Talk:Comparison of Dewey and Library of Congress subject classification

Essay problems

The current text appears to present subjective opinions in wiki voice which makes the current text read like an essay. In order to fix this, a concerted effort is needed to attribute opinions in text and work towards presenting opinions in accordance with WP:NPOV guidelines and WP:NOTESSAY policy. This is a surmountable problem. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rublamb Please see our policy language at WP:WIKIVOICE. Comparisons are opinions, and opinions should not be given in wikivoice. They need to have in text attributions. This is why it reads like an essay. This is a simple matter to fix. Just state According to... when giving a comparison/opinion. I hope this can be solved collegially. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

As already explained in the AfD discussion, the information in the lede is factual, not opinion. It uses widely accepted definitions and descriptions of the the two cataloging systems, based on reliable sources, with no statement of preference. WP:WIKIVOICE says "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice". Thus, there is no problem here. Also, since the purpose of this lede is to provide context for the list and document its notability, it is not the right place to deep dive into the pros and cons of DDC or LC, or to talk about other cataloging systems. That level of information is best left to the longer articles on the two subjects. If you really feel like these short and general descriptions are controversial, I suggest you request a review by a expert in the subject matter. Rublamb (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Fundamentally I think you are confusing what is a fact and what is an opinion. They are not the same thing. 4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Other than mentioning in the AfD that you know of a large library that does not use LCC, what backs your opinion that the lede's content is not widely accepted? What specific sentences do you have an issue with or find wanting in terms of sources? Since you have taken the stand in the AfD that this is so badly written that it needs to be reverted to a draft, you should provide specific details and not just your conclusion. In Wikipedia, it is the sources that matter. Rublamb (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4@Rublamb I had voted to "Keep" this article at AfD and thought to give my opinion here. I think most of the content, as written, is fine. Some places can use attribution - e.g.

1. "works well for smaller collections..." can be changed to "Scholars note that DDC works well for smaller collections, such as those in public libraries, school libraries, and small academic libraries".

2. "Usually, the size of a library's collection" maybe changed to "According to XXX, the choice of cataloging system often depends on the size of the library's collection".

Hope this helps. Asteramellus (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asteramellus I think this would absolutely help. I think we should make clear that it is "American scholars" because the article is cited solely to American publications. Part of the problem here is that large libraries outside the United States, Canada, and Australia largely use other cataloguing systems such as Resource Description and Access, Universal Decimal Classification, Regensburger Verbundklassifikation, etc. There's criticism of LOC codifying American bias and interests into Library classification (see [1] for example); so in some ways the whole binary at work in this article structure is problematic for a global encyclopedia. It would be better for our purposes to widen the comparisons to other choices for this reason which is one reason I thought moving to draft would be a good choice. The article could then have been retooled to broaden its scope to avoid WP:Systemic bias in presentation. I also note there are other choices for large libraries in the United States such as OCLC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4: Not all of the sources cited are from U.S. publications. However, that really doesn't matter in this instance because that is not a requirement for meeting notability or neutrality in Wikipedia, especially for two products that were developed and continue to be based in the United States. It is starting to sound like your issue is with bias in LLC and not this article itself. The correct place for a discussion of the pros and cons of LCC is in Library of Congress Classification or a new article on bias in library and archival cataloging systems. Actually, DCC has more bias and limitations in its classification structure than LCC, but that is another topic entirely. The goal of this article is to compare the call numbers used in two library cataloging systems. I feel this is a reasonable effort to cover this topic within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Rublamb (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

People are giving quite reasonable suggestions that would improve the article, but you appear to reject them all. You state that the goal of the article is compare call numbers, so then it isn't clear why more than the table is needed. Also, stating that "large libraries use LCC, small libraries use DDC" is not a known fact. It also isn't what is said in the cited (OCLC) source, but which instead refers to the advisory board as " EPC represents the interests of DDC users; its members come from national, public, special, and academic libraries." The statement that academic libraries use LCC is not found in that WSJ source, which says: " Some 95% of U.S. public libraries use Dewey, and nearly all of the others, the OCLC says, use a closely related Library of Congress system." And that's it. So the lede has violations of WP policy, and cannot be defended as it exists. We can use the 95% for public libraries but a different source is needed to make a statement about academic libraries. I will make this change when I get a chance. Lamona (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Lamona: The table is a comparison of the main aspects of call numbers--line by line, it shows what the call number in one system would be in the other system. That is its function, and that is why it is needed in a comparison article. That is not detailed in the prose of the article in any form. Please note that this article has had significant updates, both in sources and content, since the suggestions above were made. Most of those changes were a result of this discussion. I will double-check the WSJ citation and make sure it is with the correct text; some edits divided sentences and separated text from sources. One source being misplaced falls under cleanup, especially when other sources are included. Again, nowhere does the article state that only large libraries use LCC or only medium or small libraries use DDC. Rather, it explains why one system classification system is better suited for larger collections and why the other works better for smaller collections——because that is what they were designed for. The sources are there to back usage claims, including recently added scholarly sources. There is also a footnote stating that there are exceptions. The new info from the OCLC source is a direct quote, included in part to address requests for attribution. Rublamb (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Lamona: Regarding WSJ citation in lede. Yes, that is incorrect and also weird, since that citation is not used in the body of the article for the same information. However, the sentence in the lede does not need any sources per MOS, as that is simply a restatement of sourced content of the article. Both sources for that sentence should be removed. Thanks for catching this. Rublamb (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Asteramellus: Thanks for joining the conversation. Since @4meter4 has yet to detail what specific facts they believe demonstrate bias, it is still a guessing game as to what they think "needs" attribution. My hang-up is that when a stated fact has three or more sources that all say the same thing, it would be incorrect to credit that concept to one person. Your suggestion of using a generic "scholars" is helpful, but probably doesn't work in this instance because of the mix of sources, including institutional publications with authors who are librarians, library staff members, and cataloging software vendors. A closer fit would be "library professionals", but even that is unhelpfully vague. Instead, I have added a quote from a professional publication and a few other details. Rublamb (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I really think you need to stop making criticisms personal. Your conversational style is bordering on being uncivil. Part of the reason why I haven't engaged further is I don't have the emotional/mental resources at the moment to deal with an editor with an aggressive communication style. I am of the personal opinion that editorial choices can impact content presentation in ways that unintentionally create bias. Part of the issue I see here is the creation of a false binary. I'm not sure highlighting comparisons of just two library classification systems is the best way to present this content within a global encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen any personal criticisms directed toward you, only your arguments, and to me entirely collegial in nature. Xan747 (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I'm just not up for an intense debate at the moment. There are fundamental flaws in a binary comparison, and that is the main issue I think needs to be considered. I am going to let others consider the matter. I would rather focus my energies in a less controversial topic area for my own personal sense of well being. Respectfully, please move on without me. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Understood and please take care. Xan747 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4: Thank you for explaining. To restate, your concern is not about the article's wording, tone, or neutrality but about potential bias in the subject of the article. To address this, I added a See Also section and prose links to other articles, including a link in this first sentence to an article that discusses the most commonly used library classification systems in the world. The Further Reading list is already inclusive of various cataloging schemes and critiques of DDC and LCC. I hope this helps a bit.

I understand your concerns about systemic bias in Wikipedia, but it is not something that is going to be solved within this article. Mostly because a comparison of the two most commonly used library cataloging systems in the English-speaking world in the English version of Wikipedia is potentially useful information for many people (but might not be included in most of Wikipedia's 340+ other versions). In this case, there is a difference between neutrality and bias. The best explanation I can think of is from the essay WP:BIAS which says: The neutral point of view (NPOV) policy requires articles to fairly and proportionately represent the views published in reliable sources. It does not permit editors to "correct" or remove biases they see in sources, or to allow their own beliefs and opinions to "get between" the sources and the content. Editors should put their own opinions aside and "stay out of the way" by neutrally documenting what a source says, including its opinions and biases. That means that when editors edit neutrally, Wikipedia content will reflect the biases found in reliable sources. Rublamb (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I have requested a Third Opinion. Rublamb (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4 I wandered over here from 3O. I don't intend to take this one on as I am already handling several others. I will only suggest that it might help for you to propose specific changes you want to see in the lede so that @Rublamb have something more concrete to discuss, and same for a 3O volunteer to base their opinion. Xan747 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I am recalling the request for a Third Opinion because this discussion now has three participants and is no longer eligible for a 3O. Rublamb (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest that, thanks. Xan747 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Misinterpreting the AfD

I have concerns that Rublamb has misinterpreted the AfD in order to justify his version of the article. I've explained on the talk page, AfD, and my edit summary my reasoning behind my edit.

The article was kept according to WP:N. According to Lamona: "There are plenty of quality, academic sources for this topic - some of which are listed in the "further reading" section but not used to support the article". This is heading into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory but I'll repeat myself again: the fact that the table requires constant updating is my most important concern. Logoshimpo (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

You removed the entire article as it existed at the start of the AfD. Since you started the AfD, this is clearly an attempt to circumnavigate the resolution of AfD. Most AfD discussions, including this one, go beyond the nomination and explore many aspects of the article. Your concerns stated here were also expressed as part of the AfD. Regardless, the AfD conclusion was to keep the article. This means the table should be retained as it is the core of this stand-alone list article. Rublamb (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

No, what the AfD determined is that an article on this topic meets Wikipedia notability policy, not that any particular aspect of THIS article must be kept. Even if everything in the article were changed, that would be consistent with the AfD decision. It is the TOPIC not the content of the article that meets policy. Therefore your "This means the table should be retained as it is the core of this stand-alone list article" is untrue. I agree with User:Logoshimpo that it is unlikely that the table will be kept up to date, and therefore it is not sustainable. It's also so long that it makes the article very difficult to work with. What could work is to use some individual class areas to illustrate the differences between DDC and LCC. What the article is lacking (and could have but I will not put work into it as long as edits are being reversed) is a discussion of what is REALLY different between them - notation; use of hierarchy; use of facets - and what those mean for the content and use of the two systems. These are not minor differences. They are discussed in cataloging and subject assignment texts.

This article began in 2004 as a simple list. It is too bad that it didn't somehow have "list" in its title because there are different policies for WP lists than for articles that are expository in nature. One possibility would be to move the list to a "List of" article (e.g. list of differences between...) and use the Comparison article to provide the intellectual analysis of how and why they are different. That would lean on academic sources. If that existed, I really wouldn't give a hoot about the list, since I do not think that it helps anyone understand what the real comparison is. Lamona (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is that a list shouldn't be created and isn't necessary here because if this comparison article is expository in nature and it doesn't help anyone understand what the real comparison is [as you said] so we should leave it at that. You are on to something here with regards to "and what those mean for the content and use of the two system". Logoshimpo (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Articles do not have to have "list of" in their title to be a list article. There are plenty examples of FL articles that fit this model. I think the original idea was to compare the call numbers of the two systems. (If a book is in 921 in DCC, where would it be found in LCC?) As the sources show, there is benefit and interest in a comparison of the call numbers of the two classification systems. For example, this was/is commonly taught by academic librarians to freshmen who are used to public and school libraries, never before using LCC.

This topic might be split into two articles at some point, but the comparison list/table would still need to meet notability. That is, it would still need a lede of some sort and sources, as it currently has. As someone who works with many list articles, I assure you that neither this list or its lede are overly long at this point; you can tell when a list is too long because it overloads a low-level computer's RAM. Many stand-alone list articles lack a lede, but a quick pass through some FL articles will quickly show that the lede created here is "normal" and is not considered so long as to change the article from list to non-list. A quick test is that the text explains the list, rather than the other way around.

The need for updates is not an issue. DCC has had less than 25 editions in more than 125 years. LLC has had fewer editions. Both get updated through supplements that mostly cover cataloging details that is not included in this list. The actual print editions of DDC and LCC are big door-stopping volumes, with many more classes and classifications. When you compare that to the annual update needed on the population of every town, city, county, state/province, and country included in Wikipedia, updating this list is a big deal for Wikipedia editors. Although we might flag an article with dated content, we don't delete articles that are current because they will be dated sometime in the future.

I am not against looking at the article's name, maybe changing "subject classification" to "call numbers". However, we should probably open a discussion first, as I am sure there are some catalogers out there that would tell say that is a misnomer. Rublamb (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The quantity/frequency of updates is not the issue. The issue is that when those happen there may not be anyone who is committed to keeping the table up to date.

And once again, you have rejected suggestions without any discussion. I would like to see DISCUSSION, not just a bunch of people throwing out ideas and one person rejecting them all. Some of the suggestions are good. Some of the discussion at the AfD was good. But I'm out of here because it isn't worth my time to continue to go through this. Lamona (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Lamona: Where did I reject any of the new suggestions without discussion? I responded positively to the idea of changing the article's name, suggesting a potential name and the process to move forward. I agreed that we might want to split the article into two articles at some point, noting what would be needed to achieve that. I responded to concerns that a citation was misplaced, agreeing that this needed to be corrected. We are also having a discussion about whether or not future updates to this list are an issue. In response to statements that the table is not helpful, I explained why I think it is useful--that back and forth is a discussion. Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean there is no discussion taking place.

Since there continues to be challenges to stated facts and to the value of the table, I am going to again suggest the involvement of an expert in librarianship. I have asked for a review from WP:LIBRARIANS; they have been taking a long time to respond lately, so we may have to go to the self-identified librarian list for the needed consultation. This is specifically to address concerns about the factuality of info, if this is a false duality, and whether or not the table is useful from the perspective someone with expertise in the subject matter. Rublamb (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I think she has left but I'm satisfied with your explanation of the table. Logoshimpo (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Rublamb (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Lamona: Note that we are not that far off: I created the aspects of the article that you like and want to expand. I freely admit that it was a quick and dirty effort for the AfD, but that we both agree that there is potential for this topic. My apologies if I seem overly defensive. I was getting criticized from all sides for simply trying to save an article that I felt met notability for a stand-alone list. For example, one editor believed that saying LCC was mostly used by larger libraries was so unfounded that that statement needed to be attributed to an individual, rather than the four or five sources. Yet, when an attributed comment was added, the response from another editor was "why is this one person quoted". Dumb example, but I think you get my point. I was also accused adding text that lacked neutrality. That was a first for me and I have made many, many edits to Wikipedia. (It ended up it was the topic of DDC vs. LCC that they thought lacked neutrality). At this point, changing the article's name and starting a new article covering your ideas makes the most sense. Once you have published your new article, we can trim the lede of the spin-off list. I get that you don't think the stand-alone list article makes sense, but the AfD determined that it meets notability. Not the topic in general, but the topic of the stand-alone list article—there is a difference between the two. FYI: I actually think it would be useful to trim the list so that it includes fewer subclasses. There are some good examples of shorter lists provided by academic libraries. I am not sure where your focus lies, but using a table to teach call number ranges is really common in my area of work. You can even buy bookmarks with this info, so clearly someone besides myself finds it useful. Rublamb (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

AfD participant here, I think that trimming the table to only higher levels would be helpful but I don't know how to determine that. If there are any sources that document what one classification would put together but a different one would split apart I think that is also very useful. And for what it is worth, I didn't think that the standalone list meets notability I specifically commented keep for the paragraphs of comparisons. Moritoriko (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the endorsement of my lede. I didn't put a lot of time into it, but agree that it shows the potential of this subject. However, it is pretty clear that the lede accidentally muddied the discussion of the stand-alone list article that was up for AfD. However, I don't think we want or need to go back to another AfD to resolve. I also think that reducing the number of classes would help make it easier to understand. Afterall, the purpose is to show the main differences, not excessive detail. Based on the discussion here, I also think some text is needed to explain how the table works, as it might be confusing to non-library professional. I have worked with both DDC and LCC but am not sure what the best cuts would be either. I guess I need to look deeper into how this list was created (it did not come directly from one source). If others want to make suggestions, I am willing to give a go. We just need to make sure our cuts don't accidentally directly copy one of the sources, as I do worry somewhat about copyright. Rublamb (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

And so you have indicated some problems with the table I wasn't aware of until now. Isn't it true then that it would be WP:OR if the table were composed of multiple sources? And the second problem is copyright: would you explain that? Logoshimpo (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Being composed of multiple sources alone would not make it OR. Copyright typically doesn't apply to simple lists to the best of my legal knowledge. Moritoriko (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Good to know. I was thinking of it as intellectual property, since institutions purchase access to the cataloging system. But since the early book editions are out-of-copyright, the basic components should be fair use anyway. Rublamb (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not original research to combine various sources into a table, any more than merging various sources into a paragraph is. In fact, combining content or presenting it in a new way is how you can work around copyright infringement with tables, since there are only so many ways you can state simple data. My concern with copyright is not in play yet, but could be if we get too simple because shorter comparison tables are pretty common. I would want to look for out-of-copyright or government published sources, just to make sure this info falls under fair use. (This is my hang-up; sorry if my oversharing caused you to worry). Rublamb (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

See @Moritoriko's response above. Please ignore my copyright concerns. Rublamb (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as AFD closer, my closure relates only to the existence or not of the article. It does not preclude further editing of the article, subject to usual editing policies and guidelines such as WP:CON and WP:BRD. Stifle (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Stifle: Thanks for the clarification. My interpretation was that the closure related to the article meeting notability as a stand-alone list since that is what the article was at the start of the AfD. Certainly, I had no intention of changing its class when I added a lede. Regardless, you are correct that nothing in Wikipedia is fixed. Thank you for citing WP:CON and WP:BRD as that succinctly covers my concern. In this case, the table was deleted, reverted, then deleted again without discussion or consensus (other than the AfD). Since the deletions were by the AfD nom, it seems like waiting for discussion was a reasonable expectation. Rublamb (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Reducing the table

It has been suggested that we reduce the content of the table. I think that is a good idea, for both clarity and as a compromise in this debate. Right now, the table includes all secondary classes for both DDC and LCC. If we cut its organization to just the secondary classes of DDC and remove duplications, the list would have around 100 rows instead of around 300. Although that would seem to favor DDC in some way, the list is already in Dewey order (and it is the more commonly used system). Another way would be to use the main 21 LCC classes against the 10 DCC classes. However, I think that would only show numbers vs letters, and not how LCC has more options through its double-letter system. Is there anyone involved who works with LLC and would comfortable compressing the list. I don't mind trying to do this, but would like to get a read on those involved first. Rublamb (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I suggest making a sandbox version that we can play around with instead of messing with the production page. Also be wary of creating Original Research in your selections. Moritoriko (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a sandbox version? Don't worry, there are plenty of sources for a streamlined comparative list. In fact, it might be easier to start there, rather than to try and figure out how to condense this list. Rublamb (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a sandbox article, I've just seen it used and suggested, sorry. If you figure it out let me know and I'll take a look. Moritoriko (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I have condensed the table. It still needs cleanup, but is at least shorter now. Rublamb (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)