Talk:Christoph Martin Wieland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Just a note on why I think the editions and literature section of these old encyclopedia entries should be pruned. I feel it's important to note the date the subject lived and compare it with the date of the article, ie. 1911. The references quoted will be the ones that were most recent in 1911. For a start, most of the biographies and old periodical articles are almost certainly unobtainable. More to the point, there will have been others published since (that's assuming the subject of the article has any true significance) that will have brought modern scholarship -- and, possibly, new research and new information -- to bear on the subject. I therefore feel it is misleading to retain all the references from the 1911 edition. Perhaps someone would like to join me in debating this. Deb 13:56, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1. the references aren't wrong; obsolete references can go into a separate article, though--but as long as the article isn't longer than 30kb, there is no need to split it.

2. some editions are still "valid", esp. the "last hand" edition (1794-1802, okay, you didn't delete it) and the Academy edition.

3. Writings by Reemtsma are very recent.

4. the biography by J.G. Gruber is still valid.

--Keichwa 20:19, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] remove this section please, as soon as solved

Just a few minutes before I made a minor correction of 1876 to 1877, based on other Wikipedia pages and http://www.heinse.de/buecher.htm.

But in the comment I accidentally put 1977 instead of 1877, see: (1876 ---> 1977 (source: http://www.heinse.de/buecher.htm))

(1): how can this annoying and partially missleading error be corrected?

(2): is the present way of my action for getting help is correct, or is there a better way?

prohlep 08:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)