Talk:Book/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Very old comments not previously in a section

The reference to a "cover girl's book" in second paragraph looks like a completely out of place add-in. Anyone mind if I delete it? --(talk to)BozMo 10:52, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

It does seem rather extraneous, that far up in the article. Move it to near the end. -- user:zanimum
Deleted as part of rewrite. Nurg 07:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"universal free distribution" belongs here

The paragraph below was moved to the Diamond Sutra page; but it belongs where it was, in the book page, for the following reasons:

1. It grounds the "universal free distribution" concept, central to the Wikipedia, in one of mankind's earliest publications.

2. That is a critical idea shared by many publishers of books, not an idea unique to the Diamond Sutra.

There is a wood block printed copy in the British Library which, although not the earliest example of block printing, is the earliest example which bears an actual date. It was found in 1907 by the archaeologist Sir Marc Aurel Stein in a walled-up cave near Dunhuang, in northwest China. The colophon, at the inner end, reads: Reverently [caused to be] made for universal free distribution by Wang Jie on behalf of his two parents on the 13th of the 4th moon of the 9th year of Xiantong [i.e. 11th May, CE 868]. This is about 587 years before the Gutenberg Bible.

author is good to add along with tittle don't ask a question. because you asume the reader is interested, but he/she might not be,. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gutenberg's Printing Press

Hi, I'm new to this article, so I may not know the history, but any reason why Gutenbergs press is not mentioned? Seems like it had a major impact on the availability of books. --lk 06:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


What do you think about separating History of the book into its own article and leaving a summary here so that hopefully someone can expand it with information from fr:Histoire du livre? We could put it on the requests for translation page. gren 07:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I cleaned up the article, making uncontroversial changes to the grammar and style. I also made three removals:

  • the section "the future of books" was speculative, in an oddly self-congratulatory tone, and of course WP:NOT a crystal ball,
  • the section on yugi-oh, which can just be mentioned in the article about yugi-oh
  • the image of a "modern e-book" [1], which appears to be an advertisement in disguise. — brighterorange (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
OK I've posted the future of books material to Dhammapal 07:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

delete section online books

Since this article is about books in the traditional sense of printed books, I think we should delete the See also section for Online book databases and lists, to which another item has just been added. I think we should replace this section with a simple see also link to On-line book. I'll wait for comments and make the change in a few days if there aren't serious objections. Rlitwin 15:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

change title

I don't think that's really accurate. This article is about the general concept "book", which it sees in a variety of contexts. The first paragraph is a second-order disambiguation page, Either we should use this page "book" as purely a disambiguation page, with a separate page "Printed book,"or we should keep it general and add a "printed book" page. Just removing the online book section isn't enough. (and see my comment on the online books page)

And there are some problems here--to start with, a book does not necessarily have covers. DGG 03:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

DGG 03:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

i think this "book" section should be deleted.. there isnt complete information given and it redirects from the fifth book off of ginny's page, but gives very very incomplete information on the 7th book!

Move proposal?

I suppose the above comment is a move proposal, or a redefinition of topic. If so, I oppose it, either way. The article title and its defined subject are in good accord with each other and with the most commonly accepted meaning of "book". There's no need to call it "printed book", nor to vastly expand the scope to beyond the conventional definition of books, namely printed books.

On the other hand, I also do not see any good reason to purge the section that discusses the transition to digital. There should be a "main article" link to e-book or whatever it is.

