Talk:Realia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thought I did a good job of writing this definition and artical on "realia" according to the rules of Wikipedia. As for need; "realia" appears underlined in at least one Wikipedia artical "Universal Decimal Classification" and it's one of those dumb words that I keep running into otherwise that recently seems to have caught fire on account of the Net/Web, yet I can't find it in any of my dictionaries at home, and I still don't have a clue how to say it because I've never heard it spoken in actual speech. 63.229.116.111 23:10, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) Spacewing60

but even the Latin is bogus Wetman 23:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep, keep! I don't have a clue how to say it either even though I have a 2 year master's degree in Library Science, but the term is more than simply valid, it is widespread in the domain of cataloguing in school and museum libraries, and a few other kinds of special libraries. Yes, it is a specialized term which you will not find in "normal" dictionaries but you will find it in all of the books that librarians use for cataloging (such as the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules) and all of the books that discuss cataloging. Moreover, if you do a Google search with "realia cataloging" you will find more than enough serious pages on the topic. AlainV 02:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay. ("ree-AL-ya") But the Latin is still bogus. What is this novelty word a synonym of? Wetman 03:47, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not really a novelty word. It is one of many possible values for the GMD or General Material Designation that can be attributed to any book in a cataloging record, but which is usually applied only to non-book items. In the extremely logical and precise world of the cataloging librarian (not to be confused with the reference librarian) the term "realia" stands out because it is much less exact than others. Libraies all too often use it as a "miscellaneous" designation for objects which do not fit into the other GMD categories such as "sound recodding" " video recording", "flash card", "toy" and others. But the nature of non-book cataloging is such that certain libraries sometimes decide to lump together many good GMD categories (including "toy" but also including "kit", "game", and "diorama") and use "realia" for all of them instead..In a sesne however it is all "legitimate" as long as they write this in their internal rules for implementing AACR2. This discussion has revived my interest in something I have not looked into for about 20 years. I am now digging up the etymology of the term in library circles and will modify the article after I get more results. Others are also doing part of the digging for me by now. AlainV 03:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be inclusive, but skeptical reserve should be expressed too. Now, auction houses sell memorabilia, because these items are memorabile, "memorable." They sell Americana, because "Americanus" is a Latin possibility. But they don't (yet) sell baseballia. I have a well-tuned ear, and "Realia" expresses to me just the same innocently comic ignorance as "Baseballia." A really accurate definition of "realia" will inevitably unearth the genuine word that's being overlooked, I predict. Exempla? Or just "examples." "Bye-gones" the British used to call "stuff" that was not in a "memorabilia" category: a mint, untouched tube of Ipana in its orginal box, ca. 1964. That kind of thing. Is that a "realium" really? Wetman 04:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please keep this article. I too have seen the term used in library science. It is a legitimate concept, and I don't really see what bearing the question of Latin etymology has on the issue. And the word you're looking for, Wetman, is probably "curio"; but "realia" is a much broader concept than mere memorabilia, curiosities, or bye-gones. -山道子 (Sewing) - talk 18:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Status update

Anyhow, the {{delete}} tag was added by Node ue because at the time, this article resembled a dictionary definition. Now that it looks more like a proper encyclopedia entry, everyone (well, almost everyone) should be happy with it; at any rate, the has been expanded and the delete tag removed. I have cleaned up the first couple of paragraphs and wikified the ending quote and bibliography. Admin: -山道子 (Sewing) - talk 19:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this stuff here?

I think the first part of the article is fine but I do not understand why the direction of the piece changes suddenly from a discussion of the kinds of things libraries are given and reasons why archivists have problems cataloging and retaining non-book stuff to preservation tips for curators. The article should be split. Parsnip13 15:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)