Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Librarians
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Librarians".

Library and information science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Librarians. Project This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

To start a new discussion: Use the "new section" button at the top of the page.
To revive an old discussion: Cut it from the pertinent archive, and paste it into a "new section" on the main talk page (this page).

Archives

Archive 1 (2005-2007)

This is a WikiProject, a collaboration area and open group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of a particular topic, or to organizing some internal Wikipedia process. Please see the Guide to WikiProjects and the Directory of WikiProjects for more information.

FAC review of the Britannica?

Hi all, the Encyclopædia Britannica article is now a Featured Article candidate, and could benefit from more reviewers. Would some of you be interested? You should be as picky and scrupulous as possible, since we all want the article to be as fine as possible, able to withstand the harshest scrutiny. Phoebe already made some corrections and a review, and I'm hoping that more of you will want to do so as well. Thank you! Willow 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Category change

I have proposed a change in the Name of Category:Serials, periodicals and journals to either Category:Serials, periodicals, magazines, and journals or Category:Continuing publications -- Discuss

Category since renamed. See Category:Periodicals. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Library, Archives, and Web 2.0 Research Guide Template

Librarians, please consider giving your opinion on the research guide template.Shannon bohle (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk at Wikimania

Hello everyone,

I am running a panel at Wikimania this year entitled "Wikimedia and libraries".

Here's the description:

The Bibliotheca Alexandrina provides an amazing and inspirational setting to talk about how the world's largest encyclopedia-building and free-knowledge project to date fits in with libraries and knowledge-gathering efforts throughout history. The traditional concerns of libraries and of the Wikimedia projects are similar: to preserve information and knowledge, to catalog and arrange it, and to distribute it as widely as possible. As the Wikimedia projects mature, questions of how the projects can work best with libraries to achieve the goal of disseminating free knowledge -- and how libraries can work best with Wikimedia -- become increasingly important. What can Wikimedia learn from libraries? And what can libraries learn from the Wikimedia projects?

The panelists are library professionals from different countries, working in very different settings. Other invited panelists will bring further perspectives on other digital library and preservation projects from around the world. The format will be discussion, with Q&A from the audience (possibly gathered ahead of time online). The exact topics of discussion may shift depending on the ultimate makeup of the panel.

I would *very* much like to collect questions and ideas ahead of time. If you can think of anything that would be interesting to discuss regarding the intersection of libraries, Wikipedia and Wikimedia (especially from an international perspective), please leave a note here, on my talk page, on the Wikimania wiki, or send me an email.

Thanks so much! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Template:Infobox Library

User:Clpda is proposing some changes to Template:Infobox Library, the infobox that is used on most library articles. Mostly the proposed changes are expansion. See Template talk:Infobox Library for more information, comments are encouraged. -kotra (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPLibrarians

I just created : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WPLibrarians [1] to put on talk pages, if one already exists, please post it here.

Also, I would like to see a set of books library books in the future, but I figured I would use that image a placeholder.

JohnRussell (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the image is a placeholder, but I would make the image much smaller. As it is now, the template is much too tall. -kotra (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Great idea!!! I just made it 100px. What do you think? Any ideas for a better image?

JohnRussell (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

100px is better than before, but in looking around at other WikiProject templates on talk pages, I see that most of them seem to be between 30px and 90px tall. Here are some examples. That last one has the tallest one (WP:WikiProject Egypt), at 96px, so 100px isn't far out of the norm, but it might be better to have it at like 80px height, for example. Anyway, I like this image, but is it supposed to illustrate librarians or libraries? It seems like it more illustrates books or general literature. The two images to the right both illustrate libraries, but they might be hard to make out at the small size. I'm at a loss if it should illustrate librarians, unless there's a famous librarian, like in classical Roman or Greek history (I can't think of any). -kotra (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the top one, I'm going to copy it into the template at that size. I think illustrating a library isle works. What do other people think? JohnRussell (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always been fond of this little graphic.

Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I added that the green guy on the right.JohnRussell (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive

What does everything think about archiving some of the old discussions on this talk page? JohnRussell (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal , Template?

