Talk:Book

total number of books

we need more information of the total number of books beyond the sourced google books estimate, and it belongs somewhere besides just the lead. there are strict definitions of a book that we should mention: i found a definition by UNESCOas "a non-periodical printed publication of at least 49 pages, exclusive of the cover pages, published in the country and made available to the public" made for statistical purposes. we should add a section on definitions after etymology. LarstonMarston (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

braille

books written in braille are a pretty glaring omission from this article. they might belong under "types" LarstonMarston (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

subsections the contemporary publishing section should have

making a list to keep things straight that might get updated over time

- editing, possibly some description of the writing process

- broad overview of the largest publishing companies? contrast with self-publishing and other alternative means

- marketing

- bookselling, both physical and online e.g. amazon

- distribution

the international encyclopedia of information and library science's entry on the book trade seems like an excellent place to start for all of these. LarstonMarston (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 5 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mehakdeepkaur001, Rajandeep Kaur Dhaliwal (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sandeep kaur028 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)