What is going on guys welcome back to the channel critical overlord here in this video? I'm gonna be sharing some news I found out about the future of the Jeepers Creepers franchise as well as what Victor Salva's involvement is going to be moving forward So last year in 2017. We got our second entry in the Jeepers Creepers series Jeepers Creepers 3 was released finally after a 14 year wait. It was released It was released on September 26 in 2017 yeah last year it was a one-night fathom event one night showing it did so well that it actually got another Release a week later October 4th another one night showing it made a total gross of around two million dollars that one night Are those with those two nights combined and then it ended up going on to make three million dollars dope? Domestically it made an extra two million dollars for as far as international sales concern and didn't have like one million dollars for home release video income So all in all it made somewhere around a total of five and a half to six million dollars Which is the lowest income out of all three Jeepers Creepers Street does have the weakest narrative It has the weakest execution. It has the weakest Characters it has the weakest acting the weakest effects. It has the weakest everything The movie is shot horribly the movie has bad effects the acting is is atrocious The main lead played by Gabrielle Hall. She is atrocious. I Believe she was actually I did some research on her I think she ended I think she lost a role on a soap opera because of her acting I think I don't think that's why she lost the role, but I think like when she left I was reading of news of how people were actually excited that she had left because her acting was dull and stale And I found that out personally first hand when I saw Jeepers Creepers 3 at theaters Now originally Jeepers Creepers 3 was supposed to take place 23 years after the first two movies And it was gonna have Gina Phillips and Ray wise return reprising their roles of farmer Taggart and Trish Jenner from the first and second films They were going to team up and they were gonna hunt and take out the creeper Trish was going to have a son named after Dairy who died all those years ago The creeper was going to awaken. It was gonna pick up right where Jeepers Creepers 2 left off I believe Luke Edwards was also set to come back and play Jack Junior it that the premise for that movie That's what fans have been waiting for for all these years not the Jeepers Creepers 3 We got last year this Jeepers Creepers takes place in between the first and second film It follows a task force that is trying to hunt the creeper down and take it out um This movie raises this movie raises several Plot holes and plot divide and several plot devices are introduced And it introduces several continuity issues as far as what's going on in the first two movies It raises several questions as far as the intelligence level of the creeper because the creeper is shown to be highly Highly skilled and intelligent But the third entry makes you kind of be skeptical because There's something going on that makes the audience someone someone who's paying attention in a way If you're paying attention, you can't help but wonder. Well, why didn't he do this in the first movie? Why didn't he do this in the second movie? Why is he just now concerned with this now? It raises several questions because Jeepers Creepers 3 was rushed From what I was told rumors were told that it was rushed victor salvin didn't get enough Didn't get to spend enough time actually Investing in a proper script for what he wanted to do They did not have enough money to shoot the original intent for the third film So that's why it does not pick up 23 years later. That is now the plan jeepers 4 Am I honest opinion? I'm jeepers 3 was just a test run to see if audiences still had an interest in the creeper And I guess they found out that the answer is yes and More ways than one because to go into theaters one day with little to no promotion and make a million dollars That has to say something But yeah, a friend of mine actually was able to sit down with victor salvin one of the con events this summer And he spent like several hours with victor. He says that victor was very Humble humble victor was very open generous. He was one of the kindest people One of the kindest people he had met at the event Despite all the controversy surrounding victor salvin all his past heinous actions do I do not condone whatsoever? You can look those up for yourself on google You can look up the backlash as to why jeepers creepers 3 Was delayed for so long and why even when it got it was getting filmed and why even after it was filmed People were pushing for it to not be released. People were pushing for it to just be shut down and forgotten about Now that I think about it I honestly would say that maybe that's what should have happened because the jeepers creepers 3 that they filmed was absolute trash The effects in it like I said were terrible The acting was terrible it raised several questions as far as What what is the creeper doing and why is like why is he doing it now? It was just a complete nonsensical written script of The characters are bland The task force itself has Uh, one of the it the task force has an issue that was introduced in jeepers creepers 2 It seems that with each film, uh, we see that there are more characters that are out there that are aware that this thing Hunts every 23 years for 23 days now with jazelle The interesting thing with jazelle and the reason they made that sensible is because it was established that jazelle was a psychic A local psychic in the area Everyone else after jazelle just for some strange reason is granted access to know About the creepers mythos and this task force. They don't even they aren't even said to have gotten any visions or anything They claim that they had an interaction with the creeper and that's why they have banded together to take it out But just because you haven't since when does having an interaction with something grant you access to his mythos Why do they all know that this thing comes out every 23rd spring and it feeds for 23 days? Just because they had one little interaction with this thing It granted them access to all of the knowledge and mythos surrounding the entity That's highly ridiculous and that's one of my biggest gripes With the creeper how everyone seems to know that he comes out every 23rd spring for 23 days And it seems like this is something that gets spread around the town of Now my friend was able to find out that jeep victor salva has plans to do a tv series for jeepers creepers uh Apparently it's it would be a series ever run for 12 episodes now I would like to see a 12 episode mini series following of either the the story development of Kenny Kenny brandon and darla the kenyan darla couple from the first film actually they get they They don't get explored a bit more in the third movie. Kenny brandon's character. He is in the third movie Kenny brandon However is is transformed into a white caucasian if you recall in the original film Kenny brandon was discovered in the basement cellar of the church by dairy and he was an african-american male Dating a white caucasian female named darla. They were the prom king queen of the class of 1978 in that uh in the town nearby And they had gone missing and it became an urban legend that and it became a story that everyone Grew to know for the past 23 years since the creepers last killing spree I would like to see a series exploring that and maybe like a mini series That would be a nice introduction because after watching that you could watch the original jeepers creepers film and then in jeepers creepers uh Jeepers creepers four my friend found out that for jeepers creepers four Uh or before I go into jeepers groups four, let me talk about the last bit of news I have on the mini series for the mini series. They wanted to also do I heard victor salva wants to executive produce. He does not want to direct but victor salva has written Uh a screenplay for the mini series or for the tv series that he has in mind Similar to how I think it could work similar to how what the purge is doing the purge is having like a 10 episode A 10 episode event. So I think is what's happening is going to be one episode a week I think that's what it sounds like salva would like to see happen with uh this tv series script. He has for jeepers creepers uh Now another thing that I would consider as a plot or story that I would like to see Hopefully he has written for the mini series is just past like each episode could follow a Different group of people that the creeper has targeted or focused on or like like the first five episodes could be about one group of people Targeted by the creeper or the in the second half could be about another Or each episode could just focus on mythos surrounding the creeper its origins We see how long the creepers been around each episode could take place at a different time period That would also be something interesting. I would like to see of course Where I would see a tv series for jeepers creepers falling I could see it falling either on netflix shutter or the sci-fi channel Uh, that does not mean I wanted to have the sci-fi sci-fi editing team on board because sci-fi's editing team is Responsible for the terrible CGI that we got in jeepers creepers 3 I looked up her name misty taylee if you look up her works You can see her works are nothing but straight sci-fi films So that's why the minute I saw her and I looked her up and I saw her film history I was I already knew I was in for some terrible effects with jeepers creepers 3 and that's exactly what I got But moving on to news on a fourth entry into the series My friend was also able to find out that victor salva does have a script written We actually found this out from jena phillis jena phillis revealed I think right before jeepers creepers 3 came out that the script is written is ready to go Victor salva does have the fourth film ready to go. Uh, jena phillis shared details last year She said that it's going it is still the it's the plan of what the original third film is going to be Is going to follow trish jenner trish jenner will be back uh, my friend sat down with Victor salva and I think what he also told me was that victor salva does not want to be He does not want to direct but he hopes to at least be Executive producer so what what it sounds to me like what my friend has told me It sounds like victor salva is going to have a little involvement with this film as possible Just so there's not as much negativity around it uh Me personally i'm just still concerned as to where victor salva is going to get this funding from Because jeepers creepers 3 did not make that much in the box office uh And the money that you make from films gets gets split and divided up and it gets sent to everyone who helped Contribute to making the project possible. So how much left does he even have from the income that jeepers creepers 3 made? uh I want to say People that I would like to see financed the film and distributed would be a 24 And uh universal pictures is out. I know lion's gate was one of the one of the companies They were trying to get for jeepers creepers 3. Of course, that was a bust. I would like to see The company that that financed hereditary get involved potentially something of The low budget caliber that wouldn't be of as As big of a uh Big of a hindrance for that company because they wouldn't be a very well known company themselves uh But also at the same time something that could provide jeepers creepers 4 with the proper financing that it would need to execute the 23 years later follow-up from the first three films taking place in 2024 with the return of trish Jenner, uh Gina fillers, I think also did confirm that the plan is still to keep Trish Jenner in it with a child now whether this is going to be a son or daughter is up in the air now Uh, I believe it's still going to be a son. I think it's still going to be named dairy Ray wise is He is in plans to return that's something else my friend found out ray wise is uh plan to return Gina fillers ray wise and I believe also luke edwards is uh The three main people that are They are targeting to have as the three key factors for the fourth film uh I would like to also see jazelle. I would like to see jazelle return jazelle from the first movie I would like to see her return and play a factor in the creepers final downfall or the downfall or in the defeat of the creeper uh Now as far as if the creepers should die in jeepers creepers 4 I'm going to say no I what I would like to see is I would like to see Something find because in the original jeepers creepers 3 cathedral script you it you don't find out what it is per se You instead find out that it has been in this in that area Of poho county in east nine has been there for several years and decades or at least it's had several encounters in the past in that area and uh Old poho settlers called it a phoenix demon if i'm not mistaken. That's what they called it You still do not find out what exactly it is you still what you instead find out is Other people had encounters With it and this is what they called it. You don't actually find out what it exactly is because I I actually like that I don't think we should find out what the creeper is because that still keeps it in mystery We're not getting everything hand. We're not finding out everything. We're not destroying the full-on mystery of it We're just finding out the at the creeper He had a a name for people of past in that area had a name for and they called it a phoenix demon uh I would like to see brandon smith's character sergeant hubbs return As far as characters from jeepers creepers 3 outside of brandon smith are concerned I don't not I don't want to see any of the brandon's return Uh, if they do return, I want to say bring back meg foster. Do not bring back addison if you bring back addison Only thing I can hope for is that of course, it doesn't mean she would be played by someone else because addison is going to have to be aged uh I just wouldn't I I honestly wouldn't even mention jeepers creepers 3 and jeepers creepers 4 I would ignore jeepers creepers 3 as if it didn't even exist I would give jeepers creepers 3 the halloween 3 season of the witch treatment How many people do not even acknowledge the existence of halloween 3 because everyone's so invested in the character of michael myers I would ignore the narrative in jeepers creepers 3 because everyone's more invested in the proper Consisted narrative introduced in the first and second film and now it's going to be continued in the fourth film That's how I see jeepers creepers 3 ending up. I would much rather jeepers creepers 4 ignore the the messy Inconsistent narrative and jeepers creepers 3 and just pick up from jeepers creepers 2 with ray wise character jack senior in the barn uh I would like to see what happens with genea philips character trish I would like to see what happens with the creeper. Also, I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but They don't explain this in the cathedral script, but the creepers wings were cut off at the end of the second film So it's going to be very interesting to see if they explain how he actually gets his wings back Now before anyone posts something ridiculous in the comment section about how ray wise's character stitched them back stitching stitching uh removed limbs doesn't make them uh Doesn't mean you can have full function of them again. That just means they're stitched You just got a stitch back there. It doesn't mean you can use it again because it's been removed from the socket and it's been removed from the uh Capacity to have any function any function So stitching wings back doesn't give it doesn't give you functions to use it It's going to be very interesting to see how the creeper gets his wings back or if they even addressed that at all I would also if they're going to bring back the truck They better make it just like how it was in the first film and that's simply a truck because jeepers creepers threes Um Illustration of the truck is downright ridiculous It raises several questions Like I said as far as the narrative because it's concerned because the truck is doing things that we never even see in the first film And the reason is ridiculous is because the third film takes place immediately after the first film So it makes you wonder where was all of this stuff in the first movie? Why are we just seeing this now? But yeah, those are the things I found out about jeepers creepers four from my friend who had the chance to meet victor salva One of the comic con or con events over the summer. He he held a few autograph signings with victor He spent several hours with victor. He said victor salva was one of the More well respected human beings that he's met over the course of the past few years Victor salva does have remorse for his actions Again, like I said, you can go look those look those things up for yourself on google Let me know what you guys think down in the comment section below. Do you want to see a jeepers creepers four? What do you want to see in jeepers creepers four? What characters do you want to return in jeepers creepers four and would you kill the creeper in jeepers creepers four? Or would you leave the ending of the series open for discussion? Uh, please leave a thumbs up if you enjoyed this video turn on post notifications and stay tuned for more because I will Be doing future videos Pretty soon. Uh, leave comments down below of movie of horror movies You want me to watch and review and those will be included in my future uploads


Okay, welcome to session two of Dewey Decimal Classification. Thank you all for coming back for session two. To get started, let's just take a minute and review the overall agenda for all three sessions. You'll see we covered quite a bit of stuff in session one last week. And session two today, we're going to pick up kind of where we left off with subjects and disciplines. And then we're going to get started on number building. And we'll talk about the concept of number building in general and then specifically table one. We'll talk about most of table one today, but then we'll finish up table one next week and also continue to talk about the three other tables, tables two, three, and four. So this slide should look familiar. This is where we were, the list we were working through last week. We got to the first three items and we talked about choosing between more than one subject in the same discipline. And remember that the subject is the topic of work and discipline is kind of the approach, the field, the larger field that it's approached from. And so this week we're going to talk about one or more subjects in more than one discipline. And again, we have another lovely list to go through. You'll kind of, as you get familiar with Dewey, see that there is often sort of a list of rules that you work down if one doesn't apply, you go on to the next one. And so there are about four different things that you can look at when you're deciding between one or more subjects in more than one discipline. Sometimes there are interdisciplinary numbers that tell you to class interdisciplinary topics here. If that does not apply, then you can look at the discipline giving the fullest treatment. There is also a main class for sort of general works. And then you can always fall back to the instructions for more than one subject in the same discipline that we talked about last week. If nothing else applies, then those can apply in the situation as well. Okay, so the first thing on that list is interdisciplinary numbers. And they're basically what they sound like. There are numbers where you're specifically told to class interdisciplinary works here, that is a specific number. Basically, an interdisciplinary number makes the choice for you about where to put the book if you're deciding between two disciplines. And just to make clear that we understand what the choice between two disciplines is like, remember our example from last week I said that the subject of dogs could be approached from the discipline of zoology if you're just talking about biological aspects of dogs, or it could be approached from the discipline of animal husbandry if you're talking about having a dog as a pet. So if you had a book that addressed both of these disciplines, then you'd have to make a choice about an interdisciplinary number. And so sometimes they're provided for you. Sometimes you will see them in the relative index when you're looking up a topic, and sometimes you'll see as you go through the schedule that it will tell you where to class an interdisciplinary topic. And unfortunately, there's not a lot of consistency found throughout DOE as to whether these numbers are in the relative index or the schedule that's kind of one of the quirks of the DOE decimal classification that just takes a little bit of getting used to. This will make a lot more sense when we see an example. So let's go ahead and work with a sample book here. This book is called Raising the Bar, Improving Competition Success for Professional Weight Lifters through Weight Training for Fitness, and includes materials on competitions as well as becoming fit for competitions. Now when you're looking for interdisciplinary numbers in the relative index, there's some information about it in the introduction in 11.8 and 11.9, so you can always go there for more information. The interdisciplinary number, when you're looking through the print version, you'll see that interdisciplinary numbers are given with the unindented headings in the print version. And I have not completely reproduced a page here, but I'll give you kind of an example. You can see weight lifting is the heading that is not indented, and then physical fitness and sports are indented, and they each have a number next to them, but 613.7 next to the unindented heading is the interdisciplinary number. And you can see what I mean there about the schedule is kind of making the choice for you. The two options here would be deciding between 796.41 or 613.7, and you can tell by the fact that 613.7 is next to the unindented heading. That means the choice has been made for you, and that's an interdisciplinary number. And here's how it looks in Webdui. It's a little bit different because there aren't any indented headings or unindented headings. What you'll see is that there is headings that don't really have a subqualifier after them. They're just plain old weightlifting here, and that's the interdisciplinary number. Whereas these that have the different subheadings, those are not interdisciplinary numbers. Those headings that have the subheading after them are sort of the equivalent of the indented headings in the print version. So if you went ahead and clicked on that 613.7, the interdisciplinary number, or working with the print version, if you went and turned to that page, you would see this page here. And you will notice that this note here confirms what we suspected from the Relative Index that you should class here Interdisciplinary Works on Bodybuilding and Weightlifting. And there will be a note explaining that you don't have to choose, and you shouldn't choose just from the Relative Index. You should always go and verify at the actual number, but there will be a note telling you that this is the interdisciplinary number. And if you scroll down, you'll see there's a note that tells us that if we were dealing with weightlifting just as a sport or bodybuilding contest, we would see 796.41, and that is the other number that we looked up in the Relative Index. So if we weren't sure, if we had somehow navigated here and we're looking for one that was just about sports, we would be able to get there from here. But if we click through to that 796.41, we'll see there is a note that tells us that Interdisciplinary Works go 613.7, so that directs us back to where we are originally. So there'll be notes in both