Talk:Book

uses

i'm deleting the "uses" section because it's unsourced and the information covered would probably be better organized elsewhere but i'm copying it here because it touches on a few important things we should mention.

Aside from the primary purpose of reading them, books are also used for other ends:

• A book may be created as an artistic artifact or "artist's book".
• A reader or literary critic may analyze it in a book review.
• A book may be read by a group of people to use as a spark for social or academic discussion, as in a book club.
• A book may be studied by students to create a book report.
• A book may be used for its exterior appearance in order to decorate a room.

LarstonMarston (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

libraries

i think there should still be a separate "libraries" section but i'm wondering where it should be put and what should be covered because currently it currently talks mostly about history rather than the current state of libraries. LarstonMarston (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

history of books

the 2 major things needed for the history of books section are better and more consistent sources and reducing it to a broad overview while keeping dense history on the main article. the division should probably focus on listing the major technologies developed and the general use/purpose of books over time (religion etc.) LarstonMarston (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

potential sources

glossaries/reference books

• International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science, second edition (already cited on "book" and "book trade", PDF available here)

• Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, fourth edition (distinct from previous)

• ALA Glossary of Library and Information Science, fourth edition

historical

• The Oxford History of the Book

LarstonMarston (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

dummy books

should "dummy books" even be a labeled subsection? it seems like a strange thing to give equal time to as ebooks or audiobooks. LarstonMarston (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

i removed it and moved it to the outline of books for now. LarstonMarston (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Why was it removed altogether? it makes no sense not to include it Hogyncymru (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

using excerpts for technologies

should the historical technological developments mentioned use excerpts? it seems like some of them would be better served by it e.g. codex but i don't want to turn the whole article into excerpts. LarstonMarston (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Book illustration

That concept is not even linked from the article. This needs a dedicated section here. Just a note as I read at Vital articles discussion recently this is being improved with aim for GA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Who is aiming to improve this towards GA? It's always good to have the standard raised on Vital articles. I noticed recently that there are several blocks of text in the article without citations, considered working to find sources, and checked the talk page to see if anyone had already started, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant the comment at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#improving_Book_article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

And yes, book illustration should be at minimum mentioned and linked in the article, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

now added as an excerpt. LarstonMarston (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@LarstonMarston: What are your plans as far pushing this towards Good Article status? I am considering trying to fill out the sources soon. I want to make sure that I'm not hunting for sources for a section you intend to rewrite. Also are there any solid sources that you are already planning to use? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii a safe place to start would be improving the references on the sections that are being excerpted, since you would be improving two pages at once. and watching @LarstonMarston editing so far -- most of it has been around cleanup, rather than adding more references, Sadads (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does the page use 12 excerpts? That seems pretty unusual and difficult to maintain, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, excerpts are generally a bad idea. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that is either "pretty unusual and difficult to maintain" or "generally a bad idea". What is very unusual is this "excerpt" header; I don't believe I've ever seen it before. Normally they are given a "main article", which I think should be done here. Of course the edit summary should mention the source - that could be kept as a hidden comment. And if the source article changes they may well not be "maintained", but if a few lines from the lead are copied, that will (as here) generally not cause big problems. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

At first I thought we have transclusions here, which are generally a very bad ideas. Now I see we have regular text, just with the unusual template "excerpt", which I have never seen before (or almost never). Usually main/see also/further or such are more common and I'd recomment to use them. Might also be worth checking what MoS recommends. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it not transclusion? The "History of books" section seems to begin with the transcluded lead section of History of books. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see now they are templated/transcluded excerpts - only when you edit the full section does the template show. How wierd. They should be changed I think. Johnbod (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

For survey articles which travel across many different subtopics that have their own pages, its very common to use excerpts -- for example, we have a very complex system of excerpts going around Climate change content because there is so much overlap across the topics -- unless you are going to actively maintain the sourcing and descriptions across dozens of pages, maintaining sections or leads across multiple pages with basically the same reader impact is much easier with the template: {{excerpt}}. The template allows you to be selective as well, incrementally excluding or including content from those subtopics, Sadads (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. Relying on other articles, which can be rewritten, deleted, merged, etc. is asking for trouble down the road. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

i was planning on using the oxford history of the book to rewrite parts of the "history" section. LarstonMarston (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 12 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PinkiRani001 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gurpreetkaur019.

— Assignment last updated by SINGH KHUSHWINDER (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Book ownership

Could a fellow bookworm please kindly incorporate this bit where it best fits in the article: Estonia leads the world in book ownership, on average Estonians own 218 books per house, and 35% own 350 books or more. A 2018 study published in the journal Social Science Research (cited in The Guardian) "Novel news: world's biggest bookworms revealed in study", 12 Oct 2018: "Estonians, who lead the world, averaged 218, and 35% owned 350 books or more. Norway (212), Sweden (210) and the Czech Republic (204) also beat English-speaking countries like the UK (143) and the US (114)." Thanks 46.131.68.215 (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

References

first paragraph of intro

re: this revision: i just thought the original was more direct as an introduction because it had fewer clauses. what terminology are you referring to specifically? @Johnbod LarstonMarston (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The old text:

A book is a medium for recording information in the form of writing or images. Books are typically composed of many pages, bound together and protected by a cover. Modern books were preceded by many other written mediums, such as the codex, the scroll and the tablet. The book publishing process is the series of steps involved in their creation and dissemination.

- had all sorts of problems. It is especially confused around "medium" and "codex". The first and penultimate sentences together say that a codex is not a book. But of course it is, and almost all modern books are in codex format. The codex, the scroll and the tablet, are not mediums but different formats for the single medium of "book". Did you write this version? Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Or we could go back to the older version (Oct 23):

A book is a medium for recording information in the form of writing or images, typically composed of many pages (made of papyrus, parchment, vellum, or paper) bound together and protected by a cover. It can also be a handwritten or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers. The technical term for this physical arrangement is codex (plural, codices). In the history of hand-held physical supports for extended written compositions or records, the codex replaces its predecessor, the scroll. A single sheet in a codex is a leaf and each side of a leaf is a page.

This has some strengths also. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

i wrote some of the old version. i think there is a distinction to make between the codex and "modern books": the wiki article describes it as the "ancestor of the modern book" and a term mostly reserved for older manuscripts. it's made clear later in the book article that modern printed books follow a codex format. it talks about definitional confusion as well, and the historical definition given by james raven would encompass all the other written formats. i just think it's helpful to give a description of modern printed books first because they're most traditionally thought of as "books". maybe something like this:

A book is a medium for recording information in the form of writing or images. Modern books are typically composed of many pages, bound together and protected by a cover. They were preceded by many other written formats, such as the codex, the scroll and the tablet. The book publishing process is the series of steps involved in their creation and dissemination. LarstonMarston (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

i changed the paragraph based on this. let me know if you have any other suggestions. LarstonMarston (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Johnbod i still don't understand the issue with distinguishing between the codex and modern books, since the term is "reserved for older manuscript books, which mostly used sheets of vellum, parchment, or papyrus". the fact that modern books technically follow a codex format can be clarified later in the article. would you be okay with going to the new version but removing reference to the codex as an older format, e.g.:

A book is a medium for recording information in the form of writing or images. Modern books are typically composed of many pages, bound together and protected by a cover. They were preceded by several older formats, such as the scroll and the tablet. The book publishing process is the series of steps involved in their creation and dissemination. LarstonMarston (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

References