[Poll] On Wickerbottom

[GetNerfedOn]

    

bonus: whoever gets the correct answer on question 2 gets a skin

 

Edited yesterday at 11:19 AM by GetNerfedOn

[GrapeVruit]

1 minute ago, GetNerfedOn said:

bonus: whoever gets the correct answer on question 2 gets a skin

 

Where's my prize, nerd?

[GetNerfedOn]

Just now, GrapeVruit said:

Where's my prize, nerd?

 

[GrapeVruit]

1 minute ago, GetNerfedOn said:

 

The heck do you mean I'm wrong?!

[GetNerfedOn]

4 minutes ago, GrapeVruit said:

The heck do you mean I'm wrong?!

To reach the correct answer, analyze the question deeply! What is apparent may not seem so.

I shall reveal the correct answer when the poll expires

 

[Popian]

42 minutes ago, GetNerfedOn said:

To reach the correct answer, analyze the question deeply!

"All of the above."

 

Anthony Panizzi's 91 Rules

Edited May 12 by Popian

[gaymime]

1 hour ago, GetNerfedOn said:

To reach the correct answer, analyze the question deeply! What is apparent may not seem so.

I shall reveal the correct answer when the poll expires

 

aaaare you kidding me, i went and looked up the history of the new york library, came away with either udc or ddc and i could have just checked the dst wiki x''D

 

i wonder though if the joke is that she works at the owl library or something

 

 

 

counter-question for nerfedon; 

how thicc is omni-man?

Edited May 12 by gaymime
had my own question

[GetNerfedOn]

10 minutes ago, gaymime said:

aaaare you kidding me, i went and looked up the history of the new york library, came away with either udc or ddc and i could have just checked the dst wiki x''D

 

i wonder though if the joke is that she works at the owl library or something

 

 

 

counter-question for nerfedon; 

how thicc is omni-man?

all that effort and still incorrect

 

the answer to that question is thick enough to not realize 

Spoiler

that Kregg is already creating a new viltrumite clan with his 12 wives on earth while Lucan is hosting Family Feud

 

[VaskalRascal]

what

[GetNerfedOn]

14 minutes ago, VaskalRascal said:

what

ivebeen at this for weeks and you only noticed now? you will live to regret this

[Xvnd]

I can't vote but my answer is 

Anthony Panizzi's 91 Rules

 

[Grove]

17 hours ago, gaymime said:

udc or ddc

Wickerbum wasn't using either of those, which is why no one visited her librarby.

 

[GetNerfedOn]

3 hours ago, Xvnd said:

I can't vote but my answer isn

Anthony Panizzi's 91 Rules

 

answer noted as at least one of the not blatantly incorrect one that everyone is still dumping their answer into

3 hours ago, Grove said:

Wickerbum wasn't using either of those, which is why no one visited her librarby.

 

she worked in the New York State Library it was quite definitely well trod on!

something interesting i noticed is that since the fire happened 1911, that would mean that if wickerbottom were approaching late middle age and thus the end of a lengthy career there...

...she would have been colleagues with the infamous Melvil Dewey himsel who was librarian there until 1905.

That means she canonically would have been a victim of his misogyny at some point.

[Draggofroot]

When wicker reads the onepiece book she should be softlocked in an eternal reading animation

[GetNerfedOn]

2 hours ago, Draggofroot said:

When wicker reads the onepiece book she should be softlocked in an eternal reading animation

that or the monkeys launch a Buster Call and destroy her location off the map

[Naifxoxo]

weakerbottom 

[GetNerfedOn]

AAAAAAND since nobody's voting i've closed the poll - and here it is, the answer to question 2! 

In proper Wickerbottom fashion as both a Wickerbottom main and librarian, I shall deliver the answer in the most pretentious manner possible

In  the practice of librarianship there are three primary disciplines to cataloging:

• Subject Cataloging, which aims to ensure each subject treated by a book is defined by the same word/terminology throughout other languages and countries. [None of the options are for subject cataloging.]
• Classification, which arranges the Subject Cataloged items into an existing classification framework in order to group items of similar subject matter together on the shelves.. [The Dewey Decimal Classification System, Colon Classification and Library of Congress Classification System are all of these type, immedaitely ruling them out as incorrect.]
• Descriptive Cataloging, which the question is looking for, which aims to define the physical characteristics of a book (e.g. size, shape, color, author, publisher, number of pages, year published etc.), allowing one to find a book despite its subject ("uhhhh the book's cover was red!")
  • Of the choices, three are Descriptive Cataloging schemes - Panizzi's 91 Rules, Anglo-American Cataloging System and Resource Description and Access.
  • Now, of these three choices, AACR and RDA are fairly recent inventions, devised 1967 and 2010 respectively.
  • This the answer is most probably Panizzi's 91 rules, the descriptive cataloging system available 1841, and in use by the time of Wickerbottom's employment at the New York State Library (since the Fire was at 1911)

And for our winners we have @Naifxoxo, @Keknutui and @Johnny_Waffles, along with @Xvnd! Drop me a pm with your steam ids so i can send over your prizes.

 

Thank you all for messing around and see you tomorrow for the Woodie poll!

Edited yesterday at 11:54 AM by GetNerfedOn

[Naifxoxo]

43 minutes ago, GetNerfedOn said:

AAAAAAND since nobody's voting i've closed the poll - and here it is, the answer to question 2! 

In proper Wickerbottom fashion as both a Wickerbottom main and librarian, I shall deliver the answer in the most pretentious manner possible

In  the practice of librarianship there are three primary disciplines to cataloging:

• Subject Cataloging, which aims to ensure each subject treated by a book is defined by the same word/terminology throughout other languages and countries. [None of the options are for subject cataloging.]
• Classification, which arranges the Subject Cataloged items into an existing classification framework in order to group items of similar subject matter together on the shelves.. [The Dewey Decimal Classification System, Colon Classification and Library of Congress Classification System are all of these type, immedaitely ruling them out as incorrect.]
• Descriptive Cataloging, which the question is looking for, which aims to define the physical characteristics of a book (e.g. size, shape, color, author, publisher, number of pages, year published etc.), allowing one to find a book despite its subject ("uhhhh the book's cover was red!")
  • Of the choices, three are Descriptive Cataloging schemes - Panizzi's 91 Rules, Anglo-American Cataloging System and Resource Description and Access.
  • Now, of these three choices, AACR and RDA are fairly recent inventions, devised 1967 and 2010 respectively.
  • This the answer is most probably Panizzi's 91 rules, the descriptive cataloging system available 1841, and in use by the time of Wickerbottom's employment at the New York State Library (since the Fire was at 1911)

And for our winners we have @Naifxoxo, @Keknutui and @Johnny_Waffles, along with @Xvnd! Drop me a pm with your steam ids so i can send over your prizes.

 

Thank you all for messing around and see you tomorrow for the Woodie poll!

nice , so what did we win exactly 

Edited yesterday at 12:37 PM by Naifxoxo

[GetNerfedOn]

3 minutes ago, Naifxoxo said:

nice , so what did we win exactly 

A skin of my choosing

 

[Naifxoxo]

10 minutes ago, GetNerfedOn said:

A skin of my choosing

 

i pmed 

Edited yesterday at 12:51 PM by Naifxoxo

[Pruinae]

17 minutes ago, GetNerfedOn said:

A skin of my choosing

 

Perfect prizes for a Wickerbottom contest

[gaymime]

18 hours ago, GetNerfedOn said:

AAAAAAND since nobody's voting i've closed the poll - and here it is, the answer to question 2! 

In proper Wickerbottom fashion as both a Wickerbottom main and librarian, I shall deliver the answer in the most pretentious manner possible

In  the practice of librarianship there are three primary disciplines to cataloging:

• Subject Cataloging, which aims to ensure each subject treated by a book is defined by the same word/terminology throughout other languages and countries. [None of the options are for subject cataloging.]
• Classification, which arranges the Subject Cataloged items into an existing classification framework in order to group items of similar subject matter together on the shelves.. [The Dewey Decimal Classification System, Colon Classification and Library of Congress Classification System are all of these type, immedaitely ruling them out as incorrect.]
• Descriptive Cataloging, which the question is looking for, which aims to define the physical characteristics of a book (e.g. size, shape, color, author, publisher, number of pages, year published etc.), allowing one to find a book despite its subject ("uhhhh the book's cover was red!")
  • Of the choices, three are Descriptive Cataloging schemes - Panizzi's 91 Rules, Anglo-American Cataloging System and Resource Description and Access.
  • Now, of these three choices, AACR and RDA are fairly recent inventions, devised 1967 and 2010 respectively.
  • This the answer is most probably Panizzi's 91 rules, the descriptive cataloging system available 1841, and in use by the time of Wickerbottom's employment at the New York State Library (since the Fire was at 1911)

And for our winners we have @Naifxoxo, @Keknutui and @Johnny_Waffles, along with @Xvnd! Drop me a pm with your steam ids so i can send over your prizes.

 

Thank you all for messing around and see you tomorrow for the Woodie poll!

ok, this is a lot of words but where did you get your feelings that she'd do this despite there being no evidence supporting it and real searchable evidence refuting it? when it was some meme thing it was cute and i was super curious where you were going with it but...you weren't being meme-y you just didnt know the answer and made one up.

 

the actual real new york library exclusively used the billings classification up until the 1950s and never stopped using it entirely even when thy moved over to the dewey system(as there are just that many books). because the in-universe library uses it's current system(dewy decimal) i thought that could be fair, klei is canadian and the game isnt super accurate anyway that is whatever but if you are basing this on real life stuff then it is super incorrect to say it was "probably" 91 rules. john billings was the head director and of the 6 buildings he was in charge of 5 of those used the billings system(honestly probably all 6 but i can only confirm 5). of the 5 i know about the new york public library was one of them. even the current online library has vestigial remnants of the billings system notated and specially marked as such;

https://libguides.nypl.org/c.php?g=924322&p=6662089

Edited 17 hours ago by gaymime
changed a "we" to "i" so as to clarify that someone more educated might know the 6th for sure

[Popian]

29 minutes ago, gaymime said:

classification

What you've quoted makes a distinction between cataloguing and classification...

Also regarding Dewey Decimal keep in mind that adopting a system isn't trivial when you have to transition from another one. How long would it take to relabel and sort all the books?

[GetNerfedOn]

1 hour ago, gaymime said:

ok, this is a lot of words but where did you get your feelings that she'd do this despite there being no evidence supporting it and real searchable evidence refuting it? when it was some meme thing it was cute and i was super curious where you were going with it but...you weren't being meme-y you just didnt know the answer and made one up.

 

the actual real new york library exclusively used the billings classification up until the 1950s and never stopped using it entirely even when thy moved over to the dewey system(as there are just that many books). because the in-universe library uses it's current system(dewy decimal) i thought that could be fair, klei is canadian and the game isnt super accurate anyway that is whatever but if you are basing this on real life stuff then it is super incorrect to say it was "probably" 91 rules. john billings was the head director and of the 6 buildings he was in charge of 5 of those used the billings system(honestly probably all 6 but i can only confirm 5). of the 5 i know about the new york public library was one of them. even the current online library has vestigial remnants of the billings system notated and specially marked as such;

https://libguides.nypl.org/c.php?g=924322&p=6662089

First, please! chill on the tone. This is merely a trivia question trying to tie real life practices to a fictional event and character, and an attempt to have people see some of the complexities going on behind librarianship despite their own initial surface level perceptions.

My search is from the perspective of a third party of the USA with surface level data for purely leisure purposes. I've decided to perform just the fun amount of research although I've adhered to the most verifiable facts that I have gathered, and while I personally am very open to corrections in the name of fact, don't bandy assumptions that I "made things up". The thought process is already there to see, and while i appreciate the attempt to point out a flaw, do it right.

