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! Willow17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
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?
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. Herearesomeexamples. 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)
You can anytime; this quote is from someone I asked how: 'See Help:Archiving a talk page and User:MiszaBot.'--JRSpriggs (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2009 (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-instinct11:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
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™talk14:00, 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)
(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)
OK, that was my inclination, but I wanted someone else's thoughts on it. I'll go with that for now. If someone objects later on... well, I waited a long time to hear from anyone. Thanks, Pegship! AletaSing21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Advice needed on interwikis
Hello, in order to enhance the article fr:documentaliste on the French Wikipedia I would like your opinion about the best way to manage interwikis with the English version. The trouble is that the library and information science related jobs are not organized exactly the same way in English- and French-speaking countries, so that the job names do not match exactly. The main problem is that librarian matches two French job names :
fr:Bibliothécaire - usually working in public libraries, more oriented towards the management of physical supports of information (books firts, but also tapes, CDs etc.) and dealing with general public. Loan management, cultural development is more the task of the bibliothécaire.
fr:Documentaliste - usually in structures operating about specific topics and publics, more oriented towards bringing information to fulfill people's needs. Information gathering and management, bibliographic assistance, states of the art, sometimes business intelligence is more the task of the documentaliste.
Though related, the two jobs are quite distinct in France (I do not know about other French-speaking countries) - with different definitions, formations, professional societies etc. AFAIK (little, I must admit), the English word librarian is more flexible and can apply to both kind of jobs.
I recently discovered a documentalist article which allowed me to put in the following match : librarian / bibliothécaire and documentalist / documentaliste. I would like to know it it seems you acceptable. The word seems documentalist would appear to be somewhat outdated ; its article mentions that a more modern term is information specialist, which however has neither an article nor a redirection of its own. I do not know how this should be dealt with : by renaming documentalist > information specialist, creating a redirection, separating the notions.
There is also an information professional entry. Is the denomination commonly used, or is it just a classificatory, cover term for all kinds of librarians and archivists?
Salut. "Documentalist" is a new word to me, but it does show up in both MWOS and Webster's unabridged, and gets 120K Google hits. I haven't studied library science; is there a better term, guys? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
'This Is A Userpage' templates 'This Is A Userpage' templates
I wrote a comment: talk:User page:'This Is A Userpage' templates'. I made a userpage that may be clearer than an unmodified one and, if its writers think the box they recommend leaving on an edited user page is clear, mine may be clearer, because it has a TOC with a link to
[This Is A Wikipedia User Page] and then the box saying that under a heading-sized link saying the same thing--and the box has its own link. The reason for the box must be in case it is printed: it has a URL right back to its user's page.
However, there is only one userpage example--without their box, so I do not completely know what they are recommending, and I think our project--and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_science--would be the best ones to make examples for people in various disciplines, etc.. Some other [Wikimedia] Foundation projects that should have our project ([Wikibooks], [Wikisource], [Wiktionary], [Wikiquotes], even [[4]] and the rest) may also need examples, but some/all should probably be accesible from the main Wikimedia site. I have studied Comp. Sci. 15 years but many other people know much more about 'WTML' (to make detailed pages with) than I, and I would rather program a book database, text processor, ..., than an entire Wiki, but feel free to ask me about editing user or other pages or about integrating your use of Wikimedia sites. Much of what one may need to know is in this project's article about editing, but more could be put on the LIS portal.
If you want to reply to me (or anyone) and have them know a.s.a.p., please go to her/his talk page (at the end of her/his signature.)--Dchmelik (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Is nobody using {{WPLibrarians}} on Discussion pages? I added it to a couple of articles and when I clicked on the resulting category link (e.g. "B-class librarians articles") mine were the only ones listed! --Bookgrrlholler/lookee here12:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I found this article (about Obama's nominee for the National Archives), began modifying it, and soon entered into a conflict with the creator because I felt there are a few NPOV issues (with which the creator strongly disagreed). I ask and invite others look over this article and help edit it and provide appropriate categories. -- kosboot (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Dewey Decimal lookup?
We just added Dewey Decimal and LC Classification fields over at {{Infobox book}}, and I'm updating the example to show the new fields. However, I've had no luck finding the Dewey Decimal Classification for Anne of Green Gables (1908) [if it has one]. Can anyone help me out? --Cybercobra(talk)17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
New project for Museums, Libraries and Archives
Following a discussion at WP:COI about museums/libraries/archives, we thought it would be good to have a place to discuss issues relevant to, and give specific advice for, professionals in the cultural sector working on Wikipedia. This will probably become WP:MLA and it is currently under development here: User:Witty_lama/Sandbox (and equivalent talkpage). It's not supposed to be a policy page itself, but rather a "one stop shop" for professional archivists, museum professionals, librarians to come and see all the policies/guidelines that apply to them and get advice and assistance. That said, we just started discussing a possible subject specific notability criteria for MLAs as well. UncleDouggie (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I did a major overhaul to the organization and formatting of the Project. I also made sure that alerts, assessment, and cleanup are clearly visible to help in the improvement of WPLibrarians articles. Clifflandis (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Assistance with source comparison?
Hi. An article came up on today's Copyright problems board that may contain content copied from Gale's Contemporary Authors Autobiography Series volume 26. I know most libraries have this, but I am seldom able to access a library. Is anyone here able to look at the listing for Victor di Suvero and compare it to the article to see if it looks like a copyright problem? (It's an odd situation to begin with. To see why, check out the article's talk.) Help with this would be tremendously appreciated. If it doesn't seem like something any of you can help with, I'd also be grateful for a pointer where else to ask. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am doing cleanup work in Greek Museum stubs, and I noticed that some libraries had been misnamed as Library museums, when in fact their official sites do not present them as such. One example is the recently renamed and recategorized Gennadius Library. Due to a confused website, it was named as the Gennadious National Library Museum[7] (with a photo of the National Library of Greece). I am not a specialist and I don't know where the limits between a simple library and a library museum are. So I would be thankful for any enlightening explanations to help in my work. If this WP encompasses libraries it would be best to reflect this in tagging Library articles for assessment and importance over to this project. Thank you. HoverfishTalk07:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Assistance with source comparison?, redux
Hi. User:Clifflandis was so incredibly helpful last time that I thought I'd try my odds again. :) I'm working a copyright investigation involving multiple articles created by the same individual, and I would be very grateful if somebody could compare this text to see if it copies or too closely paraphrases relevant entries in the 14th Edition of the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles and the 7th Edition of Guinness Book of British Hit Albums. Other editions may also be helpful in determining this. If we can't verify that the material is clear of copyright concerns, it may need to be deleted presumptively, which is always a shame. We may have to clean up after individuals who have had problems with our copyright policy, but no reason to throw out good contributions if we don't have to. Thanks for any assistance anyone may be able to provide. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This project needs to be renamed or refactored - either :WikiProject Libraries or WikiProject Librarians and Libraries - it has been mentioned in the talk page above (items 28 and 31) - and no current members/participants/watchers have shown any response to the comments made - so I would like to propose the change - now.
