Talk:Funk & Wagnalls
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
 |
[edit] Funk & Wagnalls
Besides the title, all references to the name of the publisher in the text are to Funk & Wagnalls. Why does the article title use and? Tskoge 21:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The article says that Funk & Wagnalls only exists as an online service to educational institutions, but my family still receives a print copy every year. TEMcGee 00:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Do they still make Funk & Wagnalls dictionaries (My dad has a 1984 one which is obviously out of date) A 2006 edition would be really cool.... Oh never mind.... i found out that Microsoft encarta has bought it up so they no longer make funk & wagnalls.
i must wonder of the 1912 date given, because my S.D.o.t.E.L. is a 1903 copyright, with gorgeous lithography. Ronrossignol 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)ron rossignol, biddeford, maine
my error. Ronrossignol 16:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe this page should be revised. Funk & Wagnalls seems to be almost non-existant now in online format independant of MS Encarta. The print version is either no longer published or at least difficult to find information on. I think we should expand on the fact that this publication, although once very popular, is now all but extinct. The "history" section of the Encarta wiki stated it very well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta -Seth 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above I can attest to the fact that it is still published. In fact we received our new one just last week. Says its published by the World Almanac Education Group, says it owns the name Funk & Wagnalls and F & W... "this annual is also published under the title The 2007 World Book Year Book." TEMcGee 03:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citation from Buck Rogers
Needs style cleanup, since quote appears more relevant than the list of references (it is bolded and unindented). Added a tag accordingly. Biblbroks 23:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Split
Thiat article should be split into articles on the publisher and the various works it published (especially the encyclopedia). —Ruud 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, although maybe there won't be enough material in two articles if this one is split. But, if you think it will, go ahead. BiblbroksTalk2me]] 09:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- How about start a section on the various publications in this article and then see how it goes. If it grows so it is taking over then it can be split of later. I'm a fan of F&W Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend which is still a definitive reference book in the field. (Emperor 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
