Jump to content

Talk:Bibliography of encyclopedias

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biographies

[edit]

I have started to work on a biographies section but I am not too sure how to proceed. Should there be subsections for different countries and/or languages, should specialist biographies be placed under the subject area to which they belong or should the Biographies heading itself cover various subject-based sections??? I also see there's already a pretty good list at Biographical dictionary. Should we not just build on this? --Ipigott (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My own idea would be, basically, given the number of biographical encyclopedias out there, including them within the subsections for professions, or countries/regions, or whatever other subjects might be involved, would probably work best. Most people interested in biographies are also interested in the related subjects as well, and including them in the sections for those subjects would probably be the best way to allow interested editors to know what related sources are out there. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of encyclopedias

[edit]
This section has been copied from User talk:Dr. Blofeld

This is underway John and Ipigott. Progress may be slow as its grueling and I need assistance by many people who I suspect will not do so! The potential is vast and might take years to gradually build it, I envisage it being spread onto several hundred pages eventually, organized by theme like Bibliography of encyclopedias: Architecture and architects and anybody wanting to research a given topic will have a bibliography of encyclopedias and books they can access for research. Sound good? Somebody can pick any topic and compile a decent bibliography of encyclopedias/dictonaries on them. Highly ambitious I know but that's me and I think this could prove to be of high value for researching whatever topic and general encyclopedic books on them. This will take a long time to build but something to work on gradually. Assistance would be appreciated I can provide google book and google book ref maker itinery tools to anybody who wants to help out and build the list by google book searching any topic and listing which encyclopedias/dictionaries are available for it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! You've made a great start on this. You are bringing together a wide range of useful encyclopedic references. A couple of suggestions: (a) highlight the sources that can already be accessed online and (b) make sure key resources from other (especially European) languages are included too. Sooner or later it might be useful to include a couple of lines on the coverage and "usefulness" of each resource. --Ipigott (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Mmm the problem is that it greatly varies between UK and Europe and US on what is accessible, full books are available in the US and not even previewable in the UK and I have no way of knowing. Also the status is likely to change and its difficult to assess the extent of what is accessible some books appear to have full access but only have every few pages, others have the first 10-20 pages and then nothing , not to mention that it would be super time consuming to do so. I think the best thing would be the highlight those which are pre 1923 or whatever and state PD. That might help. Anyway the idea is to compile a list like Bibliography of encyclopedias: Architecture and architects on any topic imaginable which has encyclopedias and dictionaries written for them. There' going to be overlaps like Dictionary of Danish Architecture for Denmark and architecture for instance but I think we can construct something gradually on this. The best thing would be to think of as many topic as possible and start sections on the main page with a couple. Then at a later date they can be expanded and split like the architecture example. Its gruelling work and not the sort of work I like doing but I think it is a much needed resource. I'll do a bit every day of expanding the topics to start with. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you mean Bibliography of encyclopedias and dictionaries, But Bibliography of Reference Books. There exist such bibliographies, intended primarily for librarians, in English and French, and I suppose other languages, (The current US one is Guide to Reference published by the American Library Association, available I think online only; the current UK one is Walford, which I think is only in Print -- the current version is The New Walford 2005- which I have only seen in print. As far as I know, neither is generally available outside academic libraries. The best sources often are titled "Encyclopedia .. " or Dictionary..." , but not always ( for example, the series of Oxford Companions ." , and books published with the title, "Encyclopedia of ..." or "Dictionary of ...."are often not reference books in any useful sense.
I consider a mechanical listing compiled in a simple manner to be a good incentive to further work. It will omit, such essential works as the Janes series or the CIA World Factbooks; it will include works primarily for young children, obsolete works, works essentially unavailable in any library, & works generally regarded as useless equivalents of better books. I think such a list much more helpful without some indication of scope and availability, and it deserves a much more wide-ranging search.
As details, an arrangement by author (who will actually normally be editor) is not as helpful as a subject breakdown, or a chronological division; minimum bibliographic elements it should include the number of pages or volumes (which can serve as a quick surrogate for the likely fullness of coverage); while the publication date is essential, it should be given to shown the range of editions or the latest edition, and I don't see the point of listing more than the year. The ISBN should always be included. Some idea of likely availability can be gotten from the number and type of libraries listed in WorldCat. Non-english works are of 3 classes of differing value in the enWP--those works of great scholarly importance because there is no scholarly equivalent in English, those offering the best coverage of a particular language's region, and those that are common and useful in libraries in that language region, but not of much value--nor likely findability-- elsewhere .
As for google books, it can safely be assumed that few important reference books will allow their content to be so available; GB will have mainly be older ones in the public domain now mostly of use only to show the development of ideas, relatively minor works of very little importance, and some works complied by government bodies or public institutions. (It should be obvious that allowing useful GB access would defeat the possibility of selling the work or even recovering the cost.)
