Talk:Funk & Wagnalls

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Funk & Wagnalls article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Resource Exchange

If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange.Resource ExchangeWikipedia:WikiProject Resource ExchangeTemplate:WikiProject Resource ExchangeResource Exchange

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Funk & Wagnalls

Besides the title, all references to the name of the publisher in the text are to Funk & Wagnalls. Why does the article title use and? Tskoge 21:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Funk & Wagnalls only exists as an online service to educational institutions, but my family still receives a print copy every year. TEMcGee 00:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do they still make Funk & Wagnalls dictionaries (My dad has a 1984 one which is obviously out of date) A 2006 edition would be really cool.... Oh never mind.... i found out that Microsoft encarta has bought it up so they no longer make funk & wagnalls.

i must wonder of the 1912 date given, because my S.D.o.t.E.L. is a 1903 copyright, with gorgeous lithography. Ronrossignol 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)ron rossignol, biddeford, maine[reply]

my error. Ronrossignol 16:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this page should be revised. Funk & Wagnalls seems to be almost non-existant now in online format independant of MS Encarta. The print version is either no longer published or at least difficult to find information on. I think we should expand on the fact that this publication, although once very popular, is now all but extinct. The "history" section of the Encarta wiki stated it very well: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Encarta -Seth 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above I can attest to the fact that it is still published. In fact we received our new one just last week. Says its published by the World Almanac Education Group, says it owns the name Funk & Wagnalls and F & W... "this annual is also published under the title The 2007 World Book Year Book." TEMcGee 03:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation from Buck Rogers

Needs style cleanup, since quote appears more relevant than the list of references (it is bolded and unindented). Added a tag accordingly. Biblbroks 23:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split

Thiat article should be split into articles on the publisher and the various works it published (especially the encyclopedia). —Ruud 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, although maybe there won't be enough material in two articles if this one is split. But, if you think it will, go ahead. Biblbroks^Talk2me]] 09:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about start a section on the various publications in this article and then see how it goes. If it grows so it is taking over then it can be split of later. I'm a fan of F&W Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend which is still a definitive reference book in the field. (Emperor 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Publications

I have the publication "The World's One Hundred Best Short Stories", from 1927. There are apparently two bindings, one in blue and another in red. I am very interested in knowing what the difference is between the two color bindings, since they were both apparently published in 1927? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.53.84 (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Funk and Wagnalls is a very good resource! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.105.242 (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1980s

I purchased a set of Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia in the Grand Union Supermarket in the 1980s so i know for a fact it was available that way after the 70s. I still have the set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.93.180 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In

Was often mentioned on this show... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

L Ron Hubbard is not noteworthy

The dictionary was one of the few recommended by author L. Ron Hubbard in his Study Hat Course[2], which became the basis of Study Technology, a "how-to-learn" course. Hubbard termed it "one of the most grammatically correct dictionaries there is and... probably the best American dictionary available".

L. Ron Hubbard is not a notable reviewer of dictionaries. This entire section should be removed from the first paragraph. 141.228.250.141 (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FUNK AND WAGNALLS new Encyclopedia of Science all 22 books in Brand New Condition ! 1979 Copyright, 1984 Text copyright edition

Is there any value of these , they obviously wouldn’t use them for teaching anymore , but it brought back alotta memories and questions for the the kids too relive as they were growing up 2601:446:600:8D30:F177:72E5:124F:F60F (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]