|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book article.|
|Archives: Index, 1|
|Book has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Language. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Books||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Education||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital / Supplemental|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Error in the Wood Block Printing section
This method originated in China, in the Han dynasty (before 220AD), as a method of printing on textiles and later paper, and was widely used throughout East Asia. The oldest dated book printed by this method is The Diamond Sutra (868 AD).
The method (called Woodcut when used in art) arrived in China in the early 14th century.
First line of first paragraph.
"A book is a book"
- It was this edit that introduced that particular turn of phrase, which was a contender for "Sentence of the Week" on The 6th Floor NYT blog. Gobonobo T C 15:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Possible weird vandalism
In the Antiquity section,
"When The Internet was invented in Ancient Greece, nearly everything that could be written upon—grass, rocks, tree bark, metal sheets"...
- It has been reverted now. Feel free to do so yourself next time. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of books only seems to be mentioned way down the page, almost like an afterthought. Surely it's rather a significant aspect of them? I suggest adding a line such as "books are a text-based medium of communication" somewhere in the first paragraph. Danja (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- It would be a good idea to mention something about what they are used for, but remember not all books are exclusively text based, some are illustrated, some even haven't got any text at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
book vs e-book
Currently the first paragraph reads:
A book is a set of written, printed, illustrated, or blank sheets, made of ink, paper, parchment, or other materials, usually fastened together to hinge at one side. A single sheet within a book is called a leaf, and each side of a leaf is called a page. A book produced in electronic format is known as an electronic book (e-book).
The last sentence quite contradicts the rest of the paragraph and should be removed from that paragraph. An 'e-book' is not the same as a 'book', as it is not physical, and does not contain any ink, and is not bound. Whether or not 'e-book' is left in the article I have less of an opinion on. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have changed the electronic book line to "A set of text-filled or illustrated pages produced in electronic format is known as an electronic book (e-book)." Does this adequately address your observation? JoBaWik (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I culled the section bloat under "Book Manufacturing in the modern world" - now "Book manufacture in modern times" but want to say the former detailed information would really suit a wiki text book on the processes, measurements etc. It's too much for an encyc article, but a text book would be good. Just sayin' Manytexts (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Parts of a book missing
Hello! I think the parts of a book as indicated in the outline of the article -Outline of books- would be a key element to include here. It could be added as the second section by itself, after etymology, or under design or manufacture.... Does anyone agree?Catgirl (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
- Not done for now: We cannot accept empty requests. Please clearly describe the changes you want made in your edit request in a "please change X to Y" form, so we know exactly what you would like to change. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the word boustrophedon needs an etymological discourse, but given that it has one, some-one has marked it as needing a citation. This page is protected, so I'll give a citation here: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English LanguageHoughton Mifflin Company, Boston etc. copyrigth 1969, 1970, Fifth Printing. (the explanation is at the dictionary entry)18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)