Dr. B, I don't mean to sound over-critical, rather, I thank you forgetting me started on something I have long meant to do. I will be happy to help compile a better set of pages, if it is recognized that better is needed. The first step is to retitle and upgrade the current listings, the second to use proper sources, Guide to Reference & Walford, the examination of what good libraries keep in their reference section, and ongoing book review sources such as Choice. And, as far as WP is concerned, to justify this in article space, it needs third party sources--and basing it on such works will ensure that. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, don't "reference books" also include general works which aren't encyclopedias or dictionaries? Naturally, ISBN number and language if not english are mentioned.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compiling a bibliography of all reference works would be a mammoth task. I do agree however that there are many encyclopedic works which are not titled encyclopedia or dictionary and these should of course be included. As for reference in general, perhaps that could constitute one of the subject headings under which the works cited by DGG could be included. A couple of useful points of search include: Mendeley (where a search on "encyclopedia" turns up over 4,000 works although I suspect the first 500 or so are the most useful ones); and The European Library which allows searches in most European languages (try Leksikon for example) and also on a country by country basis. --Ipigott (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of long term gruelling isn't my sort of thing, I'm not renowned for sticking around too long on the same subject/article. But I'll certainly make an effort to gradually build the list as i hope other will too..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am struggling to see the purpose. If I am starting an article, I search to see what I can find online about the subject. Knowing there is a reference book that might discuss the subject does not help. If it does not show up in my online search, it is no use to me. That said, there are books like Enciclopedia Gesta de autores de la literatura boliviana where quite a lot is online. I suppose the TOC and online pages could be useful as a "to do" list for a project trying to improve coverage of this subject area. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many online resources are embedded in databases which are freely searchable but do not automatically show up when you conduct a Google-type search. Furthermore, English-language searches often do not hit encyclopedias in other languages. You have to know what they are called and where to find them. In any case, I often find it much quicker to go straight to one or two of the most likely encyclopedic sources, especially for biographies or geographical articles, than to go through the hundreds of hits from a normal search. There is also a quality aspect to be considered: a highly reliable encyclopedia often provides much better information than, for instance, much of the info summarized in sites for tourists, etc. So for me it seems a very useful exercise -- as long as it does not become too complex to use with ease. --Ipigott (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly that. There are tons of great sources which don't show up on google especially in other languages, this was the purpose of this exactly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
specialized encyclopedias are excellent RSs. They typically are devoted to doing exactly what we want. reliable syntheses of the current state of knowledge. They alone are sufficient sources for many WP articles, but find special use when it is necessary to document an opinion, like something being a person's major work. In fact I think the major ones in a subject should always be added to every relevant article at least as additional reading. The clearest example is New Grove Dictionary of Music--an interesting case where much of the material is also in smaller derivative subject Dictionaries, more likely to be found in many libraries, and should be listed also. These happen to be two with "dictionary" in the title, but not all such work do. Yes, it's the dull duty of a bibliographer to find and add them, but people like me are used to it. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with DGG here, specialist encyclopedias, particularly the most recent specialist encyclopedias, are among the best possible sources out there. Although, at times, understandably, some roughly contemporaneous encyclopedias might give some new ideas more weight than they might be found to deserve later, and, once in a while, even with the best encyclopedias, people screw up, they can be and are extremely useful in determining what sub-topics are of great importance to a main topic, like topics on philosophy listed in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which in and of itself will be extremely useful for editors looking to develop content related to that topic. And such sources would be extremely useful in helping ensure our "Outline of" articles are in good shape as well. And, yes, even older reference sources, like maybe a 1970's Encyclopedia of the Ukraine, might have articles which have been dropped from a more recent edition, but are still useful for historical information.
My one reservation, of a sort, is about some works like "field guides" and other reference works of a specifically and intentionally local nature. A field guide to the native lifeforms of say an African country will, depending on the quality of the work itself, be sometimes one of the best sources for species found only there, but also, unfortunately, many will also have great length of species found in a broad area which might, if used, maybe give undue weight to, for instance, the local habits of the lifeform in that particular area. I'm not sure whether they should be included or not. Similar works, like a "guide to the hiking trails of San Diego County," which I myself saw at a used books store lately here, also come to mind. Generally, they are from a non-local publisher, so they could be useful in establishing notability, but such narrowly focused works would be less than particularly useful for most general readers, and might better be used as sources in general for material on other WF entities.
P. S. I think it would probably be a very good idea if Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and possibly some other groups dealing with "encyclopedic content" in some form or another were contacted. Personally, I could see those groups, which may have been a bit less active recently, rolled into a single group, which, basically, would have as it function checking encyclopedias and maybe seeing if the content of them on certain subjects agrees with our own, and where they don't if appropriate. And I do think it would maybe be of extreme use to the project as a whole to have an active group which can help to fact-checking and maybe other things relative to other print and online encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if any wikiproject was contacted and them asked to assist in listing notable encyclopedias for their topic would be the best thing. If you could help contact wikiprojects with notice of this I'd be grateful. Yes I am very aware that they are often the best sources, which is why I consider this pretty important.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two suggestions: 1) let's continue this discussion on Talk:Bibliography of encyclopedias (where I still have an unanswered query), and 2) let's step up collaboration with WikiProject Bibliographies, in particular by calling on the assistance of the project's participants and by listing this project under "Open tasks". --Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, feel free to move conversation from here and add a redirect note.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reprinted editions?

