Talk:Bookbinding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Older commments
From the article and photo's title, I'm guessing that a sash, in this context, is a thin strip of cloth sewn into the binding, but it might be good to include a definition of the term.
--Joel 16:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
My article and written contribution to 'Restoration hand binding' seemed to me to add rich relevant content to the page. Furthermore it seemed only fair to acknowledge the creator and donator of the fine image of an example: 'Restoration hand binding' - A Royal Binding of A Geneva Bible by Paul Tronson. This content was further enhanced by comments from Andrew Clarke.
In addition it seemed only reasonable to create an external link to Mr Tronson's web site that is on the front page for this keyword phrase on every search engine.
~~careersnet
- I agree that "Restoration hand binding" does add useful information to the content of the article, however wikipedia is not a place to promote or advertise businesses which sell products or offer services, either in the articles in return for any contribution, nor in "External links" sections.
- Please see: Wikipedia:External_links and Wikipedia:Spam for wikipedia policy on External links.
- 1.3 What should not be linked to:
- 1.3.3. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.
- 1.3.4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
- LDHan 23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear LDHan As you only joined Wikipedia in January 06, I do not believe that you have sufficient experience to warrant vexatiously deleting people's genuine contributions. see 'foxing' and 'bookbinding.'
As far as this page 'bookbinding' is concerned, Mr Paul Tronson is one of only three bookbinders in the world who can do this supremely difficult work as evidenced by the image he has donated to the site: Royal Binding. He is also the only person in the world to have developed an aqueous solution to remove foxing.
To my knowledge, there is no restriction in Wikipedia on referring to a 'noted' named personage or referencing their web site in the page or in external links.
~~careersnet
- I know little about bookbinding, but I know something about Wikipedia, and I'm sorry, Careersnet, you're way out of line here. There is no "probationary period" at Wikipedia; someone who's been here three months has as much right to be bold as someone who's been here for three years. In fact, I as an anonymous user (by personal choice) have the right to delete anything you say in an article if I can justify it. LDHan cited the Wikipedia guidelines on external links; that's exactly the "restriction" you claim to be unaware of, and frankly I don't see how it could be much clearer. You should really familiarize yourself with such basic guidelines as "sign talk page posts with four tildes" before you accuse people who signed up two months after you (and whose contributions outnumber yours by several orders of magnitude, not that it really matters) of lacking "sufficient experience" with Wikipedia. I don't mean this to sound combative, I just want like it when people behave responsibly, follow policy, and don't use arbitrary rationalizations to ignore editors who do something they disagree with. 69.140.12.199 04:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Anon, thanks for your comments. I thought it would be just a waste of time to reply to careersnet, he/she is obviously a spammer, check past edits, also has a spam user name. LDHan 18:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Please do merge Library binding into this article; it's brief and will fit in quite nicely. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Re verso/recto: Okay, the recto page faces left, but it's on the right-hand side and that's why it's called a "recto" (Latin: right). The description here seems needlessly obtuse.
Library binding is best kept as a link from bookbinding. It is a specific subset of binding, where leaf attachment is of primary importance (usually separated into double fan adhesive, oversewn, Smythe sewn, or retain original sewing). It implies a hardcover binding, usually covered in buckram or c-cloth (for smaller bindings). It also implies a series of one-off bindings produced in a factory setting, as opposed to hand binding (non-factory) or trade binding (where multiples of identical bindings are produced). Library Binding needs to be fleshed out, but then so does the bookbinding article. There's more information out there on Bookbinding than can be said in one page. (Nosey 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
- Library binding might deserve its own page, but as it stands no one has edited it since 5/06 (the merge proposal), and nothing of substance has been added in close to eighteen months. I support the merger. Jlittlet 23:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] links to digital bookbinding books
There is someone out there deleting links to legitimate free for all books on bookbinding and allied trades published on the internet. These links are not spam and are totally justified. The irony is that the editor is obviously not versed in the trade of bookbinding, but only has the vanity to pretend knowledge of it. Will the editors of wikipedia contain this mad person? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bibliopegist (talk • contribs)
- replied at userpage. --Quiddity 02:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Did you scan these books yourself? They look interesting, but that isn't the only criterion that applies here. Notinasnaid 06:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I scanned the books myself, after of course buying them and making sure they are copyright free.
"They look interesting" - what would you know, are you an expert in the field? One of the book is totally out of print as it was published in very limited quantity and never reprinted and to boot, it's on a topic of which information is scarce : Gilding. Now I have read the constraints in posting to wikipedia and I have followed the rules, that your opinion on the quality of the books I offer in links are not meeting a certain criterion that would apply here is preposterous and your policing is at best "flying by the seat of your pants", at worse, malicious and reprehensible.
To top my argument, I would invite you to really visit my web site at bookbinding.com and look hard for any links to a price list or any phrase solliciting business, any promotion asking visitors to contact me for business. The fact is that I am not looking for more clients, I have enough to keep me busy long after I am gone.
In the meantime, I will continue scanning books and posting them on my web site and if wikipedia is not interested in my contribution, so be it. I do not need the link to boost my site, is is first page on Yahoo and Google when you keyword bookbinding. What do they know that you don't?
- I'm afraid you have not followed the guidelines, however. See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided item 3. Notinasnaid 18:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About signatures
I thought that when you make 32 pages from one signature, you have to cut the signature first, BEFORE you bind the pages to the spine, otherwise they will not open.--Luke Elms 15:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Turtleback bindings
I'm not sure whether Bookbinding or Library Bindings is the appropriate place, but I have come across a type of binding called "turtleback" that isn't included herein and I'm curious as to what this is. Would someone with knowledge in this area be willing to add information on this to one or the other of these articles? 80.175.111.177 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ?
"The preparation of the "foundations" of the book could mean the difference between a beautiful work of art and a useless stack of paper and leather."
What does that even mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.36.68.189 (talk)
[edit] Problems
The entire section "Modern commercial binding" was is a copy of [1] and possibly needs to be rewritten. Moreover the whole article seems a bit ambiguous and not well defined. For instance, many of the binding styles seem identical. I intend to help fix these issues, however I don't have a broad knowledge of bookbinding so I won't be able to do much. Kelden 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Upon closer inspection, it appears that [2] is a copy of THIS page. Kelden 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Does the signature have printing on both sides?
This sentence doesn't say whether the signature has printing on both sides.
- A signature is a large sheet printed with several pages, intended to form four or more leaves in the finished book.
Also, large is vague. As is this sentence.
- Paper sizes could vary considerably ...
What are typical dimensions? --Jtir 11:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was specifically trying to determine from this article whether this image of the title page of the Malleus Maleficarum is a full page or a detail.
- The bibrec says the book is "15 cm. (8vo)".[3] This article does not say whether the typical dimensions given for an octavo are width and height or height and width. That should be made clear. --Jtir 11:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Forms of Binding
The list of "forms of binding" in the History section seems somewhat capricious (both very broad and very specific binding types listed), and might better be broken up into categories that binders/conservators commonly use. In a roughly chronological order within each major type of binding, it would be something like:
Western Bindings: Non-adhesive & other early codices Carolingian Alum-tawed Vellum Flexible Cased Recessed Cord Tape Adhesive Non-traditional structures Islamic and Near Eastern Bindings: Byzantine Armenian (probably more in this section; I'm not especially familiar with Islamic bindings) Asian Bindings: Accordian Stab Wrapper
Generally, "calf-binding" and "wooden board" aren't terms used in the field - or, rather, they describe a component of a binding, but not a specific binding style. For instance, the first five types of Western bindings above could all be made with wooden boards, but didn't necessarily require them.
The "futureofthebook" webpage from which the original list comes uses Gary Frost's Iowa model set as its categories. The Iowa models are used to illustrate very broad categories that aren't necessarily productive for further exposition, and there's a lot of overlap/confusion to them. Note that the Iowa libraries themselves aren't consistent with the categories they use (Bookbinding Models).
--Ratbasket 12:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
On continental Europe, the general convention is to print titles bottom-to-top on the spine. Again in the warmer countries the books were stored face up in the old system. However, with exceptions in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, - (the humid countries) where titles are written top-to-bottom. , and in Spain, where styles vary among publishers.