Details like not all books having covers are easily dealt with. Dicklyon 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposal was in response to the Sept16 note. I've no objection to keeping it as a general article, But it cannot simultaneously be mostly about printed books and also be a general article. Rechecking, I see there's enough content about manuscript books etc, that it might as well be treated as a general article.DGG 04
34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Within limits, it's general. I wouldn't want to see it expand much beyond the scope as defined in the lead though. The topic of e-books obviously is a big one that needs to keep its own article. Dicklyon 06:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess you mean the 14 Sept. suggestion that was already acted on. It was certainly a good idea to refer to on-line book rather than incorporate that material here. But it might be even better to merge it with e-books. Dicklyon 06:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
You have already convinced me by your earlier comment that it's a logical development, and that at least a paragraph with a link it needed here :)DGG 03:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


This section here gives a link to a supposed main article on manuscripts, but that article is of very scant content, and would be greatly improved by transferring the bulk on the material. Even if this If this is an article about books in general, it's disproportionate here, and certainly if it's primarily on the printed book, it's certainly a great deal too much. I'll move it soon if nobody else gets to it first. DGG 03:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this an article about printed book? I'm not entirely sure. I had an impression that this is mostly about the book in general and this encompasses also history. But on the other hand I (having written most of the manuscript section here) have nothing against the idea of a well balanced article and if you think the manuscript section is too long - go ahead. --Aethralis 21:57, 21 October 20034 (UTC)

origin of the alphabet

First, it doesn't really belong here Second, I don't think it is the usual view that it happened in Egypt. I have deleted it .

Sorry, I've been going too fast, I had not known about the Wadi el-Hol script (in the Middle_Bronze_Age_alphabets article. Thanks for the indirect ref.
But I do think that paragraph is saying a great deal too much, To go back to pre-literate communication is perhaps excessive. Perhaps that should be specific mention of the role of clay tablets in Mesopotamia, especially since they are the first books known to have been kept in libraries.DGG 03:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the history of the book should maybe start with clay tablets. Pondered that question myself. Another problem is that the article is actually about the history of book in western world and has only some references to China, India etc. The developments there should be at least mentioned - but this can make the article entirely too long. --Aethralis 22:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Internet Book Database?

The link to The Internet Book Database is in General section and it leads to a description of a pretty obscure site (Alexa rating ~600,000, Google PR3). As an author of a book project myself ( I don't feel I should be the one to delete it, but it really has no place there... There are many many projects better than it, including mine :) Amaltsev 03:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an external link. As long as there's a wikipedia article on it, it's hard to say why it shouldn't be listed in the see-also section. However, I agree with you anyway. I think that article should be proposed for deletion, and it would likely carry. It's mostly edited by one person, probably related to the site, and has had zero discussion. I can't see why the site is notable enough to warrant an article. But the procedure of proposing for deletion is such a confusing pain, in my experience of having tried it twice, that I think I'll leave it for someone more at ease with the wiki processes. Dicklyon 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and did the AfD thing on this one and two other internet book DBs: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Internet_Book_Database; based on not meeting WP:WEB notability criteria. Please comment there if you care. Dicklyon 06:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am the owner of the The Internet Book Database - [2] and I would say the purpose of the Internet Book Database and is totally different and I don't see the article to be of any more significance or notability than ibookdb one. I have been monitoring the discussion for deleting the article but did not want to step in to the discussion but this is ridiculous - delete because competitor thinks it is not notable. Also looking at history of the article, it looks like it has been created by this Amaltsev guy himself - looks like pure self promotion Sgd2z 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No need to be angry. I am against deleting either of the project pages (being it, or anything else). All I was saying is that the link to that article from Book page does not add anything to the article -- there are hundreds of book databases, and we don't want to list them all. It's unfortunate that it seems to result in the deletion of article as well as yours. But life's life, I am not going to fight it if visitors of Wikipedia find article unworthy. Amaltsev 20:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually he didn't ask that it be deleted; that was my idea. Since you're the man, you are likely to be able to provide the evidence of notability that's called for under WP:WEB. If you don't want to add it to the article or to the delete discussion, tell me here or my user talk page and I'll add it for you. Dicklyon 19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I read WP:WEB and I think it may be wise to structure those differently. Maybe have one more criterion there that allows websites with significantly large efforts and significant number of non-spam pages and have existed for a certain period of time to be included. However I can see that such a criterion would have many grey areas. Sgd2z 19:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Slow Fires

The Article make the assumption that ALL books from the Victorian era are at risk, I beg to differ. I've got about Twenty Victorian Books and none of them show signs of decay, My theory is that the CHEAPER books (for example poor quality novels or childrens books) were made on pulp based paper and crumbled to dust, I threw out most of my 30 odd year old books because they were disintergrating, I believe that most academic works and other quality books were still printed on high quality Cotton based paper (Cotton was plentiful in the victorian age due to the mills here in the North) I think that books which were intended to last a long time (For example Cookery Books or Encyclopaedias) were always made from Cotton based paper,India Paper which was made from Hemp was common in Miniature Bibles,smaller academic works and Novels.

