Talk:Commonplace book

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Reference works
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Reference works on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

blogs as commonplace books[edit]

I've removed this analogy. Technically on Original Reseach grounds. But more so because this idea needs further exploration to be valid. Blogs are a lot more than commonplace books, it doesnt make sense other than superficially. Its ok to draw comparisons when describing somthing for the sake of making it more clear to the reader rhetorically, but to draw a comparison and say blogs are a modern commonplace book is original research that needs supporting arguments. Stbalbach 02:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The user replacing it specifies "external links" as his reference but I just see one guy's blog. Ashibaka tock 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was the one who initially removed it, then changed my mind and restored it. There is no doubt that there are people drawing an analogy between blogs and CPB's, it's a very common analogy currently in use "out there" - in the end, we report what people do, and people are using this analogy. Right or wrong is not the issue, we can at least report on its usage. If the article had some opinion about this analogy, then we would need a scholarly source.--Stbalbach 22:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Any particular reason for the list of pronouns? Why specify a short list of who used comonplace books when it could just state "literate people"?

It seems especially ridiculous to state "humanists" when presumably all "-ists" would have used them.

Probably because those are the types of commonplace books that are extant. Stbalbach 16:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I also found use of the word "humanists" confusing. The types of people listed preceding "humanists" are defined by what they *do* (i.e. study, teach, do medical research) which makes sense in the context of talking about the commonplace book as one of their tools. "Humanists" defines people of a certain ethical ideology--what does that have to do with the function of a commonplace book? Is the use of a commonplace book particularly defined by one's world perspective? To me this would be akin to writing "many blogs are maintained by writers, professors, lawyers, editorialists, and Republicans/Democrats" in an article about blogs. True though it may be, it confuses the reader into thinking that the subject being written about is somehow ideologically specific when it is not. - BHunt 1/20/06
The intended sense of the word humanist is likely the first one - "a scholar or academic in the Humanities", which accords with the other items in the list. Zipzipzip (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Commonplace was an emo-rock band from Benbrook, TX that existed from 1998-2003
The members consisted of Ben Maikell (guitar), Bill Holcomb (bass), Brandon Beauchamp (vocals/drums), Courtney Key (guitar), Cameron Hall (drums)
Commonplace site [1]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Classical tradition[edit]

I removed the "globalise" tags because i) the classical tradition is indeed mentioned in the article, and ii) that tradition is somewhat different from the specific early-modern/modern tradition described here. The latter, it seems to me and this article would indicate, stands alone as a distinct entity. — scribblingwoman 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes[edit]

I believe, as an example, that Conan Doyle's detective made use of commonplace books frequently in his stories. Anyone want to add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A thing of the past?[edit]

In the main text it says "Commonplace books (or commonplaces) were a way to compile knowledge". But from what I get "Commonplace book techniques" are still used today by authors or everyday people to organize content and help them to digest reading. Any opinion?Knippfisch (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)