What?! - Gus (T, C) 2007-07-17 15:56Z 15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Not sure where some of the info in this article comes from - I'm trying to update the article to wikipedia writing standards, and to be more representative of current practice/knowledge in the field. Ratbasket 11:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External links
Seems like the external links section is the fastest-growing part of this article - is it becoming a link dump? Ratbasket 12:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just a reminder, in case anyone is inclined to mass-delete: If they are good references, then summarize an aspect and use them as sources. --Quiddity 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "articles"
The brief section about hardcover books that are termed here as "articles" needs to be redone. First of all, most hardcover books that I see today are of this type. If you pick up a recently made hardcover book, and examine the binding, you will see that it is actually a glue bound book, effectively a paperback book placed in a hardcover. Second, I disagree that such books "fall apart easily". Most people I know aren't even aware that what they assumed was a standard hardcover book is actually glued until I show them the spine. Futher, modern glues don't "fall apart", and have effective lifetimes in decades.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.28.253.185 (talk)
[edit] Improvement through citations
The article "sounds" authoritative, reading as if it were transcribed or paraphrased from a definitive source. It could stand citations, at least section-specific, to specific places in sources. I think it's better to paraphrase than to have unattributed quotes or long excerpts, even if attributed. DCDuring 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Troubles with large scrolls
The opening paragraphs suggest that scrolls that were large needed special equipment in order to read without damaging. I think it needs to be expanded and stated a little more explicitly. neffk (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bookbinding
I have a refugee section from the article on adhesive. It didn't fit in well there. the text follows. Should it be included? --81.106.184.50 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
BEGIN refugee section
[edit] Polyurethane-based adhesives in the bookbinding industry
On the way to a new and better glue for bookbinders, a new adhesive system was introduced in 1985. The base for this system is polyether or polyester, with polyurethane (PUR) being used as prepolymer. Its special features are coagulation at room temperature and reaction to moisture.
[edit] Developmental history
1st Generation (Introduced at Drupa, 1988) - Low starting solidity - High viscosity - Drying time of more than 3 days
2nd Generation (Introduced at Drupa, 1996) - Low starting solidity - High viscosity - Drying time of less than 3 days
3rd Generation (Introduced at Drupa, 2000) - Good starting solidity - Low viscosity - Drying time between 6 and 16 hours
4th Generation (Current as at 2007) - Good starting solidity - Very low viscosity - Drying time is just a few seconds due to Dual-Core-Systems
[edit] Advantages
Without moisture in the glue, papers with the wrong grain direction can be processed without problems, as can printed and supercalandered paper. It is the most economical glue with an application thickness of only 0.01 mm in theory; however, in practice it is not possible to apply less than 0.03 mm. PUR glue is very weatherproof and is stable at temperatures from -40°C to +100°C. [1]
END refugee section
[edit] Book Printing Process
Hi all. I've included Template:Book Publishing Process. I'd welcome input.
Creating that template also involved the creation of two more Wikipedia pages, Book folding and Book trimming. I'd personally like to see more information on these topics, either as subsections of this article (in which case, redirect to the appropriate part of this article), or in the articles I've created.
-- TimNelson (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Direction of print on the spine
The article claims that titles are printed on spines top-to-bottom in the US and UK, but bottom-to-top in Continental Europe. The latter is indeed true of books published in French and German, but Dutch language books usually have the title printed on them in the English fashion, and I imagine that in other European language areas conventions vary, as well. (One Dutch paperback publisher stubbornly printed the titles the French way back in the 70s, but I have the impression they have since changed their minds, since I haven't seen it done on any but older paperbacks. It's annoying, though, and leads people to file those books upside-down...)
Besides, it might be worth mentioning that for any language using the Latin script or some slight variation of it, you sometimes find thick books, with wide spines, that have titles printed horizontally on the spine, and other information such as the publisher is often printed horizontally even if the title is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.226.238 (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Corrected false information regarding MFA programs
The article claims that the School of the Museum of Fine Arts has a specialized masters program for bookmaking. This is not true. The school in fact is based on having no specialty at all. You do not specialize in that college. They do have bookmaking classes, but they are not a 'program' or a 'specialty' in the traditional sense. The amount offered especially would fall short of this mark.
24.91.40.93 (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pronunciation
Bookbinders don't speak Latin (any more), so do they say sixteen-mo rather than sextodecimo?--87.162.45.140 (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)