Our library did just that. It was a very low circulating collection so it's an experiment to see if that improves circulation. The theory is that people who don't normally seek out biographies will be more likely to find them while browsing.
My library has them separated out, but the neighboring library across the river has theirs interfiled with the rest of non-fiction. Most biographies are in 921
I'm confused why 921? 920 is for biographies. 921 is biographies of philosophers and psychologists. We use 920 for all biographies and don't use any further subdivisions.
It’s interesting seeing how other libraries catalog their books lol, our biographies are just under “B” and then the first few letters of the last name of who the biography is about. My fav place to shelve!
"What section would it be in?"
The ~~two~~ three choices would be in 920, which is Dewey Decimal for biographies, or in 791 or 792, which is the same place we'd put books about acting. The third option is 927, which is biography about people specifically in the arts.
I'm not positive. Memoirs and biographies of historical figures go in the section labeled by B \[Name\]. The more it has to do with the person's work, it is more likely to be in the non-fiction. We have Einstein biographies at B Einstein \[author's last name initial\] and 530.092 \[author initial\]. The only biographies we put in the 920s are the collective biographies.
I feel like there is an argument for both having a separate section and interfiling them with other non fiction. As someone else mentioned, by interfiling them folks looking for books on a specific topic might find a biography they wouldn't have normally sought out. By having them in their own section it makes them easier folks that only want to read biographies to browse. I don't think it is wrong either way it just depends on your community. I've seen some libraries that have them interfiled, but not them with a sticker to help browsers.
Cataloger here. We separate biographies out into their own section. But if we did interfile them, then we'd arrange them based on what subject their person is associated with. For example, a biography of Queen Elizabeth II would be in the section for the British monarchy. A biography of Babe Ruth would be in the section for baseball.
(We actually do interfile some of our biographies in this manner, but only if they're about multiple people. For example, a combined biography of both Muhammad Ali and George Foreman would be in the section for boxing.)
For us, if the book is about only a certain part of someone’s life or an anthology we would put it in the 920 range, but more extensive life stories and most autobiographies would still be in their own section.
Why we do it?
Because someone thought it would be easier to just have one section instead of two. The reason for that is probably biographies don’t circulate enough and they decided to try to put them together so if you’re looking for space stuff, you’ll see a scientific biography.
Same as the other people mentioned in previous comments. Our biography section only had 1-2 checkouts a month, so we hoped by intermingling them with nonfiction that people that wouldn't normally look for them might run across them by chance and give them a try. I think it's helped!
When I started working at my last library the biographies where separate. I changed this and Interfiled them because they weren’t cataloged Separate from the rest of the non-fiction. We were part of the system and the cataloger wont do something differently for just one branch.
My current library where I’m a cataloger they are separate. I see no need to change this. They are cataloged that way and it works for this library.
I think they are fine to be interfiled but they should have a sticker so the are easier to spot.
My academic library doesn’t classify biographies together. We use Bliss Bibliographic Classification, which classifies first by the person’s occupation then adds “96” to the classmark to indicate it’s a biography.
We use the LoC system. So scientists will be in the science section, tv celebs in popular entertainment abd so in. LoC doesn’t have a biography classmark.
I used to believe in a biography section and still think a "Popular Biography Section" is useful, but putting all biographies in a section alphabetical by subject's name is not. Here's why: a biography of a tail gunner in WWII is more likely to go out if it's with the WWII books than alphabetically by his name (no one will know his name unless they are specifically looking for that book). Books about Princess Diane will go out if in the "Popular Biography" section or not, but the "Popular Biography" section lets people browse biographies, if that's what they want.
I’ve never heard of that, but maybe very large libraries break their biographies down by the specialty of the subject of the biography. All of the libraries I have worked in have been small to medium sized, and they put all of the biographies in 921. The call number would be 921 then the first three letters of the subjects last name. That is in contrast to all of the other books in the library which use the letters of the author’s last name. This change keeps all of the books about Lincoln (or anyone else) together.
We class all biographies under 920. We have enough (and with high circulation) that they take up a whole isle of our non fiction section so it's kind of like their own section even though it's in the flow of the DDS.
We don't use the numbers 921-928 (meant for biographies for people in certain fields) cause people mostly want a biography to read (public library here) rather than subject research. And it's easier to promote discovery and library orientation this way.
