Talk:Interlibrary loan

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Resource Exchange

If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange.Resource ExchangeWikipedia:WikiProject Resource ExchangeTemplate:WikiProject Resource ExchangeResource Exchange

Libraries High‑importance

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

Useful information

This section is not especially encyclopedic, especially the use of the second person voice. I am considering re-writing it into a different format ("Common misconceptions about ILL service," perhaps?) or removing it all together. Suggestions? --Mdresser 14:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's only the one section of directions that is really nonencyclopedic, and it is very hard knowing where to put such information, but I have some ideas--there's a set of pages dealing with help in sourcing articles that might be the place. The main thing the rest of the section needs is to distinguish it from document delivery services, which needs a separate article. DGG 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on removing/moving the section of directions. (The alternative would be to add an equivalent set of directions for librarians; but that's more of a how-to than an encyclopaedia entry.) I don't know to what extent interloaning should be distinguished from document delivery services, however; in my experience it's more a matter of terminology than of a real difference in services: one library will call it interloans, another document delivery. If there is in fact an official distinction between the two terms that's worth noting (could be worth checking the ALA glossary) but as I don't think there's a real distinction in practice I don't think a separate page is appropriate. --Zeborah 08:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably more nearly right than I, but in my experience it varies. There is a tendency in some large university libraries to differentiate the service offered to the undergrad and the faculty using such language--there certainly was in the one I know best. Perhaps then the best solution is to have them all in one article here, and explain the variations.And I know of no library service with more variation. I think I can reword the instructions as a description of practice. No reason why the article couldn't be useful at many levels.DGG 06:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section is unencyclopedic and should be removed. It threw me off immediately. A link would suffice.--Jickyincognito 08:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK equivalent

Is there an equivalent among UK libraries?

An interlibrary loan service? Certainly. Most countries have some version of it in my experience: I've supplied to Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Canada, the US, Australia and of course (working here) throughout New Zealand. --Zeborah 18:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the UK system is a little different, because a great deal of the traffic especially for articles, goes to the NLL (Boston Spa) and thus they have a centralized system rather than the US decentralized one--the National libraries do exist, but they are in every sense a last resort. Canada is a combination--Cisti functions like BLL--& functions so well that lots of US places pay to use it. DGG 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my (UK) experience, a library will obtain an ordered title from any other UK (publicly-owned) library that has the book. In one case I ordered a couple of aerodynamics books that weren't in my local library (including a very obscure one by Hermann Glauert from around 1926) and they obtained me copies sent from the library at (what was then) the RAE at Farnborough. I know because that was what was stamped inside the books. Needless to say, I was pretty impressed with the service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.83.135 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"How interlibrary loan works"

The first part of this section (with the 3 bullet points) is pretty naff. Borrowing and lending are not two operations - they are different sides of one operation. And 3 bullet points to expand on "2" operations?! I'm tempted to chop this part completely. Nurg 08:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in larger departments Borrowing and Lending can be different units with some communication between them. astrobiomicrophysicist 10:32, 30 November 2008 (CST)

Rather, needs a rewriting for tone, to put it into he third person. I know many large ILL departments where the borrowing and loan operations are separated & handled by separate staff, --(not that I think it a good idea). The present article already has too much oversimplification. & the section needs expansion---go ahead and give it a try.DGG (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"cleanup-tone"

The explanation of the catches and important points of ILL is useful, but supposedly articels are supposed to sit in the 3rd person only. 68.39.174.238 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup planned

I'm thinking of restructuring the article, adding some more background and deleting the 'tips for borrowers' type stuff. I'm currently thinking of a structure more-or-less chronologically based:

History (from UC Berkley 1898 to ISO 10160 and 10161)
Manual requests
Resource-sharing networks
Electronic delivery
Other Issues (copyright, charging...)

I'd like to do it soon but no guarantees, so if anyone has any better ideas in the meantime then go for it. Otherwise I'll put sections up as I get them done. --Zeborah (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Interlibrary loan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120206205827/http://www.ohiolink.edu/about/what-is-ol.html to http://www.ohiolink.edu/about/what-is-ol.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add a section about the actual physical process/logistics?

I'm curious about the actual physical process. Are materials sent to a distribution center, or are they mailed directly from one library to another, or what? If my own library system has a book that is currently not checked out, I generally get it in a couple of days. If it's another library system in the state, it often takes a couple of weeks or longer. valereee (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first paragraph of History section?

The first paragraph of the History section (21:15, 26 May 2022 edit) has problems with both information and tone.

The only practices it mentions are the increase in copied materials in the Carolingian Renaissance, and the rise of collateralized book lending, neither of which are inter-library loan. It has a breezy tone and unsourced assertions, like "While the borrowers during this time were usually the higher class of individuals, this practice is still used today in many library systems all over the world. The difference now is that anyone can submit an inter-library loan request."

I was going to re-write it, and then realized it doesn't contain any obviously pertinent facts. Delete? Replace with something else?

cshirky (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]