This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Library of Congress Classification article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Wikipedia talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents. |
I read a book by Mortimer Adler once, the name of which of course escapes me, that traced classification systems. He pointed out that the LC is based on Jefferson's own system, which was based on Francis Baconl. I forget if Bacon had a predecessor. --MichaelTinkler
Now you mention it I recall reading that as well, though I can't which book I read or much of the details. I read a book on the history of library classifications about a year or two. -- SJK
The paragraph on 'bias' needs to be re-written. Library classification schemes have good reason to be 'biased' towards actual library holdings rather than ideal analytical schemes of all knowledge which might someday come to be represented in their collections. --MichaelTinkler
As this is a formal title adopted by the LC I've capitalized "Classification" in the title.
Somebody had managed to change all the Class titles into a backward order and I've reverted this "Library of Congress classification" is not a disambiguator for the various classes. ☮ Eclecticology 12:06 31 May 2003 (UTC)
In an attempt to improve the aesthetics of the list I put it into a HTML table. I don't mind if it's considered overkill and gets reverted. Let me know. -- sugarfish 00:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I've taken the following out for the reason that no evidence is given and sounds highly dubious. What, after all, could LIBRARIANS gain from subverting Christianity and the US? And how could a system of organization be biased against them? Prove me wrong and put back the quote. Until then, let it stay here:
D.E. Cottrell 07:51, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
lol. I was thinking of a bias in the other direction. (Personal experience, talking!) Oh well, still stands. D.E. Cottrell 05:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The outlines on the pages linked from "Wikipedia organized by the Library of Congress Classification" are arranged using a combination of wiki indents (HTML definition lists) and manually typed dot-leaders. Looks like heck in my web browser.
Would anyone object to redoing these using HTML preformatted text (<PRE>) blocks? The results would look like the following (from Subclass PG). — Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
PG 1-9665.............Slavic. Baltic. Albanian 1-7948............ Slavic 1-499............Slavic philology and languages (General) 500-585..........Slavic literature (General) 601-716..........Church Slavic 771-799..........Bulgarian Church Slavic 801-1146......... Bulgarian 1151-1199........ Macedonian 1201-1696........ Serbo-Croatian 1801-1962........ Slovenian 2001-2826........ Russian language 2830-2847........ Belarusian 2900-3698........ Russian literature 2900-3190.......History and criticism 2900-2998......General 3001-3026......Special periods 3041-3065......Poetry 3071-3089......Drama 3091-3099......Prose 3100-3155......Folk literature (including texts) 3199-3299.......Collections 3199-3205......General 3211-3219......Translations [etc.]
The Loc system started in 1939, according to the article. But I have some books listing a different LoC system, for example "Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 67-22622" for a book copyright in 1968. What is this? Bubba73 18:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I see potential for using these pages as a way to getting to [[Category:]] pages. I do a fair bit of random article hunts, trying to attach cats and stubs to orphans. It is very difficult sometimes to find them. When I saw this, I became excited. I can run a library catalog search, find the LC number and use it to find appropriate categories. It's a very librarianish thing to do, I know, but a savvy user could use the same technique. What do you all think? -- CTSWyneken (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As voss pointed out the current wiki category system is a collaborative thesaurus not to be confused with a classification system. Adding a classification system to controlled vocabulory (thesarus) would mean you are talking about a taxonomy Aarontay 13:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the actual classification system is unavailable online for free. Only the outlines are available. What is its copyright status? The LOC seems to charge money for online access, to the tune of $375 down to $68/person in bulk.
http://www.loc.gov/cds/classweb/
How does that articulate with a putative desire to use it to classify all or parts of wikipedia?
In tandem with asking this question here, I'm inquiring via email at the Cataloging Distribution Service email cdsinfo@loc.gov.
- Vonfraginoff 12:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this criticism from the Dewey Decimal Classification article because it seemed to be a little to extended for an article on another topic. Please review it and, if useful, integrate it here. — mako ( talk• contribs) 15:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Editors involved with these should see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible. – Pomte 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
For more information, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible. All subpages should not be recreated without any good reason. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible about how to deal with this. Inparticular I have question the deletion of --B which was not in my opinion discussed adequately in the AfD. DGG 04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC) DGG 04:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A bot has added class=FA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a featured lists. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot ( talk) 03:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible was correct - these sub-pages are not written in an encyclopedic manner. personally, I believe that encyclopedic sub-articles can be written about these classes, but what we have isnt that.