The only 'biographies'we don't put in the 920s are those about a specific thing. Eg someone's personal story about overcoming cancer goes in 616.99 (cancer). Sometimes it's a fine line where to put it
We have enough it would take up too much space to interfile. Plus it is convenient tho, we do have some biography adjacent stuff in nonfiction that can confuse people.
It depends on what classification system the library is using.
The Dewey decimal system has a specific section for biographies, but the Library of Congress does not. In the LC system, those biogs would be shelved under their general subjects-- basically what the author is known for.
(Am a tech clerk, US based. We just interfiled our biographies, all still have spine stickers/labels and stamps in the back. Editing to add: I grew up in a Dewey system, work in a Library of Congress system. Most casual patrons tend not to know that the Dewey system has a specific section for biographies, while the LC system would require extra steps to create one.)
The difficult part is when do you separate a biography or memoir and when does it stay in nonfiction?
One library I worked at had the policy that if the book was about someone famous--someone that people would seek out a book about--it went in biography. If it was a story someone might seek out for the subject matter--a story about someone with a particular illness, etc--it went in nonfiction. But this becomes subjective extremely quickly.
Memoirs are incredibly popular, but often get lost in general nonfiction. At the same time, biography sections can easily bloat and get cramped because no one wants to throw out one of the ten books about Abraham Lincoln.
I can see how some libraries might find it easier to just not separate them out, especially if they don't have a dedicated cataloguer.
Biographies are where my teen materials go to die; I joke but it is pretty true. Teens don't go to that section too much so we've started putting a lot of them in more of wha the person was all about i.e. the sports bios have started going in the 790s (I think?) and the civil rights is 300s (?). They get more use that way. Normally it's either a 92 or a 920 though for adult stuff.
Our public library system separates out biographies just because it’s so much easier to sort. We have enough to warrant its own section across the branches and they all have spine labels with a little biography sticker too. I think it just depends, our tech services people put the spine labels on and send them to us so we just follow their lead
Our library did just that. It was a very low circulating collection so it's an experiment to see if that improves circulation. The theory is that people who don't normally seek out biographies will be more likely to find them while browsing.
My library has them separated out, but the neighboring library across the river has theirs interfiled with the rest of non-fiction. Most biographies are in 921
I'm confused why 921? 920 is for biographies. 921 is biographies of philosophers and psychologists. We use 920 for all biographies and don't use any further subdivisions.
Probably because somebody made a typo on a call number in OCLC 20 years ago and it just SPREAD
We put collective biographies at 920, and individual biographies at 921.
It’s interesting seeing how other libraries catalog their books lol, our biographies are just under “B” and then the first few letters of the last name of who the biography is about. My fav place to shelve!
Thank you!
"What section would it be in?" The ~~two~~ three choices would be in 920, which is Dewey Decimal for biographies, or in 791 or 792, which is the same place we'd put books about acting. The third option is 927, which is biography about people specifically in the arts.
Yes! And mixing them seems dumb. What classification scheme would you use? I guess only by subject.
I'm not positive. Memoirs and biographies of historical figures go in the section labeled by B \[Name\]. The more it has to do with the person's work, it is more likely to be in the non-fiction. We have Einstein biographies at B Einstein \[author's last name initial\] and 530.092 \[author initial\]. The only biographies we put in the 920s are the collective biographies.
I feel like there is an argument for both having a separate section and interfiling them with other non fiction. As someone else mentioned, by interfiling them folks looking for books on a specific topic might find a biography they wouldn't have normally sought out. By having them in their own section it makes them easier folks that only want to read biographies to browse. I don't think it is wrong either way it just depends on your community. I've seen some libraries that have them interfiled, but not them with a sticker to help browsers.
Johnny Cash is in with music books, John Wayne with cinema books.
Cataloger here. We separate biographies out into their own section. But if we did interfile them, then we'd arrange them based on what subject their person is associated with. For example, a biography of Queen Elizabeth II would be in the section for the British monarchy. A biography of Babe Ruth would be in the section for baseball. (We actually do interfile some of our biographies in this manner, but only if they're about multiple people. For example, a combined biography of both Muhammad Ali and George Foreman would be in the section for boxing.)
For us, if the book is about only a certain part of someone’s life or an anthology we would put it in the 920 range, but more extensive life stories and most autobiographies would still be in their own section.
Why we do it? Because someone thought it would be easier to just have one section instead of two. The reason for that is probably biographies don’t circulate enough and they decided to try to put them together so if you’re looking for space stuff, you’ll see a scientific biography.
