Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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

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

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

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

Hello everyone,

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

Here's the description:

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've always been fond of this little graphic.

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

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

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

--Dchmelik (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The Wikipedia Readers' Advisory article that I have been working on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readers%27_advisory and was listed as a good article nominee. It was been peer reviewed and the article is "on hold" for 7 days pending improvements. The review and recommended improvements can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Readers%27_advisory/GA1

Many are are simple fixes. I feel that the article is close to promotion. Any help would be appreciated. Please make note on the review page under any items you have worked on so we can keep track of progress. JohnRussell (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

A WP:bibcode would be good to cover bibcodes ... {{bibcode}} 70.51.9.124 (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one has an answer for this??? Just a yes or no, please, is all I ask. Aleta ^Sing 18:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think library articles should indeed be tagged. Pegship (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2009 (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! Aleta ^Sing 21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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?

Thank you in advance, Bertrand Bellet (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

I just prodded this first-person essay by a first-time editor; maybe you guys can salvage it. NVO (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A bot has been set up, which looks through the new Wikipedia articles and picks up those that are likely related to libraries and archives. The search results are available at User:AlexNewArtBot/LibrariesSearchResult and are normally updated on a daily basis. Colchicum (talk) 00:11, 20 December 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)

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! --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 12:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

For your sorting pleasure, we now have Category:Library and information science biography stubs and Category:Library building and structure stubs. Pegship (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by access to offline sources. Some of us should jump on this bandwagon. I'll go first! :P Pegship (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking of proposing all the subpages at Category:Library of Congress Classification for deletion, as they are not encyclopedia articles, they simply repeat the classification. Wikisource has all this information:[5] as does the Library of Congress:[6]. Fences&Windows 00:55, 6 August 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)

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)

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)

This page is now published at Wikipedia:advice for the cultural sector (aka WP:GLAM. Feel free to comment. It refers out to this wikiproject several times so some people may come across. Perhaps you might like to refer out to it from here too? Sincerely Witty Lama 15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries and found nothing. I eventually Googled this WikiProject. Should that redlink be a redirect to here? If this WikiProject does cover libraries, would you be interested in helping to write an article about the Library of the American Museum of Natural History? Currently, this is a redlink, with a section at American Museum of Natural History#Library, but I think it should have its own article. Is anyone here interested in helping out with that? Carcharoth (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we should actually rename it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Librarians and Libraries as I think it would better reflect the project scope. Other opinions? That redlink would be a good one to turn blue; I don't know much about it myself right now. LadyofShalott 17:27, 2 November 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)

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)

Answered in detail on the article talk page. Let me know if I can be of further help! -- Clifflandis (talk) 23:27, 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. Hoverfish Talk 07:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Book located. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 12 January 2010 (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

• Rename to WikiProject Libraries
  • Support SatuSuro 04:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Support for simplicity and consistency. (Physicists are covered by WikiProject Physics, etc) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Rename to WikiProject Librarians and Libraries
  • Support (the name I proposed above) LadyofShalott 04:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Create new project WikiProject Libraries and leave this one to itself?
  • SatuSuro 04:38, 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 SatuSuro 10:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

• I've requested that the assessment categories be moved. Just FYI! Clifflandis (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Works for me, after the fact :) +sj+ 21:35, 30 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)

The article on Joshua Greenberg is being considered for deletion. It is being assessed according to WP:PROF; the criteria for academics, in my opinion, may not adequately reflect notability guidelines for librarians. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:44, 1 February 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. SatuSuro 09:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From here:

• Conrad_Laforte: Canadian_librarians; All_unreferenced_BLPs
• Davey_Beauchamp: American_librarians, Library_and_information_science_biography_stubs; All_unreferenced_BLPs
• David_Francis_(film_archivist): Librarians_at_the_Library_of_Congress, Library_and_information_science_biography_stubs; All_unreferenced_BLPs
• Derek_Austin: British_librarians; All_unreferenced_BLPs
• Jane,_Lady_Roberts: British_librarians, Library_and_information_science_biography_stubs; All_unreferenced_BLPs
• John_Mark_Ockerbloom: American_librarians, Library_and_information_science_biography_stubs; All_unreferenced_BLPs
• Judy_Yung: American_librarians; All_unreferenced_BLPs
• Miriam_Dudley: British_librarians, Law_librarians, Library_and_information_science_biography_stubs; All_unreferenced_BLPs
• Patricia_Aburdene: American_librarians; All_unreferenced_BLPs

Regards, Pcap ping 04:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I added references for Conrad Laforte. EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_23#Category:ISBN_agencies. Pcap ping 08:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project.

Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs

There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: /Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 08:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs are located at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Libraries/Unreferenced_BLPs. Clifflandis (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

dammnit, the link doesn't work, it goes to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Libraries/Unreferenced_BLPs. Thanks for pointing this out!

This bot only examines already tagged articles, it does NOT tag new articles. If your project is ever interested in tagging more articles with a bot, please see: Category talk:WikiProject tagging bots Thanks! Okip 05:08, 19 March 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.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 22:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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.

Clifflandis (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

72 hours has passed with no objection. I have requested the assessment. Clifflandis (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, in this edit a bot tagged the Discworld librarian as a librarian. Is that what this project wants? 0¹⁸ (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

WikiProject Libraries covers all areas of library and information science, including archival science and information management. Since MoReq2 is categorized under archival science, it was included in the automated tagging of articles. I have detagged the article. Clifflandis (talk) 18:59, 7 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)

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)

• National Library Week

At the sister site to Wikipedia, Wikisource, added some documents from the United States Congress relating to this article subject, please see s:Category:National Library Week. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone disambiguate EAS and EBS at International Standard Book Number? I can't quite figure them out.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I made this suggestion in Meta to open a new project about classifying books, journals and articles, in which you might be interested. Best wishes.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 08:44, 20 August 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)

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!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:03, 7 November 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)

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

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)

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

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 Transhumanist 01:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)s

Article needs some love. It would also be very useful to identify one or more volunteer wikipedians with CRL access to help out with wp:Resource requests LeadSongDog come howl! 18:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Friends of" organization is at AfD, could use another editor. Are Friends of Libraries in the right place, and can this article stay up? Trilliumz (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi! It is late night here. Please take a few moment to look at commons:Commons:VIAF inter project linking. best regards gangleri ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

[copied from Talk:Library science]

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)

An article on the Pioneer Library System is needed. You can use

• "Pioneer Library System to buy Borders bookstore building in Norman". NewsOK. The Oklahoman. September 27, 2011.

and their website as starting points. Thanks. 72.244.206.178 (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Wind _talk 22:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am editing the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, a library listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Which navbox should I use? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So, there's a new project which may be of interest to some here. It arises out of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#UID_interface_to_Wikipedia, a proposal to make wikipedia articles available by their unique identifier - for instance by their Personennamendatei number. Umm. For reasons which should be all to obvious to anyone interested in computational access to information. And those two pages are all I have to show you, but I live in hope of input from you to take it all further. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2012 (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)

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! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 09:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of writers in Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing a copyright question has been aired - don't know if people here know anything relevant. Dsp13 (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please find a way to make sure that librarians see: Lally, A.M. and Dunford, C.E. (May 2007) "Using Wikipedia to Extend Digital Collections" D-Lib Magazine 13(5/6) which shows how to very substantially increase library website visits by adding appropriate external links to articles. 70.58.10.111 (talk) 17:07, 26 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)

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.

Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi all.

There's a currently open RFC on a proposal to extend the use of authority control identifiers on enwiki. Please see the proposal here and comment here. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

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! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

I started work this week, as 'Wikipedian in Residence' at Staffordshire Archives and Heritage Service; please see Wikipedia:GLAM/SAHS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, Andy! I hope good publicity about WP/WM and archives emerges! -- kosboot (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy does fantastic work. This is very good news. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Article Library of Congress Control Number is linked from large fraction of transclusions of template:Authority control (on several dozens wikipedias, wikisources and Commons. Unfortunately it is still a stub, as are Virtual International Authority File, Integrated Authority File and other authority files linked from template:Authority control. Some of them need some TLC and I thought that librarians might be most knowledgeable on the subject. --Jarekt (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The article Camila Alire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Resumecruft unfixed since 2007

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

We have a new tool, Forward to Libraries, which helps readers find books at their local library related to the articles they are reading. There is an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Linking subjects to books at your local library (Forward to Libraries) to determine how this tool should be used on Wikipedia. Users that are interested may wish to comment there. 64.40.54.57 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

Since no one answered there yet, I'm leaving a note here. --bender235 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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?

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

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, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

We are working together towards 5 big goals:

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

-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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.

I am not certain that UC Riverside Libraries is the place to go for confirmation or correction of the formal name. And that server now gives me no connection (time out). --P64 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Types of library, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

I don't see what this has to do with WikiProject Libraries, and consider it an inappropriate post here. LaMona (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Some may be interested in Roy Tennant's initial encounter with WP: The Winter of Wikipedia’s Discontent. -- kosboot (talk) 15:15, 31 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.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:21, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

This option is satisfactory when visually comparing samples superb to well a uniform specified reference

Is anyone still here? Also, I got bored and made a userbox: Template:User WikiProject Libraries. Gamaliel (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been reported that some materials from closed Canadian science libraries would be digitized upon request.

• The Tyee – What's Driving Chaotic Dismantling of Canada's Science Libraries?—The Tyee (December 23, 2013)
• Fisheries and Oceans library closings called loss to science - Politics - CBC News—CBC.ca (January 6, 2014)
• “Libricide”: Harper government closing and junking environmental libraries | Climate Science Watch—Climate Science Watch (December 27, 2013)

—Wavelength (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ran into List of database subscriptions provided by US public libraries when working on maintenance tasks. Can someone take a look and see if this article is one to keep? merge? Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 05:02, 14 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)

Is this organisation notable? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Theatre Library Association. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

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?

Many thanks,

Margarita

MargRouk (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

Hello, Please note that National Library of China, 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 Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

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

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)

This is a notice about Category:Libraries articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Do help.... at DYK now. Frances Mary Richardson Currer Victuallers (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see here: Talk:Academia#WikiProject Academia?. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

As I noted at User_talk:Tbayer_(WMF)#Piotrus_contributions_on_Wikipedia.27s_research_for_November_2014_edition, there is an interesting paper (Public Domain Rank: Identifying Notable Individuals with the Wisdom of the Crowd)that can be reviewed in more detail in the upcoming November issue Wikimedia Research Newsletter (co-published with Signpost) that I think is of significant interest to librarians and digitization/open access/public domain activists. Perhaps someone would be interested in building upon my abstract-like review and providing a few more thoughts? Feel free to post on TB's page with an updated review, modify my own or add a new one. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants to take a crack at structuring Westmount Public Library, I'd be grateful. Consider reverting back to the timeline version just to see how it was. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Pls see: Template_talk:Infobox_journal#Sponsor_field. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Pls see Category_talk:Academic_journals_published_by_university_presses#University presses or just universities?. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

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.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Pls see Template talk:Infobox journal#Categories. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a field named depth which has basically three levels: full-text, abstracts-only, and minimal/metadata (i.e., title, author, etc.). How about creating Category:Bibliographic databases (full-text), Category:Bibliographic databases (abstracts)? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello resource sharers! At The Wikipedia Library, we are actively looking for more volunteers to help with Partner donation distribution, communications towards the Wikimedia community and outreach with publishers! If you would be interested in helping us get other users access to quality sources, complete an on-wiki application, or let our lead volunteer coordinator, User:Nikkimaria know. Thanks much! Sadads (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for City of Boston Archives to be moved to Boston City Archives. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bloomingdale Regional Public Library is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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)

You are warmly invited to an editathon in the library of the Royal Society of Chemistry, London, on Wednesday, 29 July 2015. Booking essential. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NewsBank is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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)

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."

Please see the idea at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

A discussion regarding the {{Goodreads}} template is being held at WP:External_links/Noticeboard#Is_Goodreads_an_appropriate_EL.3F. – S. Rich (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Archive#Split_this_article_into_two:_one_about_the_institution.2C_the_other_about_document_collections and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1#Category:Historic_document_collections. The Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1#Category:Historical_documents may also be of interest to the members of this project. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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]

174.44.134.229 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Tom Glynn Rutgers University Libraries glynn@rutgers.edu

See

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

Thanks and kindest regards:

The Mad Hatter (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Hatter (talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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.

My question is: do you have an idea on how to set this up for English Sources? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

Please see ongoing AFDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Town 'N Country Regional Library
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadsden County Public Library System

--doncram 17:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Another AfD resulting in keep for a library system: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catoosa County Library. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Encouraging_accessibility

Current

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.

Thoughts welcome. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"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)

I'd imagine that would be only for archives that don't have any physical collections like archive.org or ELAR archive. – Uanfala 11:24, 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. – Uanfala 13:21, 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. – Uanfala 15:06, 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)

@Semmendinger: I'm not talking about use of the term "online archives" within an article (where such nuances can be made), but the categorization of an article. Currently, neither The National Archives (United Kingdom) nor Category:The National Archives (United Kingdom) are in Category:Online archives. Personally, I'm not sure they should be, even though some of its collections are online. Because an article generally shouldn't be in both a parent and a child category, nothing should be in both Category:Archives and Category:Online archives. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok, that wasn't really stated in the primary post! In that case, I agree. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there an article about library services for blind people/visually impaired people/people with a visual print disability, analogous to Library services for the Deaf community or Blindness and education? There seem to be some articles about individual libraries that are specifically for people with disabilities, but not one that covers the subject broadly (including a history, key figures, etc). If IFLA has a manifesto on the topic, then surely Wikipedia should have an article? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:11, 13 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

User:Smallbones/DelCo Public Libraries and the discussion on the talk page there.

A slightly more detailed plan

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.

I've started an example list already, Please see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallbones/DelCo_Public_Libraries

With a bit of time, I could do similar lists for Cape May County, New Jersey, and maybe Philadelphia and Montgomery County, PA.

FAQs

"Why do we want photos of every public library in the world?"

• It will help people find libraries all over the world, e.g. if they

have changed residence or are traveling

• It will help build relationships between Wikipedians and librarians,

two groups that are dedicated to bringing information at low or no cost to people everywhere.

"What do you have against academic libraries and other non-public libraries?"

• Nothing - it might be easiest to limit ourselves for now to public

libraries, but we may decide to include other libraries in similar lists, or as sub-lists in the list articles. Whatever works best.

@Doncram and Pharos: @Semmendinger, DGG, Carptrash, and Jmabel: @Merrilee, Shameran81, Monikasj, Kerry Raymond, Sadads, Pigsonthewing, and Rachel Helps (BYU):

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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.
• Are these all notable? - IMHO no, but a list of public libraries (say county-wide) is bound to be notable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

A useful way to start might be to consult Marshall Breeding's website libraries.org. Here's the subsection that allows one to search for any public library in the U.S.: https://librarytechnology.org/libraries/uspublic/ -- kosboot (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like the best site I've seen so far. International entries as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC) PS - send pix

There are at least several Library of Congress Classification sub-pages that have not been merged or redirected to the LOC Classification main page.

• Library of Congress Classification:Class B -- Philosophy, Psychology, Religion
• Library of Congress Classification:Class Z -- Bibliography. Library Science. Information resources
• Library of Congress Classification:Class S -- Agriculture

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)

Hello Atsme. I suggested the RFC. Thanks for supporting this idea. I will now work on creating one. --Steve Quinn (talk) 01:13, 1 September 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)

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.

Therefore your support is solicited for the Project Grant that can be seen here. Part of the grant-making process requires notification of those who would like to support this project. I am the potential grantee and believe that this position will make a significant contribution to many projects, including the WP:Library. The University of Pittsburgh intends to release as many historical photos as possible into the public domain. Most of the archival materials are related to United States History. Other projects will also benefit. Some of these are Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States History, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Revolutionary War task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pittsburgh, and Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. Some of these WikiProjects are currently semi-active and would benefit from more contributions from those in the Western Pennsylvania region and the University of Pittsburgh. The University of Pittsburgh has significant archival and historical content related to gaps to these WikProjects. I would also like one or two advisers to give me advice in this capacity. Thank you for your consideration.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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 :)

You're a Researcher without Access to Research: What do you do?

Thank you!

Jake Orlowitz Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Information storage, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads up. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a discussion about whether or not the controversial Frontiers in... open access journal series should have an article on Wikipedia. While not directly related to Libaries, I figure many librarians lurk around this page, and your feedback would be welcomed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I've commented. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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:

• List of open access repositories in Africa
• List of open access repositories in the Americas
• List of open access repositories in Australia
• List of open access repositories in Canada
• List of open access repositories in Croatia
• List of open access repositories in India

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)

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

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.

