Jump to content

Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move

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: no consensus. SpinningSpark 15:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


Encyclopædia Britannica → Encyclopaedia Britannica – In the 21st century the usual British spelling of the American "Encyclopaedia" is "Encyclopaedia". The spelling of this title is anachronistic and seems to be used because it is the spelling used by the organisation that owns the trademark. The Wikipedia article title policy has a section on this WP:TITLETM ("Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark"). It is not clear to me that using "Encyclopædia Britannica" instead of "Encyclopaedia Britannica" meets this requirement. -- PBS (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support – we should use the English version, by which I mean don't use the pretentious/Scandinavian holdover character æ that the trademark owner uses, but use the English alphabet to spell their name as most sources do. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support—Let's get over Old Norse. Tony (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's not Old Norse, it's Latin. As is Britannica. The MoS allows, and actually expresses a preference for, the use of ligatures in foreign languages in which they are standard. Changing the official title of the work would be equivalent to moving Les Misérables to Les Miserables because the "é" is not generally used in English. (And, as in the case of Les Mis, a convenience redirect exists.) Fat&Happy (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, maybe I was wrong; but it doesn't change my opposition to the use of an out-of-the-way character with an old-fashioned smell. Plain and simple, please. Tony (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no Æ in Latin. It's a typographic ligature. Only in the Scandinavian countries has it ever been in an alphabet, as far as I know. And the Encyclopaedia Britannica is not "foreign", but English. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Fat&Happy your argument is not based on usage in reliable sources. If the majority of reliable English language sources use the spelling Les Miserables then there would be a case for moving Les Misérables to that name, as that is not the case for Les Misérables the article need not be moved. To determine whether this article should be moved we should follow usage in reliable third party sources. In this case the wording of the policy places the emphasis on those who do not want the page moved to show that "Encyclopædia" is more commonly used in reliable third party sources than the standard English typography. -- PBS (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It is common to do away with diacratics and odd characters for WP naming. This is a good case for such actions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, but I really wish some people would learn the difference between typographic ligatures and alphabetic characters. Just because æ is a character in some languages doesn't mean that's how it's being used here. It is a ligature, and a perfectly valid way of writing English. However, we tend to avoid ligatures in our article titles, just as we avoid other typographic embellishments, so I don't see any reason to use one here. Powers T 13:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Per nom. The spirit of WP:MOSTM is that quirky name decorations like WAL*MART don't make it into our articles. MOSTM advises us to "..choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. See MOS:SPELLING#Archaic spelling: "...archaic glyphs should be modernized, including within quotations and titles (e.g., æ→ae, œ→oe, ſ→s, and ye→the)." DoctorKubla (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: What's anachronistic about it? Britannica still call themselves "Encyclopædia Britannica", and so do a number of other sources. bobrayner (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, and WP:TITLETM. Begoon talk 15:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately, PBS seems to have a mis-understanding of what an "anachronism" is, and while this could be seen as antiquated, it is definitely not anachronistic, and so basing a move on this would be flawed. As Fat&Happy says, this is a perfectly acceptable Latin ligature and in fact there is precedent of using a ligature in article titles despite not being "demonstrably the most common spelling", for example Ben & Jerry's. Per WP:TITLETM it should be used if it is "demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark.", but the most common spelling seems to be the Americanism, "enclopedia brittanica" so if there is a case for a move, this is not it. Describing æ as either Norse or "quirky decoration" is inaccurate, as it is from the Latin and was always called this way, not like "WAL*MART", mentioned above, which is not the actual name of the subject of the article.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    I was using the term as described here "a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned". -- "æ" is an anachronism. Whether "&" is or is not an anachronism is not relevant to this discussion. Your point about usage of "encyclopedia" or "encyclopaedia" is not strictly relevant to this move request as the need is to show that the trademark is "demonstrably the most common usage" there is nothing that says that the new spelling has to be "demonstrably the most common usage". In this case because the differences between "encyclopedia" and "encyclopaedia" are ones that involve "National varieties of English" IMHO debate over the correct national spelling for the article titles would more appropriate once the TITLETM issue has been settled (possibly with a separate RM request). -- PBS (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    That may be, but it is not conspicuously out of place, and I often see the use of the ae ligature her in the UK. I wasn't trying to say that & was an anachronism, but rather a ligature, and so objections to the current title should not be made purely on the basis of trying to avoid ligatures in titles. I agree that we should have a seperate RM request after this to determine national spelling, but saying that in the meantime we should move it to a new spelling that is not necessarily "demonstrably the most common usage" seems to be slightly missing the spirit of the relevant policy, if not quite the letter.