At first wood pulp paper was used for economy only, just as you say. But during the course of the century it began being used for more important works, in the UK US and Europe. Additional problems came from chemicals used to bleach the paper, even for rag paper, continuing into the 20th century. DGG 07:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro image

I recently added a new intro image, i.e. a 40 ft statue of books (below left), to commemorate Guttenberg; however, User:Aethralis reverted this to the "literature" template (below right). I suggest we vote on this issue to gain consensus. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Walk of Ideas (Germany) - built in 2006 to commemorate Johannes Gutenberg's invention, c. 1445, of movable printing type.
I liked your new book sculpture image (even though books were not labeled on the spine 500 years ago). The literature template never did much for me; its image is just a jumble, too small to see what it's trying to portray. And its navigation content seems largely irrelevant to the topic. Maybe it would be OK at the end. Dicklyon 17:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. I did remove this image but I have nothing (much) against the Walk of Ideas if this would find support. I like the template more as this connects the book with literature (book is - historically - primarily about content). Beginning the book article with a monument to Gutenberg is in some ways appropriate, but I feel that the _idea_ of book much predates Gutenberg. Furthermore there (on the monument) are authors who are relatively modern. If the article has to begin with some illustrative image, then I would suggest something historically more significant than 18th-20th century German authors (e.g. Iliad or Bible). But I understand the pointer to modernity, metal, computers etc.

The thing I have more against is the rearrangement of pictures in the article. The alignment to the right was my opinion in agreement with (conservative) book design standards. Though the mixed alignment may "liven up" the page it gives it also a sloppy appearance. Usually the book is designed to have illustrative element (through a page) on the same side for continuous reading of the text - if the eye has to hop too much it gives the whole text frantic feel. Though I understand this may be in agreement with the modernity (as above). Regards → Aethralis 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Walk of Ideas (Germany) - built in 2006 to commemorate Johannes Gutenberg's invention, c. 1445, of movable printing type.
Yes, thank you for the comments. As to books predating German writers, yes I agree (the first papyrus bound with string could be an option); but on the utility side of things, the first image has to visually catchy, i.e. we want to draw readers into the article so they are stimulated to read it. I put the "literature" template in the "see also" section. As to image position in online encyclopedias, the preferred method is to alternate (#1); center (#2); right adjust (#3). Most featured articles are like this, e.g. see photon. If interested, we might also utilize the full stack image (below right) on the book page instead of the short stack image. Thanks for the comments: --Sadi Carnot 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of consistent right alignment of images, as it makes the text flow more orderly and readable. Dicklyon 04:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and left-handed people, who account for 10% of the world’s population, prefer images to be left-adjusted. Using a variety of image positions produces more visual stimulation. See, for example, caffeine, a featured article. --Sadi Carnot 10:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it is suitable for caffeine, but even there most of the pictures in the same section are uniformly aligned. And i have a feeling that the idea in wikipedia having the normal thumb size of 180px is for some reason and other sizes are in special circumstances only. I have somehow formed the opinion that this is for the ease of displaying pictures and for them to look similar. Having illustrations of different sizes (as in caffeine) displayed all over the page is usually - in book design - considered bad style. → Aethralis 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Book design and web design, by far, are not the same thing. I have experience in both. Articles on web design and image layout are written by the 100s each month. Book design is limited by publishing house standards and printer and binding restrictions. Each presentation mode and usage has an entirely different feel and geometric arrangement; thus, each needs to be optimized per reader usability accordingly. Later: --Sadi Carnot 12:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I have most of my experience in book design (mostly history of "book design", pre-Gutenbergian period) and do consider myself only vaguely familiar with web design. But I understand that through history images have posed a problem to "book designer". If images exist there (on the page) in their own right and the page is as much an image as a carrier of the text, the layout can be (and usually is) "creative". But in such towards written information and legibility orientated enterprises as wikipedia this is not a sensible approach. Furthermore, the images are only thumbs (pointers) and only full size image gives the full impression. So I see no particular reason for playing around with incomplete images what serve only as reference marks. → Aethralis 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The image used is not what people would expect on the book page. I suggest using a picture of an old Book bound in leather with raised bands on the spine because that is what most people would think of, if no one minds I will change it-User:Booksbooksbooks