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This draft is liable to be deleted for lack of editing activity. Should it be moved to mainspace? Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree - move to mainspace. - kosboot (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Can someone review the library name move request at Talk:Louisville Free Public Library, Western Colored Branch? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of these discussions may be of interest to this project:

• Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Move Library of Alexandria to History
• Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Remove 9 libraries
• Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add: Academic journal + others

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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/Writing guide created in 2010 but has never had actual content posted, and apparently abandonded, and
• 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.

It seems there is no clear reason to keep these pages, and they only confuse newcomers like me. I also cleaned up the Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries/Members page and fixed some syntax on Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries/Resources. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries/Assessment looks fairly current, as does the main page, but I haven't reviewed them in detail.

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!

LibraryGeek (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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.

LibraryGeek (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Oriental Institute, Oxford that may need your input. Please come and help. Thank you in advance! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  19:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  

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)

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.

Thanks! LibraryGeek (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

The current articles on LC classes have the following titles:

• Library of Congress Classification:Class A -- General Works
• Library of Congress Classification:Class B -- Philosophy, Psychology, Religion
• Library of Congress Classification:Class C -- Auxiliary Sciences of History
• Library of Congress Classification:Class D -- History, General and Old World
• Library of Congress Classification:Class E -- History of America
• Library of Congress Classification:Class F -- Local History of the United States and British, Dutch, French, and Latin America
• Library of Congress Classification:Class G -- Geography. Anthropology. Recreation
• Library of Congress Classification:Class H -- Social sciences
• Library of Congress Classification:Class J -- Political science
• Library of Congress Classification:Class K -- Law
• Library of Congress Classification:Class L -- Education
• Library of Congress Classification:Class M -- Music
• Library of Congress Classification:Class N -- Fine Arts
• Library of Congress Classification:Class P -- Language and Literature
• Library of Congress Classification:Class Q -- Science
• Library of Congress Classification:Class R -- Medicine
• Library of Congress Classification:Class S -- Agriculture
• Library of Congress Classification:Class T -- Technology
• Library of Congress Classification:Class U -- Military Science
• Library of Congress Classification:Class V -- Naval Science
• Library of Congress Classification:Class Z -- Bibliography. Library Science. Information resources

Aside from these titles and the subclass redirects (e.g. Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DH -- History of the Low Countries and Benelux), the only titles beginning with "Library of Congress Classification" are the article on LC itself and the Library of Congress Classification:Class D -- General History redirect. Remove the subjects from the existing article titles (e.g. Library of Congress Classification:Class S) and you'll always get redlinks.

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)

Ah, sorry; I indeed thought you disagreed. What forum would you suggest? I assumed this was the right place, since detailed discussions have appeared here in the past; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries/Archive 1#Rfc - Library of Congress Classification subpages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries/Archive 1#Possible unnecessary pages. Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I would check Wikipedia:Requested_moves but I am not too versed in how it all works. It's a good way to get more opinions on it though! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:30, 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)

Of course! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 21:35, 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)