[edit]

The introduction states "The list will not include reprinted editions." Why not? Reprinted editions are usually easier to obtain, cheaper, and frequently contain corrections or updates. Furthermore, it is often difficult to find original editions. I suggest the latest editions are the most important for inclusion. Possibly references to earlier editions could be made in the entries. --Ipigott (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because some encyclopedias have been reprinted like tens of times and it would be unfeasible to list every reprint for the same encyclopedia is what I meant..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

First, I do think that it would be useful and probably more in keeping with wikipedia list guidelines if the list were to included only those works which have been discussed at some length in sources independent of itself, meaning they should probably be limited to those which have had at least one review or other independent discussion. Doing so would also eliminate the possibility of inclusion of self-published purported encyclopedias of various forms of pseudoscience, for example. Also, I suppose anyone should feel free, if they so wish, to add the items included in User:John Carter/Religion reference to this list. I am still hoping to get back to developing that list for the related projects, but keep having things come up, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more version of bibliography

[edit]

I’ve composed one more version of encyclopedic bibliography (originally for the Russian wiki). It is still quite chaotic and not completed and wikified enough, but rather large; now I'm not ready to continue that work. Most books are in English and in Russian, but text includes books on other languages (…Albanian…Japanese… etc.). See the pages:

--Chronicler (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Bibliography of encyclopedias → Bibliography of reference works – The exact definition of what is and is not an "encyclopedia" is more than a bit open to interpretation, and I don't know if a bibliography of encyclopedias is necessarily notable or of first priority, as most of the reviews I have seen refer instead to the broader topic of "reference works," which probably includes a few history works which have within them some content on a variety of encycledic topics. Therefore I suggest that the name of the article be altered to this slightly broader topic, which also seems to be more frequently discussed in the RS's. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New material

[edit]

The material at User:John Carter/encyclopedias could be used to develop these pages. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding structure

[edit]

I think we are, more or less, obliged to indicate the biases, if we want to call them that, of the sources when including material from them. This can in some cases be, maybe, at least to me, counterintuitive. I would not have expected to find a large number of specifically archaeology related reference sources in a list of sources on the field of anthropology, for example. I would have thought they might be in a separate section, or, maybe, as a subset of history or science in general. I know at least one editor here, User:Dougweller, knows a bit more about archaeology than I do, and would appreciate his input on this matter. The major specific concern to me regarding matters of this type, and potentially others I might find later, is the question of how many "primary" divisions should this list have, and where, if ever, to put "see here" links for topics which like archaeology may well fit in more than one grouping.

