Atlases, Books of quotations etc.

There is no place for what I would term general reference books like atlases, books of quotations, encyclopaedia (specific and general).

There is also a bug. When I click on the choice I don't know book sometimes it works but more often the screen just fades. The only way out was to go back.

Almanacs, dictionaries....

I agree on atlases but I would have thought that Dictionaries go quite happily into languages and linguistics?

I've been putting dictionaries into languages and linguistics, but have no idea what to do with multi-subject reference works like encyclopedias, or even directories, etc.

put them in "unclear" - I assume that later on the contents of that category will be examined and sorted or new categories created.

Yes, Dictionaries in Language, I guess. I suppose I wanted a more generic Reference section. Bibliographies can be tricky. Catalogues also not easy. Some How-To books I bet could be problematic. The Foxfire series isn't easy. Stories in Stone symbolism and iconography of cemeteries... hmmmm....

I would put atlases under Travel and Geography (along with maps).

Atlases have a home, yes. Dictionaries in language isn't so natural, and we're aiming for a natural classification. 'reference' does well on that score and provides a home for those works like encyclopaedias that won't have any other home.

Some subject-specific reference works will find a natural home in their subject areas, but others won't. Dictionaries of quotations aren't language, for instance.

And then of course we'll have arguments over whether subject-specific reference works are shelved in 'reference' or in their subject area, and what exactly makes it a reference work...

But frankly, that's an argument you can't avoid. We just had this one while weeding our reference collection in my library. Having 'reference' as a top-level bucket at least enables individual libraries to have that discussion, and to make that judgment call themselves.

Greetings! David and I have been busy compiling and analyzing all your comments, and a post with new top levels is forthcoming!

In the interim, take a look on Thingology (http://www.librarything.com/thingology) at the summary of the OSC meeting we had in Denver last weekend.

Perhaps for dictionaries the following might work, for libraries in which the majority of works are in one language:

- dictionaries of the main language of the library would go in general reference

- dictionaries of other languages than the majority one would go in languages under the appropriate language.