Jump to content

Talk:Library/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Cybrary

Chipbruce added an empty link to cybraries (should be cybrary) in the See Also section. Is this the same as a digital library? If no-one responds here, I'll go ask him... AdamRetchless 15:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As far as I am aware it is just another term for one, so yes. ACK-OA Alkoholicks 06:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

location?

Libraries can also be found in churches, prisons, hotels etc. Should there be any mention of this? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:38, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC) Libraries can be found in many places, and articles should be written and linked. A wiki article on libraries can never be more of a summary, and will always be expandable--DGG 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Library Instruction

"Many persons do not know how to use a library effectively." and some others struggle with expressing themselves effectively? I thought in principle this kind of slightly paternalistic remark on the general population wasn't allowed? BozMo(talk)

Library instruction is an important subtopic and this introduction is fine for describing the status quo. It didn't announce that BozMo doesn't know how to use a library (now, everybody stare at BozMo!). :) It just implies to the reader that that if they feel intimidated or inadequate when looking for information a library, there is a significant but undetermined percentage of the population that also feels this way, and reassures them that there is help available. GUllman 17:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then please at least change the wording to "Many people...". As an attention seeker :) I suggest that now I know these two sentences are supposed to act as an invitation you word them more positively, rather than starting with an insult...say "It is much easier for the many people who find libraries bewildering or find it difficult to use them effectively to get assistance now that Library instruction is much more available ?BozMo(talk)

There's more positive ways of doing this, remembering that even the most experienced library user or librarian will be puzzled in an unfamiliar setting. A collection of UN documents, to pick a random example, needs a specialist. (Just as a librarian does not say: "You don't know how to use this library. I'll show you. "--what one does say depends on the circumstances, and is relatively hard to teach. e.g. in a chemistry library I might start with something iike "This place is a little peculiar--I'll help you get started." ) I will try to reword, and at least start a stub for "Library instruction." DGG 04:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But before I do, I confirm about the consensus wording:

  • Library instruction (a/c Google, the most used term)

rather then

There's a related topic: Library literacy, usually used for relatively basic instruction. Probably it does not merit a separate article.

There's a related article already: Information literacy. To my understanding this is differentiated by being much more general DGG 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wash your hands before handling a book? This is a matter of Arabic or Muslim law. Their libraries were raided to a great extent by the crusades. You should honor the requirement to wash your hands. Gnostics 02:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to the article

These are just some thoughts about how the article could be improved. I don't have time at the moment to make the changes, but wanted to get my thoughts down for the future.

Although the article makes mention lending libraries it does not describe what they are, how they operate. Currently no mention of mobile libraries. Maybe expand a bit on reference libraries. Contrast reference libraries with lending libraries. -- Popsracer 12:53, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've begun this, and will add detail.DGG 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why start out this article with, I"n the traditional....." regarding the historical definition of a library (which in this day and age is NOT just a repository for books and periodicals? I like the second sentence MUCH better and this is what a library is about in the current day and age. Why perpetuate any stereotypes. - Anonymous comment added by 208.42.90.99

Because the stereotype has already become so pervasive and widespread that we have to help them "unlearn" the myth before they can learn. We are not writing this article for those who already know about libraries (what's the use of that?); it's to teach those who don't know. Let's start off slow, so as not to overwhelm them with a long, all-inclusive one sentence definition. GUllman 22:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd changed it to the one suggested by the anonymous comment, but on balance I agree with GUllman. If nobody has a better, I'll change it back in a day or two. DGG 01:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


And starting off an informational article with a stereotype is really going to help? Ack! I can see America's youth taking the first sentence of this article and using that for their report on libraries. Sorry. bit sensitive. Can you tell I am one of those stereotypical librarians!?!?!? :^)

Another possible improvement could be the renaming of History to Early History, merging the two Medieval subsections in the Medieval Christian Libraries. If no one objects, I will to so in a week or so. Pietrow (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Libraries

The material on the destruction of the Library of Alexandria seems to have been copied from the Library of Alexandria page, but is only one of four explanations given on that page for the destruction of LofA -- and is one that appears least likely to be historical. If we want to keep the fun story, we could add a parenthetical remark such as:

(Scholars disagree about whether this story is historically accurate. The Library of Alexandria page includes a careful discussion of several of the stories about the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, only one of which can have been true.)

