Jump to content

Talk:Book collecting

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


Merge proposal

[edit]

According to dictionaries bibliophilia is the most technical term for book collecting. The bibliophila article right now is no more than an unreferenced dictionary definition as far as I can tell. It should either be redirected here or this article should be moved over there.

Which title should actually house the article?

Oppose merge: The two terms, while closely related, are not synonymous. Not all bibliophiles are book collectors, and while one might assume that all book collectors are bibiliophiles, that's not necessarily true either. There are some who engage in collecting for reasons not always strictly bibliophilic--for research; because of love of a particular topic that encompasses, but is not limited to, books; in order to appear cultured; or for investment. I think the two topics should remain separate.--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The View of a Book Collector

[edit]

I have only just started collecting books and i now have quite a few (my aim is to build a small library of books with at least one for every mood i'm in) the reason is this, i find old books have a wonderful charm about them, their good quality print, their fantastic binding and that lovely smell, i dislike new books due to the poor quality production techniques (IE. cheap binding,awful glossy pages)

Expand history section

[edit]

I cleaned up this artcile, and there is little info about modern book collecting. Would someone add it? Steve 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I cleaned up this article on 30 March, 2007, mostly by wikifying and making some structural changes. This article suffers from poor grammar POV issues, so anybody that is knowledgable on the subject please correct this.--'oac' (old american century) | Talk 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism?

[edit]

A quick look suggests that the later portions of this article were copied directly from the Book-Collecting article in the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, at the Online Encyclopedia site: http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/BLA_BOS/BOOKCASE.html. -- Mukrkrgsj 11:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 11th is out of copyright, so what does it matter? Twospoonfuls 11:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the article includes the 1911 template, and you'll find the following statement at the bottom of the article: "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." --ShelfSkewed Talk 12:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that it's no longer necessary or appropriate to base this contemporary, online reference work, on the century-old perspectives of English scholars. Copying another's work is plagiarism, even if the work is not protected by copyright; and it should be obvious that we editors are not making much of a contribution, if we merely copy from other websites. There is also the question of whether the EB pages were copied from a source that claims to have copyrighted its particular version; see Versions of this public domain work claiming copyright, in this article: Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition

I plan to edit this article a bit, including deleting the rest of the copied EB text. Please join me in improving it. -- Mukrkrgsj 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely: Rebuild this article from the bottom up. It badly needs it. The EB11 material (and some of the rest, as well) is mostly tedious and unhelpful. I think, though, that your view of plagiarism is a bit black-and-white. The issues raised by the creation, ownership, and use of intellectual property are a lot more complicated and interesting than "If someone else wrote it, and we use it, then it's stealing". --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I didn't, in fact, equate plagiarism with theft of intellectual property; but you're quite right, that "The issues raised by the creation, ownership, and use of intellectual property are ... complicated and interesting".

question

[edit]

it was reccomended to me that I ask this question here as you might be able to give be a better answer. So I am. HS7 19:54, 28 April 2760 (UTC)[reply]

You might try www.abebooks.com Twospoonfuls 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
or www.abebooks.co.uk Johnbod 20:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading needs cleanup

[edit]

Someone familiar with this topic should "tighten up" the Further reading list, as many of the titles seem unnecessary to me. In particular, the thing that sent me to this talk page was the advertising-like sentence that starts, "Follow husband and wife team..." - dcljr (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese

[edit]

Did the Chinese actually create books or something more like scrolls, lose pieces of written paper? If they did not create actual books then mention of the Chinese art of book collection is wrong. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern pastime

[edit]

The section "History of Anglo-European book collecting" consisted entirely of original research. "A glance through what must be regarded as..." and "demonstrates nothing more..." is pure OR. "Even though rich Romans and Greeks collected papyri, these where almost exclusively scrolls". So books in the form of scrolls are not books? The following sentence was even more ludicrous: "the famous historian Jacques Auguste de Thou brought together the best books of their day, and put them into handsome leather jackets, for use and study, not as collectibles". So book a book collector is only a book collector if he does not read his books? The entire premise that book collecting is a modern pastime and that earlier book collectors just showed "a love of literature" was false so I have deleted the section as it has been fact and POV tagged since December 2007. The rest of the article probably still has traces of this kind of OR and could really use some citations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent book collectors

[edit]

The section Prominent book collectors is currently a list, but it has a tag for conversion to prose. It seems to me that the list is the right format, and the tag should be removed. Do other editors agree? if so, feel free to remove the tag.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks right to me but it's a rather extensive list that could be narrowed down. Some of the people in the list have no sources in their main articles that specify that they were an avid Book Collector. DrkBlueXG (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Book collecting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Book collecting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tautology?

[edit]

The phrase "Book collecting is the collecting of books" isn't really a serviceable definition, because it's absolutely circular. Atomic putty? Rien! 13:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_collecting&oldid=1194732782"