The scope as it is will end up like WP Ships - a horribly misnamed and strange monster - the sooner the change happens - the better for Wikipedia and the project ... I would appreciate any response - a response will at least say the project isnt that dead - but the change really needs to happen - as there are a hug amount of new library categories that can be tied into the project without the oddness of tagging them for librarians rather than libraries
Support However, this large change will require the assistance of experts in the revision of the project and its associated templates! Clifflandis (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the support and the change - trust all who might help, can help expand the article and category coverage this now entails SatuSuro10:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Moved!
A week after discussion concluded on where to move the WikiProject, I went with the most popular vote and moved all the pages to WikiProject Libraires. I have done my best to update all relevant links, but I'll keep an eye on the Project over the next few days to ensure that everything's working. If you have any questions / problems / comments / etc., please mention them here! Thanks! Clifflandis (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Many libraries have started considering ways to work with Wikipedia and Commons - donating batches of images, contributing curatorial notes about works, sharing other metadata that might be useful in a WP article, and sharing usage data that might help WP editors link to popular primary sources from relevant articles. (See m:GLAM discussions for more)
Do those initiatives qualify as a subproject of this one? There are a number of Library of Congress librarians who edit WP, some of whom are working on adding useful material from the Library to WP; and interest in engaging the LOC in becoming a more explicit partner for WP. Should that be its own wikiproject or something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries/LOC ? Thanks, +sj+21:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi +sj+! This WikiProject started out as a hang-out for librarians in Wikipedia, but it has since evolved to focus on article content dealing with libraries, librarians, and library science (similar to WikiProject Museums or WikiProject Universities). I think that any large-scale project dealing with a diverse range of content would be better served by its own WikiProject. -- Clifflandis (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Once you see the WP:PROF being flashed around at Afd - there is little hope - there must be a cabal or something similar - it would need some good arguing against the afd once they get stuck in. It is probably time for some practicing librarians to offer some notability guidelines for librarians to counter the PROF and ACADEMIC arguments - and have it ready for the next one to be under scrutiny. SatuSuro09:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
Xenobot Mk V to tag articles in project scope and/or auto-assess unassessed articles
A request has been made to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of this project based on categories and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.
To auto-assess, Xenobot Mk V (talk·contribs) looks for a {{stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details).
Feel free to raise any questions or concerns regarding this process. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are no objections.
Yup! We want to cover all areas of librarians, libraries and library science, including librarians in fiction. Thanks for checking! 168.18.162.186 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
MoReq2
For some unfathomable reason, the article on MoReq2 has been tagged for this project. MoReq2 is not relevant to libraries. It is relevant to Information Management, or Information Science, and to Archives, Archivists, Records Management and Records Managers; but not to libraries. It is about Records Management, which is not usually the concern of libraries. Therefore please de-tag it? Thank you. MarcMFresko (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Point taken. I guess the name of the project should be changed then to reflect its true scope? Just a thought. Thank you for your concern anyway. MarcMFresko (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Suggested article on selection
I think Wikipedia should have an article on the selection of books and other materials for libraries. Specifically, I'd like to see a well-sourced section on how selection differs from censorship. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
In lists like List of Carnegie libraries in Philadelphia and List of Carnegie libraries in Pennsylvania there is a column headed "Location" but so far I have not found any list with data in that column. Should this be coordinates, or street address? In the Philadelphia list, I would like to have both, but I have hesitated to add an additional column without feedback from other editors. I have several photos of Carnegie libraries in Wikimedia Commons ready for a link in the Philadelphia list. Feedback, please!--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Answering myself, I now see List of Carnegie libraries in Arkansas has both a street address, followed by coordinates, and so do some other state lists. New Jersey, New York and Ohio are not among the ones with information in that column. That is what I am going to do for the Philadelphia list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Librarians articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Librarians articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
Libraries articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Libraries articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
I don't know if I am putting this is the right place but, I have a question and was told that perhaps someone that does research for Wikipedia might be able to answer my questions. I'm not sure I'm even asking the right department for the questions I am seeking.
Our family has done extensive Ancestry Research and My DNA results can be found with National GenoProject, I have the same markers as OTZI of Bolzano. I know the chances are remote, but the more I study my roots, they are directedly connected to his origins. I have a rare marker that specifically puts me in the area of his origin. From all that I have gathered, the 60 mile radius of where he was found seems to be exactly where all the Wikipedia, Ancestry and Heritage has placed my lineage. Accordingly, my markers suggest that I am a descendant from just four women, or founder lineages Ashkenazi population. Further it is stated that the four founding mtDNA's likely of the Near Eastern decent, is exactly where they are tracing my lineage back.
How or who would I contact for them to check for further information, as I understand they are currently looking to find descendents if any. I don't have any idea of how to take things further, but I'm not after money, but I am willing for them to check to see if there is any correlation. Just as I am looking to find my past, perhaps with a very long shot, I may be one of the few that made it.
Further from my DNA report states that there were not that many of us with the same markers that I have, all I am saying is that if they
hold the key to my past, I will be glad to submit for further tests, who knows what may be found out.
Do you know or can recommend anything that might be interested in my particular questions? I realize the chances are slim, but if they are looking for ones with the marker and I am willing to be tested, one never knows who's blood lines will reveal a match, or close
I wouldn't write this, but in all my 600 pages of research I kept being led back to the same origin as OTZI, so no matter if I wanted to
ignore it, all roads keep pointing back to him, in my DNA line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yapsalot2 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I'd like to invite you to the Wikipedia Edit-athon that Wikimedia UK is running at the British Library, London, on the 14th and 15th January! We'll be able to access the resources of the British Library, guided by the expertise of its curators, with the joint aim of improving the content on Wikipedia that is relevant to the British Library's collections. At the same time, you can celebrate Wikipedia's 10th birthday with fellow Wikipedians, whilst making Wikipedia even better. Spaces are limited, though, so if you're interested please sign up soon! Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
{{cite journal
|author=John Smith
|year=2000
|title=How to Put Things into Other Things
|journal=Journal of Foobar
|volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4
|arxiv=0123456789
|asin=0123456789
|bibcode=0123456789
|doi=0123456789
|jfm=0123456789
|jstor=0123456789
|lccn=0123456789
|isbn=0123456789
|issn=0123456789
|mr=0123456789
|oclc=0123456789
|ol=0123456789
|osti=0123456789
|rfc=0123456789
|pmc=0123456789
|pmid=0123456789
|ssrn=0123456789
|zbl=0123456789
|id={{para|id|____}}
}}
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}03:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
2010 Adjusted Federal Spending
Can the calculation for Adjusted Federal Spending in FY2010 of $2,392 (in billions) be correct when the unadjusted is $3,991?
