even those that do have that criteria typically have de facto exceptions of redlinks.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support; One of the functions of a list is to include sections on subjects that would not justify an entire article. The list need not be a bare list, but could provide some information and thus be thought of as a combination article.  DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is a top-level list, so the clear inclusion criteria keeps the list from being unreasonably long. If there were sub-lists for speciality encyclopedias and the non-wikified encyclopedias had reliable sourcing, I could see a case for their inclusion there. czar  00:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For the same grounds as stated above, primarily those of czar  . OgamD218 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Supportive - ??? The criteria is only that it is (or was) an encyclopedia on the internet. I don’t see WP presence required at any of the other Lists of encyclopedias.  Also, looking at  WP:LISTCRIT I see that is not a general requirement:  “While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.”  Not being just a reformat of the Category seems a good thing.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Markbassett, you support removing open-access encyclopedias such as Wikipedia and the various fandom wikis from the list? After clarification above, that is what the OP is proposing here. - MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:MrOllie - ??? You again or still have it backwards. The OP Adam proposed expansion not deletion, the RFC statement is clearly “to expand this list with online encyclopedias that do not have their own Wikipedia articles”.  That fits the *current* criteria, not a new one, and Adam never proposed deleting WP.  Cheers.   Markbassett (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The OP also said they would limit it to 'encyclopedias edited by researchers, univiersities, academic organisations', which would exclude most Wikis. Part of the problem is this RFC isn't clear about what it is trying to change. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, OP did not say they would “limit it” to those, you stated they would do removals about wikis. But that’s a bit offtopic, the RFC question is about adding encyclopedias. (In particular, adding ones w/o a WP article, especially academic encyclopedias.) Markbassett (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What does "list only includes non-open reference works" mean, then? MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:CSC. Either we're trying to be exhaustive, listing every little encyclopedia on the Internet, or we have a clear set of criteria to choose examples. In between is WP:OR. As this is not the type of list we should try to be exhaustive with (again per WP:NOT) we're left with inclusion criteria. Eliminating wikis/open encyclopedias would change the scope of the list, and I'm skeptical spinning them out (or spinning out the rest) would meet WP:NLIST (i.e. I'm not so sure the specific subset of non-wiki online encyclopedias has received significant coverage treating it as a group). I also support adding more prose, but that's an entirely separate question (and not really a question -- more prose is plainly desirable, as long as we're still dealing with a list of notable examples). The inclusion criteria I support is that every entry should have an article, and every entry should be verifiable as an encyclopedia in an independent reliable source. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Rhododendrites - since the list criteria has no requirement an entry be WP article, and the RFC statement is not proposing any deletion, can you please restate your position on the RFC question so it is not seeming to instead be based on false premises or directed to something not the RFC? Thank you sir.  Markbassett (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what your point is? What I wrote is clearly a response to this RfC and about the inclusion criteria for this page. By "the list criteria" I assume you mean WP:CSC? In which case, right, the requirement there [for non-exhaustive lists -- and I hope nobody's arguing this should try to be exhaustive] is notability. As in, it could have an article. In a few lists around the pedia, that has been taken to mean it's ok to add something to the list as long as you also cite sufficient sources to make clear its notability. It's very uncommon to see that in lists, however, and more often just a simple requirement that the articles exist. Typically, a list of examples is either all blue links or has too few people watching it, filled with unsourced spam or original research. Hence why so many people just cite WP:WTAF. We already have one, multi-page, sprawling list of encyclopedias which attempts to be exhaustive here: Bibliography of encyclopedias (and it's various subpages). We don't need another one. That already includes many online encyclopedias. This is a list of examples, and as such I oppose adding entries which would (a) make it tend to the exhaustive, (b) rely on original research for selection of examples, or (c) introduce examples where notability isn't already settled (i.e. they have an article). There is one other consideration: whether to turn this article into more prose, and make it a home for encyclopedias that are notable but per WP:NOPAGE don't need a stand-alone article. That would be an interesting proposal, but I think this list is just too long already for that (and we certainly don't want an awkward list that mixes tables of existing articles with large blocks of text about a handful of individual encyclopedias). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Rhododendrites - Thank you for the reply, in explanation the phrasings and tangling in non-related bits led to my checking for restatement.
 * First - I was confused by the guideline mentions. The input mentioned CSC as if it is the list criteria.  The criteria in this article is ‘encyclopedia that is or was accessible on the internet’.  CSC is just one section of the guidances with possible criteria points, and the article list criteria simply chose to not include parts of CSC.  The NOTDIRECTORY mention was unspecific, so it seemed maybe about where that talks about not having just a list without contextual information - which includes not just a list of wikilinks.  I read that partly because of the later mention of the article needing prose, and re my concern that unless it includes non-WP material it is just a ‘list of WP articles about online’ which is already done with categories.
 * Second - I was confused by the digression in the middle about skepticism on eliminating wikis, since there is nothing in the RFC question about either of those — the RFC is only about adding and not wikis.
 * Anyway, that’s why I asked. Fine if you like your inputs, just asking.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see where the confusion is. encyclopedia that is or was accessible on the internet may be the definition of "online encyclopedia", but it's not the inclusion criteria for this list. Inclusion criteria are almost never limited to the definition because that invites an attempt at an exhaustive list. That's fine for an easy fixed set like a discography, list Best Picture winners, or list of Governors, but runs into trouble with WP:NOT for a subject like this. Hence why the CSC, which is typically the starting point (which local consensus can indeed adapt/change/replace within the limits of WP:LOCALCON), points to notability for non-exhaustive lists. If I have somehow missed where "encyclopedia that is or was accessible on the internet" was settled on as the inclusion criteria here, please point me to it, but AFAIK it's just not the case (and I'd certainly oppose something so very broad). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, encyclopedia that is or was accessible on the internet is the criteria. That is simply what is stated by the article, nothing more.  Certainly it does not say ‘online encyclopedia with a WP article’, which again I think is already done with Categories.  CSC is just not always used, and was not stated for this article.    See guidance “While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.”   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No. What's written in the lead is part of the article, not the inclusion criteria, despite how many times you declare it so. The inclusion criteria are a talk page determination. Just like we don't write that "This is an article about the Great Depression presented with a neutral point of view, according to sources we consider reliable", we don't list the finer points of list inclusion criteria in the text of an article. Once in a while they line up, but even then it's just circumstance (one can be changed without changing the other). If you would like to propose that this list actually try to be exhaustive, including absolutely every online encyclopedia, or that we should use original research rather than notability to decide which are important enough to include, you're welcome to propose that, I guess? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Rhododendrites Replying again only because on the contrary, the guidance *does* say criteria goes in title&lead. If you see something pointing to TALK, please show it.   Meanwhile, see below  WP:LISTCRIT and WP:CSC at WP:SALLEAD it says “A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title. This introductory material is especially important for lists that feature little or no other non-list prose in their article body. Even when the selection criteria might seem obvious to some, an explicit standard is often helpful to both readers, to understand the scope, and other editors, to reduce the tendency to include trivial or off-topic entries. The lead section can also be used to explain the structure of embedded lists in the article body when no better location suggests itself.”
 * So again, what the article criteria factually given is for “List of online encyclopedias” and “This is a list of online encyclopedias—i.e., encyclopedias accessible on the Internet or formerly accessible on the Internet.” No other restrictions, and TALK might be about the layout format and contextual prose, or whether an individual item is truly an encyclopedia — but ‘and has a WP article’ simply is not a criteria.
 * Besides, ‘somewhere in talk page history’ would be a poor place for criteria. That could be hard to find and is ambiguous such as this article’s history has been both sides of whether to list encyclopedias without or with WP articles.  Hard to find and ambiguous are not properties desired for criteria.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is tedious wikilawyering.
 * The details of what's required to be added to the list are not typically articulated in the lead. Lists have all manner of requirements (number of sources, type of sources, notability, etc.) that don't make it into the lead because it relies on wikipolicies and guidelines, and it's not appropriate to talk about wikipolicy in article text. Yes, of course we should be clear what the reader should expect to the extent it affects the scope of the article, and you're welcome to propose changes to how the lead is framed, but the text of the lead at a given point in time doesn't determine the inclusion criteria; the inclusion criteria [sometimes] determines changes in the lead. The inclusion criteria you're trying to assert already exists would, as others point out, allow absolutely any internet encyclopedia and run afoul of WP:NOT. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I think the title and lead usually do say what the list is, just like what guidance WP:LISTCRIT and WP:SALLEAD say to do, and it’s left up to them which parts of WP:CSC to include, if any. And we both could throw up examples, but let’s skip that.  So we’ve both pointed to our respective supports and our respective ways, and not convinced the other so now I will just leave it to RFC close.  Over & out.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Make sure these wikis are in the list
wikispooks.com infogalactic.com de.pluspedia.org 2.244.93.217 (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Justapedia
Has its time come? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)