Talk:Library of Congress Classification

message: 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)
:The LCCN (Library of Congress Card Number, USMARC tag number "010") serves a function similar to the ISBN, but LoC-specific. It is just a number whose purpose is to uniquely identify a book; it has nothing to do with classification. 
:—Wing 05:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LoC Catalog Number

message: 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)
thread_title: Availability of the LOC classification system?

message: :The Library of Congress Classification system is also more complicated to use on an ad hoc basis without reference to the collection of the Library of Congress, and unlike DDC cannot be customised for the needs of a smaller library collection. Likewise, with the standardisation of LCC as a product for the preclassification of materials before they are accessioned there is little incentive for librarians to do their own classification of a work, even a work that was obviously classified erroneously by the Library of Congress. This has lead to a "homogenisation" and lack of vigour in the presentation of collections (and especially specialised collections) to the library patron.
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)
thread_title: Criticism of LCC from the [[Dewey Decimal System|DDC]] Article

message: 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)
thread_title: Classification articles nominated for deletion

message: 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)
thread_title: All subsets of this page have been deleted.

message: 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)
thread_title: Schedule B

message: 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)
replies: text: Revert. This is not a featured list. RichardF (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, and thanks for that. See also your talk page. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automatic addition of "class=FA"

message: : [shelf of books organized by LCC]
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
: See Library of Congress Classification#The system. (It's the same image, which survived an edit battle.)
: A better caption may be "Java programming books in the QA (Mathematics) subclass of Q (Science)." —at least in this location beside the table of one-letter codes. 
: The image displayed in the article is too small to show me much of the LCC system in use. The original file does show something non-trivial —not a lot, because the books are so limited in scope, all with LCC beginning "QA 76 .73 j38" (first four parts meaning Java language?). Six of them exhibit an informative sequence in their fifth and sixth parts. Trimmed to essentials it is this:
:: F553 1997
:: F553 2002
:: F56
:: F566
:: F67
:: G3323
:P64 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: (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)
thread_title:  Maintained how? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Two months later I have thus re-paragraphed the lead section. --P64 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  bullet 

message: 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
* where in the lead section we should preempt confusion --much of it is tacked onto the lead paragraph for another purpose (#bullet) 
* how that material should be divided between lead section and new section Notes --but I have relegated much of it to help other editors along
* how much unconfusing illustration should not be in this article at all, but only in articles on CN and SH and call numbers --none of which i have yet considered revising. 
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.
:(quote Note 2) "LCSH too is developed by the Library and assigns alphanumeric IDs. A closer look at this example shows refinements defined in 2004, 2007, and 2009." (and continue it)
 identifier    label
 sh85015136    Boarding schools
 sh2004006485  Boarding schools in literature
 sh2007102067  Boarding schools--Fiction
 sh2009116962  Boarding schools--Juvenile fiction
:Boarding schools (search). LCSH. Library of Congress. Retrieved 2012-05-11.
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)
thread_title:  LCCN, LCSH, LC call number 

message: Would RA be public health? --Badger151 (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Is RA public health?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use