Second, if you're arguing based of the merit of my facts, Billings Classification is part of the practice of Classification, as defined. It does not hold standards to unify description of the physical attributes of library items (main entry, creator, physical description, page number, content, media, carrier, creation date, publisher, manufacturer et cetera), and is strictly outside the bounds of Descriptive Cataloging, as it describes the item types as a subclassification per said item type, not a physical description. (To draw a parallel, the present edition of the Dewey Decimal Classification System has numbers 780-789, with specific numbers dedicated to type of instrument from 784 onward, dedicated to the same effect, for instance.) Therefore, it is strictly incorrect in the context of the question asked. (The closest you can get with your source is the Fixed Order Classification stated on the page describing the size requirements of musical items, which would still not be valid given it was developed in 1972.) While I shall cede that this fact is something I missed in my readings it does not refute anything.

Third, the point I'm making is that since Descriptive Cataloging systems are a fairly recent refinement, up until the AACR was developed in 1967, Panizzi's 91 rules were the only standard for the near 150 years they were active in for most libraries. Thus there is uncertainty whether this is the case as the majority of libraries were focused on subject cataloging at the time, which has reflected itself in the question's wording. If you find a Descriptive Cataloging system available at the time, then sure, I can cede to that being the correct answer instead, but until then, they shall remain the most probably correct answer in the context of Descriptive Cataloging. 

Addendum: Since we are starting to be hyperspecific, the two refutations I shall accept shall be:

• the American Library Association's Catalog Rules: Author and Title Entries, made in 1908, three years before the fire, and
• Charles Ammi Cutter's Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalogue (1876); although implemented in Boston, may have been widespread throughout American libraries at the time.

https://libguides.ala.org/catalogingtools/descriptive

27 minutes ago, Popian said:

What you've quoted makes a distinction between cataloguing and classification...

Also regarding Dewey Decimal keep in mind that adopting a system isn't trivial when you have to transition from another one. How long would it take to relabel and sort all the books?

we're going through inventory right now i assure you it's hell even transitioning to a new Library Management System with the same classification system

and even here, though ideally AACR is outdated and has to be phased out most libraries simply cannot afford RDA materials and have to make do using outdated descriptions that trigger a festive bevy of errors in searches!

Edited 16 hours ago by GetNerfedOn

[gaymime]

20 minutes ago, GetNerfedOn said:

First, please! chill on the tone. This is merely a trivia question trying to tie real life practices to a fictional event and character, and an attempt to have people see some of the complexities going on behind librarianship despite their own initial surface level perceptions.

My search is from the perspective of a third party of the USA with surface level data for purely leisure purposes. I've decided to perform just the fun amount of research although I've adhered to the most verifiable facts that I have gathered, and while I personally am very open to corrections in the name of fact, don't bandy assumptions that I "made things up". The thought process is already there to see, and while i appreciate the attempt to point out a flaw, do it right.

Second, if you're arguing based of the merit of my facts, Billings Classification is part of the practice of Classification, as defined. It does not hold standards to unify description of the physical attributes of library items (main entry, creator, physical description, page number, content, media, carrier, creation date, publisher, manufacturer et cetera), and is strictly outside the bounds of Descriptive Cataloging, as it describes the item types as a subclassification per said item type, not a physical description. (To draw a parallel, the present edition of the Dewey Decimal Classification System has numbers 780-789, with specific numbers dedicated to type of instrument from 784 onward, dedicated to the same effect, for instance.) Therefore, it is strictly incorrect in the context of the question asked. (The closest you can get with your source is the Fixed Order Classification stated on the page describing the size requirements of musical items, which would still not be valid given it was developed in 1972.) While I shall cede that this fact is something I missed in my readings it does not refute anything.

Third, the point I'm making is that since Descriptive Cataloging systems are a fairly recent refinement, up until the AACR was developed in 1967, Panizzi's 91 rules were the only standard for the near 150 years they were active in for most libraries. Thus there is uncertainty whether this is the case as the majority of libraries were focused on subject cataloging at the time, which has reflected itself in the question's wording. If you find a Descriptive Cataloging system available at the time, then sure, I can cede to that being the correct answer instead, but until then, they shall remain the most probably correct answer in the context of Descriptive Cataloging. 

Addendum: Since we are starting to be hyperspecific, the two refutations I shall accept shall be:

• the American Library Association's Catalog Rules: Author and Title Entries, made in 1908, three years before the fire, and
• Charles Ammi Cutter's Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalogue (1876); although implemented in Boston, may have been widespread throughout American libraries at the time.

https://libguides.ala.org/catalogingtools/descriptive

we're going through inventory right now i assure you it's hell even transitioning a to a new Library Management System with the same classification system

and even here, though ideally AACR is outdated and has to be phased out most libraries simply cannot afford RDA materials and have to make do using outdated descriptions that trigger a festive bevy of errors in searches!

forgive me for being so aggressive....i am a bibliophile, i've been madly in love with books for longer than i have had formed memories(of my first dozen most of them have a book physically in my hands with almost all of those open and being read or read to me). i have been awed and in adoration of libraries since the first time i went to one and have been an avid proponent of them for most of my life up to and including filling out forms for book requests and participating in about two decades of purchases and donations and i took that personal feeling into this conversation. i'll dial it down.

 

since you used cataloguing and classifying interchangeably with your options AND did not provide the cataloguing type that the nypl used at the time  it made more sense to not assume you made a distinction & were only talking about the internal method she would have used. if we are making that distinction then there is no answer since she would not have used any of the ones provided unless she did so in defiance of her training and place of employment. having the answer be "most probably" correct also feels unfair since it disallows an accurate answer. additionally, please note that the billings system did have a standard and it was recommended that libraries using the billings system also hold the same standard for cataloguing its books as is shown here;

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC234707/

the books are internally ordered by the title of the book(for expediency) and are further catalogued by authorship, number(based on when the book was received numerically) and summery of the book as well as its encasement(or lack thereof). this instruction would be given to libraries outside of medical ones under his direction/the direction of the board he sat on as well which included the nypl(and as such there is no reason to assume he did not follow his own standard)

meanwhile the system you said was "most probably" is categorised by author's name as it is spelled in english before other descriptors(if i am correct it is last name first?)

for sure though the link i shared was not to push the idea of foc it was to show that even 70+ years after the billings system stopped being the primary system of the nypl bits of it remain and as such provide primary-source evidence for my original claim(and to be fair when i checked to reconfirm i was surprised to see that the billings system was still being used in new acquisitions up through the 1970's. i knew it had been changed over in the 50's and so assumed all new books would get the new system applied while they slowly worked through existing books).

i suppose though if you really are ok with stretching the technical truth and playing in a bit of conjecture there is a high-density archive at the nypl that is organised by subject with the the books in each subject grouping organised by it's size in relation to the other books in that subject grouping....but, like that is just something a fair few archives do even outside of libraries when there is not a lot of room(i cant remember the name but some years before covid there was this museum in germany that had shells archived this way; genus as the cabinet label and species ordered by size inside. it was beautiful and made me want to see more than just the single drawer i got to look at) and it is outside of my knowledge about when that practice was taken up by the nypl only that it is done now and you have to get special permission to request a book be pulled out of the archives to be picked up(frankly though i dont like playing in conjecture when i have verifiable sources i could use instead)

 

as for the transition? you have my sympathies! one of the places i worked at in my twenties went from paper billings to computer billing and the system was so noxious that first year only one person on staff could manage the transcription(sorry i don't remember the exact word for this) process. i did NOT envy giving her paper receipts(many of the newer ones i had written myself) to try and sort over and translate into something the computer would accept but also made sense to the staff. some of the books we had dated to back from before i was born and the computer did not like that they were sub-sorted seasonally and by payment method with no regard for names in the ordering and with not everyone who took the payments putting their own name down on every single receipt(we had button-land-lines so the phone wouldnt tell who did what you just had to look the name up of the person on-call that shift in a different book or infer that the person who wrote 15 of the 16 receipts out in that hour also wrote that 16th one as well) x____x