Talk:Compendium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What do we think?[edit]

So, what do we think of this? Personally, I have to say it feels very low on content, as though we're stretching to find things to say about compendia. But I'm open to hearing other perspectives. Jwrosenzweig 17:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't actually stretch for content at all in making it. There were components of compendium that wikipedia brought up that needed to be resolved so I added them as headings. As a side effect, I proved that even what you would think is a simple definition can have sublevels. Bensaccount 17:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think the sublevels feel arbitrary and contrived. I do understand that there could be difference of opinion, however, and am interested in what others feel about this. If I am overwhelmingly outvoted, I will of course concede the point. Jwrosenzweig 17:56, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to sound harsh, but my first impression on reading the article was that it's probably just one of those things you have to be stoned to get. Mkweise 22:34, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You are right, I took out those links to "cosmos" and "human mind". I didn't get much sleep before I wrote this. Bensaccount 18:18, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Other sublevels of compendium:

  • The definition page is is major dissaray has been improved by User:dbuckner.
  • The meaning page seems well done but could be simplified.
  • The word page needs some disambiguation.
  • The association page needs disambiguation.
  • The link to human mind could be replaced with something else (im not sure exactly), or that page could be created.
  • The tradition page seems ok.
  • I like the sound page at first glance.

I found most of the article to be incomprehensible and deleted large parts. Unless someone feels compelled to improve this, the article should eventually be deleted and wikilinks to compendium should become wiktionary links. Lambiam 11:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dbuckner has improved the definition article. --72.128.107.62 17:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Should this page mention that Wikipedia is a "megacompendium"? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 00:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the term....[edit]

by Rekawt Omar Barznjy

--222.64.219.102 (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC) by Rekawt Omar Barznjy by Rekawt Omar Barznjy by Rekawt Omar Barznjy by Rekawt Omar Barznjy

by Rekawt Omar Barznjy

by Rekawt Omar Barznjy

The term of non-compendium is created based on the following....[edit]

--222.67.201.249 (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

--222.67.201.249 (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC) by Rekawt Omar Barznjy

by Rekawt Omar Barznjy

by Rekawt Omar Barznjy

by Rekawt Omar Barznjy

by Rekawt Omar Barznjy by Rekawt Omar Barznjy

by Rekawt Omar Barznjy

by Rekawt Omar Barznjy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.126.99.36 (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Any takers ?[edit]

Greetings,

A bit different topic. We all know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While every 11 January Wikipedia adds up one more year to it's age, encyclopedias and Compendiums too add up a year more to their much longer history.

When did you last visited wikipedia articles Encyclopedia Compendium and History of encyclopedias? What is their status ? When I visited those the last two are tagged for lack citations. In Encyclopedia#Characteristics section too almost six paragraphs are missing in citations.

1) After reading all three articles on Wikipedia as a reader I do not get information what a reader of an encyclopedia is supposed to expect from encyclopedia or readers part many commercial encyclopedias might have done marketing putting those points forward so can one find any such information in any source? (I am not expecting discourses of Wikipedians but discourses of Non Wikipedian intellectuals or marketeers of traditional encyclopedias.
2) Another missing point is how an encyclopedic entry needs to be written features tools challenges etc. again not Wikipedian point of views but editorial or intellectual discourses of traditional encyclopedias writers or editors.
3) How an ideal Compendium and Encyclopedia content quality is supposed to look like (beyond it's alphabetical etc organizational aspects) again not Wikipedian point of views but editorial or intellectual discourses of traditional encyclopedias writers or editors with critique of some Compendium and Encyclopedia.
4) Is there any (Non Wikipedia) source that would say or suggest Compendium and Encyclopedia as 'up to date' state of information / knowledge ?

Does this supposed to concerns women? May be and may not be, depends how one looks at it. At minimum as most in this project focus largely on biographies may be biographies of women who contributed to Encyclopedias and Compendiums may interest. Personally, I do see it one more angle, some of contributors may be facing hurdles of some strange Wikipedia rules and in course of time internalizing them, what was participation of women in forming all those rules ? Whether all of them are logical and fair enough to women? or few of them are avoidable hurdles? If one works on the topic then handling systemic biases will become easier? If no one worked on the topic then that is good opportunity to work on.

Actually one anon IP helped with a list of sources too on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. If topic interests some one following is list of sources with which one can support the articles.

Hope this is a helpful start. If you can’t read any of the paywalled articles, you can request them at WP:RX because you are using them to improve Wikipedia.

Any takers for the task?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)