Talk:Book/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 24.7.233.36 (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)

History...
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)

cleanup
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", which appears to be an advertisement in disguise. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I've posted the future of books material to
 * http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Digital_libraries 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)

manuscripts
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 (ISBNdb.com) 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: 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 - and I would say the purpose of the Internet Book Database and ISBNDB.com is totally different and I don't see the ISBNdb.com 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 ISBNdb.com 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 ISBNdb.com, ibookdb.net 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 ISBNdb.com article as well as yours. But life's life, I am not going to fight it if visitors of Wikipedia find ISBNdb.com 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)




 * 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)
 * 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:196.3.50.254 (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)

tome
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)

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? 86.14.229.187 (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As the article suggests, some books were created using wood block printing. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  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 24.22.221.229 (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
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. --94.192.80.191 (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 94.12.91.26 (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 sharifaamir@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.174.59 (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Books in movies
Hi,

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 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That could be a section 134.117.200.196 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

many books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.59.136 (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Restructure
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 66.51.147.97 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fascicle
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. &mdash;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)

History
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)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Cheminstructer (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
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: 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)

Biases?
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. 203.25.1.208 (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 214.28.226.231 (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The section "Book structure", the article "Book design" and the article "Title page"
(1) The section Book 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 66.217.117.130 (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. 80.181.101.227 (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, Yes check.svg 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Purpose
The purpose of books only seems to be mentioned way down the page, almost like an afterthought. Surely it's rather a significant aspect of them? I suggest adding a line such as "books are a text-based medium of communication" somewhere in the first paragraph. Danja (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be a good idea to mention something about what they are used for, but remember not all books are exclusively text based, some are illustrated, some even haven't got any text at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

book vs e-book
Currently the first paragraph reads: "A book is a set of written, printed, illustrated, or blank sheets, made of ink, paper, parchment, or other materials, usually fastened together to hinge at one side. A single sheet within a book is called a leaf, and each side of a leaf is called a page. A book produced in electronic format is known as an electronic book (e-book)." The last sentence quite contradicts the rest of the paragraph and should be removed from that paragraph. An 'e-book' is not the same as a 'book', as it is not physical, and does not contain any ink, and is not bound. Whether or not 'e-book' is left in the article I have less of an opinion on. 41.204.77.224 (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

i need to find info on emily costello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.75.206 (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have changed the electronic book line to "A set of text-filled or illustrated pages produced in electronic format is known as an electronic book (e-book)." Does this adequately address your observation? JoBaWik (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

reduced section
I culled the section bloat under "Book Manufacturing in the modern world" - now "Book manufacture in modern times" but want to say the former detailed information would really suit a wiki text book on the processes, measurements etc. It's too much for an encyc article, but a text book would be good. Just sayin' Manytexts (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Parts of a book missing
Hello! I think the parts of a book as indicated in the outline of the article -Outline of books- would be a key element to include here. It could be added as the second section by itself, after etymology, or under design or manufacture.... Does anyone agree?Catgirl (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014
101.221.128.152 (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: We cannot accept empty requests. Please clearly describe the changes you want made in your edit request in a "please change X to Y" form, so we know exactly what you would like to change. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

boustrophedon
I'm not sure why the word boustrophedon needs an etymological discourse, but given that it has one, some-one has marked it as needing a citation. This page is protected, so I'll give a citation here: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English LanguageHoughton Mifflin Company, Boston etc. copyrigth 1969, 1970, Fifth Printing. (the explanation is at the dictionary entry)211.225.33.104 (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120128205430/http://www.bowker.com:80/index.php/press-releases/616-bowker-reports-traditional-us-book-production-flat-in-2009 to http://www.bowker.com/index.php/press-releases/616-bowker-reports-traditional-us-book-production-flat-in-2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015
117.213.248.6 (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Books are our true friends. As a great writer says: They are our never-failing friends. They teach us, they influence us; they change the very course of our life. It is said that true friend is one who helps us in our need. Whenever we need advice we should open the proper book and seek advice. Many people take advice from books when they are depressed. The books tell us not to be depressed because our duty is to do our work and not desire for the reward. Their choice like friend's choice should be wise and judicious. A friend may deceive, but surely not a book. Books are immortal:

Man is mortal but books are immortal. The great writers like Valmiki, Tulsidas, Surdas, Shakespeare, Aristotle, Plato and many others died centuries ago but the books written by them are living. Among them Rishi Valmiki and Swami Tulsi Das are the products of the books. They were very low in their lives, but later on as authors, they became immortal and divine. This is a lone example from the vast sea of knowledge. And in their books they are also living. When we read their books we feel that we are in their company.

