Talk:History of the Encyclopædia Britannica

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BattyBot (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 18 February 2021 (→top: Added Template:WikiProject banner shell and other General fixes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:59, 18 February 2021 by BattyBot (talk | contribs) (→top: Added Template:WikiProject banner shell and other General fixes)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

History of the Encyclopædia Britannica was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 8, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 6, 2008 and December 6, 2009.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Quote template?

Hi all, I've been experimenting with {{cquote}} and {{bquote}} for this article; which one looks better? Should we also try {{rquote}}? Open to any and all ideas, Willow 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine article

Well done on this. I know it was transferred from the main article, so there were more involved. It's a good read and balances heavy facts with curious details and quotes, and has a goldilocks balance on use of citations. I made a few small edits (forgot to sign in). Too tired to have a look at the quote templates.--Shtove 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopeadia Britannica Films

I don't understand why in either article (the main one or this one), there is no mention of the filmmaking arm of this company. I greatly enjoyed watching the films they made when I was in school and most everyone who was in any grammar school up to the 1990's certainly viewed several of them at some point. If someone doesn't add something, I will. 24.177.168.130 (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the Encyclopædia Britannica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:

Insufficient references, especially for quotes
- "Historical context"
- "1st edition"
- "1st edition"
- "3rd edition"
- "4th edition"
- etc.

Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

we are back to a world with limited time.
— CameronSkirving, twitter.com , 2014-03-14, sc. 10:40

<nonw>

Costs and related sales materials

I see some mention of a few costs, but I'd like to know if anyone can dig up the historical costs of EB. Are there any recent (20yr or less) color flyers, or something more modern? The old scans are great! 66.190.241.89 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Encyclopædia Britannica. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020084752/http://corporate.britannica.com/company_info.html to http://corporate.britannica.com/company_info.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 13:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Encyclopædia Britannica. 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.

store.britannica.com: Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
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.
howtoknow.com: N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
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) 06:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

List of prints (with different content) of the the fifteenth edition

Does anyone know a list of all prints of the fifteenth edition, which are distinct by different content and/or page counting? (This list should mention the size of each volume of each print as well.)

And: Is there an explanation, why Ency. Brit. didn't count every version with new content as new edition?

--Villa loga-WB (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

When does the 12th edition go into the public domain?

When does the 12 editions go into the public domain? And, if it doesn't, perhaps the article should go into the reasons why the 11th did become public domain, whereas the earlier editions are or are not.

Family Guy Guy (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

12th edition is already in public domain, because it was published prior to 1924 (e.g., in 2019 the 12th edition from 1922 passed the "95 years" requirement of US copyright law). However, all other editions starting from the 13th edition of 1926 are still copyrighted. https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain --Piznajko (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Ninth edition, 1889, quote from Charles Mosley

In the section for the ninth edition, from 1889, there's a quote from Charles Mosley, in the Manchester Guardian Weekly (10 July 1988). How is it possible that a writer in 1988 would write about the ninth edition from 1889? That seems impossible - this must have been a quote from 1888 and the source book (https://archive.org/details/kistersbestencyc00kist/page/38 ) must have been a typo and the quote must have been misappropriated to Charles Mosley (1948 – 2013) and must have come from someone in 1880s --Piznajko (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see that it was indeed Mosely's quote, but it was written about the 15th edition (second version) from 1985, not the ninth edition from 1889. See Guardian's article from June 24, 1988 Charles Mosley - Living on borrowed glory.--Piznajko (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Categories: