Talk:Term Catalogue

Untitled

I am curious as to what the source is for this article. I don't find it anywhere. 165.91.113.105 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Got a problem here - I am presently doing the research for a chapter on the English term catalogues - part of a book project - I could present further data, statistics etc. yet it would be original research, so no thing here. --Olaf Simons (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

I just made a copyediting pass. Some remarks:

• Interesting stuff.
• Yes, this is a bit close to original research. Olaf, I'm sure you will be publishing your work in an academic journal; in general, you might want to wait until you at least have a conference paper of to cite before contributing a version of your material to Wikipedia, because the OR issue is definitely real. I happen to know your work is solid, but, for better or worse, the universe of Wikipedia contributors has grown to the point where no one's reputation really proceeds them.
• Olaf, please look through my edits to make sure that none of my attempted clarifications of archaic terms were erroneous. The one I was least sure of was "Physick", which I assume was in the sense of "medicine" and annotated accordingly.
• Where you wrote "Easter Cataloge No.1", is that really the spelling, or is it an error? Should either be "Easter Catalogue No.1" or "Easter Cataloge (sic) No.1".
• Right at the end there are some problems. You write "55% of the titles listed can be seen as focused on ongoing affairs, 70% fall into the two most prominent leading categories."
  1. What do you mean by "ongoing affairs"? "Contemporary events" or something else?
  2. The table needs headers: the meanings of the columns, especially the ones at right in red ochre, are not obvious.
  3. I totally fail to see the basis of the calculation that leads to the statement "70% fall into the two most prominent leading categories," nor of the numbers at right in red ochre.

I hope that's helpful; get back to me if anything is unclear. - Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, yes, I hesitated (as you see above) for quite awhile Yet as I found out, my diagrams do not go much beyond what one finds in The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain (very good book), the diagrams are new. The 1700-cake-diagram is quite new, yet again: everyone can count. I was ready to provide the xls-file with my computations (there are upload-restrictions). The simple counting of titles is not really the work of a genius. I don't know...
• You are right. Physick is medicine. I did not know that it needed the explanation - there is a redirect from Physic to Medicine, so I felt it was normal.
• "ongoing affairs"? - Most of the political controversies are religiously motivated. 1711 is still marked by the Sacheverell controversy. 70% is the sum of both categories, 56% is what remains if I substract the reprinted and focus on the materials that are up to date... Maybe I add the Sacheverell affair and drop the two last columns of the table.
• Thanks for proofreading the page. Much obliged (and surprised by the production thing - that just does not feel right - which is: I don't feel right), --Olaf Simons (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sacheverell?

I noted that Sacheverell is a disambiguation page, with only people listed. When referring to the Sacheverell affair, should it be Henry Sacheverell that is referred to, or is there a better page somewhere? (Sacheverell riots is a redirect). --Alvestrand (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

gave the link in the article to Henry S. The riots and the controversy do not have an article... --09:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)