Talk:Bibliophilia

Too much bolding

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)

Not only do I not mind, I just did it. :) It was obnoxious! Aleta 07:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundant article?

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)

   erm no, this is describing a word that means as such.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:641:C080:520:7C25:26C4:108B:AC7 (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC) 

Computer screens?

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)

Well I reading love books, but can't stand the feel of the paper... and the annoyance of trying to hold down a page/reading text next to the spine. If it wasn't for the glare I'd happily read books on the net all the time instead. Haha, I'm such a freak. ~ Francesca

You're a freak? I have gigabytes of books in many different formats for the PC. (as well as many real books.) Adjust your brightness and contrast levels correctly and you'll have no trouble reading from a CRT. I see nothing freakish about it, computers manipulate media quite readily, text is no exception! JubalHarshaw 04:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lifestyle

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)

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)

Bibliophily vs. Bibliophilia

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)

Anime/manga-related links

The Read or Die and Private Sheska links seem out of place. Maybe they should be removed?

Merge into Book collecting?

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)

Some corrections required

• 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)

Bibliophily

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)

People

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

Standard work, Classic, Definitive study

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)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the discussion was: Articles not merged.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

---

• (This comment was copied from Talk:Book collector:) According to dictionaries bibliophilia is the most technical term for book collecting. The bibliophila article right now is no more than an unreferenced dictionary definition as far as I can tell. It should either be redirected here or this article should be moved over there. Which title should actually house the article?

• (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)

• (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)

• 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)

• 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)

• <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)

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)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attribution

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)

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)

The bit about the Library of Congress

I've removed a sentence mentioning the Library of Congress, with the attached weasel word "some"; I was going to explain my removal in the edit summary but it got way too long, so here I am.

The sentence was added in this December 2006 edit (made by a user blocked since 2009), with a source to an old catalogue site, that was mangled in April 2007. There are two major problems with this: (a) using a catalogue for something like this is extreme original research and (b) I can't reproduce this behaviour with the modern catalogue, though I've barely used the Library of Congress site before; also see their list of subject headings beginning with B. Graham87 (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2024

Bibliophilia → Bookworm – Per WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. Guinea pig, not Cavia porcellus). Ngrams shows drastically higher use of "bookworm" as a descriptive term than "biblophilia". Even bibliophiles rarely refer to themselves as bibliophiles, only bookworms. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)