Books are food for the mind:

As chapattis, vegetables, fruits and sweets are food for our body, books are food for our mind. Our mind can be healthy only if we take good mental food i.e., read good books. So we should read good books and make our mind healthy.

Uses of books:

Uses of books are too many. Books introduce us into the best society; they bring us into the presence of the greatest minds that have ever lived. We hear what they said and did, we see them as if they were really alive, we sympathize with them, enjoy with them and grieve with them. We become good, noble and civilized. They dispel darkness. They take us from gloominess to enlightenment. Books have played a pivotal role in the lives of all great men. They were not great but these books transformed them to dizzy heights of greatness. Now books are available in ample number. They are as many as the subjects are. Books can be had on every branch of knowledge, whether it is science, art, psychology, engineering, technology, literature, medicine etc, can be learnt through these books and are varied and plenty. They give us comfort; they soothe the thumping heart and wavering mind. Many books are meant for serious reading. They are read for examination purposes. They are gone through for success in life. Some are red for recreation and entertainment. Some are for casual or light reading. Science and technology have advanced a lot. More and more knowledge is being added everyday. There are books through which your hunger for knowledge can be satisfied. These printed words, bound in the form of books, can best guide you, advice you and philosophize you. It is for you to choose good books. Do not be in a great haste in the matter of books. Meet the master minds of the world in the coziness of your drawing-room. They are there to give you a word of advice, a word of hope and cheer and a word which can change the very course of your life. Books do different things for us. When we are sad they amuse us. Humorous books and books on satire amuse us. Biographies of great persons inspire us to do great deeds. They build our moral character. Abraham Lincoln was very much fond of reading books. He was too poor to buy books. So he borrowed books and read them. He read the biography of George Washington- the first president of America. He was inspired from Washington's life and became the U.S. president himself. So books have done us great good in the form of changing our attitude towards life. They have cheered us. They have helped us. They have been instrumental in our progress. Books are a perennial source of truth, bliss and beautitude. In a way we move in their company and their experiences become ours. Without books no fresh ideas are possible and without fresh ideas no cultured society is possible. No wonder that the world keeps its books with great care. So read as many books as you can, chew a few and digest the fewest. We should consider ourselves fortunate that good books are available to us. But we should be beware of bad books and not read them.

If you want to request a specific change, please do so in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". More importantly, you must cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ this is not the place to post your personal opinions.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930215930/http://www.northvegr.org/holy/b.php to http://www.northvegr.org/holy/b.php

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016
103.7.81.252 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

I don't understand
Needs more information Olivia Prince (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a Book article !
This article isn't article on Book. It contain broad informations on writing, all formats of written doc's, while on an idea and invention of "Book" one can't read one sentence ! Argument that all written documents are books, in one way or another, doesn't alleviate awful fact that we can't find a shred of information on "Book" as binded written text, as a format, and who and when brought that idea. Who is the first to make a "Book" !?--Santasa99 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right Olivia Prince (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