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    "I often see the use of the ae ligature her in the UK": If you often see it in the UK, then you will be able to point to 21st century example on the net, please do so because I can not remember seeing this typographic ligature used in any mainstream publication in the UK in the 21st century (I am deliberately excluding usage in specialist journals in this statement). Of course this is not strictly relevant to this particular move request and what would be helpful is if you could show that "the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". -- PBS (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    I do, although perhaps not in mainstream publications, but the first example I saw this morning was an iTunes listing, and in terms of the ligature generally I found this, this, and this.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The Latin ae ligature is just a typographical or scribal convention, not a spelling in its own right. This has nothing to do with Old Norse or anything else. And for the avoidance of doubt, my vote here is without prejudice to any future discussions on other pages which may actually be about, say, Old Norse. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In actual fact, the usual British spelling of the American "Encyclopedia" is "Encyclopaedia" (or rather, the American spelling of the British "Encyclopaedia" is "Encyclopedia")! However, in this instance "Encyclopædia" is still commonly used and perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    If it is still commonly used please give some examples "independent of the owner of the trademark". -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a proper name, using a character which we are perfectly capable and willing to use elsewhere (as in Danish names) so we can use it here too, just like we write "Pokémon" regardless of the "artificiality" of the accent there. (We should only draw the line at nonsense like, say, "Toys R Us" with reversed R.) Britannica defines its own name and its reasons are irrelevant - we don't need to distinguish between æ as a "proper letter" and æ as an "anachronistic ligature." It is not merely a typographic thing since Britannica itself no longer uses the ligature in the general term "encyclopaedia" - they dropped it there long ago like everyone else and they could well have dropped it from the title too, but they decided to keep it there, which is equivalent to them making up some artificial term including diacritical characters. If such characters are common enough that they don't even require Unicode, I see no reason not to accept them. Mewulwe (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    We use the character in Danish names because it's a valid character in Danish. In English, on the other hand, it's a typographic shorthand and totally unnecessary. We arguably should remove the accent in "Pokemon", so I wouldn't take that as some sort of precedent. Powers T 22:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    We also use the unnecessary typographic shorthand "&". Should we start removing that?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    That is a relevant question for a requested move of an article title that involves the use of an "&". -- PBS (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's certainly a point that could be argued either way. There may be some semantic value to the choice of the ampersand over "and". The differences between that case and this one are subtle and worth discussing. Powers T 14:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:USEENGLISH. Red Slash 18:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment good to see PBS using the RM mechanism as other editors; in answer to the question asked of User:Necrothesp search Page 5 of about 23,900 results (1.15 seconds) from 1990-2013 for "Encyclopædia Britannica" -Encyclopaedia -Encyclopedia indicates many UK publishers unconnected with Britannica. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    I am not sure what you man by "good to see PBS using the RM mechanism as other editors" where since WP:AT started to recommend searches based on reliable usage have I used the RM mechanism in a different way? As to the search you provide, it needs to be looked at in detail. The search includes books that say things like "a trademark of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc." and reproductions of Encyclopædia Britannica books now in the public domain -- neither of which are examples of independent use. -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are some acceptable ligatures in modern print English (most notably &) and these are used in other article titles to reflect the usage in the text in question (e.g., Ænima, Æon Flux, and Œdipe). —  AjaxSmack  02:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for reasons elaborated by AjaxSmack, Gilderien, Mewulwe, et al. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as it's how EB refers to itself --FeldBum (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The æ character is too unusual in use, and is unnecessary. Better to have easily typable titles. Leave the æ in the info box, reflecting the primary source use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Leaning support, per DoctorKubla and Ngram. But AjaxSmack makes a good point. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons elaborated by AjaxSmack, Gilderien, Mewulwe, et al. and English language sources as given independent of, but following Encyclopædia Britannica's own use. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
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.

14th edition and parts of next in Public Domain?

Duration of copyright in UK The so called revisions and 15th may be also partially in public domain.: The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states the duration of copyright as:

-For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works

-70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.

-If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.109.107 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The servers are in the USA and US copyright applies. It is complicated (see Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart), so just because it is not under copyright in the UK does not mean Wikipedia can include copied text from that volume in the near future. -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica versus Federal Trade Commission

In skimming the Britannica articles I was not able to find this covered. In the 1970s there was a United States court case about sales practices of Britannica. I have not read deeply into this, but as I understand, the complaint is that door-to-door Britannica salespersons would ask people to take a survey when in fact they were trying to sell an encyclopedia and not do research. This was said to be a deceptive sales practice by the United States Federal Trade Commission.

Here are some sources specifically about Britannica.

  • Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. and Britannica Home Library Services, Inc., Petitioners, v. Federal Trade Commission, Respondent, 605 F.2d 964 (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Argued Feb. 17, 1977, Decided Aug. 2, 1979).
  • no author given (27 March 1976). "Britannica firm hit by deception ruling". Eugene Register-Guard. Retrieved 11 February 2014. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  • C. Miller III, James (October 14, 1983). "FTC Policy Statement on Deception". ftc.gov. Retrieved 11 February 2014.

This source does not seem to mention Britannica, but because of proximity in time somehow I got the idea that this was a response to the case.

This is important for several reasons.

  1. It is a part of Britannica's history which is interesting and which had significant media coverage.
  2. The court case could have its own Wikipedia article.
  3. Wikipedia itself also deals with conflict-of-interest editors who come to Wikipedia purporting to be sharing information, but who actually are trying to promote sales. This court case might have around it precedent of discussion of how to respond to such tactics.

Does anyone know if this is covered in any article relating to Britannica? Thanks to anyone who comments on this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

British spelling

It says in the introduction that Britannica has retained British spelling. Please can I have proof of this? When reading, I have seen the -ized ending many times, and that is not British spelling. 2.96.120.249 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a myth that "-ize" spellings are incorrect in British English, British English views both "-ize" and "-ise" as correct, or at least the Oxford English Dictionary does. It is not directly analogous to, for example, "colour" and "color". Rangoon11 (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but -ise is incorrect in American English and -ise is generally considered more British. So why does it use -ize? Also, why does it use "spelled" and not "spelt"? (The -ed ending is more common in American English.) I am just confused by the inconsistency of the editorial policy, really. 2.96.120.249 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
None of the examples thus far demonstrate conclusively that American English is being used. If, say, "color" were being used instead of "colour", or "pants" instead of "trousers", or "Fall" instead of "Autumn" then I would agree but your examples are all used frequently in British English. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have found a conclusive one now - catalyzed. Catalyzed is used on the article catalysis. It is the American spelling and, according to the OED, catalyzed is always spelt catalysed in British English". 78.147.95.128 (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
(Sorry for using a different IP. I am not sockpuppeting. I am just using different computers.)
Good find. Reliable third party sources exist which state that it does use British spellings however e.g. [1]. How about we change the wording to state something like "has largely maintained British spelling"?Rangoon11 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is good. Thank you. 78.147.87.255 (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Just for the record, I have found a few more erroneous spellings which are not acceptable in British English:
  • "traveler" is used on the Herodotus article.
  • "maneuver" is used on Battle of Salamis.
  • "programs" is used on the J. B. Priestley article. This spelling is acceptable in British English, but not in this context.