I added the 40ft stack of books to the article. I would also suggest that someone find a picture of a person reading an ebook on a laptop (for the electronic book section). Later: --Sadi Carnot 13:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Min number of pages to be a book

What's the minimal number of pages for an object to be called book? 11:56, 3 January 2007 User: (Talk)

Answer: 50 pages to be defined as a book and about 78 pages for the book to show a spine title. --Sadi Carnot 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you cite any sources for this? → Aethralis 10:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Source: Dan Poynter's 2003 book The Self-Publishing Manual (pg. 17): a book, by International Standards, is a publication with at least 49 pages, not counting the covers; "pamphlet", "periodicals", or "magazines" are those with less than 49 pages. The source for the spine length requirement is iUniverse publishers, but I'm doing it by memory, it might be 80 pages? --Sadi Carnot 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This is very useful, & should be included, but it should be treated as a modern industry standard - many historical books were shorter than this & I would not want them not counted as books just because of this (for example C15 "block-books" (see Woodblock printing) were mostly shorter than this. I'm not aware this is an issue in the current article text, btw - this is just in case it became one. Johnbod 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bookbinder/restorer who deals daily with books from throughout the last five centuries - some of which number fewer than 49 or 50 pages. I think you are getting a bit hung up on irrelevancies if you are worried about this question, and even further off the track if you are going to let anybody (even if they do capitalize "International Standards") tell you how many pages make a book. And you'll have to take my word for it, or I could send you a picture next time we do one, but it is possible to put a title on the spine of a book much thinner than 78 pages; 12 or 16 pages is not out of the question. --Blake the bookbinder 22:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


The word "tome" is on the disambiguation page and led to "book", but the word "tome" is not present anywhere in the entry. Anyone... User:VeriGGlater 22:37, 19 Feb 2007 (UTC)

  • I altered above sig. It was posted by the anon but pretended to be a non-existent user. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't have to be. Try looking it up in a dictionary. If you know what it means, you know why it was redirected. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I did this actually. And the following definitions came up 1.a book, esp. a very heavy, large, or learned book. 2.a volume forming a part of a larger work. Tome does not mean the same as book. The words are not interchangable. Every tome is a book, but not every book is a tome. Sorry for trying to help. Maybe etymology isn't something that would be covered by an encyclopedia afterall. User:VeriGGlater 07:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 01:50 01 March 2007
  • The point is, that there's too much similarity to warrant its own article. All that an article on tome could say is that it's heavier and larger than a regular book, but that can be covered in the book article too, where it is put into context. - Mgm|(talk) 23:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "tome", a large learned book or a volume forming a larger work, could be added to the entry, since "tome" does send to book and it is a specific type and a word cannot replace the word "book" wherever "book" appears. It might be a synonymous, but it does not share the exact meaning. A pocket sized paper back is not a "tome". Sorry, btw for the other stuff before. User:VeriGGlater 03:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly, which is why I was questioning why it was not under book. All tomes may be books, but all books are not tomes. User:VeriGGlater 10:10 10 March 2007
  • I still do not understand why the term "tome" is not present in the article. I will not repeat my immediately above article. But further reasoning is the words and phrases such as the following in development or "types" of pre-books are in the encyclopedic entry for book: Scroll, Codex, Manuscripts, Wood block printing, Movable type and incunabula. I'll have to call in to Public Radio's "A Way With Words" to have this extremely minor non-imperialist, non-war of agression dispute resolved. User:VeriGGlater 10:53 13 July 2007
I added a sentence about the etymology of tome in the section of scroll. → Aethralis 17:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wax tablets

