Talk:Bibliophilia

message: The first paragraph of the article has tons of bolded text. Normally this doesn't bother me, but every single sentence in the paragraph has at least one word bolded, which gets to be a distraction. Anyone mind if I remove some of the bolding? --Dr. WTF 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only do I not mind, I just did it. :) It was obnoxious! Aleta 07:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much '''bolding'''

message: This is semi-redundant with book collecting; not sure if separate articles have any particular value or not. Stan 15:12, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant article?

message: I have added the disputed tag regarding the discussion on people abandoning books when some IBM screen arrives on the market. This is surely nonsense. rem120
:I agree with you, about the IBM screen.  Part of the love of books is through the actual object, the book.  The covers, the pages, the texture, print, smell, etc. Salanth
::Agreed, when I read the part about the IBM stuff I instantally thought, B.S.  [allranger]
:::Hmm. I must say I wonder why that part hasn't been thrown out a long time ago. Oh well, now its done. Greetings from a guy who loves books and  hi-tech. No need for a schism there. :-) --Wernher 03:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer screens?

message: But is it a lifestile? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lifestyles
I believe it is most defenitely a lifestlye.  Book collecting is an addiction and literally takes over a life.  --Da Kidd 14:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be Bibliomania, the addiction or obsessive correcting of books 2601:641:C080:520:7C25:26C4:108B:AC7 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Lifestyle

message: People of think that the latter is correct - and therefore, perhaps it is.
:But it's not in my 10th edition of MW!
:Yours truly,--Ludvikus 00:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bibliophily]] vs. [[Bibliophilia]]

message: I agree with Stan's "Redundant article?" comment above, and recommend this article be merged into Book collecting.  I plan to edit that article, and will probably begin to edit and move some of this page over. -- Mukrkrgsj 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge into [[Book collecting]]?

message: *Not sure why the 'profile' section is so named, nor why it is in quotation marks and starts with a lowercase letter.
*What is the purpose of all the Library of Congress data tacked on to the end of this article?
SabreWolfy 20:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some corrections required 

message: I'm rather surprised that no one bothered to included it or define it in the opening paragraph. Will someone please come to the plate? --Ludvikus 02:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bibliophily]] 

message: I was wondering if maybe we should include a section on people who suffered from Bibliophly. (Sontag12 (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[People]] 

message: The first of these is currently under consideration for deletion. Can one and all please drop by a put his, her, or their two cents in before the standard works are wiped out? Now do I have your attention? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Standard work]], [[Classic]], [[Definitive]] study 

message: The result of the discussion was: Articles not merged.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *(Copied from above:) This is semi-redundant with book collecting; not sure if separate articles have any particular value or not. Stan 15:12, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: *(Copied from above as well:) I agree with Stan's "Redundant article?" comment above, and recommend this article be merged into Book collecting.  I plan to edit that article, and will probably begin to edit and move some of this page over. -- Mukrkrgsj 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I compiled the three above comments here - in spite of their being a few years old - as I am in favor of a merge as well. Supertouch (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd agree. Needs to be done carefully though as they're definitely not always synonymous. Suggest merge from here to there, simply to keep the larger edit-history intact - once the content is all in one place it could then be pagemoved to a different title if deemed necessary. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

text: *<copied from Talk:Book collecting> Oppose merge: The two terms, while closely related, are not synonymous. Not all bibliophiles are book collectors, and while one might assume that all book collectors are bibiliophiles, that's not necessarily true either. There are some who engage in collecting for reasons not always strictly bibliophilic--for research; because of love of a particular topic that encompasses, but is not limited to, books; in order to appear cultured; or for investment. I think the two topics should remain separate.--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. As Shelfskewed correctly states bibliophilia is only a certain form of book collecting, the two terms are not synonymous. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  The terms are not synonymous. --Spacini (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Text and references copied from Bookworm (insect) to Bibliophilia.  See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Text and references copied from Bibliophilia to Bookworm (insect).  See former article's history for a list of contributors.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution