Talk:The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics/Archive 1

Merge proposal

These two articles are just different editions of the same book. Wikipedia should have one article per book, not one article per edition of the book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

10T. The above refers to "the same book." But the respective works have (or will have) 4 & 8 large volumes. I believe that the above does not present a compellimg reason to merge The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics ("NP, 1987") and The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics ("NP, 2008"). Here are some reasons for keeping the articles separate.

1. For starters, NP (2008) has not yet been published, much less reviewed. Prepublication alone should be sufficient reason to postpone consideration of the merger proposal for now.
2. The works have different names to distinguish them & to match big content differences. 21 years will have elapsed between publication dates. That's a generation. A lot has happened in subjects in that period, as indicated by the expansion of New Palgrave 2008 to 8 v. from 4 v. in 1987.
3. Doubtless the publisher or reviewers will provide detailed descriptions distingushing the two works. These could be included in a writeup of the later work. Merger might blur or ignore those differences with consequent loss of useful information.
4. Just as there is an article in NP (1987) about Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy (1925-27), Wiki has enough space to accommodate 2 articles on NP. The 2 works have different specifications. Those should be spelled out. What applies to one may not apply to the other.
5. The entries in each work are not merely definitions. Rather, they are encyclopedic in scope and content. There is not only one Wiki article per encyclopedia, as Encyclopædia Britannica and Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition illustrate.
6. An advantage of keeping them separate is the difficulty of distinguishing what applies to one work but not the other as to correct title of NP, page numbers of articles cited elsehwere in Wiki, author, etc.
7. Presumably most readers interested in one work will have only a secondary interest in the other. Merging the articles without loss of content is arguably too much information for that audience With loss of content from a merger, there could be too little information. Keeping the articles separate would respect those differences.
8. It may be some time before a significant fraction of college libraries acquire NP (2008). For users there, NP (1987) might of continued interest.
9. References to NP (1987) could continue to have historical & content value for some time to come after a new edition (Stigler, 1989), making it of independent interest.

On a separate matter, interested persons with access to corresponding information on NP (2008) might use whatever can be adapted from the The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics article ( 1987) for the The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics article (2008). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC) (typo fix --Thomasmeeks (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. As Thomasmeeks observes, the new 8-volume work is not merely a new edition with some added material; we expect it to consist mostly of newly written entries. The two articles could be merged, but I don't see their merger as a necessity. If the articles are not merged, however, it will be important to add a disambiguation template so that readers are informed that another article exists. Cournot (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article title change to include "2nd Edition" (which is how publisher now markets it) makes disambig at top for The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics unnecessary (though it should also be discussed within). Merging 2 publications with different titles might suggest dropping the 2nd Ed. of the current article so as not to call attention to the difference in titles. But it would be absurd to blur what the publisher is trying to clarify with not only a different name but 2nd Ed. added.

I have been making steady use of New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online recemtly. There obviously many new artticles, some articles with similar context but new author, & some articles dropped entirely. Those differences further argue against merger. It do grant that a disambig might be in order for the other article, but that is quite a different thing from keeping up the marger proposal. Comments are welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying: I failed to get this page on to my watchlist.

Point 1: Pre-publication status is normally a reason to not have a separate article, because until publication you don't really know how different it will be.

Points 2 and 3: There's enough room in one article to do a thorough treatment of both editions (with redirects from all possible names). A merger need not (indeed, should not) reduce the total information provided. In a typical merge, the lead says that there are two editions and outlines some common information (like why NP is important in general), and you have one section per edition that is dedicated to the unique features of each edition. Merging articles does not reduce information.

Point 4: When works are really entirely different works, then I support different articles. However, according to the authors and publisher, eight-volume edition is a major expansion of a previous work, not an entirely separate creation. The publisher claims that 20% of the new dictionary was taken word-for-word out of the old one.[1] Merging the articles also makes it easier for the reader to compare the two editions, so your goal of spelling out the differences is actually best supported by a merger, not a split.

Point 5: While the entries may read like an encyclopedia, the authors and the publisher say that it is a dictionary. Therefore I think it should follow the format used in articles like Webster's Dictionary instead of the 20-volume general encyclopedias.

I note also that Wikipedia only has a separate article for EB for the historically important 11th edition, and not for any of the other fourteen editions. In fact, looking through the Category:English-language_encyclopedias, I note that EB11 is the only edition of any encyclopedia on Wikipedia that gets its own article. That was a cleverly chosen example, but it was not a convincing one. A trip to Category:Dictionaries produces similar results. So the real question here is, "Why should NP be the only dictionary in all of Wikipedia that has separate articles for the first and second editions?"

Points 6, 7, 8, 9: Someone who isn't exactly certain which volume is in hand, or who heard a passing reference to "NP says...", is better served by a unified article. Having all the information in one article (with appropriate redirects for titles) helps readers figure out potentially confusing references. In fact, having all the information in one article increases the odds that the reader will realize that a "perfectly obvious" reference is actually a potential source of confusion, because what the reader thought was in this edition could actually be from that edition. Note again that I'm not proposing that any information be removed: merely that it's all put in one place for the convenience of the reader.