Wax tablets continued to be used in the middle ages. Someone should add this to the article T@nn 09:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation? Needshape 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The are numerous references of course (eg. D. H. Wright, "The Tablets from Springmount Bog, a Key to Early Irish Palaeography", The American Journal of Archaeology 67 (1963); R.Büll, "Wachs als Beschreib- und Siegelstoff - Wachsschreibtafeln und ihre Verwendung," Das große Buch vom Wachs, 2 vols, edd. R.Büll, E.Moser & H.Kühn (München 1977).) The use of wax tablets in schools is well attested and in taking notes and doing business tablets were the normal writing material. → Aethralis 21:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

I would think that "Extarnal links" should be only for book as an artefact related materials. Google books and such are therefore not relevant. → Aethralis 17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following links be removed as inappropriate and not meeting WP:EL guidelines: (called "User edited catalogue of books") It's just a site for people to list what books they own. so what?) (called "Forbes article on book collecting by Finn-Olaf Jones, December 12, 2005") Well, it's from a notale publication, but not really educational or anything. (called "The World's Reading List - User ranked reading lists") Just somebody's website recommending books they like, with links to buy from Amazon... looks like pure spam. (called "Free Info On How To Build A Superb Antique Book Collection") There's nothing about collecting books even on there, just a "sure-fire" way to profit off of antiques. Just extremely spammy.

I figured while the page is temporarily locked I'll see if anyone can give a reason why any of those should be considered to meet WP:EL guidelines. If not, then they should be removed.

DreamGuy 07:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the remove. → Aethralis 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I do not, so you can all get off the internet you upsart oiks.

Could you

I think it would be a good idea to have a section on famous English books. I dont know many, but isnt there one with a white wale, and one with a kid painting a fence. Just some really famous ones would be great. IAmTheCoinMan 07:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea, however, this article is about the physical object called book, not the story or information books contain. The stories you mention, Moby Dick and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer both have their own articles.--Sand Squid 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

new addition to intro

Someone just added this to the intro, "The purpose of a book is to be read by the eyes or by fingertips and in some cases by hearing to gather information that has been recorded or printed onto a piece for the transferring of information to the brain for processing." I think it was well intentioned but it seems a little off to me. Rather than blanking it immediately, see if you can tweak it. ike9898 18:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Before inventionof the printing press

This text is in the article: "Before the invention and adoption of the printing press, almost all books were copied by hand," My question is, how can this be "almost" all books, if the printing press didn't exist it surely would have to be copied by hand?? I'd have added a request for citation for this, but I couldn't as the page is protected, could someone clarify please? (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As the article suggests, some books were created using wood block printing. --NeilN talkcontribs 02:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User category

I've just created the Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects for book historians and those who are bibliophiles in the strict sense. This will hopefully aid people with interest and knowledge about books as objects, products and artefacts to collaborate in building the encyclopedia. The previous Category:Wikipedians interested in books has been emptied because it was just a hold-all for anybody who liked reading (which presumably includes most people inclined to make working on an encyclopedia their hobby...), and the existing subcategories are only relevant to interests by author and by genre, not to an interest in books as books. Please do add yourself to the category if it applies. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bookworm" Internal Link

Should this link to the disambugation page, as it does currently, or to the specific term it refers to; bibliophile? I would noramlly just go ahead and change it but I'm fairly new to this and thought that seeing as it is a fairly important article I should put something here first. Thanks in advance.Clawandfang (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

ISBN-10 vs ISBN-13

In the section on identification, it talks about checkdigits being 0-9 or 'X', and about adding 978 to get an EAN.