directions. They'll tell you where you should class an interdisciplinary work, and if you're at a number that you shouldn't put an interdisciplinary work, it will tell you where you should put that work. So because this is an interdisciplinary work that covers not just competitions but also weightlifting for general fitness, we're going to put it with the interdisciplinary number at 613.7. Does anybody have any questions about that? Okay, sometimes, like I said, Dewey is not very consistent about where the interdisciplinary numbers appear. Sometimes they're in the Relative Index, and sometimes they are just given in the schedules. So you'll see here's an example of a heading that does not have an interdisciplinary number. All the indented headings have numbers next to them, but the unindented one does not. And here's that same heading in the WebDewey version. There is no heading for promotion just by itself. They all have the subheadings qualifying it. So in this case, you'll still kind of want to be on the lookout for notes in the schedule that will tell you either to class here, interdisciplinary works on a certain topic, or to class interdisciplinary works in some other number, and it will direct you to there, and you'll have to either click through or flip over to that page if you're in the using the print version. So here's an example of that situation. Let's say we have a book called Striking Style, Costume Jewelry in the Last Century, Make Your Own. And it discusses mass production of costume jewelry in the 20th century, but it also shows you how to handcraft jewelry in the same style. So there's kind of two disciplines going on here. We have mass production of jewelry making, but also hand crafting. So if we look up jewelry in the relative index, you'll see there are an interdisciplinary number just for jewelry up here, and there are also a number of subheadings. Jewelry making might be something we're interested in. Jewelry making costume jewelry in particular might be something we're interested in. So let's look up jewelry, just that first interdisciplinary number for jewelry, 391.7. We'll see that it tells you interdisciplinary works on jewelry are classed here, but this book is more specific than just jewelry. It's about jewelry making. And so there's this note that tells us to see 739.27. So if we click through to that one, you'll see there's a couple of different interdisciplinary notes here. There's one about interdisciplinary works on fine and costume jewelry, and that doesn't really apply to our situation because we're just talking about costume jewelry. And there's another one, interdisciplinary works on making costume jewelry. And our book is about making costume jewelry, and you remember that it's a couple of different aspects of it. It's got commercial production and hand crafts. So there's a good chance that we could be interested in this interdisciplinary number. So if we click through to that 688, we'll see, kind of look up the hierarchy and see that we're in the kind of manufacturing discipline here. And so we see that this is the number for commercially made mass produced costume jewelry. And there's no other notes that tell us that we want to go somewhere else for this interdisciplinary number. We've been directed towards this for interdisciplinary works on making costume jewelry. And so we can be pretty sure that this is correct. But you can see there's also a note here for handcrafted costume jewelry, which is the other half of this book. And so it's always a good idea to kind of check out the various notes just in case. So we're going to go ahead and click on that. And once again, this is kind of just verifying, there's a note redirecting us back to interdisciplinary works on making costume jewelry in 688. And so sometimes you'll feel kind of like you're going in circles when you're working with Dewey, but it's really just sort of verifying and making absolutely sure that things direct you back to the number that you're supposed to be at. And so I would put this book with 688 for interdisciplinary works on making costume jewelry. Does anybody have a question about this example? Okay, so this is just a review of what we talked about with the interdisciplinary number. They are provided sometimes in the relative index and sometimes in the schedules. An important thing to remember is that you shouldn't use it if the work does not contain significant material within the discipline of that interdisciplinary number. So the one that we just did, the interdisciplinary number was mass production of costume jewelry. And so if it had been mostly about hand-making costume jewelry, then we wouldn't want to put it with that one because there wasn't a significant amount of material. It's sort of going back again to the rule of fuller treatment, but it's just something to keep in mind when you're working with interdisciplinary numbers. Okay, so we're going back to our list that we started with at the beginning of the session of what to do when you have more than one subjects in more than one discipline. And if there isn't an interdisciplinary number that works for you, then you will go with the discipline given the fullest treatment. And this is basically the same thing as the rule of fuller treatment we discussed last time when we were talking about more than one subject in the same discipline. If the book is mostly about one of two disciplines, then you go with that one. So here's an example called Fighting for Home Birth. It discusses Nebraska's legal stance in regard to midwifery, custom childbirth at home, and describes the practice of midwifery. And you can see from the numbers of pages there that the practice of midwifery is the fullest treated topic in this book. And so we'll look up the three different topics. We won't go through the whole process of how we get there, but the legal aspects of midwifery are covered in medical law at 344.04. The customs of birth at home are covered in 392.1, and midwifery itself is under obstetrics at 618.2. And like we said, this one's pretty simple because there's obviously more material about midwifery itself. So we're going to use the number for obstetrics 618.2. The next option that you might occasionally see, probably not very often, is the main class and the zeros for computers, information, and general works. There are in particular a couple of areas that you might use. The 060 is for general organizations and museology, and the 080 is for collections of works. Here's the 060, and this applies to organizations whose activity is not limited to a specific field or works about organizations in general. So, for example, if I just a book about how organizations are run, Robert's Rule of Orders, things like that, it would probably go in this class. And you can see this is broken down geographically. And here's that you might use slightly more often if you're looking for an interdisciplinary number, is the 080 class. And this is for general collections of things, essays, something like that, that don't fall under a certain topic. If it's something that's under a particular topic, you'll class it with the number for that topic, but if it's just kind of a broad collection, you'll probably put it here. For example, one of the things I noticed that Lincoln City Libraries has classed at 081 is collections of stories from the National Story Project, and there's no particular topic that they can tie it to, so it just goes in general collections in American English. And you'll see that these collections are broken down by language. So like I said, you probably won't see these two options that often, but it's something to keep in mind. And then, if all else fails when you're dealing with more than one discipline, you can follow back to the instructions that we talked about last week for more than one subject in the same discipline.  Does anybody have any questions about more than one subject in more than one discipline? Okay, then we will go on. Now, we're going back to our list of classifying with the DDC, section five, the introduction. And the last thing on that list is called the Table of Last Resort, and it's pretty much just what it sounds like. It's what you use if all else fails. If none of this other stuff applies and you really need help making a decision between two topics, you go with the Table of Last Resort. It's used when more than one number seems to be applicable, and it really should be used as the last resort. I tell you to use with caution and consider the intent of the author when you're trying to decide between two of these things. But that bulleted list there is basically, I reproduced the Table of Last Resort, and what it is is a table of preference. You'll want to get used to the idea of a table of preference when you're working with Dewey, and that means just a list and things at the top of the list, you prefer those over things at the bottom of the list. So if you're choosing between two of those, trying to figure out where to class something, you will always choose things at the top of the table before things at the bottom. So that's what this is. This is a table of preference. And sometimes when the schedules tell you which number to use, it's based on this table. A lot of times the work of the Table of Last Resort has already done for you, so you won't have to think about it this much. But you can see, for example, if you're working with something that is a kind of thing rather than a process by which something is made, you will choose the kind of thing before choosing the process. And this all is sort of abstract, but it makes a little bit more sense when you look at an example. If you had a book about embroidered rugs, for example, you would classify it with the number for rugs rather than the number for embroidery, because a rug is a kind of thing, which was the very first topic of that Table of Last Resort, and embroidery is a process which comes later down in the table. And actually, this is a case in which the schedules itself tells you to do this. You can see that there's a table of preference here at the bottom of this page, and it tells you that rugs are preferred over needlework and handwork, and basically that's based off of the Table of Last Resort. A kind of thing, a rug, is preferred to a process, embroidery or needlework. So we've made it through this whole list, classifying with the DDC. Does anybody have any questions about this, about any of those things that we've talked about? We're going to kind of switch gears a little bit and talk about number building. Okay, the idea of number building is a very important concept for the Dewey Decimal Classification. You can look up your topics in the relative index, but then there's also a number building used to further subdivide your topics. And basically it's used to group like items with like items. It's helped to organize a larger number of items within a topic and to define more facets of an item. So I mean, if you have a collection that doesn't have very many items, it's not as important. You know, people can probably browse and find what they want, but especially in a larger collection, it's important to be able to break down numbers into longer numbers with more subdivisions that help subdivide your topic. It helps your patrons find what they need more easily. And what we're going to talk about first is adding numbers as directed in the schedule, and then we'll move on to talk about tables, which are also a form of number building. And it's really just a matter of following instructions as you find them in the schedule. Sometimes you'll add numbers from another class or division before adding the subdivision. Let's look at an example. If we have a book called Handbook for Casting Steel, we'll browse for steel in the relative index. And casting steel is a type of metalworking. So we will look at 672. And you'll see that 672 is the number for iron steel and other iron alloys, including metalworking processes. There's a note right here that says metalworking processes are included, but it doesn't tell us particularly which number to use for each process. Casting is a particular type of process. And you'll see that there are instructions specifically for building a number that will tell us that we're working with casting steel. You add the base number 672, the numbers following 671.  