I want to add that I don't have a vested interest in the outcome here: I'm not a regular editor on this page. Having said that, I find the justifications put forth for separate articles to be fairly weak, and I still support the merge. If you can explain why NP really needs two articles when the controversial Webster's Third New International Dictionary does not, then I'm perfectly willing to change my mind.

I hope this information is helpful, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My thanks to WhatamIdoing for responding. As to the next-to-last (unnumbered) para. above I believe that most readers would agree that NP is closer to an encyclopedia but be fine with the use of 'dictionary'. It's also fine to include discussion in Webster's Dictionary of Webster's Third New International Dictionary and the The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition#Earlier Editions section. The question is merger of the 2 existing articles, given the arguments presented above.

On other specific points, let me try to respond. I'll use bolding Point X to refer to the Edit immediately above and (X) to refer to my earlier numbered paragraphs.

1T. Given the large, determinate differences noted in the respective leads of NP (1987) and (2008) and the large indeterminate differences prior to NP (2008) publication noted in Point 1 above ("until publication you don't really know how different it will be"), there would be a point to postponing any merger proposal till at least after publication. Arguably the time is not yet ripe for consideration.

2T-3T. If the merger proposal is accepted by consensus, it should be with foreknowledge of each of the points made above to the contrary. The devil is in the details. To be more specific on just one mater, there are at this writing 149 articles with ""New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics" (1887) in them. 11 with "New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics" (1008). In-line citations to WP (1987) would take these articles to the wrong publication-title article title, assuming that the later title is used in a merged article. The difference could be explained in the lead, but it would place an arguably unnecessary information cost on the reader. Without a merger, the problem is avoided. How one would merge without loss of information & without becoming tedious & forced would be interesting.

4T. An 80% difference in the 2 works is to be taken as indicating that they are best considered as the same work? Some might so consider them,. others not. And the differences will be spelled out in a single article? Perhaps, but the proof would be in the doing. Again a brief explanation of how it would be done might help.

5T. According to Encyclopedia:

An encyclopedia, or, traditionally, encyclopedia,[citation needed] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a 'particular branch of knowledge. (emphasis added)

I'm not saying it is not a dictionary, but, if it looks like a duck, .... It is similar in function to International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. There remains no merge suggestion for Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Britannica Eleventh Edition. Of the latter, Point 5 rightly refers to the "historically important 11th edition," presumably warranting a separate article. George Stigler in his review article predicted that NP (1987) would continue to have historical value after a new edition. [2]. He might be right.

6T-9T. The possibility of an editor using an unlinked reference, such as "NP says" (without the year) IMO should not be given a heavy weight as to merger consideration.

Having said all this, I hope that The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition will continue to be expanded & reiterate encouragement of adaptation from the WP (1987) article if anyone feels so inclined. I hope that there would enough comment to decide this one way or another as to Wiki consensus in a reasonable time period. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Supplememtary points:

6T-9T' A little amplification: without a specific dated reference, NP pretty useless. Talk p. chatter or a very loose reference in an article would require clean-up anyhow, that is, tracking down the edition, pp., etc.

4T'. With 80% of articles new for the 2nd Ed. & about twice the size (8 vs. 4 vol.), about 60% of the 1st ed. was dropped. In casual & very limited use of the free online-content edition, such entries as Nobelist Gary Becker's "family economics" was replaced by another entry with the same title. There is no article listed for "gains from trade" in the 2nd Ed., unlike the 1st. with an article by the higly-respected theorist Murray C. Kemp. From hits for the term, I'm sure that content is well treated elsewhere in the 2nd Ed., but as to analytical detail, a must-read reference might still be for gains from trade in the 1st ed. for which unmerged NP articles would still be useful. Practically, a merged article would be a mess as to inline WP links (including different NP titles. The point is that differences in content and coverage makes distinguising the 2 works with separate articles more persuasive.

12T'. Meanwhile there is a cost to the merger propossl continuing for the intermediate future: The marge template is a distraction. As Cournot suggests above, a dismbig template would make sense. That would be less of a distraction than the merge template & would have direct information value.

It could be worthwhile to reconsider merger at a later date, but there are so many serious practical negatives as to table merger consideration unless better arguments & data for merger can be advanced. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the section below, the preceding paragraph did not merely express an opinion as to current consideration of merger. It referred to "serious practical negatives" for merger consideration now. Among these I would include at the top (2), (4),(6-9),(2T-4T),(4T'), and (12T'). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

break

Thomasmeeks, what I get from your list is "I don't like the merge proposal"

You've never come up with a convincing reason. So we call it an encyclopedia -- out of all the dozens of encyclopedias included in Wikipedia, only one has a separate article for an edition. That special edition, BTW, changed the meaning of encyclopedia for the whole world. It changed the tone, the style, and the expectations for every subsequent encyclopedia. Can you honestly suggest that NP2 will do that? I doubt it. I doubt you'd dare to make such an outrageous claim.