I thought that ISBN-10s were obsolete and that ISBN-13s are the new black? In which case, 'X' can't apear as a checkdigit, and an ISBN is an EAN. -- pne (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

uses of books

i think that in the "uses of books" section, more listings should be given for normal, modern uses for books, such as: leveling tables or chairs, a throwing weapon, or an alternitive to firewood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Буква isn't the Russian for 'letter', as in, something you'd write to your dear old grandmother. In everyday Russian, that's письмо. It's more like the " letter t". I think this needs to be clarified, as letter can have more than one meaning in English. Equally, I find the idea that 'the earliest Indo-European writings may have been carved on beech wood' to be a dangerous assumption. For such a claim, I'd like to see more than one reference. Things just aren't that simple. -- (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

add info on typical book sections?

agree. I just added --AndriuZ 08:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I myself am far too lazy to nominate this for a Good Article Cantidate; but someone else should; as i think it would pass with flying colors. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 08:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC) edit lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

MapBasic Help Grouph

Here is some simple programe and book of mapbasic to help other.any one have source code and books of mapbasic upload there thanks Aamir Sharif —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Books in movies


I'd be interested in a new section on books featured in movies or series. As there are : the Ninth Gate, Jane Austen book club, ... .

km —Preceding unsigned comment added by KleineMerel (talkcontribs) 20:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That could be a section (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

many books —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


I've reorganised the article for a more logical flow (see here).

In my opinion, the "Book manufacturing in the modern world" section needs condensing (perhaps moved within a relevant sub article?) and it has some duplicate information with the "book sizes" section. Perhaps an ambitious section should be made about the social impact of books on humanity as a whole: there's much to say about this and, while I'm sure the history section skirts around the issue, it would be good to address this topic directly. I think that the "Uses of Books" list could be subsumed into such a section.

I'll try to write a concise, to-the-point lead shortly. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 18:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Section on Paper Books

Section on "Paper Books" talks about paper being less suspectible to humidity, but is what the comparison is to - was it parchment? Also, some of the contributions attributed to Arabs may have predated them. Codexes made from papyruses centuries before the Arab conquest had some of the same features, such as a flap that wrapped up the book, you can easily see when you look up the codices from the Nag Hammadi site, and so were in place 3 centuries before the Arab.

In addition, the quote below in the article is rather deceptive - you would get the erroneous impression that the Arabs were the only ones or even the first develope illuminated manuscripts, which are both false. The illuminate medieval European manuscripts, such as the Lindisfarne Gospel (ca 715 CE) are beautiful and older than the Arab paper productions. The Islamic manuscripts are no doubt beautiful, but they were not revolutionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


This article needs a section on the fascicle, part of book. --Una Smith (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a) "a discrete section of a book issued or published separately" equates to "part of book", b) That the section (which I agree is needed) belongs in this article rather than another article such as "Book design", or c) That creating a redirect from Fascicle (book) to Book is in any way a wise move, as it further ambiguates an already ambiguous term on English Wikipedia, doing an overt disservice, not a service, to the reader. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I got involved in editing the disambiguation page for Fascicle when I was doing some research for another article and came across the term 'fasciculi' (see p501 of Botanical Investigation in Warwickshire). At that time there were two disambiguation pages in Wikipedia, one for 'fascicle' and one for 'fasciculus', with some common and some different material. So I merged them. I agree that the present re-direct of 'Fascicle (book)' to 'Book' is not helpful, since the Book article doesn't explain fascicle/fasciculus. I don't have any opinion as to where it should be explained, only that it should be somewhere. Whoever adds this should update the 'Fascicle (book)' re-direct.
In the context of 19th century natural history, it's not clear that the term 'fasciculus' really meant a part of a book. It seems that at the time specialists were discovering new species in various groups of organisms. Other naturalists needed to be able to identify these new species. So some specialists regularly issued 'fasciculi', i.e. what might be called 'bulletins', with the latest information. Together these would enable the whole group to be identified, but the end result wasn't really a book. However, this is only the usage of the term in one community at one time. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fascicle redirects to this article, but isn't discussed here. RJFJR (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To bung in my two pennyworth, Donald E Knuth's long-awaited fourth volume of The Art of Computer Programming is issued in fascicles. Mind you, he also plays the organ, and probably has an island somewhere in the pacific waiting for James Bond to arrive. Si Trew (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