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.G 00:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@A13ea, AH UDelLib, Alectrona, Alterego, Badbilltucker, Blisspix, CatherineMunro, Cdhaptomos, and Chris 73: @ConstantinVacheron, DanKeshet, Dbigwood, DeniseVictoria, Dsp13, Efmcleanckm, Ellbeecee, GUllman, Inkvisitor, IreGui, Jacqui M, JaySeaAre, Jenelle Cleary, and Jenblower: @Jlcolbert, JohnRussell, Katewill, Katewill, KatieBU, Kiwimac, Kshuyler, Liblamb, Libraryowl, Lidos, LieBerries, Lislemck, Little Otik, Ludvikus, Lukethelibrarian, and Maolduin: @MarkSweep, Mfulvio, Mtindia, Nawabrai, Ndlibraryadvocate, Neschek, Nowimnthing, Okinawa55, Olegkagan, Omassey, PhyllisAllen123, Planetneutral, Rocketcitymel, and Saukkomies: @Sfrancoeur, Shrikesong, Tegalex, TheAmazing0and1, Vfranklyn, Web20librarian, Wootking, Sandbergja, Nafpaktitism, and Mgolrick: @LibraryGurl, Dchmelik, Crossland68, Apwoolrich, Tibbydibby, Giaccai, Maberry, SounderBruce, Semmendinger, Sarasays, and Rlitwin: @Rjensen, Pigsonthewing, PersnicketyPaul, Paul2520, PatienceFortitude, Ohiohistorygeek, Nikkimaria, and Neutrality: @Metheglyn, Merrilee, Masssly, MassiveEartha, Marykat23, Lugevas, Lquilter, LibraryGeek, LadyofShalott, KConWiki, and John Hubbard: @Mabel, JesseW, Pegship, Hexatekin, Hennap, Helperzoom, Giso6150, FeanorStar7, DGG, Carptrash, Bookgrrl, Boethius65, Barbara (WVS), and Aymatth2: ~ R.T.G 01:04, 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 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.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Knoema (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This is a huge repository of data and statistics. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of TorrentFreak for a claim related to Web Sheriff and MusicBrainz on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § TorrentFreak for Web Sheriff. — Newslinger talk 23:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#CiteSeerX copyrights and linking. Nemo 15:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Still need more comments! Nemo 16:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. PamD 00:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

Hi WP Libraries, I was wondering if anyone would like to offer an opinion on a discussion taking place at Talk:Autonomous_social_center#Requested_move_10_November_2020. Thanks for any comments! Mujinga (talk) 14:42, 1 December 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 Farm _Bacon 05:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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!

Thanks for your time. Jessamyn (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

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.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

A Request for Comment on external links to library resources, which relates to this project, has started: Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC: External links to library resources. Opinions, knowledge, and suggestions are sought. Please join in. SilkTork (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are knowledgeable about library software, please see my note at Talk:List of library catalogs § This list is poorly named and differentiated and see if you can help improve List of library catalogs.

You may also be interested in this issue: Talk:Integrated library system § Should this article discuss library services platforms? Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue at List of library catalogs was resolved by redirecting, but the issue at Talk:Integrated library system § Should this article discuss library services platforms? is still unaddressed. Biogeographist (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

It has been proposed that List of fictional librarians be merged into Libraries and librarians in fiction. Seeking your feedback at Talk:List of fictional librarians#Merger proposal. Thanks. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

Hallo, as a retired UK librarian and former ALA I've just realised that there is only minimal information about the Library Association: 4 sentences at Chartered_Institute_of_Library_and_Information_Professionals#History to reflect its 125 years of existence (unless there is something more detailed lurking elsewhere, not clearly linked - or I'm just missing the blindingly obvious). Perhaps we should try to expand this? PamD 08:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

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?

Also, there is currently a proposal at TFD to delete a template related to library list-articles. Please feel free to comment or !vote there. --Doncram (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Collective collection#Requested move 13 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• 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.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "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.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join GLAM-Wiki US

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! -Lori Phillips (Talk), US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator For more information visit→ The GLAM:US portal or GLAM-Wiki on Outreach

Hello!

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)

Just out in the current "Signpost", at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-31/Serendipity (permalink) is article "Two photos of every library on earth" by User:Smallbones. With lots of nice photos and some plans. Discussion comments are welcome there. --Doncram (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I just read the article. Would anyone be interested in a subproject equivalent to w:es:Wikiproyecto:Bibliotecología/Ninguna biblioteca sin fotografía (no library without photos)? Or is it better kept separate, since it intersects with architecture and photography? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Currently, there is a proposed merger of Libraries and librarians in fiction and Librarians in popular culture to a new page entitled Libraries and librarians in culture. But, it has been inactive since July 2022, so it would be great to get some more eyes on it, so there can a clearer consensus before moving forward. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

A discussion about if KulturNav has any use as a WP:RS. If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muhammad Khatami#Requested move 6 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2024 (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)

Hi I am refining content on Wikidata about sound archives, I have drafted this navigation template Draft:Sounds Archives for enwikipedia. Before I add some red links, please change it further. Alexmar983 (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I have moved it to the teplate namespace, not inserted.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems it was refined, since there is no opposition and it's not controversial, I am going to insert it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I am inserting it. I continue tomorrow.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)