These finds are somewhat odd, considering that other British spellings such as "colour" have been retained. Perhaps it is just the particular editor-in-chief's preference? 78.147.84.10 (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, or it could be sloppiness, or a bit of both. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't change the article based on original research. A few typos doesn't change that they use British spelling. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias

"this is probably because the study suggests that the two encyclopedias are somewhat close in accuracy ." This was found in the competitor section, and is a fantastic example of why Wikipedia will never achieve the status of any real encyclopedia. it's ridiclous that this wasn't found until now. 50.153.82.17 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Encyclopædia Britannica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox of this article currently lists the "genre" of the Encyclopædia Britannica as "Reference encyclopaedia". The "genre" parameter should be left blank, per Template:Infobox book. "Genre" is only for works of fiction. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 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.

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) 14:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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.

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) 04:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Criminals

The EB were convicted of defrauding minors in America in about 1958. They have a conviction for fraud in England in the 1960's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.211.191 (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC) They were convicted of fraud in England in 1964 or 1963. They described salesmen as "researchers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See Harvey Einbinder, The Myth of the Brittanica, 1964. This refers to the American
conviction.
See Harvey Einbinder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.95.91 (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@ 'Annual revisions were published every year between 1974 and 2007 with the exceptions of 1996, 1999, 2000, 2004 and 2006.'

@ 'In 1933, the Britannica became the first encyclopaedia to adopt "continuous revision", in which the encyclopaedia is continually reprinted, [...]. Annual revisions were published every year between 1974 and 2007 with the exceptions of 1996, 1999, 2000, 2004 and 2006.'

Does this mean that:

  • All volumes of the 15th edition were printed - (more or less) year by year - nearly at the same moment, and for nearly every year each volume has a - more or less - different content (but despite its different content all prints from 1974 to 2007 [respec. 2010] are counted as 15th edition)? :o
  • To be sure: It was not in this way, that e.g. Vol. 1 was published in 1974, Vol. 2 was published in 1975, Vol. 3 in 1976 etc.?

And if the first version is true: Is there anywhere a list, which mentions the size (number of pages) for each volume and print of the 15th edition? -

Further question: Was there between 2007 and 2010 any new print (with new content)?

--Villa loga-WB (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Where to find Public Domain EB?

I want to cite an article from an old version of EB, specifically because I want to show how historical usage of a name has changed over time. I found a mirror of the article, but citing the mirrored copy seems, well, wrong. I can't even tell from the mirror exactly what edition this came from. Is the full text of these old editions available somewhere? Where do the mirrors get their stuff from? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Source for "It is written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, who have included 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents. "

Is there a source for this? Particularly the 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents? Quoting specific numbers suggests there is a source somewhere, but I can't find it. I can find the same information elsewhere, but it looks suspiciously like it came from this article, not the other way around. Ytic nam 14:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Demise of 244-year-old Britannica in 2012

The following paragraph I added:

The online Encyclopedia was shut down about 2012, as income was not even close to covering its costs. The information-gathering and editorial teams have been disbanded,[1][2] and the content of the Encyclopedia as of 2012 is no longer available in any form from any vendor (in 2018), except for used CD and print copies. On its web site the Encyclopedia Brittanica now offers snippets aimed at high school students; materials for this public have been profitable.

This was immediately reversed by @Mewulwe: with not a word of explanation, and apparently without looking at the articles I cited, where Britannica's President talks about "our strategic decision to reduce reliance on consumer reference and accelerate activity in the K–12 market."

He or she deleted a similar passage from History of the Encyclopedia Britannica, with this explanation:

nonsense, the web site has the regular content, still being updated)

I believe this is flat-out wrong. If anyone can supply a reference to a major article on the current Web site that is even close to the printed or CD Britannica I would be grateful. I say this after recently paying to join their site and finding the content isn’t there, nor could their Customer Service help me. I also asked two librarians. deisenbe (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