--John Riedl 5 Dec 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riedl (talk • contribs) 02:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

More needs to be done about the history of the Islamic libraries and their role in introducing knowledge into Europe and their being a primary engine of the Renaissance. In the Interim I cleaned up the factually incorrect information about the libraries of the Islamic world only lasting a few centuries. It's just not true, and further, the depredations of the Mongols only affected libraries in Mesopotamia and even then not completely. For example, until the recent Iraq war, the National library in Baghdad still contained texts from the ancient and medieval period, including one of the world's great stores of medieval Torahs and Judaic texts.

In addition, I wasn't crazy about the wording relative to the medieval texts and chainig. The wording needed and still needs help. I added the explanation that the books of the pre-Gutenberg era were still manuscript in form which both explains how books were treated and how they were housed. The transformation wrought on libraries by the printing press was considerable and could be clarified further.

--Jack Bryar 9/10/05

I am interested in the history of libraries and particularly in which was the first public lending library. Two pieces of information relevant to this question are given in the article - specifically the St. Phillips Church library, South Carolina, est. 1698 and St. Mary's Church Library, England, est. 1701. I am interested in confirming this information but after doing a quick search on google for the St. Phillips library all I could find was mirrors of this article.

I have provided some more information I collected on the first public library with establishment dates before those of the libraries given in this article. I am also having some trouble getting good solid confirmation of these claims so I did not make the text sound too authoratitive. However, user RickK saw fit to mark the newly created article for deletion. He also reverted the edit I did to public library which provided a link to that article.

I welcome discussion here on information concerning the history of libraries and whether readers agree that the topic is an important one and should have it's own article.

I think the history of libraries is a significant and rich topic and information we already have should be collected and organised into one separate article. I now think the first public library article I created has too narrow an article title and the information should be merged into a general history of libraries page. This article would also include information on eclesiastical libraries, classical libraries (Alexandria), Muslim libraries, Eastern libraries etc. etc. Because this article could be potentially so rich in information I do not think it wise to simply make it a section under this article

-- Oska 12:24, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest making a one-paragraph synopsis of library history for this article, then link to a history of libraries that goes into more depth, with sections on the first public lending library and so forth. In practice, it works better to develop content "breadth-first" rather than "depth-first" - create the overviews first, then elaborate on specific topics in the overview, instead of plunging directly into great detail on a narrow topic. It would be good to visit the library :-) and look for printed works - as you notice, the net is often lacking in real content. Stan 16:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be best to start with periods, eg History of libraries: medieval libraries , both because this i the way the material is usually organized, and because this is probably the way our individual knowledge would divide itself.

The subject of non-Western European cultures and their libraries needs specialists if it is not to be trivial--I am not one, but if any are, let them say so, and write something. DGG 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been in large academic and public library systems for 30+ years in the U.S. and I've added bits here and there in this general article to fill gaps in coverage that reflect my own experience. I'd like to encourage other librarians of all flavors to do the same -- especially those experienced in special libraries and children's collections. --Michael K. Smith 21:37, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Google Scholar?

