Talk:Library of Congress Classification

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 agree that it is a bit of overkill, but the data in the list is very stable so I wouldn't complain too strenuously that the more complicated HTML format is virtually uneditable by normal mortals. In a less stable environment, I might see things differently. ☮ Eclecticology 04:02, 2003 Sep 19 (UTC)

Is it, then, worth extending the concept to the Sub-Classifications? -- sugarfish 06:32, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't particularly object. The question of the stability of the article comes into the picture. Although I did originally set some of these pages up in my earliest days on Wikipedia, I did leave the matter of expansion as an open question. I would appreciate your views on this.

Meanwhile, if you're looking for a place to start working your wonders, I've noticed that someone expanded 4 of the subclasses in P. This guy stayed for a few days then disappeared. I look forward to hearing from you. ☮ Eclecticology 21:53, 2003 Sep 19 (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:

In particular, the classification often shows bias towards the United States and towards Christianity.

D.E. Cottrell 07:51, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think that I contributed that anyways. I've left it alone because it struck me as probably true. The bias should not be seen as an intentional bias, nor does it imply any kind of subversion. It seems natural to expect that a US developed system would put more emphasis on US centred topics. Thus we have more subclasses in B devoted to Christian themes. Class E alone is devoted entirely to US history while all the complexities of Old World history are grouped together in Class D. Subclass PS is devoted entirely to US literature, while English literature from all other places is put together in subclass PR. That being said, I don't attach enough importance to that bias to warrant a full scale defence to keep it in the article. ☮ Eclecticology 23:49, 2004 Jan 19 (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)

Wikipedia outline format

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.]