How could that be when the Adjusted Federal Spending in FY2009 is $2,452 when the unadjusted is $3,107?
The 2009 inflation adjustor is 1.27 and the 2010 inflation adjustor is 1.29.
Surely such a relatively small difference in the inflation adjustors between 2009 and 2010 cannot account for the discrepancy between the FY2010 and FY2009 Adjusted Federal Spending.
63.118.75.100 (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)HoganEsq
Revamp of Outline of library science
I've attempted to overhaul the Outline of library science. Please look it over to see if everything is arranged satisfactorily and for what is missing. Outlines like this one are de facto tables of contents on their respective subjects. So the more complete an outline, the better. They also make excellent core pages for off-line or stand-alone web archives, and can be used by web archiving programs like the Firefox add-on ScrapBook to build subject-based web page collections. Each archive based on an outline serves as an e-book on its subject. So the more complete an outline, the better. The Transhumanist01:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)s
Someone has started a new article, "Library and information science". I am not qualified to comment on the article's content, but it does worry me that the article at its current name has replaced what was formerly a redirect to Library science. So now there are several dozen incoming links to this new and unreviewed article by a single author. Could people with knowledge in this area please take a look at the new article and edit/comment there, and if necessary correct the incoming links should that be more appropriate. Thanks. — Hex(❝?!❞)05:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Soliciting support for draft WikiProject Bibliographies
Fellow Wikipedians, I have taken the initiative, in consultation with a few others, to draft a WikiProject for Bibliographies. I hope it will be of interest to members of this project. The genesis of this effort has been a recent spate of AfD nominations of lists of publications. For the most part, the articles were not deleted, but that doesn’t mean many of them didn’t need work. A WP article entitled List of subject publications or any list of works, is by any other name, a Bibliography. Bibliographies within WP are specifically identified as a form of List in WP:List, are subject to List notability guidelines and the List Manual of Style. Unfortunately, many of the existing Bibliographies (or lists of publications) are not up to these standards. And there’s a high probability that new lists of publications or new Bibliographies won’t completely meet these standards as well, unless we as a community bring greater visibility to this genre of lists.
So the explicit goals of this draft project are to establish project-level advice for creating good bibliographies, gradually bring the existing set of bibliographies (400+) up to standard and to encourage editors to create bibliographies on topics and authors where appropriate. The goal is not to create bibliographies of everything or on everything.
I think the draft Bibliography project is logically connected to this project and members here would have a lot to contribute. If you are interested in participating, please sign up on the draft project page. If we get sufficient interest, I will move the draft into the Wikipedia space and we can press on. Also, please don’t hesitate to make suggestions on the draft here. I am sure it can be improved, will need some work to comply with Project guidelines and that it will evolve as this thing gets going. Thanks in advance for your support.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
ISBNs in wikipedia?
There's a discussion going on about the usefulness of ISBNs in wikipedia. I was wondering how the greater community of librarians felt about ISBNs, but was unable to find a statement by the ALA or similar on them. Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject or could point me to a relevant statement? Thanks A13ean (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
My intuition was that whoever set up the guidelines thought that an ISBN would be a more efficient and precise way of citing publications. (Of course, it's pretty useless for pre-1960 publications.) Perhaps the idea is that one would quickly go to Worldcat or Amazon if one wants more information on the item (or to buy it). Why do you ask - do you think it's worth eliminating? (I don't.) -- kosboot (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a terrible idea to remove them from wikipedia, but several people have complained that they are commercial in nature, and I was wondering if there were any sort of guidelines by the ALA or whoever on how they should be used. A13ean (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Notability
I recently clashed with someone about the notability of a local library. He claimed that according to WikiProject Libraries all libraries were considered notable. I have a severe problem with that. So two questions: is it true that this project considers all libraries notable? And two: if so, what is the rationale behind that? Night of the Big Windtalk22:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
An article thatyou have been involved in editingmight be of interest to this project, Birkenhead Public Library, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn(talk)07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Cool news, HighBeam Research to donate free, 1-year accounts for Wikipedians
I have just finished a discussion with some generous folks at HighBeam Research--an online, pay-for-use search engine for newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. The site has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications, most of which are not available for free elsewhere on the internet. Aside from a free 7-day trial (credit card required), access to HighBeam costs $30 per month or $200 per year for the first year and $300 for subsequent years.
But...as of yesterday, HighBeam has agreed to give free, full-access, 1-year accounts for numerous Wikipedia editors to use, at the discretion of the community. They do not expect there to be a problem with the number of these free accounts; however, the plan is for editors to have a minimum 1 year-old account with 1000 edits in order to qualify.
This is a proposal/announcement of the project not the signup process, which should begin in early April and will be widely publicized. Details about the project are available at WP:Highbeam. Comments and assistance setting up the project are welcome. Cheers! Ocaasit | c09:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
OCLC is seeking a Wikipedian in Residence!
Hi fellow Wikipedians at WikiProject Libraries! I wanted to share this opportunity with you! OCLC is in the process of seeking a Wikipedian in Residence for the summer in the bay area. This is a funded opportunity, and will surely support the opportunity to live in the area and not only help meet the mission of Wikipedia by sharing free knowledge, but, you'll also have the opportunity to work closely with OCLC staff. It'll be a really valuable experience. I hope you'll consider applying and/or spreading the word! Learn more here. Sarah (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Applications for free, full access, 1-year accounts from HighBeam Research officially open
Just a reminder that 1000 free accounts are available from the internet research database HighBeam Research. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Here's the link to the project page: WP:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Sign-up! And, please tell your Wikipedia-friends about the opportunity! Cheers, Ocaasit | c20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have started a proposal that relates to Copyrights. Feel free to improve the consensus by clicking above link. --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedian in Residence - British Library
Hi all!
I've just started as the Wikipedian in Residence at the British Library; I'll be here for six months, until the end of October. I'm still in the process of settling in and meeting with people here to discuss possible projects, but if you've any suggestions for collaboration, please do let me know.
If you'd like to be notified about further developments, either drop me an email or sign up to the participants list here.