What about adding a little thing about Google's initiative to create a digital library (Google Scholar)? Stale Fries

As I understand, the article is about ordinary libraries, no info about things like Gutenberg etc. Perhaps your link is suitable in the following article: Digital library. Cmapm 00:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Digital library would be a better place. I think the correct link would be to Google Books (also known as Google Print and Google Print Library). Google Scholar is a search engine of scholarly literature on the web and in subscription bibliographic databases, not Google's own collection. Rlitwin 01:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

== A Thought ==-- Just wondered if it might be too controversial to mention that many educated Romans burned their own libraries in early Christian times, for fear of Christian reprisals against anyone owning non-Christian texts (Gibbon had a good line on this if I remember) Springald 19:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


I don't think it's controversial. On the other hand, is it something solid? Gibbon was one of the early historians of the empire. Since he wrote about it in the 18th century many ancient texts have been re-discovered and archeology became an exact Science. Put it in if you have something more recent to back it up. --AlainV 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Crisis in libraries

Would there be a way to highlight the crisis caused by the loss of our libraries without it being considered a rant?

The problem with the text in this article as it stands is that it could be read as "defeatist" and that libraries are no longer affordable. The description of libraries as "expensive" is also a matter of opinion.

Sadly America is being seen in Europe and other parts of the world as culturally destructive because of the replacement of the sciences by fundamental religious theories and the reduced government investment in culture, education and literacy. This reduces the aspirations of the young and future generations.

In the UK cynical politicians are using Google as an excuse for reducing library funding. This is not something that its creators would personally condone. I would hate to see the bad example introduced in California to be repeated anywhere else in the world. What the local government saves on books it will have to spend on police.

Large research libraries _are_ expensive, and so is Google. They're just paid or a little differently :) The various parts of Google that are relevant here might need individual articles, and they mostly have them. I am not sure they all reflect a true NPOV: rather than saying some like it and some don;t, there are specific good

points and also less-good portions. Although it changes rapidly, so can our articles.

I admit to being totally ignorant about public library funding and relatd problems. They need special articles perhaps, with moreexamples than just one public library campaign. DGG 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I just replaced my own earlier link to a newspaper article about Jackson County libraries with a newer one that speaks more to the general issue of library funding, as does a new link to the library foundation. That doesn't help with the worldwide perspective, but at least it's a pretty good example of several aspects the general funding issue in the US. I don't really expect all the libraries to close--many non-government actors are looking into solutions.Ashlandgeek 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The 15 libraries really will close this coming month (April 2007). Hopefully we won't earn the ignomy of being the first public library system in the US to close. Anybody know of another? They will eventually reopen when funding is restored, both congressional intervention and a local bond are being attempted. Ashlandgeek 03:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The link that was removed by Yinon was NOT spam. It is entirely relevant under the heading. It was to the FOSPL (The Friends of the Salinas Public Library). Please restore it.

desucetioning?

I am going to assume good faith here but that word doesn't show up in the OED. Would you care to define it for us? Otherwise I may have to revert. Nowimnthing 18:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Corrected someone's misspelling. Rlitwin 22:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok deaccessioning, but it seems that has more to do with museums, esp art museums. I've never heard in used in libraries. We use the term 'weeding'. Anybody else have any exp. of this term in libraries? Nowimnthing 01:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I think of weeding as the informal term and deaccessioning as the formal term. I have certainly heard it used about libraries. Google deaccessioning library and you will find a lot. But I agree it needs another person to confirm. Rlitwin 01:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Usually, it is said a librarian "weeds" the collection by looking through the books on the shelf and removing those that are no longer appropriate (due to outdated content or physical condition). The books are then given to a library clerk who "deaccessions" them (essentially the reverse of the acquisition process), which includes deleting the record from the catalog, removing any security features, and stamping the word "discarded" in the book. GUllman 06:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "deaccessioning" is standard, although it does have some air of being a euphemism for "discarding." "Weeding" is a common metaphor used by library workers, and merits a REFER:
The description above gives the standard steps only for books. There's more to be said about other media, and many special topics that perhaps warrant articles of their own, such as replacement of print by electronic versions, if a good article heading can be found. DGG 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver

Request Vancouver Central Library be included in section about libraries notable for their architecture, as the Seattle library has been.

criteria

What counts as a "famous" library? There are, for example, other famous libraries at Harvard in addition to the Widener, such as the Houghton. DGG 03:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