It seems to me that the history section of the article are more thorough than the history of books article - this isn't supposed to be? Langbein Rise (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me. Cheminstructer (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and most of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 2 edits by Jagged 85 in October 2009 and 2 more edits in March 2010. Tobby72 (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


As regards the sction "One of the earliest and most widely known systems of cataloguing books is the Dewey Decimal System. This system has fallen out of use in some places, mainly because of a Eurocentric bias and other difficulties applying the system to modern libraries. However, it is still used by most public libraries in America. The Library of Congress Classification system is more popular in university libraries. [citation needed]"

Eurocentric bias? Um not exactly. It was designed on the basis of what was in stock at the time at (if I recall correctly) the Library of Congress. American, British & European texts predominated as obviously did Christian (in the broadest sense of the word) works. Computers obviously didn't exist but have been squeezed in using formerly empty numbers. Technological changes and multiculturalism pose challenges. The changing nature of library collections means that certain sections now have to be squeezed in a very low level number e.g. something with 11 numbers after the decimal point. This makes stock on non-traditional topics difficult to find. LCC has the same issues as DDC but has an even greater focus on America. D-F are allocated to history with D being non-American. DA-DR are for Britain and Europe, though it includes the Greco-Roman world while DS is for Asia. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC).

I've edited the paragraph so that it's more factually accurate, but it still needs a reference. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Book or Codex

The first definition of "book" here actually describes a codex, which is a format for presenting books. This confusion is exacerbated by the reference later in the paragraph to the ebook format. Codex, scroll, audiobook, and eboook are formats for presenting books, but the book itself is the organized language. Suggest correction/clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The section "Book structure", the article "Book design" and the article "Title page"

(1) The section Book#Book structure identifies "Main article: Book design".  However, the article Book design does not mention the words "title page".  (2) Relatedly, the Book article never mentions "Book design" except in two graphics.  I'm new to this discussion so I don't have any proposals at this time.  RB (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

E-book market share

Amazon says it now sells more e-books than printed books. Does anyone know what the overall market share of e-books vs. printed books is? It would be interesting to know both in terms of revenue and numbers of books. -- Beland (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph sounds peculiar

"A book is a lame stupid thing that teachers make kids read. A book is for bootylickers. set " seems to me a very personal and not largely agreed upon opinion. Please, reconsider. (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Mariella

What is a fascicle?

I followed a link to fascicle (book), which redirects here. Currently, this isn't at all helpful. Is anyone able to add some information about fascicles to the article? Thanks, Jowa fan (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC) ETA: OK, I just found the page Fascicle. Perhaps Fascicle (book) ought to redirect there? Jowa fan (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now changed Fascicle (book) to redirect to Fascicle. Jowa fan (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Deasington, 30 June 2011

In the section on Thumb Indents the words "table of context" should be changed to "table of contents" - the word context has been mistakenly inserted instead of contents...

Deasington (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL "Indents". Anyway, Done. — Bility (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Error in the Wood Block Printing section

(emphasis mine)

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.

Clearly something is amiss in the second paragraph. China cannot invent woodblock printing technology and then receive it 1200 years later... The Masked Booby (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

First line of first paragraph.

"A book is a book"

Is this a joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Καλλίμαχος (talkcontribs) 03:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Blatant 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"...

and the Internet Link points to Never Gonna Give you up wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crastephanie (talkcontribs) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It has been reverted now. Feel free to do so yourself next time. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible weird vandalism

Was stunned to see links to "Topic" and many "Support" links that have nothing to do with the article about books. RandMC (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Which links exactly? --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)