I have imported the sub-pages into Wikisource: s:Library of Congress Classification. It is only the "outline" at present, but I expect that over time it will grow into the complete set of subject headers.
As a result, is there anyone who would object to the sub-pages being deleted from Wikipedia? John Vandenberg ( talk) 12:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
These subpages are currently a duplicate of the primary source, with a small amount of value added due to the wikilinks. I think they should be moved into the Wikipedia: namespace, in a similar manner to b:Wikibooks:LOC Classification/A.
I would love to see greater detail about the development of each classes and subclasses, but that prose should grow dynamically from the main article. John Vandenberg ( talk) 02:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) So far, nobody has taken any of these sub pages and written anything about the classes/subclasses. I seriously doubt anyone has it on their todo list either. In my opinion, having these subpage in main space deters the development of descriptive articles, as they appear to be a well organised directory that most people will refer to, but not expand. I hadnt considered a portal; are they typically allowed to have sub-pages? John Vandenberg ( talk) 08:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a photo to show how books are sorted by LCC call numbers. For those who think it's not related to LCC, then may be we should remove the Library of Congress reading room from this article.
—21:46, 29 September 2008 Raysonho
I am thinking of proposing all the subpages at Category:Library of Congress Classification for deletion, as they are not encyclopedia articles, they simply repeat the classification. Wikisource has all this information: [3] as does the Library of Congress: [4]. Fences& Windows 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Unless I've misinterpreted something here, it sounds like you want to make a 200KB+ list, in which case, you need to read WP:SIZE. I absolutely disagree that it's only valuable when you're looking for library books. I actually use these all the time when trying to find related topics and when the Wikipedia directory has failed me. Even if that WAS true, think about it: it's already been pointed out that the Wikipedia presentation of the LCC is better because it has wikilinks, and I'm also pointing out that it's much better because it's accessible from a cell phone. I do this all the time, and I know many others who do too. But, if you make the lists be over, say, 20KB, cell phones CRASH. — Skittleys ( talk) 23:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
(quote with abbreviation): The LCC is a system of lc developed by the LoC.
The lead should make clear whether the classification is maintained by the LOC alone ("developed" originally in the past and currently in the present). If LOC maintains it along with, say publishers or printers, that should be explained.
These points should be covered in some sense: Does the Library classify only books that it receives? If in advance of receipt, how? If not in advance of receipt, how is LC printed in a so-called first edition? Which editions get distinct LC? Does every book have only one? If not, how does it get two?
Probably the article should give an example or three in order to define the classification. Do libraries that adopt LC commonly use suffixes or even prefixes as well? If so then what part of the code is the LC classification? -- P64 ( talk) 17:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Before saving a major revision I restore the original arrangement in four paragraphs, so that the tool "Compare selected revisions" is as useful as possible.
• Two inline bullets (•) represent "my" paragraph breaks that I have eliminated before saving (above). And I have no break between pars two and three. That is, I recommend five paragraphs where the second is introduced and the fourth is expanded by the second halves of the current first and second pars. -- P64 ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit summary: (see Talk #bullet; improve par's 2,3,4; clarify scope of ref 4; improve ref details; relegate details of all Notes and Refs; ILLUSTRATE the siblings not to be confused LCCN, LCSH, and (newly) LC call numbers; relegate details to Notes (see Talk))
The first half of my edit summary stands on its own except #bullet. The second half (bold) concerns the main point for readers. Regarding what "is not to be confused" with LCC i have determined to illustrate Control Numbers and Subject Headings and (newly not to be confused) Call Numbers. At the moment i am too close to have opinions
Indeed, in the second Note |ref name=subjects| I have hidden in a comment some of what I "penned" about subject headings. There is no sense yet formatting what will not likely remain in this article. In Talk space the format is trivial, so i show it here.
identifier label sh85015136 Boarding schools sh2004006485 Boarding schools in literature sh2007102067 Boarding schools--Fiction sh2009116962 Boarding schools--Juvenile fiction
Editors may observe (and perhaps resolve to change) that I have used thruout one example that is English or British rather than American. For what it's worth, as i extended the illustration (not in the article), I readily found another British boarding school fiction in the Taiwan library, but not this one. -- P64 ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Would RA be public health? -- Badger151 ( talk) 11:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the fine arts section has not been created. Is there anything going on to complete it? Swordman97 talk to me —Preceding
Comment is needed on the wide spread use of the system, e.g. it is used extensivly in UK academic and research libraries, and no doubt other places too. PaddyBasher ( talk) 16:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Library of Congress Classification article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Wikipedia talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents. |
I read a book by Mortimer Adler once, the name of which of course escapes me, that traced classification systems. He pointed out that the LC is based on Jefferson's own system, which was based on Francis Baconl. I forget if Bacon had a predecessor. --MichaelTinkler
Now you mention it I recall reading that as well, though I can't which book I read or much of the details. I read a book on the history of library classifications about a year or two. -- SJK
The paragraph on 'bias' needs to be re-written. Library classification schemes have good reason to be 'biased' towards actual library holdings rather than ideal analytical schemes of all knowledge which might someday come to be represented in their collections. --MichaelTinkler
As this is a formal title adopted by the LC I've capitalized "Classification" in the title.