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange). If you have any questions, you can leave me a note on my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit | c20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Honoring Jimbo
Hi folks, I was thinking of nominating Jimbo Wales for honorary membership in ALA, the association's highest award which "may be conferred on a living citizen of any country whose contribution to librarianship or a closely related field is so outstanding that it is of lasting importance to the advancement of the whole field of library service." I think few could dispute that he's deserving of it! Nominations require at least three letters of recommendation, but I bet we could get more than three Wikipedian librarians to write one. If you're interested, leave a message here or on my talk page. --BDD (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Conservation and Collection Care Proposal
I have recently submitted a new WikiProject proposal that ties-in very closely with WikiProject Libraries. The proposed project is WikiProject Conservation and Collection Care which, if approved, will aim to create new articles, as well as to gather existing articles, concerning conservation and collection care at museums, libraries, historic locations, archives, and other relevant sites into a collaborative project. While, technically this group could be considered a subcategory of both WikiProject Museums and WikiProject Libraries, many of the relevant pages are not specific to one group or the other. For example, historic landmarks and houses are not necessarily included in either group. I am therefore writing to your group to inform you of my decision to request a seperate group, as well as to inquire if a collaboration might be an option. Given the obvious close connection between the two projects, and my own inexperience with starting a WikiProject, I am open to suggestions, collaborations, and advice from a well-established group such as your own. Thank you.- AngelKelley (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the issue of preservation for various mediums, be they paper, vellum, parchment, hard drives, floppy discs, etc. is bigger than libraries and museums, although they play an important role. This is not my area of expertise, but yes, you should reach out to those constituents beyond the walls of familiarity. -- kosboot (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedian in Residence at Staffordshire Archives and Heritage Service
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Editors may wish to know that there is a requested move debate happening at Talk:Gray literature which could do with some input from anyone (but especially Americans) who has some familiarity with the topic. GrindtXX (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
RfC: Worldcat Library ID parameter to library infobox?
The WorldCat ID will link to some library data. It would only link to those libraries that are 1) WorldCat member libraries and 2) the WC ID is searchable in their interface. I don't know how often these two conditions are met, but it is definitely not a universal library link. LaMona (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Potential profile in the Signpost
I've made a recommendation to the Signpost that their ongoing series profiling various WikiProject profile this group in October (to coincide with the Wikipedia Loves Libraries campaign). I did mention it's not the most active group ;) so if we increase our efforts, a nice story could result. I gave a presentation to librarians on WP at the 2013 preconference of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section of ACRL in June - perhaps that might activate some WikiLove for various articles. -- kosboot (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd love to help out however I can. I have recently been beefing up the articles on DDC and Melvil Dewey, and hope to move on to other topics in the area of classification. But if we can highlight some areas that need development, I can move in that direction. LaMona (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been featured
Hello, Please note that Library of Alexandria, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 07:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team
Incorporating WikiProject Libraries into The Wikipedia Library
Hi folks! I'd love to join our library/librarian forces together under the umbrella of The Wikipedia Library. What do you think about adding this navigation somewhere on the WikiProject page?
I'd love to continue talking in depth about how we can collaborate better. I'll be reaching out more to active members soon... I can't wait to hear your thoughts about how we can best leverage our amazing collection of research experts and library aficionados! Cheers, Ocaasit | c01:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Come and join The Wikipedia Library
The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.
Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources
Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries
Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians
Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources
Promote broader open access in publishing and research
Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication: Join in
There is a bunch of pages belonging to this project that have ambiguous links that need fixing. There is a list available here along with a tool to aid you in fixing them. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Eaton collection
If I understand correctly, the formal name is "Eaton Collection of Science Fiction and Fantasy" so the Eaton collection title should be "Eaton Collection", capitalized, and its first word 'The' should be plain, not bold.
You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:WikiLeaks. Neutral assistance requested. At issue is whether the template for wikileaks should show "Chelsea Manning" or "Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning" or some other formulation. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
And it has also been reported (in those same articles) that since that (false) promise, they have been dumped in landfills, burned, or taken by private research companies. Sure, would have been nice to get them all into WikiSource, but when the country's major university and public libraries weren't even asked if they'd like them, it's pie-in-the-sky if you're suggesting that they be brought into Wikipedia. They're already gone, poof; into the dump, turned to ashes, or coopted by companies who were given the tip-off that they could be gotten for nothing and are now out of public reach. Including Wikipedia's. Your point in posting this was...??Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
PS, I raised this for inclusion in the respective article at Talk:Environmental policy of the Harper government but I do not keep that watchlisted so am not sure who has added anything, if anything, so far. Since you have posted this on three different WikiProjects, might I suggest that any further discussion take place at that one spot?Skookum1 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Archived some threads
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The person who created that list, User:Jpom seems to have gone fairly inactive since November 2012. It's kind of useless as is since the status of such databases is constantly changing. I'd say it should go to AfD. -- kosboot (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, my name is User:Rauckstar. I'm involved in a graduate level class exploring the ways of Wikipedia and writing an article, Trends in Young Adult Library Services. Looking forward to learning and becoming an active member of the Wikipedia community.
--Rauckstar (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that some articles are tagged with the phrase "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject". Could anyone provide some tips as to how one could obtain a worldwide view and/or concensus on a topic? What practical steps would be needed?
Dear library experts: This old abandoned AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable librarian? Should the article be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that Vatican Library, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Evad37[talk]00:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Should my proposed edits of a wikipedia page be coordinated with you folks?
Hi Libraries folks, I would like to make some major modifications to a page, LibriVox, that is identified as a WikiProject Libraries project page. In what way can I coordinate with your project while making the changes? TimoleonWash (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
University of Manchester Library
ould a member of this project please look at the recent history of University of Manchester Library. This article has been fairly stable since it was moved from John Rylands University Library but there is now has recently been editing by User:Joccay which I do not agree is an improvement in representing the history of the library. This editor has not given reasons for insisting on the version they prefer but always reverts the restorarion of the previously stable version and seems to be influenced by the date 1824 in the University's branding which does not really hold good for the library. Even for the university it is misleading since the earliest university in Manchester did not exist until 1880.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Jean-Noël Herlin, antiquarian bookseller, article
Hello. I've created an article of someone who I believe is a notable French-American bookseller: User:OR_drohowa/sandbox/JNH. I don't want to add the article under my user account because of Conflict-of-Interest issues. I work with Jean-Noël doing archiving stuff, but I also think he is notable and should have a Wiki page and I have been working on this one and would appreciate if someone could review it and make it live after review? Attn: User:Megs, User:DGG. 13:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Georg Forster FAR
I have nominated Georg Forster for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomingdale Regional Public Library until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Royal Society of Chemistry editathon, 29 July 2015
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsBank until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Grants:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015
Dear Fellow Wikipedians,
I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."
Hi there - I recently found some images of old book slips/circulation cards on Wikimedia Commons and I had trouble remembering what they were called. To my surprise, Wikipedia has almost no information about pre-digital circulation systems, aside from an under-referenced one about the Browne Issue System. Most notably, there is no article about the Newark System, which I think was the most common around the world before digitization. I actually had trouble finding information online as well, though I did find one blog entry that describes the different systems, but that's about it, and that's not an ideal reference. Would anyone with more knowledge and more access to library science materials like to write an article on either the Newark system or on library circulation systems generally? I think it would be pretty interesting, especially to younger generations who have no memory of pre-digital libraries. Thanks! - Themightyquill (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
There are up to 30 free one-year Alexander Street Press (ASP) accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.