First sentence.
The first sentence says that a book can have blank pages, but the same sentence also says that the pages have "text and/or images printed in ink". This is a contradiction. I suggest that the "text and/or images printed in ink" be dropped from the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BangkokBeauty (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, having no objections, I revised the first sentence to address this minor problem. BangkokBeauty (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A paper product ?
I am surprised to see at the bottom of the article the model paper product because it is very reductive and is contradictory with the definition of a book. Books exist for thousands of years, on all kinds of support. Codex26 (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Not true - book is a format, too. While we can say, and write an article, that book is written document, one which can take any format, while we can talk about a book in broad sense of the word, we need to take a notice that only one particular format is a "book". Interestingly, exactly that informations are what this article lacking. --Santasa99 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Recently I have been seeing more and more people refer to e-books as simply books, and books as either Physical Books, or Books made of paper(in jest). Even if the origin of a book is one made of paper, it would seem that the definition has expanded to encompass a broader idea -- definitions change. I HiInternet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2017
yee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1127:4286:E11E:3231:CFD7:449B (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Front matter: foreword
In section 3.1.1 reference to front matter: "such things as a forward..." should be foreword (short introduction usually by someone other than the author) not forward (direction). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim8709 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Various meanings of "book"
The lead of this article defines book as a particular physical format. The OED says:
 * (definition 1a) A portable volume consisting of a series of written, printed, or illustrated pages bound together for ease of reading.
 * In modern use the pages are typically printed and made of paper, and are usually trimmed to a uniform rectangular or square shape, sewn or glued together along one side to form a flat or rounded back, and encased in a protective cover, but other materials and construction methods may be used. In early and historical use, and with reference to non-Western cultures, book may refer to a literary work in portable form written on a wide variety of other materials (as vellum, parchment, papyrus, cotton, silk, palm leaves, bark, tablets of wood, ivory, slate, metal, etc.), and put together in any of a number of forms (as a scroll, or as separate leaves which may be hinged, strung, stitched, or glued together).

But then there is also:
 * (definition 1b) A written composition long enough to fill one or more such volumes.
 * Usually referring to compositions which are published or intended for publication.
 * In general, a short literary composition (especially if ephemeral in character, and therefore also in form) receives some other name, as story, tract, sketch, essay, etc.

So we are missing at least two important cases: Not sure how to integrate those senses into this article, and I don't think they belong in separate articles. Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Books physically arranged as scrolls or strung leaves, etc.
 * The "written composition" sense. (e.g., Aristotle's Physics is a book, regardless of whether it is presented as scrolls, bound volumes, or ebook.)
 * Yes, they need working in. What the current first sentence describes is codex, a subset of books. I wonder if this was always the case? Worth checking the history I think. Para 2 here is pretty inaccurate also. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the OED for "book" and "codex", the lead as it is now reflects the OED definitions, which as usual all other dictionaries follow pretty slavishly. To me (And I think most modern book historians etc) modern paperbacks are technically codices, and "sewn or glued together along one side to form a flat or rounded back" really describes the codex format, not the "book" at all. Here's one quick find that supports this view. and another. Not the OED's finest hour, if you ask me (and I don't believe there's been any real shift in meanings since 1870 or whenever). Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've taken a stab at a new lead... take a look. --Macrakis (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Much better - I've tinkered a bit. There's a bit of clutter lower in the lead. I'm not happy about the "monograph" bit - surely, even librarians don't call novels or books of poetry monographs, do they? Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently, they do:
 * For the purpose of library cataloging, any nonserial publication, complete in one volume or intended to be completed in a finite number of parts issued at regular or irregular intervals, containing a single work or collection of works. Monographs are sometimes published in monographic series and subseries. Compare with book.
 * But there are a lot of narrow and incompatible technical senses of "book" in various domains:
 * the US Post office: "24 or more pages, at least 22 of which bear printing consisting primarily of reading material or scholarly bibliography, with advertising limited to book announcements"
 * UNESCO: "a nonperiodical literary publication consisting of 49 or more pages, covers excluded."
 * ANSI also allows "publications of less than 49 pages that have hard covers."
 * I doubt we need to include the cataloguers' definition of monograph in the lead. --Macrakis (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've added the UNESCO one though. Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't really agree with that. Every bureaucracy (various cultural organizations, various tax authorities, various Customs Offices, various post offices, as well as the international organizations grouping cultural/postal/etc. authorities) needs to have a precise, unambiguous definition of things like this. But those definitions don't really affect the culture at large. Even if the UNESCO definition is universally accepted by libraries (and do we have any evidence of that?), it really is only of interest to library cataloguers. For normal people, a 48-page book of poetry is as much a "book" (and not a "pamphlet") of poetry as a 50-page book.
 * I don't think we should be in the business of recording bureaucratic definitions -- especially not in the lead. --Macrakis (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No objection to moving it lower, but I suppose some lower limit to the definition is needed, and this seems to be the most current, if clearly completely random. So it should be somewhere in the article. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we even know whether the UNESCO definition was ever used in practice, or is currently used? Do we know what UNESCO means by "literary"? (does it exclude, say, mathematical tables?) Is the Britannica Yearbook or the Michelin Green Guide to Paris considered "periodical" because it comes out annually, and therefore not a "book"? The IEILS definition says that regularly published reference books are "serials" and not "periodicals". Do we know what the UNESCO conference thought? All in all, a proposed definition by a UNESCO conference in 1964 where we don't even know whether that definition was widely accepted at the time, let alone today, and where the terms it uses are unclear, is not helpful to our readers. --Macrakis (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You quoted it as the UNESCO definition above yourself. It was cited in the fairly brief entry on "book" in the source, suggesting wide, but not univrsal acceptance. It is "proposed" in that sense I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

