Misplaced Pages

Talk:History of the Encyclopædia Britannica

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Villa loga-WB (talk | contribs) at 11:33, 14 September 2018 (→List of prints (with different content) of the the fifteenth edition: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:33, 14 September 2018 by Villa loga-WB (talk | contribs) (→List of prints (with different content) of the the fifteenth edition: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Former good article nomineeHistory 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
DateProcessResult
December 8, 2008Good article nomineeNot 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.
WikiProject iconChicago B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBooks: Reference works Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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 has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reference works task force.
WikiProject iconHistory Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???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:

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

checkY 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: checkY 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?

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)

Categories: