This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.
I am curious as to what the source is for this article. I don't find it anywhere. 220.127.116.11 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Got a problem here - I am presently doing the research for a chapter on the English term catalogues - part of a book project - I could present further data, statistics etc. yet it would be original research, so no thing here. --Olaf Simons (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is a bit close to original research. Olaf, I'm sure you will be publishing your work in an academic journal; in general, you might want to wait until you at least have a conference paper of to cite before contributing a version of your material to Wikipedia, because the OR issue is definitely real. I happen to know your work is solid, but, for better or worse, the universe of Wikipedia contributors has grown to the point where no one's reputation really proceeds them.
Olaf, please look through my edits to make sure that none of my attempted clarifications of archaic terms were erroneous. The one I was least sure of was "Physick", which I assume was in the sense of "medicine" and annotated accordingly.
Where you wrote "Easter Cataloge No.1", is that really the spelling, or is it an error? Should either be "Easter Catalogue No.1" or "Easter Cataloge (sic) No.1".
Right at the end there are some problems. You write "55% of the titles listed can be seen as focused on ongoing affairs, 70% fall into the two most prominent leading categories."
What do you mean by "ongoing affairs"? "Contemporary events" or something else?
The table needs headers: the meanings of the columns, especially the ones at right in red ochre, are not obvious.
I totally fail to see the basis of the calculation that leads to the statement "70% fall into the two most prominent leading categories," nor of the numbers at right in red ochre.
I hope that's helpful; get back to me if anything is unclear. - Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, I hesitated (as you see above) for quite awhile Yet as I found out, my diagrams do not go much beyond what one finds in The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain (very good book), the diagrams are new. The 1700-cake-diagram is quite new, yet again: everyone can count. I was ready to provide the xls-file with my computations (there are upload-restrictions). The simple counting of titles is not really the work of a genius. I don't know...
You are right. Physick is medicine. I did not know that it needed the explanation - there is a redirect from Physic to Medicine, so I felt it was normal.
"ongoing affairs"? - Most of the political controversies are religiously motivated. 1711 is still marked by the Sacheverell controversy. 70% is the sum of both categories, 56% is what remains if I substract the reprinted and focus on the materials that are up to date... Maybe I add the Sacheverell affair and drop the two last columns of the table.
Thanks for proofreading the page. Much obliged (and surprised by the production thing - that just does not feel right - which is: I don't feel right), --Olaf Simons (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)