As you get used to working with Dewey, you'll find out there are often patterns that kind of pop up and it saves space by not having to repeat the same patterns under each and every number. So we know that if we click on the 671.2 through 671.8, it's going to give us more information about how to build a number for casting steel. But before we do that, I would go ahead and write down our base number, 672.  You know that we're working with 672, the number for steel. And so we'll go ahead and click through to the 671.2 range of numbers here for specific mental working processes. We want to see more specifically if casting is listed, so we're going to click on that link. And it is 671.2 is this number for casting. And there are no further subdivisions or instructions if we go ahead and click on that link. And remember our instructions told us to add to the number 672. We're supposed to add the number after the decimal point in 671. So we're going to go ahead and put this at 672.2. You know that number building can be kind of confusing at first. Does anybody have any questions about how that example worked? Okay, here's another example of number building directions that you will find directly in the schedule. Let's see. If we're looking to classify a book on either freshwater fishes or marine fishes, we would go here to this number. For both of these options, freshwater fishes and marine fishes, the number building has already been done. And you'll see that sometimes in the schedule. The building of the numbers will actually have been done, but they'll also include the directions on how to do it just so you know where they're coming from. So even though these numbers are created for us, we'll go ahead and work through the process so we know how they got there. So the numbers we're looking at here are the 597.176 and 597.177. They're already created, but the note here tells you that they were created by following these instructions. We add to base number 597.1 the numbers following 591 in that range of numbers. And notice this is a little bit different from last time. Last time they just gave us the base number that was the three digits before the decimal point, the 672. But this time we're supposed to include the 0.1 after the decimal point. So I would go ahead and write down the base number 597.1 so that I didn't forget what my base number was and that it included a decimal this time. And then click on that range of numbers that gives us the instructions. So the number we're looking at is 591.7 animal characteristics of a specific environment. And if you click on that, there are subdivisions for specific environments. And if you click on that last link there, we get aquatic animals and marine animals, which is freshwater animals or marine animals. And again, these numbers are built for us, but there is also a note telling us how they were built. There's sort of two levels of number building going on in this example. And if you click on that range of numbers, you'll see that 6 is for freshwater ecology and 0.7 is for marine ecology. So I know that's quite the trail we just went on there. So here's a summary of the number building we just did. We added to the base number. We started with our base number 597.1 and we added the numbers following 591 in that range of numbers. And then we got those numbers by adding to a base number 591.7, the numbers following 577. So we did a couple of jumping arounds, looking for numbers. And we ended up with, for example, for freshwater fish, 597.176, which, like I said, was already built for us. So if you were navigating the schedules, you wouldn't necessarily have to do this, but it's good to kind of know where they're coming from. Any questions about number building using the schedules? Okay, I have a request coming in to just see that again. I'm assuming you mean this last example about the fishes. We can go through that really quickly. Okay, so we're working on a book about either freshwater fishes or marine fishes. I don't have a specific title for this example, but we've navigated to the area for 597.1, general topics in natural history of Caldwell River Braids. And the numbers are already built for us, but we're going to pretend like they aren't, and we're going to read these directions down here that tells us to add to base number 597.1, the number is following 591. So I would write down 597.1 to keep in mind that that is your base number, and that's what we're going to add on to. And then we're going to jump to 591 in the schedules. So if you're using WebDewey, you just click on that link. If you're using the print version, you flip over to that page. And so what this page tells us that we're looking for a number in this range to add to our 597.1. And we're looking to describe our freshwater fish, which is a specific type of environment. We're talking particularly about the freshwater environment. So that tells us that 591.7 is the .7. It tells us to add the number after 591. So .7 is what we're going to add to our number that we're building. So at this point, if you were writing down, you could go ahead and add on to the number you're building, and you would have 597.17. When we click through, we see that we can do a little bit more specifically. We can add on another number, and you click through to that link, the specific factors affecting ecology, specific environments. You'll see that the subdivisions are broken down more to aquatic animals, which means freshwater animals, or marine animals, which means animals that live in the ocean. And again, the number is built for us. If we wanted to go ahead and select it, we could choose aquatic animals, and we'd add a 6 on to our number that we're building, and call it good for freshwater fishes. But again, there's instructions here that tell you how to do it. So you add to 591.7 the numbers following 577. So again, we're going to make another jump, click through that link, or flip through the page if we're doing the print version. And again, you'll see the .6 or the .7 is a choice between freshwater ecology and marine ecology. And if we're going with freshwater fishes, that 6 is the number that we're looking at. We want to add that on to the number we've already been building, which up to this point was 597.17. So our full number is 597.176. And I know this is a really complicated answer to wrap your brain around to begin with. And like I said, you won't necessarily have to do anything that complicated because they're already built for you in the schedules, but this is kind of an example. Okay, I have a question coming in that says, are there any rules or guidelines for how short or how far the number has to go? And that really depends on your local collection. One other thing, you know, we're working with a bridge dewy here. And a lot of times you can only go so far with a bridge dewy. They just don't have the subdivisions that the full number, the full version of dewy has. And the reason for that is because if it's smaller collection, you don't need such a long number of so many subdivisions. So there aren't really any rules or guidelines. It just depends on your own collection. And if you have a lot of books on to keep using the same example, if you have a lot of books on dogs and you think that your patrons will find it easier if you break it down by different breeds of dogs, for example, then you can choose to the extend the number and use the subdivisions for different breeds. But if you just have maybe 10, 12 books on dogs and you think that they'll be easily browsable, you can just go ahead and use the number for dogs without using the subdivisions. So it really is a local decision about how far out you want to go. It just depends on how detailed your collection is in that particular area. Does that answer your question on that? Great. Okay, so we've been talking so far about number building using the schedules themselves, but there are also, as I mentioned, four tables. And standard subdivisions are the table one, which we're going to talk about today. And like I said, adding subdivisions helps patrons browse the shelves by keeping items together. They're more helpful when you have a large number of items on one subject. As I've sort of been saying all along, if you have 10 books on a particular topic, you can browse them easily and you may not need to add subdivisions. But if you have 100 books, it becomes harder. So if you have 10 books about dogs, it's easy to classify them. But if you have 100 books, you might want to put all the encyclopedias about dogs together or all the dogs from a historical approach together. And the standard subdivisions help you do that. You're not required to add them, but it helps you organize your collection a little bit more if you want to go ahead and add them. So the tables help you classify by a certain number of facets, different ways of organizing it. You can organize them by format. There are subdivisions for dictionaries, serials, catalogues, et cetera. The approach or the viewpoint of the author. There are different subdivisions for people, location, literary forms, and use of language. As I said before, the source of the subdivisions and the instructions for working with them come from the tables. There are only four tables in the abridged version that we're going to be working with. There are six ones in the full Dewey. There are sometimes instructions about how to add these subdivisions in the schedules. And you can find out more about them in the introduction section 8.1 through 8.18. And the manual does have some instructions for using these as well. I just wanted to point out where to find them in Web Dewey. They're pretty easy to find in the print version because you can just look up in the table of contents and it says tables, but you might not know where to look in Web Dewey. So when you first log in to Web Dewey, you get the search screen. And you can click on tables down here in order to get to the tables. There also will obviously be links to the tables when you encounter the appropriate parts in the schedules. But if you want to just log in and look at the tables, that's where you find them. You'll see there's four of them, like I mentioned. Table one has the standard subdivisions. Table two is for geographic areas and persons and can only be used in conjunction with table one. We'll talk about that next week. Table three is for literature and can only be used with numbers in the 800s. And table four is for languages and can only be used with numbers in the 400s. And we'll talk about all those except for table one next week. So today let's focus on table one. There are a number of different facets that are included in table one. You can subdivide by format, by approach, people, and location. We'll talk about the first three of those today. And we're going to leave location for next week because you have to work with table two as well when you're talking about location. So here is table one. All of the standard subdivisions are listed starting with zero in table one. And there's a table of preference. Remember, I told you table of preference is a concept you're going to want to get used to. And then the standard subdivisions is one area in which the idea of a table of preference will apply. And that will tell you the order in which you should choose subdivisions if more than one could apply. Generally, you only use one standard subdivision unless the instructions for a particular number tell you to do differently. So if you have something that's a serial publication, but it's also an encyclopedia, you have to choose between the two of them. You can't add the subdivisions for both of them. So from the main table one screen, you can click on any of those subdivisions