Talk:For Dummies

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the For Dummies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books Education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of the typical skewed "xyz for Dummies" book cover be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The photos are fuzzy but seemingly say "a reference for the rest of us" is a registered trademark? So when quoted in the article we should show that? I have no idea how. I guess we could begin with an "(R)" symbol and hope a more talented editor then volunteered to render that symbol more elegantly? -- Pelavarre 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Part of Tens" may be worth mentioning - the last part of every For Dummies book contains a number of short chapters, each being a list of ten things that the reader should know. --Palnatoke 18:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The link: "list of ...for dummies books redirects back to the article. weird. someone should fix it or remove it. User:Gohst

I am deeply disappointed that the page with the list of the ... for Dummies books was deleted. The fact that Wikipedia is not a directory doesn`t explain why that list was deleted. I`m reading the discussion about it and can´t find a good reason. The ...for dummies books are a commercial success and, for example, if someone want to buy one of these, but since there is so many of them available how in earth is gonna make a good choice? In short, the exitence of the list doesn`t disagree with the definition of WP:NOT#DIR--ometzit<col> 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 02:04, 2 October 2006 A Man In Black (talk • contribs) (Talk | contribs | block) (redundant with the external link below)
• 02:50, 2 October 2006 JJay (talk • contribs) (Talk | contribs | block) (rv- not at all redundant- one is a wikipedia article - the other is an external link for which we have no control)
• 04:00, 2 October 2006
  Aaron Brenneman (talk • contribs
  ) (Talk | contribs | block) (Looks redundant to me.)
• 22:39, 3 October 2006 JJay (talk • contribs) (Talk | contribs | block) m (rv)

I am deeply disappointed by the editing pattern displayed here. When there is an editorial disagreement, and in particular when more than one editor is involved, reversion without discussion or even an edit summary is unnacceptable. - brenneman ^{L} 23:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I missed the part when you attempted discussion when you reverted. However, while you are here trying to overcome your "deep disappointment", please explain why linking to a wikipedia article that is undeniably directly related to the topic of this article is "redundant". Please expalin why you think an external link is preferable. And if you are still deeply disappointed by "editing patterns" or edit summaries, please read mine from yesterday. It said everything that needed to be said (unlike your four word opinion). --JJay 23:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here. One is the article, the other is the manner in which you've edited the article. I'll address you first.

• Someone makes a change, you revert it. That's fine, you used your edit summary, all good.
• Someone else comes and disagrees with your revert, and re-reverts. That's fine too, edit summary and all.
  • The first editor (A Man In Black here) can't do that. He has to defend his edit on the talk page. To do other wise would be rude, unproductive, and how
    edit wars
    start.
  • Don't undo reversions to your own changes. That's really easy, but you haven't done that.
• You, unwisely, choose to re-revert with no discussion and no edit summary.
• Shall I just do the same then? Where would that leave us, but for being blocked shortly for 3RR violations.

If you want other people to respect you, take more care to demonstrate respect for them. When two people disagree with you over content, don't revert without comment or edit summary. Ever.

With regard to the utterly useless article that is sourced only from the same website, if you fail to understand why this is a problem I'm not sure any explanation I can make will have an impact. The "list" article is only from the website, so why do we need both?

brenneman ^{L} 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you've resolved your deep disappointment. The only issue is editing this article. Wikipedia articles take precedence over external links, particularly ELs that fail our guidelines. Please review WP:EL at your earliest convenience. Otherwise, if you want people to respect you, I would suggest you not start edit wars, avoid charged subjective phrases such "utterly useless", or engage in pedantic lecturing. --JJay 01:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future editors may wish to know that List of ...For Dummies books was nominated for deletion. Should the article survive I think the wikilink obviously belongs here (I'm not sure what other articles would logically link to it). The content dispute is better solved by properly nominating an article for deletion rather than burying it. --Dhartung | Talk 14:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the title of this article utilize a series of three periods for an ellipsis instead of the … character (Unicode 2026)? MacGuy^{(contact me)} 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the books do, too. 86.164.188.106 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reversed an anonymous edit made by a user identified only by IP address 68.187.1.132 . This anonymous user deleted an edit which I had made to this for dummies page. The edit which I made to the page originally was nothing more than give some acknowledgement/credit to Ed Tittel, the auhtor whose book image, HTML for Dummies has been getting used for several years on wikipedia as the trophy for Dummies image. The reversal made by the anonymous user stated "removing advertising for author's site", which I find to be an incredible statement. The author never "advertised" his site. I made the edits, not the author, Ed Tittel. I do not know Ed Tittel, nor have I ever met him. I live in the UK and as far as I know he lives in Austin, Texas, from what I can gather from his website, and I have never in my life been to USA far less Austin, Texas. I find it incredible that some anonymous user would suggest this is a cheap stunt for a free advert by the author, particularly when

have clear mentions, or should that be adverts? I have read several of Ed Tittels for Dummies HTML, XHTML and XML books to name just some of the over 200 books he has authored, in my time as a student of computing and internet languages. I hardly think he needs cheap adverts on wikipedia when his website has several backlinks from the IBM site (PR 10) about 100 from php.net (PR9), so please, whoever this anonymous user is, stop from inferring this was some cheap advertising stunt! Wikipedia has been using the man's book as their trophy for Dummies image for years, so let's not start infering slurs about cheap advertising, please.