Alexander Street Press is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 Minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This video collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}21:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Notice of discussion regarding the {{tl:Goodreads}} template
I've started adding {{Infobox library classification}} to categories here, but I see this template isn't used much (two days ago it had less than 80 transclusions), so I'm wondering if adding this kind of information on category pages isn't deprecated. Does that ultimately belong on wikidata, like {{Authority control}} data? Uanfala (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Entry on subscription libraries
This entry states that subscription libraries were the same as proprietary libraries. There is a fundamental difference. To join a subscription library you simply paid an annual subscription, a membership fee. To join a proprietary library you first had to purchase stock, a share. You were an owner. The term encompassing both types was social library. See [1]
References
^Jesse Shera, Foundations of the Public Library (1949, repr. 1965), 58.
Hello I have been operating on Historical fiction, space opera, military science fiction, fantasy fiction these past years. My main concern is since many of those categories are very good... lists of pieces of art, I think and ask: can templates be implemented in some way in categories and vice versa? I found this problem and concern that when I tried merging space opera and military science fiction with list of list of space opera media and list of military science fiction. Many editors opposed and reverted, while actually these categories serve as wonderful lists of historical and fantasy things and can coexist positively with templates and can light off wikipedia of many unused lists.
Hoi, Wikidata serves as the place where Authority records are registered for Wikimedia projects. As a consequence {{authority control}} shows available information from for instance VIAF and WorldCat. This works really well. There are however problems in VIAF and they are fixed at Wikidata. Every month all this work is lost because there is currently no process for fixing issues.
In my opinion, any public library system should be deemed Wikipedia-notable, as most museums, courthouses, and many other public organizations with buildings are. Sometimes we don't need to have an article about a separate library if it can be covered in a library system article, I suppose.
Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Suggested (new)
Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).
That said, all else being equal, a source freely available to read online is preferable because more readers will be able to verify its claims. If two sources are equally suitable to verify a claim, accessibility is a reason to prefer one over the other.
"a source freely available to read online is preferable because more readers will be able to verify its claims" - OUCH! I vehemently reject that claim. It's often much harder to verify claims of innumerable vanity websites than of a published print source. I reject the notion that accessibility is a reason to prefer one claim over another. - kosboot (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I also have problems with this. Online sources are subject to linkrot; a print source is set in stone. I think there are many cases in which a print source is to be preferred. The best of both worlds, of course, is a print source which has been digitized, so it can be cited with the hard copy bibliographical details, plus a url. GrindtXX (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious about people's thoughts on Category:Online archives. Surely, not all archives have their collections online, but increasingly, most are doing so. What makes an archive an online archive? A database of the collections or digital finding aids? An archive that has actually digitized most or all of its physical collection? An archive that solely exists online without a physical collection? Perhaps we should consider deleting this category and upmerging the contect. Thanks for your response. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
In the archival world, archive has pretty much the definition used by WP. The use of the word in this category is metaphorical (and therefore rather ambiguous). These are online resources, not collections of material that have been created by a creator. - kosboot (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see your point. As far as I'm aware a collection of material that has been created by a creator is an archive regardless of the medium of the material: an archive of digital audio recordings that have only been made available online is no less an archive than one in which these recordings are on physical media that is only accessible on-site. – Uanfala13:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If it's an archive that exists in some form or another online, then it's an online archive - regardless of whether the original collection is physically held elsewhere or not. All online archives have to have had a physical component at one point in time or another so I don't see why a distinction has to be made. For example, the New York Times has an online archive of all their old newspapers. That qualifies. They aren't suddenly disqualified for being "online" just because they have a physical collection of all their papers as well. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
That would also be a sensible way to delineate the scope of the category. Just noting that not all archives have had physical components (excluding server space). Maybe such archives can be placed into something like Category:Born-digital archives (if this distinction is deemed salient enough for its own category) which would then be a child of Category:Online archives, itself used for all archives whose collections are predominantly online regardless of the existence of a corresponding physical collection. – Uanfala15:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Semmendinger: I'm unsure what you are saying. Surely the NYT Online Archives (or whatever its name might be) is an online archive, but are the NYT archives (which can be accessed in person or online) an online archive? Are the National Archives of the UK an online archive because some of that material is available online? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm saying why make things complicated? If it is an archive in any form online, it is an online archive - independent of whether or not a physical archive is also established. With your example, the "Online NYT Archives" are the same as the physical archives. They're just scanning the physical copies into a computer. The physical archives are not online, and therefore are not an online archive. The virtual collection would be classified as an online archive. I'm just saying, let's keep it simple. The original question was "What makes an archive an online archive?" The answer is quite easy. Irregardless of whether there is a physical collection housed elsewhere, if there is an archive online, the one online counts. Whether it is partially or fully representative of that physical archive, if it exists online, it's an online archive. I'm wondering if I've missed the point, but as it stands I don't really understand what is being asked. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to start a subproject to take a photo of every public library in the world and put it in a list with other basic info on the library. Of course, it's best to start small, so my participation might follow this path:
List of public libraries in DelawareCounty, Pennsylvania
List of public libraries in Pennsylvania
List of public libraries in the United States, etc.
To give you an idea of the general idea and format, please see
1. Goal - get a photo of every public library in the world and list
them in various list articles, e.g. by county, state, or country as we
feel is best.
2. Probably organize it at Wikiproject libraries, perhaps as a subproject with its own page
3. Get a list of all public libraries, and organize these into
list articles. There are several on the internet for the USA. Anybody have a favorite?
4. Start small, e.g. List of public libraries in
Pennsylvania, and then expand rapidly when a reasonable list format is
agreed upon.
5. Getting the photos
From photos already on Commons - though they can be fairly disorganized right now.
From freely licensed sources on Flickr and similar
from librarians - informing them via the many professional and educational organizations that serve them. This may be the very best source
from Wikipedians, like myself, who like to take photos. The attractiveness of libraries to these folks cannot be overemphasized.
Libraries (in the US) are very easy to located, e.g. they have a special road-sign pointing right to them
There's almost always good free parking available.
If it starts raining, the library is a good place to take a break, get on wifi to upload photos, check out interesting sources, e.g. on local history, talk to interesting and informed people (including the librarians), wash off the grime that often comes during a photo-expedition
There are often other interesting places nearby to photograph as well, e.g. city hall, cultural venues, downtown buildings
6. Wikimedia has the technology to do this well, e.g. Wiki Loves
Monuments, if we need to make it that formal.
Wikipedians already have some tried-and-true list formats available,
e.g. at WP:NRHP, and we have some experience modifying them.
BTW, we should get an better idea of how big the project is. My best guesses are 500 public libraries in Pennsylvania, 40,000+ in the USA, and 320,000 world-wide.
Really like this idea. A few months back I started doing this for my county and I made a neat little template that could be used (in full or in part) for other library systems since not all libraries have notability (in fact I'd argue most don't). Library systems, on the other hand, are *usually* inherently notable (list of AfD's at the top of this talk page show proof of that) so the template could be used there. See it in use here Cobb County Public Library System, and the template is located in my sandbox. Additionally, it's definitely true that library pictures already exist for many libraries. When I was making pages for library systems in Georgia I found many of the pictures for the libraries online. Probably 80-85% of them! This individual has tons of pictures and I'm sure there are many more like him! Looking forward to seeing where this project goes, I'll be a part of it! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I should have looked farther down on the Cobb County article and I would have seen the format. I ending up making a format on my own and ended up with something nearly identical ==> we must be on the right path. Differnces: should we put numbers in the first column? I've been thinking of adding them all along. "Area served" - in many places this might be obvious. "building date" - will often be unknown or hard to find, but might be worthwhile, include coordinates - definitely needed for map. I think that's it. Note that you're doing the system as the article and I am doing the county and it almost came out as identical. But I just found a public library in the county (using the state library data) that is not in the county system. I think I'll include it - I might as well go down there and get a photo and check it out. It's odd and there must be a story behind it because there is a system library only 2 miles away.
I'll put the Delaware county list into mainspace soon.
I'll suggest we just keep on making these articles and seeing what issues pop up and communicate on this page. We can then publicize the "project" and see if anybody else joins in (they will). Thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk)16:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I was afraid putting numbers in the first column would make it more of a "List Class" article. Also, there is not much difference between the system pages I worked on and county library pages. I'm sure other states have them, but in Georgia State Law counties which combine systems get better funding from the gov't. So they are encouraged to work together, especially since so much of the state is rural and a county system alone wouldn't get enough funding to warrant its existence. System pages are basically just multiple counties in one page! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
And there are others. See this editor's (GamerMan7799) contribution page [8] I restored a redirect for five of these pages, not listed here. Apparently this was decided back in 2012 as a solution - to merge and redirect. So you might come across these in that contribution page. I am wondering what the project wants to do with the rest, if they are not previously merged and redirected? Simply redirect? Merge and redirect? Keep? I can't see these being acceptable in the mainspace, but I am open to ideas. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Steve Quinn: I was attempting to bring all of the pages to be on the same level. If it is decided that none of the pages are relevant then a better link to the collection might be Category:Library_of_Congress_Classification. I think it makes the most sense to either keep all of the pages as they currently are, or get rid of them all. It doesn't make sense to have some with specific subpages, but not others. ---GamerMan7799 (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)21:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
GamerMan7799 -Thanks for responding. In some cases the sub-pages were deleted some years ago and then what was left was merged. I agree, get rid of them all or bring the other pages to an equal level. All this stuff is available online at the Library of Congress catalog. So, I don't see the necessity of having these pages in the main space on Wikipedia. It might be best to change this discussion to an RFC to possibly gain a wider input across Wikipedia. In any case, thanks for the work you have done up to this point. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
GamerMan7799 - If you want to undo my redirects so you can continue what you are doing - go ahead and do so. Just so you know, this will show up in New Pages Patrol and other editors might have questions or comments or take action. In any case, the discussion can continue here and hopefully other editors will chime in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Steve Quinn - Thanks for understanding, I restored all of the pages to the way they were, but I'll hold off on doing any additional edits to the other lists until we come to a consensus on what to do with them all. Personally, in my (biased) opinion, I think they should stay because if someone was looking up a specific code (for example JC60) they may want to know more than that it is about Political theory (which is what they will find at the Library of Congress Classification) and could discover that it about Forms of Ancient States (which they would find at Library of Congress Classification:Class J -- Political science). However, I'm not sure how many people would need that information. GamerMan7799 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Steve Quinn & GamerMan7799 - as you know, the article is still in the NPP queue. My initial thoughts were to merge or delete, but I took the time to see if there were any pending discussions and voila. I can see that a lot of time and effort went into the article but I'm not convinced that WP:NOT list does not apply. Will whoever suggested an RfC call one and let the community decide so we can remove the article from the NPP queue? Atsme📞📧11:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
We have an awful lot of stubs.. I've been trying to bring 2-3 up to start class each day this week, but at my current pace I'll be done in about 3 years (which by then another 3000 stubs will have been sorted). I've seen other Projects in the past do events where everyone tries to lower the stub count for a month or so, is there any interest here? Just a thought! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Grant Proposal University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
I have been working with the University Library System at the University of Pittsburgh as a visiting scholar. This role has opened my eyes to the tremendous potential for the Pitt Libraries to become more involved in sharing resources, releasing content into the public domain or under a CC attribution license and providing open access to as many publications. I was fortunate to be located in the area and so could perform some of Visiting Scholar functions by actual visits to the libraries. I have been doing this since 2015. Though campus visits and contributor training is not part of this position, when I have been asked, I have provided training. Requests for training have now surpassed my ability to respond and provide training as a volunteer.
Hi there Barbara. Talk pages are for discussion of Wikipedia articles. They're not supposed to be used for purposes external to Wikipedia. See: WP:NOTPROMO. I'm sure there are email lists and Facebook groups you can use to drum up support. With best wishes - kosboot (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Rfc - Library of Congress Classification subpages
There is a clear consensus to keep the subpages of the Library of Congress Classification page on Wikipedia. Editors recommended expanded the subpages with more information about what is included in the classification and any related history.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we keep, or redirect, or merge and redirect, or delete subpages of the Library of Congress Classification page on Wikipedia? For more background please see the discussion in the section just above this one entitled Possible unnecessary pages. In October of 2012 some of these sub-pages were "merged" and "redirected" into the Library of Congress Classification page. Here is one example: [9]. Other such pages were not. On the Library of Congress Classification page itself the subpages are linked as "main articles" in each subsection, as far as I can tell. Thank you. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
keep (RFC-bot invitee) - I feel like the content of the main entries are extensive enough that they would be fine as stand-alone articles and inappropriate to merge into the main article on the Library of Congress classification system. It would be nice if there were a bit of actual introduction, describing what is and isn't included in that classification and any possible history, before you went in to the listing of all the defined sub-sections, but that's a project that is ancillary to the question of whether they are appropriate as articles. I would say that they should probably be marked as wp:stubs until that content can be crafted for those articles. VanIsaacWScont03:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep I mostly agree with Vanisaac. I understand the idea that anyone looking this deep into it might be better well suited for the LOC website, but I see no harm in having pages about them here too. I like the idea of adding a history, or at minimum introduction to each page just to outline it (or make it look more like an encylopedia entry) but this isn't entirely needed. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep (RFC-bot invitee) - generally per Vanisaac. Note this is one of the 3 core Portal:Contents#Third-party_classification_systems that have been used for many decades, and are useful to a small percentage of readers. The alternative to keeping the pages where they are, is moving to Wikipedia: namespace, as was done with the Roget classification at some point - but that would exclude them from searches. Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Guide for access to research: looking for early readers
To help researchers (and Wikipedians), I've been collaboratively working on a now 24-option guide about how to access sources when you don't have access to them. The folks at WP:RX are pros at this kind of digging. Could you give it 10 minutes and feel free to make comments, suggestions, corrections, or additions? Don't hesitate to be bold :)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the following articles are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted:
The articles will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of open access repositories in India until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the articles during the discussion, including to improve the articles to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of each article. -- 12:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
June Women in Red focus on GLAM
Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons.