to see them in more detail. For example, if you clicked on the O2, you'll see that O2, O2, O3, various ways in which this standard subdivision is subdivided even further. And the hierarchy continues. It can get subdivided even further. So generally, you can use standard subdivisions at any time. If you feel that one is necessary, you can go ahead and add it to a number directly, unless the schedule is explicitly forbidden. There are a few numbers where they say you can't use standard subdivisions, unless the topic of the item is only part of the number. We'll see examples of this. They'll make more sense. There might be certain restrictions specified in the schedules, or if it would be redundant. If the number for some reason already includes that aspect of the subdivision, and it would just be redundant to add that subdivision. So here's an example in which it would be redundant. You can see that normally O2, O8 is the standard subdivision for auxiliary techniques and procedures or equipment and materials, but that is already covered. Almost the exact same phrasing is used under 522. And you'll see that because this number O2, O8 is in brackets, that means that it is forbidden. It's not used if it's in brackets. And just in case you don't catch that, there's also a note telling you do not use this number, class it in 522. Here is an example of an including note, a note where the topic you're trying to class isn't the whole topic for the number, and so therefore you can't use standard subdivisions. For example, we have the topic of optical engineering that includes a number of different smaller topics. There's a whole including note here that says there are a number of topics under here. So if we have a book that's just about lasers, because lasers is not the whole topic, because optical engineering is the larger topic, we cannot use standard subdivisions on lasers. It's the same thing here. This is a screenshot from the full Dewey. And see the reason behind why you can't use standard subdivisions on some of these including topics is because in full Dewey, they each have their own number. In full Dewey, there is a specific number for lasers, and you can add standard subdivisions to that number. But in a bridge Dewey, you cannot add standard subdivisions to that larger number. And sometimes there'll be notes that tell you when you can and can't use standard subdivisions, as in this case, this 153.3 number includes three different topics, imagination, imagery, and creativity. And you'll see that that note, sometimes these notes get very specific, but you can use standard subdivisions if you're talking about all three of those together, or for imagination alone. But if you're talking just about imagery, you can't use these standard subdivisions. Let's see. I see you have another question. There's a question wondering if OCLC Connection is the full or a bridge Dewey, and the answer is that there are both full and abridged versions available for web Dewey on OCLC Connection. The one that we are using here, the login that I gave you for class, is the abridged version, and you can see the difference. When you log in and you go to Dewey Services, abridged web Dewey shows up here. Now we do have access at the commission to the full web Dewey version as well, and so that's what I used when I created this screenshot. I logged in for the full one, and you'll see it just as a web Dewey, not an abridged web Dewey. So OCLC Connection provides access to both, and it just depends on which one your library chooses to subscribe to, just like your library can choose to buy the print version for either the full or the abridged version. That's a good question though. Sometimes when you're going through the schedules, you'll see that instead of using a standard subdivision, the same number is built into the base number. For example, in this case, let's see, oh, I see another question coming in. What is best to use? I'm assuming that's a question about whether a bridge versus full is best to use, and it really depends on your own collection. I think the cutoff that I've usually heard is that a bridge Dewey works well for collections with under 20,000 nonfiction titles, and if you have a larger collection of over 20,000, you'll probably want to use the full version. But it really just kind of depends on your local collection and how specific you need to get. The advantage of using the full version is that you'll have more subdivisions available to you, and you can make longer numbers that are more specific and help your patrons browse your collection if it's kind of large. So in general, larger collections would probably benefit more from the full version, and 20,000 is the cutoff that I've generally heard, though of course that's not a hard and fast rule. It's just kind of a rule of thumb. So again, in this example, you'll see 103 is already built, and it is four dictionaries in psychopedias. Generally, the standard subdivision would be to add a .03 on to something, but in this case, it's already built, so it would be redundant. You wouldn't put 103.03 because that has already been built for you. Now, sometimes you'll see variations in adding subdivisions. Generally, you'll see in the table they all begin with zero, and so you'll just add zero one or zero two to the number. But there are a number of different variations you can go through. Sometimes you add them as they are in the table. Sometimes you drop the lead zero after an existing zero. Sometimes you retain that zero, and there are two zeros in there. And sometimes you can even add an extra zero. And these depend on notes in the schedule. If you're just adding from the table, you'll add the zero one or zero two or whatever. But sometimes you'll see notes that tell you that the standard subdivisions are handled a little bit differently. And we'll go through and look at some examples of these. Let's say we have the encyclopedia of fruit and explores many varieties of fruit, their agricultural development and history, where they are and how they're grown. So we look up fruit in the relative index and we're directed to orchards, fruits and forestry. And remember just to look at the notes to see if it tells you anything about standard subdivisions. And this tells you it's added for all three together or for orchards alone or for fruits alone. And we have fruits alone in this example. So we can go ahead and add standard subdivisions. So the number for fruit is 634. We'll go ahead and write that down. And then we look at table one for standard subdivisions. So remember we're looking for encyclopedias. And I also should point out at this point that you don't have to just browse the tables like this. You can look up, for example, encyclopedias in the relative index. And if you see a number in the relative index with T1 or T2 in front of it, it means that it's directing you to the one of the tables. So we look up encyclopedias and we see that it's included in O3. And there aren't any further subdivisions. So the number for this encyclopedia of fruit is 634.03. And that's an example of a subdivision that has added directly how it appears in the table. Now this example should look familiar. It's the one we kind of did halfway last week about the media's influence on children. And we got to the number 302.23. But we did not add the subdivision for indicating that it's about children. So this is the number we got to, 302.23. And we see that that number expands a little bit. 302.2308 is for respect to kinds of persons. And how they got the number is that they partially built the number already for us using the table. Table 1, you will see that OH is the standard subdivision for history and description with respect to kinds of persons. And since children are a kind of person, they've already built this number a little bit for us. But there are some subdivisions under 08. And you'll see that they are listed under 081 through 088 for specific kinds of persons. If we click on that, we see that young people are at 083. If we click on that, we look at the notes and see that children are included here. And so our full number for this is 302.23083. The 08 indicates that we're talking about media's influence on a specific set of persons. And the 083 in particular is for children. Now there are, like we said, some variations. You can sometimes drop the lead zero. You don't always have to insert 03. You could just put 0.3. And this usually happens when you're working with a number that already ends in a zero. Here's, and a lot of times, rather than these appearing through instructions, you'll see that the numbers are already built. In this case, the zero from Science, the 500, has already been dropped to create 501. Here's an example of that. Let's say we have a serial publication called the Isaac Asimov Yearbook of Astronomy. And let's take a look at the print version really quick here. Oh, I'm seeing we have a hand raised. Okay, I have unmuted your microphone. If you want to go ahead and ask your question. I was just wondering, on that last example, when it was ending in 0.03 on the table, it was 0.030. Do you have to put the last zero in past the three? That's a good question. Let me go back and look at that example. Was this the screen you were looking at, Barb? No. Let's see. I think that I'm not seeing anything. It was back, yeah, it was the one before that. This one? No, I think it was on your last example. Oh, the example before that? Yeah, and it showed this one. Yeah, see it says 0.030. And then when you put it in, it was 0.03. So do you need that last zero? The subdivision we're looking at here is the 0.03. Is this what you're seeing, this 0.030? Okay, that is telling us specifically interdisciplinary encyclopedias. If there was more than one topic, ours is very narrowly focused on fruits. So we were just going with 0.03 on this one. Okay, thanks. You're welcome. Okay, let me get back to where we were here. Okay, so we are looking at the print version of the schedules here. Sometimes there are certain things about print doing that's a little bit easier to navigate, and this is kind of one of them that I think might be true. Sometimes directions for adding standard subdivisions can be found in the summary in the schedules. So under 5.20, you'll see that it tells you standard subdivisions are 0.1 through 0.9. And this is a difference from the usual procedure. Normally it would be 0.01 through 0.09, but these are handled a little bit differently in this number, and this is how it will show up in the print schedules. Unfortunately, it's not quite as clear in Webdui. If we click on 5.20, you'll see that it gives the examples for 5.20.1 and 5.20.2. And you can see from the descriptions, once you get used to working with table 1, you'll see that philosophy and theory and miscellaneous are 0.01 and 0.02 in the table 1. But it doesn't just give you a nice, concise note that says to use 0.1 through 0.9. You're supposed to kind of pick up on the pattern and realize that we're using 0.1 through 0.9 instead of 0.01 through 0.09. And this doesn't appear all the time, but yet there are some areas in which I feel that navigating Webdui kind of assumes a basic familiarity with Dui in general that isn't always assumed in the print version. So that's just something to keep in mind. So here's our example again. The number for astronomy is 5.20. And yearbook means it's published annually. So it's a serial publication. We need to find the subdivision for a serial publication. And let's go back to table 1. Serials are under 0.05. And if we click on that, we'll see that yearbooks are given under the note. So we know we're in the right area. And normally you would add the subredivision 0.05, but remember working off of the different pattern that was given in the notes. So it's going to be 5.20.5, not 5.20.05. Anybody have any question on that example? Okay, sometimes a different pattern that you might always see is that you don't drop the 0 after an existing 0. That's not a hard and fast rule across the board. Here