non-fiction
The section on non-fiction seems to have no differentiation between published books (dictionaries and such) and unpublished books (company ledgers, accounts, etc.). There is also no description of any type of books which do tell a true story such as histories, biographies and memoirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarabiesel (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018
1 182.73.163.98 (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC) §There is a well said saying by someone "Books are the best friend of a person.".
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Oldest papyrus document cited is apparently incorrect
Currently, the oldest papyrus documents were found in Wadi-al-Jarf, Red Sea coast, Egypt, describing life during King Khufu’s reign, dating from 2560 BCE (discovered 2012). Quoting from the article: "Papyrus was used for writing in Ancient Egypt, perhaps as early as the First Dynasty, although the first evidence is from the account books of King Nefertiti Kakai of the Fifth Dynasty (about 2400 BC).[11]" Reference 11 dates from 1991, and seems to have been superceded by the 2012 discovery. I propose updating the article to reflect the most current discovery. Phact (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Problem with opening paragraph of intro.
The intro's opening paragraph now runs:


 * A book is a series of pages assembled for easy portability and reading, as well as the composition contained in it. The book's most common modern form is that of a codex volume consisting of rectangular paper pages bound on one side, with a heavier cover and spine, so that it can fan open for reading. Books have taken other forms, such as scrolls, leaves on a string, or strips tied together; and the pages have been of parchment, vellum, papyrus, bamboo slips, palm leaves, silk, wood, and other materials.

A book in the physical sense has no other form than the codex; a scroll is not a book because as a physical object it requires an entirely different type of manipulation. Leaves on string or tied strips are not books, either, as is easy to see when you consider a sign made of separate letters, tied to a string hung from the ceiling, that spell


 * H A P P Y   B I R T H D A Y

Since bamboo slips or leaves do not supply an even and a broad surface on which to write, silk would make it impossible to turn pages with ease, and wood would be too heavy and expensive, pages cannot be made of these materials.

Since the word "book" denotes a physical object and a composition, the two should not be mentioned in the first sentence, and then in the second sentence only the physical sense is treated. I propose a change like this:


 * The word book has two senses.


 * In the first, physical sense, a book is a stack of usually rectangular pages oriented with the shorter sides as top and bottom and bound on one longer side at left or right, depending on the direction in which one reads a script, so that each sheet of the stack can be turned easily from the face of the underlying sheet, and so that as the height of the newly formed stack increases, the valley between the two stacks is shallow enough for the two stacks to lie open on their own. The technical term for this physical arrangement is codex.  In the history of hand=held physical supports for extended written compositions, the codex replaces the scroll, its immediate predecessor.  The sheets in the codex can be made of vellum, papyrus, or paper, and are usually bound to a cover of heavier and usually relatively inflexible paper or other material to protect the inner pages. The cover of the book is now, by universal convention, the place on which one first finds the title of the composition, and usually the author's name.


 * In the compositional sense, a book is a composition of such great length that it takes a considerable investment of time to compose and a still considerable, though not so extensive, investment of time to read. This sense of book has a restricted and an unrestricted sense.  In the restricted sense, a book is a self-sufficient section or part of a longer composition; in the unrestricted sense, it is the compositional whole of which such sections, whether called books or chapters or parts, are parts.

