Talk:History of books

message: I added a paragraph or so to the Contemporary Era section, and whittled down some of the wordiness. I felt there was little on the e-book phenomenon and that it should probably be updated. If anybody else has anything to contribute to that section, that would be great! I would also suggest that the entire article lacks sufficient citations, and that someone could undertake that alone as a project. Mens.E11 (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I'm taking a stab at adding a "bibliography" to this very good article, knowing very well that I'll probably "stab" someone in doing so -- there are so <U>many</U> books etc. which might be recommended for this topic...
My primary motivation, as will appear immediately from my selection, is to keep the booklist international: the subject is fascinating to a lot of folks, in a lot of different places, and I find it very useful to consult other traditions to better understand my own. Also, the others are interesting: the Americans do things differently than the British do, in these areas -- and the anglo-américains do things differently than the French -- and i.e. I would hope that someone has done a good "history of the book" for China, hopefully one translated, perhaps in Needham (?), and that someone who knows of this will add an entry for it here.
The aim, too, has been to select resources of general appeal, to someone just beginning an interest in the topic. I have no idea how someone new might handle a plunge into "analytical bibliography", for example: not well, I would imagine. Better that they first be guided to large-format picture books, and clear historical explanations, I think.
--Kessler 19:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: Just dropped by after looking at Book, and the history section there seems better organized than this article.  If I had the time, I would reorganize the material her as per the organization there.  Anyone care to do this? If I did do this any objections?  --lk 06:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poorly Organized?

message: can now add themselves to :Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects. This will hopefully aid people with interest and knowledge about books as objects, products and artefacts to collaborate in building the encyclopedia. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliophiles and book historians 

message: The following external link:
::The Manuscript Studies and Palaeography Collection at Senate House Library, University of London
Was deleted as "spam"!--Wetman (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it set off my spam radar. User:Palaeography Room, the user adding the link was a new user whose only contribs were adding this link to several articles with no edit summary, always listing them at the top of the list, and originally calling this site "the best." This made it look a lot like advertising. If you feel this link is appropriate, by all means add it, but the way User:Palaeography Room did it made it look like spam. Thanks. Apparition11 (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed as "spam"

message: I don't understand why the title uses the definite article. It creates the impression that it is about a specific individual book. Why not "History of books"? Roger (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't continue a discussion that is 5 years old as if nothing has changed. The article was very different then, and you make it look like I am defending an issue which I am not. Any current issues should be discussed in a new and separate discussion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why '''the''' book? 

message: I have created a sandbox (User:Sabiona/Sandbox History of the book) where I am attempting a cleanup of this page. Please feel free to lend ideas, I have read and am taking into account what was already mentioned above. Thanks and wish me luck, Sabiona (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support "History of the book" is very ambiguous, since it could be interpreted as being about a specific book, rather than books in general. Many religous texts are often described as "The Book". 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The line, "the works of Protagoras were burned because he was a proponent of agnosticism and argued that one could know whether or not the gods existed," seems confusing to me. Is it supposed to say that he argued that one could NOT know? If he argued that one COULD know whether or not the gods existed, that would not be advocating agnosticism. Neophytesage (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing Wording?

message: The references to "Needham" are incredibly vague.  They contain wikilinks, but these are pointless circular links to this article.  I suspect they might be referring to Joseph Needham, but either way, without an actual reference (which I can't track down, and I can't get at his books) they're useless and quite possibly wrong. Can someone else look into this? -- Shimmin Beg (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor reference

message: I was unsure of where to start with the suggested clean up of this article. It has a lot of potential. I found the introduction was lacking interest, so I began there. My intent is to draw more attraction to the article by clearly depicting key concepts discussed throughout the piece. --Jen.cooper (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: New stuff goes at the bottom.  If you meant for your comment to be part of the "Comment discussion" it would to at the bottom of that section.  Please do not reintroduce your lead without addressing the (valid) point raised by User:Dodger67, "That flowery language does not actually define the concept. See WP:LEAD for guidelines on what an article introis supposed to be."  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: The article talks about when writing on clay tablets and silk appeared, but not about when books appeared. ChangMei (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did books appear? 

message: Why isn't book history left to be covered at book?
It looks like this page was once called "The History of the Book", implying it was about the academic discipline. The opening lines of this page also hint at this. Yet there is nothing on The History of the Book on this page. It should be on wikipedia, and as this page is not it is should lose any pretentions to be that.
We should strip the History of the Book segments from this place and place them in an appropriate holding place.
=Iralie (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of books Vs. Book Vs. History of the Book 

message: This article jumps from the 19th Century to ebooks. There is a rich history and available information about publishing especially in the 20th century. I'd be glad to discuss this with other bibliophiles. Jaldous1 (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Publishing  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on History of books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130429203535/http://www.handbook.curtin.edu.au/units/31/312761.html to http://handbook.curtin.edu.au/units/31/312761.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207155807/http://www.hss.ed.ac.uk/chb/postgraduatestudy.htm to http://www.hss.ed.ac.uk/chb/postgraduatestudy.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060914060157/http://ies.sas.ac.uk/study/MAHOB/index.htm to http://ies.sas.ac.uk/study/MAHOB/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120727003427/http://www.english.ttu.edu/grad_degrees/BH_default.asp to http://www.english.ttu.edu/grad_degrees/BH_default.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206103014/http://bookhistory.fis.utoronto.ca/ to http://bookhistory.fis.utoronto.ca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added some material to the section labeled "East Asia", it's the entire third paragraph. Let me know if there are any suggestions as far as that goes. In the additional material, I covered more on woodblock printing, some and some information on the process of moveable type, which was invented by Bi Sheng.
It may be worth it to work on a section about handwritten books/scrolls which pre-dated woodblock printing, because woodblock printing was the copying of already written text. 
--Bwrite New Mind (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a section 

message: I have started to alter the introduction of this page to reflect the significance of the topic as an academic discipline. I have only just started to amend the introduction, so please bear with me until it is finished.
By all means offer constructive criticism
˜˜˜˜  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JD3374 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Introduction added 

message: How did such a horrible article get written? Is this just vandalism or stupidity? 79.106.203.82 (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: — Assignment last updated by TroublingMoo (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Islamic Arts of the Book