Somebody had managed to change all the Class titles into a backward order and I've reverted this "Library of Congress classification" is not a disambiguator for the various classes. ☮ Eclecticology 12:06 31 May 2003 (UTC)
In an attempt to improve the aesthetics of the list I put it into a HTML table. I don't mind if it's considered overkill and gets reverted. Let me know. -- sugarfish 00:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I've taken the following out for the reason that no evidence is given and sounds highly dubious. What, after all, could LIBRARIANS gain from subverting Christianity and the US? And how could a system of organization be biased against them? Prove me wrong and put back the quote. Until then, let it stay here:
D.E. Cottrell 07:51, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
lol. I was thinking of a bias in the other direction. (Personal experience, talking!) Oh well, still stands. D.E. Cottrell 05:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The outlines on the pages linked from "Wikipedia organized by the Library of Congress Classification" are arranged using a combination of wiki indents (HTML definition lists) and manually typed dot-leaders. Looks like heck in my web browser.
Would anyone object to redoing these using HTML preformatted text (<PRE>) blocks? The results would look like the following (from Subclass PG). — Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
PG 1-9665.............Slavic. Baltic. Albanian 1-7948............ Slavic 1-499............Slavic philology and languages (General) 500-585..........Slavic literature (General) 601-716..........Church Slavic 771-799..........Bulgarian Church Slavic 801-1146......... Bulgarian 1151-1199........ Macedonian 1201-1696........ Serbo-Croatian 1801-1962........ Slovenian 2001-2826........ Russian language 2830-2847........ Belarusian 2900-3698........ Russian literature 2900-3190.......History and criticism 2900-2998......General 3001-3026......Special periods 3041-3065......Poetry 3071-3089......Drama 3091-3099......Prose 3100-3155......Folk literature (including texts) 3199-3299.......Collections 3199-3205......General 3211-3219......Translations [etc.]
The Loc system started in 1939, according to the article. But I have some books listing a different LoC system, for example "Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 67-22622" for a book copyright in 1968. What is this? Bubba73 18:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I see potential for using these pages as a way to getting to [[Category:]] pages. I do a fair bit of random article hunts, trying to attach cats and stubs to orphans. It is very difficult sometimes to find them. When I saw this, I became excited. I can run a library catalog search, find the LC number and use it to find appropriate categories. It's a very librarianish thing to do, I know, but a savvy user could use the same technique. What do you all think? -- CTSWyneken (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As voss pointed out the current wiki category system is a collaborative thesaurus not to be confused with a classification system. Adding a classification system to controlled vocabulory (thesarus) would mean you are talking about a taxonomy Aarontay 13:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the actual classification system is unavailable online for free. Only the outlines are available. What is its copyright status? The LOC seems to charge money for online access, to the tune of $375 down to $68/person in bulk.
http://www.loc.gov/cds/classweb/
How does that articulate with a putative desire to use it to classify all or parts of wikipedia?
In tandem with asking this question here, I'm inquiring via email at the Cataloging Distribution Service email cdsinfo@loc.gov.
- Vonfraginoff 12:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this criticism from the Dewey Decimal Classification article because it seemed to be a little to extended for an article on another topic. Please review it and, if useful, integrate it here. — mako ( talk• contribs) 15:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Editors involved with these should see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible. – Pomte 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
For more information, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible. All subpages should not be recreated without any good reason. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible about how to deal with this. Inparticular I have question the deletion of --B which was not in my opinion discussed adequately in the AfD. DGG 04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC) DGG 04:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A bot has added class=FA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a featured lists. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot ( talk) 03:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible was correct - these sub-pages are not written in an encyclopedic manner. personally, I believe that encyclopedic sub-articles can be written about these classes, but what we have isnt that.
