Talk:red book

RFC
Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please inspect. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The definition is missing the essential element of the book being official, canonical, or comprehensive in some context. Also, it is usually a book of data or regulations of some kind.  I don't think having a red cover is essential to the definition, although usual.  For instance the Red Book of Endangered Languages is (mostly) not red and the Red Book of Hergest was not bound in red morocco until 1851 according to . Spinning Spark  00:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then maybe there are multiple senses. The current usage included a series of IBM manuals. It is always possible to proliferate senses. The issue is when to stop. Personally, I am not a big fan of encyclopedic content in a dictionary. If WP covers it, then a link will do. When was the Welsh Red Book first called the Red Book or Welsh equivalent? I'd be surprised if literal red did not figure in the naming of all such books, though that might include naming in imitation of another book or series that had literal red in its etymology. DCDuring TALK 02:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to list every instance. I think they can be all rolled up into one definition, I'll have a go. Spinning Spark  08:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, it seems. - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)