Chrissyboi 03:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everybody! I haven't been here in a while. Anyhow, I think that the article is reasonably well written, but toward the end of the history section it starts to sound like an ad. I cite the overuse of exclamation marks as an example of this. I'll try to cleanup, and anyone who wants to help is free to join. --Supernerd 10 13:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a collapsed table on

]

Dummies vs. Idiots

Which came first, Dummies or Idiots? One is clearly a takeoff on the other. Since this article links to the Idiots article, it would be worth mentioning which one was the originator of the concept.

Wechselstrom (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure which series came first, but DOS for Dummies was published in 1991, and The Complete Idiot's Guide to DOS was in 1994. 68.116.99.9 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't know which came first, it might be worth mentioning which has a larger title selection, more recognized brand, or generally better quality. Of course, I don't know if those numbers are available.

On a related note, I have a book called Database Design for Mere Mortals, which seems like a euphemistic play on the Dummies/Idiots idea. I'm not aware that it's part of a branded series, but there may be other similar titles out there. It illustrates a cultural impact in how-to books that we're likely to see for some time.

Wechselstrom (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure the complete Idiot's guide was first as I know. Bozo33 —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I can tell you with certainty that the ...For Dummies books were first. I have worked for the publishers of both series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryindy (talk • contribs) 14:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this book series have any connection to or inspiration from Auto Repair for Dummies published in 1974? IIRC, the same author that wrote that book, also wrote the modern text (in the Dummies style) by the same name. If there is any connection, it might be worth some reference. Thanks. 68.116.99.9 (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the answer to this question, but if there is some relation, that would be valuable to the "History" section.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Auto Repair for Dummies by Deanna Sclar published in 1974 or 1976 was the first Dummies title. I purchased the book with the blue cover c1976 in the late 1970's and an updated version copyright 2008 by the same author is part of the series.

I'm a Taiwanese, and i certainly speak Chinese.
I've never heard anyone call this series "天才三班" or anything like that.
It is sometimes called a "傻瓜書" or literally "笨蛋也學得會的...", where "..." represents the main topic part.
shall it be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.166.143 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the opening definition paragraph, the author of this article describes the series as being for the "retarded". Seriously, in this day and age, it's just no longer acceptable for people to indicate the intellectually challenged that way. If the author had intend to suggest that the series was for the "ignorant", then he/she should have said so. You could also refer to them as "mentally handicapped", but using the word "retarded" is far too colloquial and does not attain Wikipedia's high standards, IMHO. 24.85.234.200 (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just an act of vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.43.21 (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The For Dummies series has been spoofed in some movies, for example here, and I'm sure I've seen some other examples, but I don't remember exactly where.

If someone is able to find some more references, it would be nice to add a section to this article.

Pietro Toniolo (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the For Dummy books are supposed to be simplified versions of instruction manuals seeing how a for dummy books has short paragraphs unlike ones found in an instruction manual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.112.104 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a

for your arguement? Without this you won't even be ale to say the word "possibly".

72.230.135.196 (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'd just like to point out...when you edit this pae the top says, "Editing For Dummies", haha!

--Walex03'. talking, working, friending'. 18:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus this page is called "Talk For Dummies". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walex03 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding a section about the "For Dummies Series" as being the symptom of a growing anti intellectualism in the United States. This series has become the symptom and the eptiome of stupidity in the general public of the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.161.14 (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are jumping to conclusions with that one. The series has been around a while, the anti-intellectualism in this coutnry rises and falls. The books are not for stupid people. They are for anyone who wants to learn a little bit about something without having to read a tome to do so. I agree our country has a lot of anti-intellectualism. This is not the first, or last, time in history that occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryindy (talk • contribs) 14:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else feel that the bit on bittorrents not really belong in the article? Especially the "According to TorrentFreak, Wiley is thus..." part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschuess (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually fairly notable, as it made history in regards property protection on the Internet.  drewmunn  talk  07:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on For Dummies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629022504/http://www.dummies.com/Section/The-For-Dummies-Success-Story.id-323929.html to http://www.dummies.com/Section/The-For-Dummies-Success-Story.id-323929.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For years I have seen these books "for dummies" amd ever time I see one I cringe. I do not have a lot of self-esteem, I don't like to talk a lot, but once in awhile I get tired of being a ping pong ball. I used to be young and inexperienced- and a little insecure. WHY IN THE HAME OF GOD WOULD I BUY A BOOK THAT CALLS ME OR OTHER BEGINNERS DUMMIES? Are the elite that write these books just mean? Do they think they are better than "the masses"? What is their deal?

I know you geniuses are getting bored so the point is I never have and never will buy one of these STUPID books. There are alternate titles out there with authors that have a bit of empathy for those they try to help, and they are the ones that will get my money. You would have to be a real dummy not to figure this out. Preemptively, your humor sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.6.186.43 (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]