Talk:Cutter Expansive Classification

Libraries Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Different things

Any librarian in a system using the DDC can tell you that the "Cutter Classification System" and the "Cutter number" are quite different things. The latter is the second line on the spine, below the Dewey class number and providing a letter-number code for the author's surname and the first letter (or letters) of the book title. Second & subsequent editions are also incorporated. The Cutter makes it much easier to shelve books in proper order. I'll write this up properly when I have the time, and then re-separate the "Cutter number" page, which currently redirects here. --Michael K. Smith 02:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotsa refs but no inline citations

This article should probably have a {{nofootnotes}} tag. OlEnglish (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutter Classification vs Expansive Classification

There is some ambiguity in the current article due to the fact that the system developed by Cutter for the Boston Athenaeum is not the same as Cutter's better known Expansive Classification. If the classification used by the Boston Athenaeum is often referred to as the Cutter System then it might be best to avoid this phrase altogether to avoid confusion. I have already changed the text of the external links to reflect this distinction, but I thought I should open the idea to comment before making changes to main text of the page. Mr. Kalish (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Contrast with Library Of Congress Classification The introduction states this the CEC uses all letters to designate the top categories of books while the LOC uses both letters and numbers. This is not true. CEC call numbers may start with numbers (for example 66F and F66 are equivalent—both may be used for Chinese history, and it is up to the individual library to decide which is preferable) and both systems have class marks which mix letters and numbers. I have deleted the offending statement. Mr. Kalish (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]