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Participation is low in the Academic journals discussion so far. Comments would be very appreciated here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}16:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Nominating two subpages for deletion.
Hello. I may new new to this WikiProject, but I've taken the liberty of cleaning up some of the more obvious cobwebs here. Along those lines, I've nominated two subpages for deletion:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries/Cleanup listing a page that apparently was maintained by a bot last run in 2010, and is now obsolete. I provided a link to the current tool here. It doesn't seem to make sense to maintain a whole page for just this one link.
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries/Introduction page looks like it could use a little updating and improvement, as it seems to be aimed at librarians, rather than new Wikipedians who are new to this WikiProject. What should a newcommer know about working with this project??
Comments and suggestions are, of course, welcome. Thanks!
Good suggestions. Those haven't been used in forever, at least not while I've been a part of this project. Looks like the writing guide will delete, but if the other is marked historical (a good suggestion by someone voting there) we should at least remove it from the header bar as it serves basically no purpose. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I've gone ahead and removed both pages from the "tabs" subpage that forms the header. At this point the pages are effectively orphaned, and the question of deletion is more academic than anything. LibraryGeek (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Invitation to discuss improvements
Folks ... as you may have seen, I've started a bit of a clean-up of these pages, and am starting to take a closer look at the Introduction and the remaining WikiProject Libraries pages in general. I invite you go share your thoughts and ideas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries/Introduction. Thanks.
We have about 70 pages sorted as NA class according to our assessment qualities. They are almost exclusively redirects. In past projects I've simply deleted all the WP:LIB banners from these pages, but before I continue doing this would love to get a second opinion. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
There does seem to be some inconsistency on this matter that I'd like to look further into. On our Assessment page, we define Redirect as a valid class value, but looking at the code, it doesn't seem to be implemented. I have seen other projects where it is implemented, via |QUALITY_SCALE = subpage, where our template uses |QUALITY_SCALE = extended. It would seem to be relatively simple to implement a /class subpage. This also affects Class=Draft. It appears there was a change in how the quality scale is implemented (from standard to extended to subpage), but we didn't update to that new scheme. I think the "correct" answer is to update our banner. I lean towards making more information available rather than hiding it. Since the new class values appear to be automatic, it would seem to be well worth updating to take advantage of them. Give me a few days to look into this and make it happen. LibraryGeek (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hm, I guess I like your point about making the information more available. I just hope this doesn't result in retroactively marking all redirect pages as such, but rather update currently incorrect pages to reflect they are indeed a redirect if they've already been tagged. If you want to go ahead and make that category be my guest, if not it only takes a couple seconds and I've done it a few times before - just let me know :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about this ... was just about to do more research and possibly implement this today, but it appears the tools site is down. In the meantime, I've updated the Members list, and am working on the category structure. Thanks for your patience. LibraryGeek (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, tools are working again, and I completed my research. Enabling this change will only change the class of redirects that do not have a class set already. Rather than being dumped into the general-purpose NA class, they'd be placed into the redirect class, which is what I believe you want. I've created the {{WikiProject Libraries/class}} subpage, and submitted an edit request for {{WikiProject Libraries}} to implement this change. Changes also need to be made to the code for the automatically generated table and our Assessment page, and I'll work on those as time allows. LibraryGeek (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
And ... the edit request was completed, and the 70 "NA" pages all now show as "Redirect" on the automatically generated table. "Draft" pages, however, show as "Other" in the table ... possible code issue there to look into. Also the documentation on the assessment page needs to be updated ... will get to that soon. LibraryGeek (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Reviewed Redirect-Class Libraries articles.
I just completed a review of the 71 redirects in the new Redirect-Class, checking to make sure that the articles they point to are tagged for this project. Many did, but a number of unassessed articles have been added as a result. Given that many redirects were created as a placeholder for future expansion, the link between the article pointed to and this project may be tenuous at best. In the edit summary where I added the tag, I've included a link to the redirect that referred me to the article, so you can see why the article was added to this project.
I also enabled the FM class (Featured Media), which is a subset of the Files class/namespace. Also submitted a request to fix the Articles by Quality template, which fails to add the number of Draft and FM class articles to the displayed total.
Moving forward, some thoughts about Redirects and assessment: We should be assessing Articles, not potential articles or Wikipedia infrastructure, such at Categories and Redirects. Accordingly, all non-article classes now show Importance of NA, which stands for "Not an Article". Files and FM could be exceptions to this ... as pictures can be worth a thousand words. For all NA pages, other than Disambig and FM, the class parameter is not needed. Wikipedia can automatically sort it in the right class. Redirects, in particular, should not have parameters, as it is meaningless to assess a pointer to an article, we should assess the article, itself. Some of these redirects may have been created by page moves. In this case, we should transfer the assessment from the redirect to the actual article.
Also, be on the lookout for pages that may have been tagged with our banner twice. The tools do not like this. I've tracked down a few cases of this, as well as tags in User space. I will be doing more work on our project's infrastructure for a while, before I direct my attention to the articles, themselves. Meanwhile, I'm doing research, that will start appearing in articles in the next few months.
