Jump to content

Talk:Private Case

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lovingboth (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 13 October 2023 (→‎"with no restrictions on access": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articlePrivate Case is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2023.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 28, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
July 15, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Bibliophile

Currently I am confused by the inclusion of the word "bibliophile" throughout the article. I reverted my partial change to "bibliographer" upon learning that a bibliophile can also refer to a book collector. However, there is a sentence here reading: "In around 1934 the bibliophile and collector Alfred Rose". This explicitly separates what it means to be a 'phile and a collector. However as my original edit summary stated, being a book lover itself isn't really noteworthy; the act of collecting books or being a bibliographer is. Thus, I think that sentence should either be "In around 1934 the bibliophile Alfred Rose" or "In around 1934 the book collector Alfred Rose", consistent in all mentions. I might be wrong, so I'd love external input on this. GeraldWL 09:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bibliophile is not necessarily a book collector: it is a book lover. It's meaning is in its etymology: "biblio" from the French for book and "phile" from the Greek (ϕίλος) for friend. Additionally, a bibliophile is nothing to do with a bibliographer. Addendum: just checking the OED, where it lists bibliophile as "A lover of books; a book-fancier; also as adjective", and no mention of collecting at all. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. That just further reaffirms my question: what does being a bibliophile have to do with the content of this article? Certainly their donations of books were not simply due to their bibliophilia, but due to their activity of book collecting; thus, Alfred Rose being a book collector is a more noteworthy credential than Rose being a bibliophile. A similar case is with "The historian and bibliophile Patrick J. Kearney"-- him being a book lover doesn't establish any credibility, him being a historian does. GeraldWL 03:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It provides pertinent information on the people in question. - SchroCat (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you think it is pertinent, but in what ways? The article for Henry Spencer Ashbee, for instance, mentions him as "a book collector, writer and bibliographer." That, too, is the pertinent information in this article in my view, as him being solely an enthusiast of books do not explain his "bequest to the library in 1900 of 15,299 volumes containing 8,764 works"; it would make more sense to him being a book collector (which is not misinformation) then elaborate it with his enourmous donation. Whether they love books or not, as I see it here, is secondary to their actual occupation. GeraldWL 10:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we will have to agree to disagree. - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent references

Piledhigheranddeeper, can you let me know what this is and where it can be found? I’ll put it into a consistent format with the other references, as it looks rather odd at the moment. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented it out again. I found a copy of the RFI (at https://web.archive.org/web/20100727085658/http://www.library.yale.edu/preservation/Mudd%20RFI%20final.pdf), which gives no information about their Zeta holdings. There is a diagram showing where "Zeta" is located in the archives, but no further information as to what it is. Hopefully you will be able to find a better reference to it, as I think it would be a worthwhile addition. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"with no restrictions on access"

Hmm.. along with some previously less restricted material with a different catalogue code, you have to sit in certain seats to read it and - unlike the rest of the main reading rooms - you're not allowed to photograph "restricted or special access material" like this even if it's out of copyright. Lovingboth (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]