Although I have retained nothing of the original paragraph, I think this version captures all the details of each sense and does the reader the favor of presenting only one topic at a time. Wordwright (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * A phrasing that starts The word book has two senses. is right-out in my view; this is not a dictionary. It's also unnecessary.  A book is a written work.  Both "senses" agree on that. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "right-out" means, but the fact that this is not a dictionary is irrelevant, because dictionaries don't have such meta-narrative announcements, they just list the senses in order. But in an encyclopedia it is perfectly acceptable to announce that the topic of the article presents some initial complexity that one must indicate before one's concrete treatment of any of the complex elements.


 * It is a contradiction to assert that two different senses of the same word agree on a single sense. A book in the physical sense is not at all the same thing as a book in the compositional sense.  An account book, an appointment book, a sketch book, an autograph book, and a scrap book are books before there is anything written in them, and the things that cover the pages don't constitute a book in a compositional sense.  Books of photographs, drawings, crossword puzzles, cut-out dolls, and so on, are not compositions, but they are still the matter for intellectual engagement, not the physical object that supports their presentation.  A book in each sense has a history distinct from the history of a book in the other sense.


 * The point of the initial statement is simply to prepare the reader. You can dispense with it, but you must still begin with some indication that the word has two senses.  And the necessity for this is the fact that, in the original, the beginning was "A is X and also Y.  The most common form of A," without justifying the decision to treat A in sense X rather than in sense Y.  So the beginning could run:


 * Book can denote either a physical object or a composition. The physical object....  The composition....


 * I take it that, in a good composition, one uses markers to indicate to the reader where they are as they proceed through the presentation of information. It's just a way to introduce an unobtrusive but helpful symmetry to the composition. X is A and B.  As A.... As B.... So the intro is helpful as a mnemonic device.  Wordwright (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019
can be a written person that read and an artist, not a reread it means to be a read more different thing like a book or chapter it a different search in you can do it in life if people juoilty you juoilty them back just no you are smart you are you not someone us that not who you are what you can be in your life, not people life cause their life is bad you can lose you stuff you can be a difference to you, not the people some people work to get their money it can be true life in your heart do not listen to their story they what to care about them so they grow up it a different comment  it ok if nobody don't like you and tell the people who are you they stop bullying you got to show your emotion not sad your feeling that you use to be happy who you are let the people bully you got to fight for your self, yeah you are my fire the one who you are for your heart not the people what to do no you do what you want to do so you got to be very happy love your self even you are skinny or fat it ok if you are that god love you how you are you just go to love god for your heart not down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonilez (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020
WikiPro9102 (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC) A book is a medium for recording information in the form of writing or images, typically composed of many pages bound together and protected by a cover. The technical term for this physical arrangement is codex.But today, books are used for MANY reasons: Entertainment, religious purposes, studying, and more! Books are incredible, and they have taught us so much. To sum it up, the purpose of books back then were for religious purposes. Many sacred texts are used in religion.While a book is written on a specific subject without a fixed count for the minimum amount of words to be used, a novel is a book of a story or stories (in the case of the collection of short stories) written in not less than forty thousand words. Any book of stories short of that amount of words is not a novel.Jon asks: Why are books called that? “A portable volume consisting of a series of written, printed, or illustrated pages bound together,” the word for book (or variously booke, bokis, boke and boc) has been around for as long as the English language. Front matter is the information that appears in the very beginning of a book. The front matter contains the nuts and bolts of the book's publication—information such as title, author, publisher, ISBN, and Library of Congress data.The earliest writings were on clay tablets and were probably administrative lists. The first written story that has come down to us is The Epic of Gilgamesh. It is a mythologized account of an historical figure, Gilgamesh, a ruler of the Sumerian city-state of Uruk, believed to have ruled sometime between 2700-2500 BC.Increase Self Confidence, Boost Memory and Imagination Power. Reading books and novels can also improve our memory, reduce stress, and increase mental power as well as knowledge. They also help us to improve vocabulary, concentration power & make our thinking skills stronger.It depends on the font you are using, of course, but in general, 250-300 words per page. Therefore, a 55,000 word book should be about 200 manuscript pages. A 100,000 word book would be about 400. Editors like 12 point fontThis is how you can start writing a book today: -Start by setting up your writing environment. -Develop a writing habit to start. -Create a book outline to start writing. -Focus on writing your book ONLY. -Maintain your focus at the start. -Schedule book writing time. -Deal with writing distractions. -Start writing your book! A novel is a long, fictional narrative which describes intimate human experiences. The novel in the modern era usually makes use of a literary prose style.Printers print the text of a book on large sheets of paper, sometimes as large as a newspaper page. ... The large sheets are then cut into smaller pages that are still about twice the size of a finished book. The smaller pages are then divided into small groups, folded in half, and sewn together.Apparently, the practice of reading books creates cognitive engagement that improves lots of things, including vocabulary, thinking skills, and concentration. It also can affect empathy, social perception, and emotional intelligence, the sum of which helps people stay on the planet longerReading is important because it develops our thoughts, gives us endless knowledge and lessons to read while keeping our minds active. The importance of reading books to help us learn and understand cannot be underestimated, not to mention the vocabulary and thinking skills we develop.Books are made up of three main parts: front matter, body matter, and end matter. The front matter comes at the beginning of the book and includes the: Half title, frontispiece, and title page.The sheets of paper that make up the pages of a book are called the leaves. The hard cover of most commercially bound books is known as the case.How old is the first book? The Gutenberg Bible, also known as the 42-line Bible, is listed by the Guinness Book of World records as the world's oldest mechanically printed book – the first copies of which were printed in 1454-1455 AD. Around 1450, in what is commonly regarded as an independent invention, Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type in Europe, along with innovations in casting the type based on a matrix and hand mould. This invention gradually made books less expensive to produce, and more widely available. There Are 129,864,880 Books in the Entire World. How many books have ever been published in all of modern history? According to Google's advanced algorithms, the answer is nearly 130 million books, or 129,864,880, to be exact.Books are important for several reasons: they allow children and adults to learn and understand the alphabet, achieve a minimal standard of literacy and help people understand their roles in society.Picture books are written in a series of scenes, each of which can be illustrated. The average picture book is 32 pages long, but the front matter (title page, copyright page, etc.) eats up about four pages. So assume you have 28 pages for your textWhen added all together, the Harry Potter books contain 1,084,170 words. Below you'll find the total word count numbers for each book in the Harry Potter series: How many words are in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stones? There are 76,944 words.1,500 words is 3 pages single spaced, 6 pages double spaced. 2,000 words is 4 pages single spaced, 8 pages double spaced. 2,500 words is 5 pages single spaced, 10 pages double spaced. 3,000 words is 6 pages single spaced, 12 pages double spaced.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 01:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Add audiobooks
According to the Audio Publishers Association, audiobook sales and consumption is growing steadily, with audiobook sales in the US seeing their eighth straight year of double digit revenue growth in 2019.