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Library_and_information_science [2] has some good organization. Is there a Library template around for attaching to the bottom of library articles to help tie them together? I would like to make one, if one is not already out there. JohnRussell (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In search of some help re: Philip Larkin as a librarian

I've been doing a lot of work on the Larkin page, and am aware that we're missing an evaluation of his work as a librarian. Someone gave me a link to a useful source, but since I know nothing on this subject I thought it would be good to try to find someone with specialist knowledge of university libraries to decide what would be the notable elements that should be included on in the article. I've put a very brief sentence, with this ref, at the end of the Philip Larkin#Posthumous reputation section in the hope that someone else will expand it. Thank you! almost-instinct 11:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Readers'_advisory/GA1

The Wikipedia Readers' Advisory article that I have been working on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readers%27_advisory

and was listed as a good article nominee.

It was been peer reviewed and the article is "on hold" for 7 days pending improvements.

The review and recommended improvements can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Readers%27_advisory/GA1

Many are are simple fixes. I feel that the article is close to promotion.

Any help would be appreciated.

Please make note on the review page under any items you have worked on so we can keep track of progress

JohnRussell (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

suggestions

If you guys have time, can someone document DOI usage? WP:DOI redirects to a bot page, and there are also {{doi}} and {{doi-inline}} templates. A useful doc page at WP:DOI akin to the WP:ISBN would be good.

I think you guys should also cover PubMed (WP:PMID) and ISSNs (WP:ISSN), not just ISBNs

A WP:bibcode would be good to cover bibcodes ... {{bibcode}}

70.51.9.124 (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of multi-branch library systems

Is there a way to determine notability of multi-branch library systems?

I.E. if someone starts an article on a United States county library system with a central library and three branches, would this be inherently notable? Or would that be redirected to the county article? When does a library system become notable and/or qualify for a separate article? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to take a cue from the WP:MUSIC#Albums section; albums of notable performers seem to be considered automatically notable, but the suggestion is made that album articles with little more than a track listing would be better suited to the performer's article, or a main discography article (space permitting). When there is more information to present, then its own article would be warranted. That's just my 2¢. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case the equivalent of the "performer's article" would be the entity controlling the library system, I.E. a county (parish/borough) or a city. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Larger municipalities, et. al., would have more significant library systems, (e.g. New York Public Library, Free Library of Philadelphia). On a side note, in my search for examples, it seems to be that the Central Arkansas Library System[3] should have an article, with 12 branches, serving centrally the capital of Arkansas and the surrounding area. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It is usually quite difficult to find sourcing on a public library system that is independent and non-trivial. For this reason, I think that most public library systems should not have their own articles but should instead be mentioned in the county/parish/etc article. Public library systems that have made a significant impact (for example, the first public library system or one known for doing something particularly innovative) will likely have enough non-trivial coverage to warrant a good article, but those types of systems are likely few and far between. Even if the sources are available, if they only allow us to write one paragraph on the library, I'd rather see it in the county/parish article. Karanacs (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

the closest analogies are schools, and fire departments. For fire departments, there has been considerable opposition to anything less than a county level (or a substantial city). There would probably be some consideration of the size of the county, though this has not yet really come up in systematic way. For elementary schools, the rule has been to link to the school district, which will contain a brief list. The question of very small districts has arisen, and remains unsettled--I would personally not like articles for districts having a single school--as does happen in the US West. For secondary schools, there are normally individual articles. I think we could probably justify articles for library systems of large counties, or ones that are well-known, and for cities. I don't know what the critical size would be. The factors are area served, and holdings, and circulation, and activity in general. For local things--even things I very much like--I typically support merges. Now, I am more familiar with libraries in cities; in such cases, I would usually urge one article, but in special cases there could be a separate one for the city system, and the central library (eg Boston). The question we need to focus on is the typical suburban county. Any suggestions as a test.DGG (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope question

Are articles about libraries to be tagged as part of this project? Case in point: should I tag Talk:Desasevini vayanasala for this project or not? Thanks, Aleta ^Sing 19:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)