The assessment table normally shown on our main page and on the assessment page has been replaced with a link directly to the tool that generates the table, due to the bot that normally imports the table from the tools to Wikipedia being temporarily blocked. Clicking the "Display assessment table" link will take you to the table you're used to seeing, but it's in the tool environment rather than the Wikipedia environment. The normal links to the table will be restored when the issue with the bot is resolved. Thanks for your patience. LibraryGeek (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
LC class article titles
The current articles on LC classes have the following titles:
Is there some reason that these titles have to be so complicated? At work, I speak of "LC class X", not "LC class X Topic". Couldn't they be moved to "Library of Congress Class X", or at least "Library of Congress Classification Class X"? Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Can't claim to have been around when these things were named, but the way they are listed currently seems fine to me. Not everyone who accesses Wikipedia understands library science, and it's doubtful many people on earth know what you're referring to when you mention LC Class "X". The current naming convention lays it out nicely for the 99.99% of people who have no idea what each letter stands for (myself included). SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I would support simplification (though I'd be inclined to keep the word "Classification" for clarity). I agree that 99.99% of people (myself included) are unfamiliar with the system, but surely 99.99% of those 99.99% are likely to go to Library of Congress Classification first, and only move on to these more specialist articles if they want further details after grasping the basics. On a lesser but still irritating point, although all these articles have existed for almost 17 years, they employ the deprecated double-hyphen in the title (in breach of MOS:DASH), so at the very least that needs fixing. GrindtXX (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with both your points, especially the double dash. Maybe open a RfC or Move request to see what people outside this WP think? SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Semmendinger, how am I supposed to reach these articles without going to the category or Special:Allpages? Even if I remember that the titles begin with Library of Congress Classification:Class (with no space on either side of the colon), I have to remember the precise title of the class: no "N -- Arts" or "J -- Political Science" (even though "P -- Language and literature" would also fail) or "Z -- Bibliography, Library Science, Information resources". Removing the subjects of these classes from the titles would make the articles much easier to find, and the contents of each class can be found quite easily from the introduction to the article. Moreover, where did these precise collections of subjects even come from? They're not what you'll get from LOC itself; for example, D is "WORLD HISTORY AND HISTORY OF EUROPE, ASIA, AFRICA, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, ETC.", not "History, General and Old World". If you scroll down https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco, you'll see that the broad subject areas listed with classes are typically different from what we give, even ignoring the capitalization issue that I raise for N and P. Nyttend (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm saying that this needs to be asked in a different forum before name changes occur. I get where you're coming from, but there's a reason they were created with the names they currently have and perhaps those names have merit. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Well yes, but when a big batch of pages is involved, it's good to get a wikiproject discussion first. Saying "WikiProject Libraries thinks these pages ought to be entitled such-and-such" is a good argument, since potential dissenters can be shown how the discussion went, and they may change their minds after reading it. Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Are those pages actually needed on Wikipedia - they're not very encyclopedic? We don't have a page for every Dewey class, just a list List_of_Dewey_Decimal_classes, why do we need one for every LC class? I won't nominate them, but I suspect they wouldn't survive an AfD request. In any case, the content just repeats what's freely available here: https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/ . Surely this page is more than enough: Library_of_Congress_Classification on LC classification, I'd suggest that main page actually needs fleshing out more as well, after the lead it's just a list of LC classes, again compare it with Dewey_Decimal_Classification. -VJ (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Reference desk
Hello, o7.
The reference desks are being squashed into little bits and pieces. Isn't that nice! It is because they are missing something, and nobody who didn't take the time to go over the list of librarians was able to figure, out what it is. What is it, that a reference desk needs, to be a real reference desk? Not that librarians would know anything, about that, or anything... Aw, go on. Thanks o/ ~ R.T.G00:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been using Wikipedia for a decade and this is the first time I've ever even heard of the reference desk (lol, no idea how), so I will abstain from voting. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Health information seeking behavior
Hello, I have added Health information-seeking behaviour to WP:Libraries and WP:Med. I am a PhD candidate in LIS researching the use of Wikipedia ad a health information resource. From January to April I plan to make extensive high-quality contributions to this article.Mcbrarian (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Copac / Library hub discover
Could someone up to speed with JISC etc please update Copac and/or create Library hub discover? (Or move or redirect as appropriate). I've been retired too long but I'm sure there are some current UK librarians editing who know what's going on and can find the sources. I could do something with this source but you might have better. Thanks. PamD00:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Presidential library and Special collections
Re Special collections: The Presidential library page refers to the 13 NARA and 31 independent presidential libraries. It is only categorized in National Archives and Records Administration. This is not my field, but it seems to me that the presidential libraries also meet the definition for being categorized as Special collections, even if many include a public interpretive center component. The Presidential libraries seem more clearly Special collections than Special libraries. Any thoughts? Zatsugaku (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Astrophysics Data System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmBacon05:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Created a template for US library associations. Feedback?
I have been working on filling out United States library association pages and I made a template that can go in the footer of these pages, similar to the state libraries template. Before I made it live on any other pages, I wanted to run it by people here. You can see it here. A few thoughts
This does not include consortia (i.e. METRO) but mainly associations which have individual people as members but I may be wrong about some of these
I skipped orgs with US members but that are not primarily US-focused (i.e. IFLA)
I did not include actual divisions of ALA because they are listed within their own template but I did include any affiliates with a WP page
There are a lot of more specialized state library associations according to this page not on Wikipedia and I erred on the side of leaving them off for now
PNLA is the only redlink in there and I will fix that
I probably missed some stuff, please let me know what!
Very nice idea - thank you! Although having been a participant in many of METRO's offerings, I feel you should include such organizations. Maybe you can one section for organizations that individuals can belong to (as it is now) and another section for library consortiums (METRO, PACSCL, Recap, OhioLINK, and many others. - kosboot (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a good idea. I am afraid if this includes consortia, it could get unwieldy because many states have multiple consortia but maybe I am just overly concerned about a thing that is not a problem. Jessamyn (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Help fleshing out articles for recipients of the National Medal for Museum and Library Service
I think it would be valuable to flesh out the existing article for the National Medal for Museum and Library Service including creating articles for the libraries and museums that have won the National Medal but don't yet have a Wikipedia page. Though I'm not 100% sure, I'm thinking that recognition at this level should be sufficient to meet the notability criteria, and the smaller institutions that have won most likely deserve the attention of Wikipedians. Of the approximately 200 institutions that have received the Medal since its inception in 1994, about 35 don't have their own Wikipedia article. Anyone with me? PatrickAtBeanstalk (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Controlled vocabulary and Authority for Military History books
Are there any controlled vocabulary and authority which can be used for the cataloguing and subject classification/index words (keywords) of military history information resources? I am wanting to classify a military archives book collection. Any information of any kind would be helpful, thanks in advance. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
UK librarians: what about the Library Association?
list-articles about libraries and a related template
Hi, back in 2017 I was interested in helping build regional list-articles about libraries, which are often individually Wikipedia-notable and either way can certainly be items in list-articles. Is anything up with that, nowadays?
Hello can see the draft: Draft:Albertson Public Library has seen some declines due to "only local sources". Any tips or guidance on what makes an acceptable, good or great library building article? Would be great to support editors like this Rhagfyr (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Hello! This WikiProject aligns closely with the work of the GLAM-Wiki initiative (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums), a global community of volunteers who assist cultural institutions with sharing resources with Wikimedia. GLAM-Wiki US is a new community initiative focused on organizing cultural collaborations within the United States. GLAM organizations are diverse and span numerous topics, from libraries and art museums to science centers and historic sites. We currently have a backlog of interested institutions- and we need your help!
Are you interested in helping with current or future GLAM projects? Join→ Online Volunteers
We hope you'll join the growing GLAM-Wiki community in the US. Thank you!
I have been tidying up this WikiProject as some links had rotten/ added in some new features to help navigate the scope of content. Hope it helps us on our journeys :D Jamzze (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Signpost article "Two photos of every library on earth"
Thanks. I see, and am glad, that you've now commented at that Signpost article, joining a number of interested editors. Thanks, --Doncram (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Further opinions on article merger would be appreciated
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Digital media use and mental health for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
...Support Open Access... 
You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:WikiLeaks. Neutral assistance requested. At issue is whether the template for wikileaks should show "Chelsea Manning" or "Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning" or some other formulation. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