is the manual of research statistics for chemical engineers. And unfortunately I'm going to go through these last two examples kind of quickly because I do want to get time to talk about the assignment. So we look up chemical engineering, and we'll see if that's 6.60. And again, the pattern for standard subdivisions is given. You know, we have 0.01, 0.02, and then this time they do give the rest of the standard subdivisions for you. So you don't have to completely recognize the pattern on your own. And so we know it's going to be 6.60, and according to the pattern there will be a 0 there. Research is under 0.07, and more specifically 0.072, and there are no further instructions that direct us anywhere else. So this is going to go at 6.60.072. See, we have some more questions coming in. For astronomy, asking a question about the astronomy example, you won't know to drop the 0 unless you looked at the print version. It's not entirely correct. You don't have to kind of infer. Let me go back to that astronomy example. Now with the print version, they spell it out for you all of the standard subdivisions, 0.1 through 0.9. In the web version, it's not as clear, but it is there. Under 0.520, they sort of start building the standard subdivisions for you. It's 0.1 and 0.2, and they don't continue on to give you the rest of the standard subdivisions. So you just kind of had to be on the lookout for something like this. It means to drop the 0, and as you get used to using the standard subdivisions, you'll realize that philosophy and theory is the first standard subdivision and miscellaneous is the second standard subdivision. So when you start to see terms like that, you'll recognize that this is a pattern you should pay attention to, and it kind of implies that the rest of the standard subdivisions follow. But it's not as clear as it is in the print version. Does that answer your question? So you have to kind of be familiar enough with Dewey to infer that when you see a 0.1 and 0.2, it can be assumed that 0.3 through 0.9 also follow suit for the standard subdivisions instead of 0.01 or 0.02 or 0.03.  And it's not as common. I wanted to mention it as something that you should look out for, but as we saw with the other example, all of the standard subdivisions were given. So it's another one of the mysteries of Dewey that I can't completely explain why they didn't always go through and write them all out, but there it is. So let's get back to the finished R-climical engineering example. And sometimes it can go the opposite direction. You can even add an extra 0 that you wouldn't know you would need. And this will be given in the schedule. You'll see that they give the pattern 4.001, 002, and the rest of the standard subdivisions. So under this topic of small firearms, you add an extra 0. And I touched on this briefly before, but if you have multiple facets that you could bring out, you're only supposed to add one standard subdivision and you use the table of preference for this. And once in a while you'll see instructions in the schedule that tell you it's okay to use multiple subdivisions, but probably 95% of the time you can only use one. And so, for example, so here's that table of preference again. It's pretty long, but remember choose ones closer to the top before ones closer to the bottom. For example, if you had an encyclopedia that was also a serial publication, you would see that the subdivision for encyclopedias comes before serial publications in the table of preference. So you would add 03 for encyclopedias rather than something in the 05s for a serial publication. Okay, there's a question that's coming in about classifying books as theory. That sounds like a fairly specific question, Shirley. Would you mind emailing, or I'll get back to you about that one, about email when we're done. We're really getting kind of pressed on time here and I do want to make sure we get time to go through the assignment. And that sounds like a very specific to your situation, Shirley. So I will handle that one via email afterwards. So here is the class webpage again, and I believe that this URL should be working. I think I heard a word this morning that our website is up and running. So you can go to this URL, and if it doesn't work for some reason, you can substitute nlc.nebraska.gov at the beginning, the link that I sent you out in the email yesterday, and that should work. The assignment is up there. The recording will be up there shortly, and it is due by 8am next Tuesday. Next session is June 22nd, next Tuesday. The handouts will be available on the web again, and we'll talk more about number building. Okay, I am going to pull up WebDewey really quick here, and we will talk about the assignment perhaps. So the first item on the assignment was a book called Odds On, betting at the horse track. And most of you I think were pretty close on this one. What I did to find this one was I chose to browse in the relative index for horse racing. Oh, and I see that I missed a question going back here. Do you ever end with a 0 after the decimal? No, you won't ever see that. Okay, so we're looking at horse racing. We see that we clicked through to 798 and of course this is not cooperating and logged me off. But that's okay. We'll start over. This is always the fun part of doing live demonstrations in class. You hope everything will work. I'll look for horse racing again. Click through 798.4 and you can see that betting is a subdivision under here. And so I would put this book at 798.401. It didn't seem like too many of you had problems with this one. The next question was pre-adult developmental psychology and I started by browsing for developmental psychology in the relative index and it directed me to 155 and we're looking at pre-adult psychology. So we are talking about age groups from birth to 18 so I went to the range of psychology for specific ages and I think most of you got into this range and from then it was a question of this is dealing with from birth to 18 so it does involve both child psychology and psychology of young people 12 to 20. So what I did in this situation was I applied the first of two rule. We were deciding between 155.4 and 155.5 and so there weren't any notes that directed otherwise so I went with 155.4. Now the third question was about current religions of the Middle East. It discusses Islam, Hinduism and Judaism. So what I started was by looking for each of those individual religions in the relative index and Islam is at 297 and I kind of just wrote down these numbers as I went through keeping track of them. Hinduism was at 294.5 and Judaism was at 296. So they're all in the 290s so in this case I applied the rule of 3 and went up to the first level of the hierarchy that includes all of these religions so I put it at 290. The fourth one was successful second grade readers containing information about whole language oral reading and evaluating reading skills. So I think I started out by looking for reading in the relative index and we're talking about second graders so I went for reading elementary education which directed us to 372.4 and you can see under the subdivisions some of our topics are here but not all of them. Evaluation of reading skills for example had its own subdivision 372.48 and this is a situation in which if you were using the print version you could probably just kind of browse and see what the various things included under each of these topics are but using WebDewey it might be better to kind of look for the relative index or even do a search options and search for whole language perhaps and you'll see that it directs us to reading comprehension strategies which is another subdivision under 372.4 and then oral reading was our other one and then it just kind of shows you have to kind of use a couple of different options if you don't originally find what you're looking for. So reading skills strategies includes oral reading and this is also so all three of them are subdivisions under reading and so you might think that you would use the rule of three again and go up one level in the hierarchy and that would be the case except remember you always have to look for other directions that tell you to do something different so under this when it says unless other instructions are given class of subject with aspects or two or more subdivisions in the number coming last. So in this case we're going to go with 372.48 which is the number coming last out of all those. Now the next one was mathematical transformation of map making it discusses the influence of mathematical theory on current cartographic practices and remember in this case there is a rule called the rule of application which means that you class things with the topic that's being acted on or influenced rather than one that's doing the influence and if I can spell here so cartography is what's being influenced here math is doing the influencing so I looked up cartography and it goes in 526 and you might also want to look up general mathematics just to make sure that there aren't any instructions that tell you to do otherwise but and so I did in that case and there weren't any. So you'll see here that cartography map drawing and map making are all classed here. I did see that some people had put down 912 because if you look up maps in the relative index it directs you to 912 but in this case there is a note directing you to 526 for map drawing and map making so that's what I would have followed to get here if I had looked up maps in the relative index. Now this last one was probably the most confusing one but what I did on this one is I looked up paintings in the relative index and got to the 750s and now we have both a historical and a geographic treatment of this one. It's historical because the Victorians period but it is geographic because we're treating it as British because it's an emphasis on British and you'll see there's a note here that tells us do not use we should class this in 759 so we're following that note and again we're choosing between periods of development and geographic treatment and a number of people went with 759.2 because they looked on Europe and then 759.2 was the number for the British Isles the answer that I base mine on was 759.05 and the note that I was working off was if you go in the 759 there's a note that says class Western painting of one or two specific periods in this range and this is the time period here basically the way I interpreted this note is with telling us that if you're only working with one or two specific time periods then the time period is more important than the geographic area and so that's why it would go here a number of people like I said went with 759.2 for British Isles and I think that what was coming down to was the difference of interpretation of this note here class year schools and styles not limited by country or locality works on one or two periods of European painting and the way I interpreted the note was because of this works on one or two periods of European painting this should go here because it's on one period of British painting which is a subset of European painting I had a couple of people who interpreted this to mean that European in a sense meant that all of Europe is covered in this book and if it's one specific country or locality then it should go with 759.2 for British and I see the argument there and I think it's a valid argument you made me sort of at least reconsider the fact that maybe this isn't the best example to use for people newly navigating doing and so this does illustrate the fact that when it comes down to it in some situations choosing a classification number is cataloger's judgment you make a call based on what you think the notes mean and also based on what works best in your collection you know it's kind of an artificial exercise in this class because we have a title of a book we don't even have the whole book in front of us so it's hard to see what the book is actually about we're working off of a title and not only that but we don't have a whole collection to play with in this case you would probably look and see what the other books about British Victorian painting were classed at in your collection and so you make a decision using a larger context than what we have here so my interpretation of this note is still that this should be classed at 759.05 but I can see where the 759.2 people are coming from that's sort of a conclusion I've come to over the course of the week and so if I responded to your assignment in the beginning of the week and said that 759.2 was wrong I think I remember reconsidering that a little bit just sort of the illustration of the fact that it's not completely cut and dried using Dewey there's not always a completely right or completely wrong answer and it really depends on your local collection does anybody have any questions about this question or any of the rest of the assignment okay well in that case I thank you all for coming and your assignment will be up on the class web page shortly and so will the recording and if I know further questions I will see you back here next week Thank you