Libro.fm (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Binary division
Where do books of music and books of poetry fit in the division into fiction and nonfiction? I looked at the article on nonfiction and found no mention of poetry, even though a lot of poetry purports to be truthful or hortatory. 67.209.131.36 (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Adjusted - the whole section read as though written by a 15-yo. It doesn't help that we don't have an article for "books of music" beyond religious types or sheet music (by definition not in book form I suppose). Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ninjaxcube.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chimpsimp76.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Urval av de bocker som har vunnit Nordiska radets litteraturpris under de 50 ar som priset funnits.jpg

Book knives
I would like to see something here on Wikipedia about book knives. I first heard of them in my fifth year French class when we read Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit in the original French as Huis clos. At one point I got an old book that had obviously never been read because it needed to be cut. I did a terrible job tearing it. I'm not even sure it was mine because I don't remember what book it is. It's clearly something that is now handled in the manufacturing process but wasn't until well into the mid-twentieth century. It's certainly an aspect of historical interest.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"📗" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%F0%9F%93%97&redirect=no 📗] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

total number of books
we need more information of the total number of books beyond the sourced google books estimate, and it belongs somewhere besides just the lead. there are strict definitions of a book that we should mention: i found a definition by UNESCOas "a non-periodical printed publication of at least 49 pages, exclusive of the cover pages, published in the country and made available to the public" made for statistical purposes. we should add a section on definitions after etymology. LarstonMarston (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

braille
books written in braille are a pretty glaring omission from this article. they might belong under "types" LarstonMarston (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)