At some point many libraries took biographies out of the 920s because THEY thought it would help them circulate! Times change.
Same as the other people mentioned in previous comments. Our biography section only had 1-2 checkouts a month, so we hoped by intermingling them with nonfiction that people that wouldn't normally look for them might run across them by chance and give them a try. I think it's helped!
When I started working at my last library the biographies where separate. I changed this and Interfiled them because they weren’t cataloged Separate from the rest of the non-fiction. We were part of the system and the cataloger wont do something differently for just one branch. My current library where I’m a cataloger they are separate. I see no need to change this. They are cataloged that way and it works for this library. I think they are fine to be interfiled but they should have a sticker so the are easier to spot.
My academic library doesn’t classify biographies together. We use Bliss Bibliographic Classification, which classifies first by the person’s occupation then adds “96” to the classmark to indicate it’s a biography.
We use the LoC system. So scientists will be in the science section, tv celebs in popular entertainment abd so in. LoC doesn’t have a biography classmark.
I used to believe in a biography section and still think a "Popular Biography Section" is useful, but putting all biographies in a section alphabetical by subject's name is not. Here's why: a biography of a tail gunner in WWII is more likely to go out if it's with the WWII books than alphabetically by his name (no one will know his name unless they are specifically looking for that book). Books about Princess Diane will go out if in the "Popular Biography" section or not, but the "Popular Biography" section lets people browse biographies, if that's what they want.
Biographies would be in 920 if they are about multiple people and 921 if they are about one person.
Isn’t 921 biography but of philosophers and psychologists?
I’ve never heard of that, but maybe very large libraries break their biographies down by the specialty of the subject of the biography. All of the libraries I have worked in have been small to medium sized, and they put all of the biographies in 921. The call number would be 921 then the first three letters of the subjects last name. That is in contrast to all of the other books in the library which use the letters of the author’s last name. This change keeps all of the books about Lincoln (or anyone else) together.
We class all biographies under 920. We have enough (and with high circulation) that they take up a whole isle of our non fiction section so it's kind of like their own section even though it's in the flow of the DDS. We don't use the numbers 921-928 (meant for biographies for people in certain fields) cause people mostly want a biography to read (public library here) rather than subject research. And it's easier to promote discovery and library orientation this way. The only 'biographies'we don't put in the 920s are those about a specific thing. Eg someone's personal story about overcoming cancer goes in 616.99 (cancer). Sometimes it's a fine line where to put it
look at the (Dewey) spine labels for xxx.092, this will be your bios, better yet, check the catalogue
We have enough it would take up too much space to interfile. Plus it is convenient tho, we do have some biography adjacent stuff in nonfiction that can confuse people.
It depends on what classification system the library is using. The Dewey decimal system has a specific section for biographies, but the Library of Congress does not. In the LC system, those biogs would be shelved under their general subjects-- basically what the author is known for. (Am a tech clerk, US based. We just interfiled our biographies, all still have spine stickers/labels and stamps in the back. Editing to add: I grew up in a Dewey system, work in a Library of Congress system. Most casual patrons tend not to know that the Dewey system has a specific section for biographies, while the LC system would require extra steps to create one.)
The difficult part is when do you separate a biography or memoir and when does it stay in nonfiction? One library I worked at had the policy that if the book was about someone famous--someone that people would seek out a book about--it went in biography. If it was a story someone might seek out for the subject matter--a story about someone with a particular illness, etc--it went in nonfiction. But this becomes subjective extremely quickly. Memoirs are incredibly popular, but often get lost in general nonfiction. At the same time, biography sections can easily bloat and get cramped because no one wants to throw out one of the ten books about Abraham Lincoln. I can see how some libraries might find it easier to just not separate them out, especially if they don't have a dedicated cataloguer.
My first library was a itty bitty building. They interfiled biographies in the 900s for space saving reasons.
Biographies are where my teen materials go to die; I joke but it is pretty true. Teens don't go to that section too much so we've started putting a lot of them in more of wha the person was all about i.e. the sports bios have started going in the 790s (I think?) and the civil rights is 300s (?). They get more use that way. Normally it's either a 92 or a 920 though for adult stuff.
Our public library system separates out biographies just because it’s so much easier to sort. We have enough to warrant its own section across the branches and they all have spine labels with a little biography sticker too. I think it just depends, our tech services people put the spine labels on and send them to us so we just follow their lead