I have imported the sub-pages into Wikisource: s:Library of Congress Classification. It is only the "outline" at present, but I expect that over time it will grow into the complete set of subject headers.
As a result, is there anyone who would object to the sub-pages being deleted from Wikipedia? John Vandenberg ( talk) 12:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
These subpages are currently a duplicate of the primary source, with a small amount of value added due to the wikilinks. I think they should be moved into the Wikipedia: namespace, in a similar manner to b:Wikibooks:LOC Classification/A.
I would love to see greater detail about the development of each classes and subclasses, but that prose should grow dynamically from the main article. John Vandenberg ( talk) 02:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) So far, nobody has taken any of these sub pages and written anything about the classes/subclasses. I seriously doubt anyone has it on their todo list either. In my opinion, having these subpage in main space deters the development of descriptive articles, as they appear to be a well organised directory that most people will refer to, but not expand. I hadnt considered a portal; are they typically allowed to have sub-pages? John Vandenberg ( talk) 08:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a photo to show how books are sorted by LCC call numbers. For those who think it's not related to LCC, then may be we should remove the Library of Congress reading room from this article.
—21:46, 29 September 2008 Raysonho
I am thinking of proposing all the subpages at Category:Library of Congress Classification for deletion, as they are not encyclopedia articles, they simply repeat the classification. Wikisource has all this information: [3] as does the Library of Congress: [4]. Fences& Windows 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Unless I've misinterpreted something here, it sounds like you want to make a 200KB+ list, in which case, you need to read WP:SIZE. I absolutely disagree that it's only valuable when you're looking for library books. I actually use these all the time when trying to find related topics and when the Wikipedia directory has failed me. Even if that WAS true, think about it: it's already been pointed out that the Wikipedia presentation of the LCC is better because it has wikilinks, and I'm also pointing out that it's much better because it's accessible from a cell phone. I do this all the time, and I know many others who do too. But, if you make the lists be over, say, 20KB, cell phones CRASH. — Skittleys ( talk) 23:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
(quote with abbreviation): The LCC is a system of lc developed by the LoC.
The lead should make clear whether the classification is maintained by the LOC alone ("developed" originally in the past and currently in the present). If LOC maintains it along with, say publishers or printers, that should be explained.
These points should be covered in some sense: Does the Library classify only books that it receives? If in advance of receipt, how? If not in advance of receipt, how is LC printed in a so-called first edition? Which editions get distinct LC? Does every book have only one? If not, how does it get two?
Probably the article should give an example or three in order to define the classification. Do libraries that adopt LC commonly use suffixes or even prefixes as well? If so then what part of the code is the LC classification? -- P64 ( talk) 17:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Before saving a major revision I restore the original arrangement in four paragraphs, so that the tool "Compare selected revisions" is as useful as possible.
• Two inline bullets (•) represent "my" paragraph breaks that I have eliminated before saving (above). And I have no break between pars two and three. That is, I recommend five paragraphs where the second is introduced and the fourth is expanded by the second halves of the current first and second pars. -- P64 ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit summary: (see Talk #bullet; improve par's 2,3,4; clarify scope of ref 4; improve ref details; relegate details of all Notes and Refs; ILLUSTRATE the siblings not to be confused LCCN, LCSH, and (newly) LC call numbers; relegate details to Notes (see Talk))
The first half of my edit summary stands on its own except #bullet. The second half (bold) concerns the main point for readers. Regarding what "is not to be confused" with LCC i have determined to illustrate Control Numbers and Subject Headings and (newly not to be confused) Call Numbers. At the moment i am too close to have opinions
Indeed, in the second Note |ref name=subjects| I have hidden in a comment some of what I "penned" about subject headings. There is no sense yet formatting what will not likely remain in this article. In Talk space the format is trivial, so i show it here.
identifier label sh85015136 Boarding schools sh2004006485 Boarding schools in literature sh2007102067 Boarding schools--Fiction sh2009116962 Boarding schools--Juvenile fiction
Editors may observe (and perhaps resolve to change) that I have used thruout one example that is English or British rather than American. For what it's worth, as i extended the illustration (not in the article), I readily found another British boarding school fiction in the Taiwan library, but not this one. -- P64 ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Would RA be public health? -- Badger151 ( talk) 11:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the fine arts section has not been created. Is there anything going on to complete it? Swordman97 talk to me —Preceding
Comment is needed on the wide spread use of the system, e.g. it is used extensivly in UK academic and research libraries, and no doubt other places too. PaddyBasher ( talk) 16:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)