Well, we got the switch. That's about just as good in my book. He's gonna try to DP. Let's go, baby. Crack open your textbooks to page 345. How's it going everybody?  This team is actually a little awkward to play for me because usually these are all characters I've run on point with the usual Yamcha Goku shell. So I just wanted to see what I would be able to do if I just took out that shell and just ran all points for me. Oh, I lost my Pig Square. No, that's not how I wanted this to be revealed to me. What happened? Wow, that was an ingenious light. And it's the Vegito Sesh is back on as always. The pressure is being put on. Dude, 17 is taking a lot of damage. I think we just spark now. And then we just we got to do this to keep him in the corner, right? This makes the most sense out of everything to me. Get him down again. Got him, dude.  Bop, bop, bop. Goku GT wrap him up. Alright, so we get a good hit on Vegito there. Dude, that's set. I don't know if the video's been released yet, but that set with a very good player really put a damper on my point situation, huh? Oh, I tried something. I don't know why I risked it with a lower range instead of just going for maybe a normal light. But I thought the 2L would reach. Does he go for the final flash? No. Does that punish? Oh, he missed the punish too early. Alright, I've had enough, dude. I've had enough to hear with your nonsense. We're going over here now. That was something I wanted to test there. Had a lot of things I wanted the test covered into this. Nice. Get this man out of here. Superdash. There it is. Nice use of the legs. I was trying to get that cheap stuff. I might have been trying to get the cheap Superdash. Who knows? I mean, I'm not going to tell. Nice. If I just don't miss this 2M, I didn't. Damn it. I tried it. Got him. Vanished, vanished, got him. Oh, I need points, dude. I can't afford to lose. I don't want to go back to Living Legend for a fourth time. Third time. My Pat and the Stats are dead. I genuinely forget. Even I don't know. No, dude, stop doing that. What are you doing? That was a little too obvious. Oh, don't ever go for the 2M there. It's too risky and doesn't add that much damage. We got to buy time. Most importantly, we got to get the sparking clock off. I don't know why he did that considering it switches sides here. But I mean, the damage is still a little bit extra. Now we just need to get one touch. No five frames. Did it stop? The Vanisher was my input too slow. Oh, that's so much damage. And a mix up to boot. Oh, why did... All right. Hey, I'm not gonna play. What year is it? Oh, come on. Got this man. I knew he was going to mash. Come on. I can't afford to lose Goku. I can't afford to lose. And I'm talking to both Goku's at this point. Let's go. Let's go. That was way too close for comfort. I don't even feel safe. I got caught by so much cheese and I dropped so much too. All right, let's... Can we tighten up our play just all across the boardless back dash? Wait for the... Wait for the Super Dash. And miss it down heavy. Because, oh, this was another thing to happen at the beginning. We got... We lost our Super... Sparking. The reflected in time that well? Okay. Oh, dude. You... You did it to yourself. God and dude, let's go. 17. I should have probably charged up my thing, but I just kind of messed it up. Wow, he didn't block that. Where's the Super Dash? There it is.  It would really improve my play if I stuck to the ground game a little more. But I am nothing if not a man that loves his jumps. Oh, baby. Switch, switch, switch, switch. Damn. That was the only way I could see continuing that combo. It was a little too close. Oh, the down heavy doesn't get him as well. We're going for a ride and probably to our deaths here as well. Actually, no. He can't kill us now. I'll just get him out of here, dude. Let's just get 17 out of here. Switch him into a different character. I don't think anything would have killed there, honestly. No, and the 2M sweep just gets me. I thought it not.  Drop it and he couldn't even see how he died. That's what I like my, that's what I like my assist to do in my team fighting game. All right, stick to the ground, stick to the ground. No, no down heavy. I was really trying to stall for time. All right, back it up, back it up, back it up. Oh, that would have been great. That was more just for me, dude. The EX kick, that would have been great. But unfortunately we do die. Big unfortunate, but fine. It's drawing out his sparking time. Oh, dude, we were doing good. I just wanted to keep him away. I just wanted to keep him away. Hopefully that time we draw it out does a little better, but I accidentally click SuperDash. I drag and rush and it blew the whole thing up. Nice, we got him. Okay, and just to make sure we don't miss. Boom, get him out of here. All right, good job. All right, we did a good enough job making sure we stayed away. His Superdashes from full screen are getting a little more obvious now. Hopefully that means he stops going for them, but we do have to get some more, you know, two-h punishes, I think, to fully implement that message into our game. So we're going. All right, it looks like it's gone. But it did look like it calmed down for the most part. Oh, wow. Oh, barely enough Vegeta. Barely enough Vegeta to make it go. All right, but that's fine. We have, we got good damage out.  Yeah, I don't even, don't ask me how I, that worked. Because if you do, I just, I'll have to answer. I don't know. I thought he wouldn't click a button. I wanted to go for the lights. That's fine. Gonna knock me around here a bit at notes. No bar though. Yes. All right, well, still pretty good. No, he didn't SuperDash like I wanted him to. So here's the plan. He's gonna switch us out. Okay, well, I'll give you the back. I'll give you the rundown plan when I get a little safer. Damn. He realized I wasn't clicking any buttons. It was his time to go. But and then just a moment later, I realized I should probably click some buttons. So the wheel of fate was really turning there and turning slowly in my case. I'll switch again. Really? Really no switch. I got you. Okay, that's the standard vanish combo. One bar kill. I'll take it. Now we've got to work our way through this Vegeta. This is gonna be the problem character dude. No, I wanted to reflect the Vegeta. That was too slow. There's the SuperDash. And I try to get off a cheeky vanish. Three bars can't kill though. Actually, no. If he had four, he could have killed. I mean, at this point, just do whatever, right? That was a free style. Who needs SSX tricky when you can play this game for free? Fast? What? Oh, come on. That was just cheap. Okay. God, dude, let's go.  Come on, man. You can't give me that fighters. After all this, after all we've been through the amount of raw level threes, the tags, the SuperDash, I can't get that. Got him. He had a bar. Really? Well, we got to switch. That's about just as good in my book. He's going to try to DP. Woohoo. Let's go, baby. Crack open your textbooks to page 345, because class is in session. Let's go. Do we try to switch out of reserve health? Nah. Why would he SuperDash from that close? Now throw those keyblasts out. I'm gonna switch. Wait, I'm gonna lose. No down heavy. Just stick to reflecting, dude. That's all you're decent at. Decent is pushing it. Decent is pushing it, but I will say I'm better than it is down heavying. Dragon rush, and he gets away with it. Drop it, drop it, drop it, drop it, drop it. That was close, dude. All right, come on. Let's run it back. 2-1, 2-1, 2-1. Okay, okay. I played bad that match. I played bad. I can admit it. Cell wasn't good. We got caught by every SuperDash in the book practically, and we were trying to avoid... Why is he not clicking rematch? Why is he not clicking rematch yet? Oh, don't do it. Oh, don't do it, please. Oh, don't do it. Come on, please. We're at the end of the... Can I just say I am grateful? I hate this man. I wish he never clicked rematch. I'm joking. I'm joking, but still. Vegeta. Oh, God. Do we uptake here? Do we just take it? Okay, he was just walking back. It actually scared me. Get down to the ground. Let me see you. I should have kept the corner. That dash. Just reflect. How many times do I got to teach myself? That's why we reflect. That's why we reflect because that can happen. Dude, he's SuperDashing like crazy, and it's jumping up to seven frames right now. That is not what we need. Bear hug him. I don't care. We were just mashing there. Get him out of here. Let's go, Cell. Oh, we're playing on a different map now. New map, new me. Okay, switch him out. Actually, yeah, get him out of here. Get him out of here. We missed. All right, get him out of here. Get him out of here, actually. He won't DP again. You know what? Get him out of here. I don't want to do it again. Oh, just run up and do it. I mean, I have been doing that a lot recently.  It didn't jump up in frames. What did I drop that for then? I mean, there it was again, but now I'm the one full screen SuperDashing. The games razzled me, dude. Got him in the air. Risky. It jumped up to six frames, but I tried it, dude. I just wanted that knockout. Now we just back up. We just reflect all day long, baby. We don't even... I can't believe it. He just ran up and did it. I thought I was jumping back, blocking, but I think I might have inputted a back dash. Well, now I kind of want to go on the aggressive. Dude, don't tell me you can convert. He can convert. Oh, no. Stop this. End this cycle of misery. He won't be able to kill. He didn't spark. That was also interesting. Back in that corner. Oh, get back there. What are you doing? Let's go finally. Please kill. I should have sparked. That would have negated his healing factor, but it doesn't matter. Super Saiyan 4 is capable of taking that amount of health in one blow. Let's go. No, it was all hype. It was all hype. I'm sorry. Please don't. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. If he hits us raw, we lose. No, we don't. We have a lot of health. Come on. Okay, so we win. Little anti-climactic, but I will take it, dude. Thank you for the set. My man, a lot of fun. He also lost our pink square somewhere along the way, and that's going to be a real pain to get back. Like actually, actually impossible. And I know I said it, but thanks again to my opponent. It was great. Thanks for sticking around. Give me that final rematch. Hopefully, you guys at home enjoyed this. Let me know any team recommendations down below in the comments, of course. And while you're down there, if you like the channel and the video, make sure to hit the like button and subscribe. It really helps me out a ton. And I appreciate all the support we've been getting lately. It really has been so much fun.  So if any of them catch your eye, just give them a click. Other than that, I've been Dr. Doia. Thanks again for watching this particular video, and I will see you in the next one.


