Talk:Sourcebook

This is looking like a dictionary definition, with sections defining what "sourcebook" means in different context, rather than an encyclopedia article. The lack of references does not show us that there is some general discussion out there of sourcebooks that encapsulates both gaming guides and educational readers. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICT Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if we could just move these contents to wikt:sourcebook to flesh that out. Idk; it seems kind of verbose and wide-ranging for wiktionary — which maybe suggests that it should be an encyclopedia entry, after all? Dingolover6969 (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

(As of the above message I'm not actually objecting to the proposed deletion, just considering it, mind you.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I should ping User:NatGertler, I suppose. Dingolover6969 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's in a format that makes a proper dictionary entry, but that doesn't mean that it makes a good encyclopedia entry. It's trying to cover three separate topics under the same title, two of which have the same name (educational sourcebooks and RPG sourcebooks) and one of which doesn't even (legal casebooks). And I'm not saying absolutely that there couldn't be a good article about one of those topics, but I'm making a bit of a WP:TNT argument... that the article in its current state is an impediment to a good article existing, if one is possible. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a lot to be said for that, to be sure. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

What if we merge the academic usage (and mention of casebooks) into textbook as a subtopic, merge the gaming usage into splatbook as a subtopic/synonym, and then delete this page or make this page the dab? I'm not sure on the proper procedure for that, but it seems like it would end us up in the right state.Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

My own energies are directed elsewhere at the moment, but if you choose to do that, I have no objection. (Certainly, the material you just added about the term's useless vagueness in the academic context is effectively an argument against keeping this as an article.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Done. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sourcebooks (publisher) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)