Every encyclopedia ever published has the kind of "historical value" that NP1 will have: to see what people were thinking at that time, or to verify a reference from that era. EB11 has an entirely different historical effect: it changed the future.

You say that NP is like IESBS: Fine. I see one Wikipedia article for all of the editions of IESBS. Why should NP handled like the revolutionary EB11 instead of like every single other encyclopedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

13T. There has been only one hard-copy edition of :International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. I have not called Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition "revolutionary." IMO, NP (2008) is sufficiently different to warrant a separate article, even if NP (2008) is not revolutionary. In (9) and (4T') above I am suggesting content interest for NP (1987) today and that people with access to one or or with an inline WP link to one would like an article on that reference work, not, confusingly, to both. My simultaneous comment above refers to other practical points. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. I feel that readers are better served with one article and different section in that article on the different editions. We could simply create an article titled "The Palgrave Dictionary of Economics" and discuss the different editions in it. I really don't think balkanizing information is good for the organization of Wikipedia. It is irritating for readers with slow internet connections, clutters up categories, and leads to redundant information (people will want to note the earlier editions in both these articles). II | (t - c) 22:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

14T. There is, of course, already a The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition#Earlier Editions section & a reference at the top of the other article to this article, appropriately at the top. Separate articles is a matter of cnvenience. Non-merger comes down to "serious practical negatives" enumerated at the end of the last section. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree the two articles should be merged. The two articles are mostly composed of lists right now which should be cut, in favor of external links to the NPs's tables of contents. And WP articles on economics topics should be citing substantive articles in the actual NP's, rather than linking to the WP articles on the NP's. Jeremy Tobacman (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Only the first sentence of the preceding is related to merger. On that, I believe that most of the many practical disadvantages of merger mentioned above continue to apply.

On the cutting "list" material from a New Palgrave article in Wiki, there is no external link to for example The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics#Subject Index. The existence of information about the NPs in scattered NP external links is not a good reason for excluding such information from an NP article on the subject or otherwise including only information not found in external links.

The 3rd sentence above seems to be objecting to citing NP enries as scholarly sources in econ articles. That is a value judgment with which many scholarly sources disagree, both for NP1 and NP2. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

NEW MESSAGE

Thank you all very much for your useful and thought-provoking arguments for and against merging these two articles. Almost a year after the print publication of the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition, Palgrave Macmillan felt it was time to try merging them. We look forward to hearing what you think and sincerely hope this does not lead to any loss of clarity or information.

Also, if you have any proposals for articles to commission for the online version of the Dictionary, I would enjoy hearing them, as we now update the online content quarterly.

You can contact me at any time about this or any other issue relating to the Dictionary. Needless to say, anyone can make changes here, but feel free to discuss them with me too. Sophia Blackwell, Palgrave Macmillan: s.blackwell@palgrave.com

Post-merge revision proposal

First, may I express appreciation to Sophia Blackwell for a productive and cordial email exchange concerning the above section and for her elegantly simple content-merge Edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_New_Palgrave_Dictionary_of_Economics,_2nd_Edition&oldid=282076499. There it is easy to follow the content insertions from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_New_Palgrave:_A_Dictionary_of_Economics&oldid=276402573.

Most of the many objections to merger of the articles The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (NP1) and The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Ed. (NP2 ), expressed in the top section above (by me, actually) were identified there as practically-based. I continue to believe that non-merger was reasonable but appreciate the restraint excercised by those on the other side who might have attempted a less successful merge with undesirable after-effects.

I now believe that a merge that meets reasonable concerns expressed above is possible but not yet fully realized. To meet this concern I propose an article Edit that sequences material as follows:

Lead, mostly on NP2

NP2 (more details)

NP1

Earlier Palgrave dictionaries (pre-NP1)

This keeps chronologically similar material together and facilates links from other Wikipedia articles to where in the article it is most closely referenced. Many libraries may have NP1 or NP2 but not both. Convenient sectioning should be helpful to those wishing to follow up with the most accessible library resource or which WP article has NP1 or NP2 article references.

The titles of NP1 & NP2 differ. An NP1 section heading should reflact that difference, again to make linking less confusing. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Move article title back to The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

With the above merger of the 2 editions into one article (on which see above), "2nd Edition" is no longer necessary to distinguish the 2 editions. That distinction is made in the article instead. As the one who added "2nd Edition" to the title, I'd propose to remove it. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done: Title change per above of "The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition" → "The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics" and associated Talk page title on this page, thanks to the technical wizardry, lighting reflexes, and good judgmemt of User:Anthony Appleyard.

I propose to archive this page in 2 weeks as "old business" and a possible distraction from further progress of the article. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)