How about this? Hardly looks like editorial department shut down in 2012. Mewulwe (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
How about an article that was in the 2010-12 work? Trump wasn’t president then. deisenbe (talk)<
Really, you can't figure this out for yourself? Mewulwe (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I never said that no updating was being done. I said the team that created the print/CD versions no longer exists.
I can’t see the print Britannica until January 2, at the public library, and don’t know how I’d get a count. But I saved the article on Abraham Lincoln from the current web site and it’s 152 kb, including a lot of code. I did the same with said srticle from the 1911 Britannica and it’s 830 kb, with no code. The article on Spain on the current web site is 196 kb with code. Spain from the 1911 Britannica is 1.8 mb - 10 times as large. Have I made my point? deisenbe (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
No, you said "The online Encyclopedia was shut down about 2012," and you said "The information-gathering and editorial teams have been disbanded." How do you update without gathering information and editing it and without having an online encyclopedia at all? Comparisons with 1911 are ridiculous, take the 2010 print version and you'll see that the online articles now will be the same or indeed longer, since the space limitations of print no longer obtain. Mewulwe (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. I stand on everything I said. Leaving out events since 2010, please provide an example of an article currently on the Web site that is "the same or indeed longer" than the 2010 print version. deisenbe (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
You can take any article you want, you'll have a hard time finding one that is shorter than in 2010. Why would it be? It's the same article base and since giving up print they've had no reason to cut anything to make room for new material. Mewulwe (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bosman, Julie (March 13, 2012). "After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses". New York Times.
  2. ^ Cauz, Jorge (March 2013). "Encyclopædia Britannica's President on Killing Off a 244-Year-Old Product". Harvard Business Review.
Response to third opinion request:
Are there additional sources for the assertion that they shut down in 2012? We really shouldn't be trying to do our own research here, but instead relying on what is said in reliable sources. Bradv🍁 02:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Neither of the cited sources is even close to supporting the claim that the online version was shut down about 2012. They say that the print version was discontinued after the 2010 edition, and that the emphasis of the company had moved to the digital version. Meters (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm dropping this. I have done something no one else here has done: gone to Britannica's online (paid) site looking for the extensive articles, and also asked their customer service dept. where the full content is. They confirmed it's not there. But that's (shudder!) original research. deisenbe (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
It may seem odd in this case, but we really do need reliable sources for easy verifiability, and to demonstrate that the information is notable enough to include in the article. We're all volunteers with limited time, and without these policies The Project would be unable to function. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Which EB editions are in the public domain and available for inclusion?

As most of us already know, much of the public domain EB 11the Edition (1910-1911) has already been incorporated into Wikipedia (as noted in this previous discussion topic). However, looking at this article's edition listing shows that all others editions up the 14th, which was published from 1929–1933, are already over 77 years of age, and may also be in the public domain in the U.S. Are any copyright experts able to elaborate on this? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

@Harryzilber:I don't know. But It may fall in Public domain between 1925-1929 (95 years at least after publishing).--Maher27777 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Britannica?

rambling off-topic opinions by IP

I was in the "blessed" circumstance that I met Encyclopaedia Britannica end 1999 in the edition of the CD's Britannica CD 2000 Deluxe Edition. It was an very secure programmed edition and was without problems transportable to Windows Vista and later. Later I bought upgrades, useless. The edition had been transformed to a kind of "Encarta" (© © Microsoft) a kind of picture book for children. It seems today impossible to find writers, or that is too expensive, for writing treatises. Perhaps also the audience which was originally directed has gone extinct. And, perhaps today's people tend to address this and former editions as "obsolete".

145.129.136.48 (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment above collapsed per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM. See your talk page. Mathglot (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry and will not be here again. Regards. 145.129.136.48 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible conflict in information

Language - British English?

"The contrast between the colors is at its most vibrant in young frogs. As they age, the colors fade slightly"

"The horse is a partner and friend. It has plowed fields and brought in the harvest,"

So I changed it to 'English'.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.94.142 (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The current version introduction says:

The 2010 version of the 15th edition, which spans 32 volumes[1] and 32,640 pages, was the last printed edition. This source links to a piece of news.

But the section Present status # print version says:

The 2013 edition of Britannica contained approximately forty thousand articles.[7] This source links to a page about the "Britannica Global Edition".

This appears to be a contradiction. When was the last printed version printed? 2010 or 2013? Mateussf (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Reference errors

What is up with all of the Unknown parameter |encyclopedia= ignored error messages that appear in many of the citations on this page? TGRFAN (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Global Edition 2016

Two weird things:

The link Official website under External links is broken. –Tortoise0308 (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopædia_Britannica/Archive_3&oldid=1136699924"