The Tiger. Financial news network. News update.  That's the Dow in draft inside the NASDAQ is 1.2%, S&Ps 9 tenths of 1%, Dow Industrial 7 tenths of 1%. Gold. Gold contract flat, $19.95 an ounce. We had Silver down, $0.28 straight now to $23.57. Light sweet crude up a buck. $73.04 a barrel, notes and bonds. A ten year note, up three ticks, $113.18 to $30 up two at $126.27. Now both the note and bond market folks did reject lower price. They were coming into some, now the ten year note did 2.3, 2.4 million contracts. That's big contract volume. That being said they were going into 4.5 and 3.5 million contracts. Right now the ten year is yielding 3.7. So the last three months, the lowest 3.0, the highest 4.0. You go into the last six months and you get 3.3, 4.0. We go to the last year, we have 2.5 to 4.2. So bottom line I expect what you're going to see now is you're going to see higher price, lower yields once again and $Kingdala. $Kingdala up 372 ticks, trading $103.570. The euro at a price point of $107. The yen at, where I don't go up too far, there we go, $138. The British pound is $124. Let's get over and take a look at the S&P on a daily basis now. We take a look at the daily basis of the SPI and you get an expansion of volume. We're going to go down lower. So you didn't have a breakout. You stayed inside the range. You had an expansion of volume out here today. We just did 76 million shares. That sets up the bottom of the range again. So the bottom of the range in this particular case is the 4.0.3. Right now you're at 4.14. We go into the end of the X. We take a look at the three Qs inside the three Qs. What do you have? That's really not an expansion of volume of the three Qs. There's a slight one, 46 million, but that's not a big deal. So the Qs at number one, they're not inside the lower range. They had a slight expansion of volume. We did a high yesterday, a 43 million. You did 46 in the way down. That's not enough to basically give you a good conclusion. Have a great night, folks. Have a safe night. Come back and visit Tommy tomorrow morning. Kicks us off at 9 a.m. Great show, folks. Reeeeh! Look at him, folks.


Hi everyone. In this video I'm going to be going over question 7 from the Compound Data 2 workshop. So in this question, similar to some of the previous loop and compound data questions we've done, we have some values that we want to assign to an array, and we need to work out what that pattern is so that we can do it using a loop, and in this case it's a nested loop. And it needs to be done so it can work for any size of array. That's what they have in this note. You don't need to use the size of the array. So again, that's just to encourage you to not hard code your condition when you're writing your loop. So I've already written my loops over here. I've just created a two-dimensional array with size 5 by 8, but you can do whatever you want. And this is the loop that we're going to use. Because we have two dimensions of arrays that we need to go through, there are two nested loops that we need. So we need this outer loop here, which is that standard loop that goes through just a regular array, and that will go through that main array. So in this case, or in my case, the array of five places. And then what I need is a nested loop that will go through each individual sub-array in each of those five array sections in the main array. So this is that loop that you've seen many times now, so that should be familiar. And this is the part that I find people get stuck with. It's a very similar loop, but the condition is different. The condition says that m, which is representing the index of our sub-array, m must be less than r i dot length. So that is referring to the length of the current sub-array that you're in. So that's really important to have that there, and it's often something that people forget to put in their loop. And because of that, they tend to get some index out of bounds exceptions, which we don't want. Okay, so again, what we want to do here is having a look at our indexes. Here we have two. We have the main array index and we have the sub-array index. We want to have a look at each individual index and see if we can find a pattern with them, or a relationship between an index and the value. And it's sort of easier, but also sort of harder because you've got two indexes to consider now. So in some ways that makes it easier because you have more options, but also just imagining it in your head and trying to get an understanding of what's happening in the loop can be a bit tricky. So I've got my table up over here, and I'm going to write down my patterns. So let's have a look at 7.1 first. When our indexes are 0, 0 with the value of 0, 0, 1 at 0, 0, 2 at 0. Let's have a look at 1. That's 111, 22. I've missed one down the bottom here, 2. So here we want to rewrite all of our values in terms of i, in terms of m, or a combination of the two. So if we have a look closely at this one here, you'll notice that whatever the i value is, or whatever the main array index is, is whatever the value is. So this is quite a straightforward one. We can just say that the value is equal to i. Because if you compare those two columns there, you'll see that they're equal. So 7.1 for each item, you've got i there. So what would that look like if we were going through memory? I might not do as big of an array, two-dimensional arrays, that one. Let's do 3 by 2. That'd be a bit messy. Oh goodness, that is very messy. Okay, so this is what our array looks like, and I'll move this over here so we can trace it. So we've got i is equal to 0, i is less than array dot length, i++. So i is referring to these indexes here. So the first time we look around, we're looking at i is equal to 0, which is this here, which means we're looking at this sub array. Once we're in that sub array, we need to loop through each of these values here. So for that I've got m, I've got m is equal to 0, m must be less than array i dot length. So i, sorry everyone, i is currently 0. So array 0 refers to this array here, and the length of that is 2, and then m++. So first of all we've got i is equal to 0, m is equal to 0, and array 00, which is referring to this space here, is equal to i, and i is 0 right now. Then we've got, we're stuck in this inner loop here, so that means when we get to the end of this loop, we've got m++, which means m is now equal to 1, is 1 less than array i dot length. We said the length of this sub array here was 2, so 1 is less than 2 is true. So we've got r01 is equal to i, which is 0. And then I get to the end of this sub array, and at this point I've got m++, so now m is equal to 2. I've got this 2 less than 2, false, which means I'll get to the bottom of that, I'll exit from this nested loop, and get to the bottom of my outer loop where i++. So that means that we are jumping out of this loop here. We've lost reference to m, because remember m only exists in the scope that it was declared in, and it was declared inside that inner loop, and we've exited from the inner loop now. And then we've got i++, so i was 0, we're plusing 1, so now it's 1, which means we're moving onto this one here. So hopefully that's helping you visualize what's actually happening here. And then of course we've got 1 is less than array dot length. The length of this array is 3, so 1 is less than 3, so we'll jump back down here to the inner loop, where we've got m is equal to 0. And now because we are in this sub-array, the m we are referring to are these here, or the index we're referring to. So again we've got that same loop, m is equal to 0. So we've got array 1, 0 is equal to i, i is 1, so we've got that there. Then m++, so m is equal to 1, so array 1, 1 is equal to 1. And then at this point m is equal to 2, which means that inner loop has been terminated. We've lost our reference to m, it only exists within the scope of that nested loop. We've exited here, we've gotten to the end here, and we've got i++. So i is no longer 1, it's 2. So you get the id here, so I'll speak through this. So I'm referring to this nested loop here. So m is referring to these indexes here. And I've got array 2, 0 is equal to 2. Loop around again, m++, array 2, 1 is equal to 2. Exited from our inner loop, i++, i is now equal to 3. And that no longer meets this condition here, which means we're exiting from our outer loop. But that's okay because we've already assigned all of our values. So that's what's going on behind the scenes. So hopefully that's given you a better idea of what's happening. And with that we can move on to 7.2. So 7.2, we've got 012, 012, 012. So a very similar situation here. If we have a look at our second index here, we'll notice that all of these values are equal to whatever the array value is. So we can say that array im is equal to whatever m is. You can see that pattern there, it's the same value. So those two are a little more straightforward than the other ones. The other ones are a little bit tricky. They require a combination of the values. So let's have a look at the next one here. The next one I've got 012, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4. So this one isn't as straightforward and this requires a bit of trial and error. A combination of maybe the two indexes, maybe multiplying just one index. You just want to try bits and pieces here. So I'm going to try i plus m, see how that goes.  Okay, great. So I've found my, what would you call it, operation. That's probably not the right word, but you get what I'm talking about. Formula, maybe, I don't know. If you multiply, if you add the two indexes together, that's what your value is going to be. So working out what that pattern is sometimes just requires a bit of testing. Just having a look at the relationship between I am and the value. And that also comes with practice and exposure to different scenarios or different patterns. So that's that one there. And that last one is a little trickier. So let's remove these ones here. So I've got 012, 024, 036. Okay, so this one isn't as straightforward. And it requires a bit more of analyzing the values and the indexes here. So if I have a look this way for each row, it looks like we're looking at times tables here. So 012, 024, 036. And I'd imagine if you keep going, you'll do the one times tables, two times tables, three times tables. So maybe it has something to do with that. So if we have a look here, if these are the one times tables, this is one times zero, this is one times one, this is one times two. Have a look here, this is two times zero, two times one, two times two. Maybe I should be writing these down. So one times one, one times two, two times zero, two times one, two times two, three times zero, three times one, three times two. So let's have a look if we can relate that to any indexes here. So if I have a look at these values here that I'm multiplying each number by, that is the same as our m value, our subarray index. So I've got part of it. But what I don't have is the first part of it, because if you have a look at i, in this case here, when i is zero, I'm looking at one. When i is one, I'm looking at two. When i is two, I'm looking at three. So I need a bit more unpacking here. So I look at the relationship between i and that green value I've highlighted on the right. And if you have a look at each of those situations, you can see that whatever the value is, it's just i plus one. So what I can do, I'll replace this to zero plus one times, well we know that it's m, so I'll just add m. This is zero plus one, or maybe I won't do m. It's not as clear. Times zero to one, zero plus one times two, one plus one times zero. Oops, goodness. I've made this table too small. Okay, so now what I have is for each of my i values, I've now got these as my i values. And the remaining part of that expression there, expression is probably the right word, is just plus one and a multiplication. So that's consistent for each of them. So I've worked out what my formula here is, and it is i plus one times m. And you might have unpacked that and you've done mi plus m. That's fine as well, either one works. Maybe you found a different formula altogether. Either way is fine.  So that one in particular is a lot more difficult. It requires a bit more time and testing and analyzing what the values could be. So if you get a question like that in an exam, sometimes it's helpful to have a piece of paper out so that you can draw maybe a table like this and test out some values with a pencil and an eraser and you can just have a look at different combinations. And these are definitely the more difficult questions here, so I would recommend having some practice of those.