Another question, and probably a lot harder, is the degree and number of subdivisions I am finding. For instance, I find that there are several subdivisions within the ALA Guide to Reference for reference sources relating to specific languages. These include for instance bilingual reference sources, sources relating to idiom, etc. Would it be reasonable to duplicate the content of these subcategories of specific subdivisons as separate subdivisions of their own or not? Also, I guess, would it make sense to include all the subdivisions to be found in the original sources, or can we reasonably overlook a few, and, if the latter, does anyone have any ideas of where to draw the line? John Carter (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I'm being asked here. I'm glad to see a separate section on archaeology, but I'd be unhappy about using some of them as sources - none of the biblical archaeology ones for instance should be used, it's too rapidly changing a field. Cambridge Encyclopedia Archaeology is also pretty old. Of course, that's a general problem with encyclopedias. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly that at least some, if not many, of these encyclopedias should not be used for content indicators, except perhaps to establish some notability and maybe relative prominence or importance of some of the topics they include and maybe as indicators which sources could be used for which pieces of content.
The major problem I have difficulties with is how to structure the pages at all. Personally, I'd put the "general reference" section first, and then add "topical encyclopedias" as a second section. But how exactly should a section on topical encyclopedias, if it were to exist, be structured? Should it be, perhaps, like the ALA itself does, have primary subsections of Science, History, Social sciences, Arts, Literature, and such, with subsections of those subsections for the more particular disciplines within those fields? And, for some fields which can be seen as falling clearly within multiple sections, like for instance Bible, which qualifies as both a Literature and Religion topic, or Archaeology, which to my eyes is a subtopic of History, Science, and evidently Anthropology as well, which of the multiple options available to place such a subsection should be chosen as the single place to put the full listings, and which should perhaps be listed as a subtopic with only a "see full listing here" link after the subsection name? John Carter (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and, for the record, a lot of the sources listed come from reference books published in the 80s or 90s. A lot of those reference works, in fields like medicine and research sciences, are going to be very much out of date, but they might contain articles on topics which have been removed in more recent editions, such as perhaps on academics of some decades ago. I haven't yet checked to see if there are more recent editions of the works included from Kister and Sheehy. Nor have I finished checking the current online Guide to Reference. When I finish both of those, I hope to go to the last 10 years' editions of the American Reference Book Annual and add any newer reference books in all fields, and then also check for more recent editions of books which are listed under older editions. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?

[edit]

The only references of this article are Kister, Kenneth F. (1994). and Sheehy, Eugene P., ed. (1986). I am concerned if this article is direct transcription of the two sources, it should be speedily deleted. Bibliographies (just as dictionaries) are not exception to copyright rules. Solomon7968 09:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't. The Guide to Reference website also listed is basically an updated internet version of the Sheehy book. And the majority of the works listed are basically described in some substance in both works. The Sheehy listings are, so far as I remember, only those which are in PD. The Kister book provides significant annotation on most of the works it lists, with the exception of what it calls "complementary" encyclopedias which are listed in the material relating to what it seems to consider the "primary" work. Nevertheless, I have asked a question at the relevant copyright violations page and will adjust based on the answers. FWIW, there are many, many more works which can easily be included, which are also generally shorter than the three started so far and which I intend to get to later, as they will be shorter to add. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the curious, John asked at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations/Archive_1#Listing contents of copyrighted work. Although chances are, he is at the wrong place at the wrong time. That page hasn't been edited for ages, although I can't find any other relevant page. Solomon7968 07:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinout articles

[edit]

This is probably particularly directed primarily at @Dr. Blofeld:, who was one of the motivating forces behind the creation of this set of articles. The current GtR has about 1100+ collective biography works listed as separate entries, with an untold number of "complementary" works included in some of those listings. The sheer number so far is making the citations section at Bibliography of encyclopedias: general biographies look really weird, particularly considering I am still far from done with them all. The Guide to Reference site does offer a free two-month membership to anyone interested, which is how I accessed the information in the first place, and I would be interested in any input regarding what would be the best way to structure the lists for making the number of spinout articles that do exist and are yet to be created be organized in a reasonable fashion.

One particular concern, unfortunately, because I think it might make the previously mentioned citations list on one page even weirder looking, is whether the existing Geography page should remain a Geography page or maybe be turned into an Area studies page. Most of the reference works I've seen that deal with what might be called local or national geography also include a lot of information regarding history, economics, and other topics not necessarily related to geography, and might make most sense included in an Area studies page, or group of pages. It would also allow for more central listing of works on writers in an individual country, politics in an individual country, etc. Unfortunately, it might also grow so long that the one page might have to be broken up into individual pages by continent or such ultimately, but it still might be the most easily understood and accessible way of organizing. Basically, trying to follow something like the setup of the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory is what I'm thinking of, but I would welcome any input and maybe assistance before making any real radical changes on my own. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure referencing is the way to go for these, I think an actual url link within the title would be more useful as readers can then buy the book on amazon or verify in google books/world cat etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting there. But first, like all lists, we need to have citations for everything listed, and going through the GtR provides an indication of the current most highly regarded ones. Then, when I get done with that, adding URLs or links to archive.org or open library or google books or whatever will possibly be easier, as it will be easier to do them all at once. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bibliography of encyclopedias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bibliography of encyclopedias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bibliography of encyclopedias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

[edit]

Text and references copied from Glossary of nautical terms to Bibliography of encyclopedias. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bibliography_of_encyclopedias&oldid=1251773175"