Talk:Macropædia

Deletions and Insertions

Hi,

I have before me the list of Macropædia articles from 1989 and 2007. There are many articles in 1989 that have no counterpart in 2007, and vice versa, such as Adhesives (1989) and Electronic games (2007). Some articles do have an analogous counterpart; for example, they have been split (e.g., "Information processing and Informations systems", 1 article in 1989, 2 articles in 2007), renamed (Leningrad vs. St. Petersburg) and/or revamped. Clearly, we should discuss those separately and differently, I agree.

But according to the lists before me, several articles have indeed been deleted. If you disagree with those listings, please point out, with references, where the 1989 text (or an equivalent passage) can be found in a 2007 Macropædia article for the 1989 articles that I have listed as deleted. If that is not possible, I hope that we can agree that the material has indeed been deleted. Alternatively, if you're patient with me, I will go to the 2007 EB index on Monday and check whether "Adhesives", etc. is covered in the 2007 Macropedia. Willow 02:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on this method, from someone not familiar with EB editorial policy: even if an individual article has been deleted in the current revision, does that mean that the material has been deleted, or could it have been merged into one or more different articles? Just saying the word 'deleted' might be too strong if the same material has been repurposed elsewhere in the EB. Opabinia regalis 05:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles have been merged. Willow, it's up to you to reference your claims. You can't make wild assumptions and then ask others to disprove them. I'm not going to look where each of the articles you describe as deleted has been merged to. The example of those Eastern European countries, which you fancily speculated have been removed because of "changing tastes", and which in fact have simply been grouped under "Balkan States", should suffice. Bramlet Abercrombie 12:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will take on the work alone, the work of verifying where and how the Macropædia has evolved over the past 20 years. It's irrelevant for our discussions and decisions, the "Balkans" article was already there in 1989, together with Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Czech and Slovak literature.

Is there any objection to listing the insertions since 1989? Willow 12:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old "Balkans" article will have been much shorter, not dealing in detail with the individual countries. You can't tell what in substance has been added or removed simply by looking at the lists of articles. Bramlet Abercrombie 12:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I compared the coverage in the 1989 and 2007 Macropaedia on Adhesives and much material has been cut. The 1989 version has 7 pages, whereas the 2007 version has only 1.5 pages, weakly referenced, under "Industrial Polymers". There's also 6-paragraph article in the 2007 Micropaedia, but it mostly covers the same material. What would be the best wording to describe this change in coverage? I agree that "deletion" may be too strong, since there is at least some coverage left. Perhaps "reduction" or "change of emphasis" or "reorganization of material"? I'm open to all ideas. Willow 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to analyze this for all 700 articles? It could be interesting, but it might go into original research territory. Bramlet Abercrombie 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with one article and go from there. How would you describe the change in coverage — what seems to be the fairest wording to you? Willow 18:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Change in coverage" is OK, but describing the "Adhesives" development alone would be useless in the article. You'd first need to have some more representative data about what kind of things have been reduced or extended in coverage. Bramlet Abercrombie 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier editions

This article seems to be focussed solely on the 1985-2007 versions of the Macropædia. Are deletions and insertions before that period relevant? I have the original 1974 edition, that version which garnered such "universal critical condemnation", to use your phrase. ;) Given that it came before the massive rewrite, a comparison of its articles with those of the more recent encyclopædias might be helpful. On a perhaps less relevant note, its longer list of articles might be a better list to compare with Wikipedia than Wikipedia:List of 2007 Macropædia articles, given that they seem to be of a more Wiki-like length, and are often broken down into shorter subarticles in a Wiki-like method. If the material's too early or too irrelevant to be helpful, I'll be happy to leave the article alone. Geuiwogbil 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Geuiwogbil,

I had to laugh at my own phrasing; the impudence of the small! ;) You should feel free to revert anything that seems unfair, although the EB3 was indeed roundly criticized for its lack of Index and difficulty of navigation. I at least have not found even one review that doesn't fault it for that.; but maybe you know of some links to more positive reviews?

Thank you also very much for your kind offer of help with the Macropaedia from the first version of the 15th edition. It is important and we should definitely include it, don't you agree? I was focusing on the 2nd version of the 15th edition, because 700 long articles seemed more manageable than 4,207 medium-sized ones; I can only type so fast! ;) You should feel free to add whatever seems appropriate to you. Warm and appreciative thanks, Willow 23:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, the wording is perfectly fair. Mortimer J. Adler was too obsessed with the idea of a celestine hierarchy of knowledge to make anything practically helpful. I'm really impressed with all the work you've put into the EB articles, and I've learned quite a bit.

Would this page be the appropriate place for a listing of the articles in the original 15th edition? If so, I'll start on it this weekend. Thanks for the kind response, and good luck! Geuiwogbil 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geuiwogbil,

It would be amazing if you could type in all those articles with their wiki-links, and it would really help the EB articles.

I'm beginning to think, though, that we should split off both lists, since they are quite long. Perhaps we should make List of 2007 Macropædia articles and List of 1974 Macropædia articles. Those two could even serve as templates for intermediate lists such as the List of 1989 Macropædia articles, etc. to show the evolution of the Macropædia. If you like the idea of splitting our lists off, I'll start mine off right away.

Thanks again muchly, muchly, muchly Willow 17:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun work over at List of 1974 Macropædia articles. I'm up to 60 now. Geuiwogbil 20:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the idea of splitting the lists off is wonderful. I'm up to 130 now. Geuiwogbil 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. You so rock. :) Sending supportive vibes your way, Willow 23:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished off the 229 entries in volume 1, so I'm going to call it a night. Thanks for the support! Geuiwogbil 01:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why so many redlinks above? What happened?

Oh, I see now --

Sorry. --DavidCary (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]