==category? This page and its subpages are isolated from a/ publishing b/ publications c/ education d/ educational organizations or anything else I'm not sure where it should go. Can it go in more than one? Please excuse me if I bring up overdiscussed topics. But I'm quite new here, and in trying to find my way around I notice dead ends and the like. DGG 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"added date"

As someone not in the UK, I find it helpful if dates are added for the outside links and references to events recently taken place there. The same is probably true in the other direction. I added the date to the latest to indicate what I have in mind, bt there are others. Is there a policy?DGG 00:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

ctiteria

I ask again what counts as a "famous" library? Perhaps any library known outside it's city, state, or region, or outside it's university, especially if it has a distinctive name. I'd not want to delete one that anyone has included, so that should limit this list to, perhaps, 500?, 1000?DGG 03:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

chained books

Illustration title is very misleading. All "ancient manuscripts" (by "ancient" I think is meant "medieval") are kept in secure conditions today. We can do better than chains now, but the need is the same. I have deleted that sentence. Feel free to put in an accurate one. DGG 23:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The following links seemed too specific (and too advocacy oriented) for such a broad article as "Library." Links to library charities in the UK may not be needed anywhere on Wikipedia, but certainly they would have to be moved to a daughter article, if at all. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, do you think it better that there be a page on Public support for libraries, or that they be moved to the Public Library page? Unless there's another opinion, perhaps you could go ahead and do either one. DGG 03:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I am hesitant to create a stub just for the inclusion of external links. However, unless we plan to include a similar number of links of public library charities in the other 200 something countries, I fell that these links would be ill-advised. Perhaps in an article on UK or US public libraries, respectively. I can't guarantee that others won't still find these inappropriate, but it would certainly be an improvement over this article. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Since there is a public library page, thought not yet a good one, I'm moving them there--it deals with both UK & USDGG 04:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)→→


UK library charities

UK library support campaigns

USA library support campaigns

Ashurbanipal's library at Nineveh.

I know this was definitely before classical Greece, so I am considering putting it in as the earliest known library. Do we know of any earlier ones?--Rob117 18:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Library crime

This section has a disproportionate amount of detail. I propose moving it to a new article (unless someone can suggest an appropriate one already started, and put a link here in its place)DGG 04:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


The "library crime" section is plain silly. It has vague generalizations, supported by an isolated example of someone jacking off at a library. Is there any reason to not delete it? I can't think of one. Michael Voytinsky 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD.DGG

The "library crime" section is a disjointed " opinion piece " written with a political slant against library privacy, and advocating greater state monitoring of library activities. It belongs in a blog, not an encyclopedia. I have tried deleting it, but have been thwarted in my efforts in doing so. Any assistance in either deleting the section, moving it, or creating a sensible article involving the relationship between libraries and law enforcement would be appreciated. MadScientist40 18:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

content and proportion

This is the general article about libraries.

The section talked about the specific issues of several types of activity. The major topic was child molestation in public libraries, another was the release of national-security information. Theft, harassment of staff, harassment of patrons, general disorderly conduct and other crimes large & small occur in libraries, as they do everywhere else. This material did not discuss any of the issues in general, but rather a few very specific miscellaneous allegations of unspecified abuse, of homicides that have not yet taken place, and of the apparently major crime of masturbation, for which one specific instance was cited.

There is no article on library service to children (or at least I couldn't find one). There should be one. Their security might be a suitable topic there, but it would still need to be written with some degree of general discussion. Any specific notable crimes should get articles of their own, as is WP practice. Child molestation is a general problem, and there are articles on it, but i think that the random details given might be out of place even there.

National security and library confidentiality is another good topic. There is no article I could find, and there certainly should be. A NPOV summary would be appropriate here because it is of general interest. It might be hard to do NPOV, because the traditional ethical principles of the library profession are in start contradiction to current US legislation, and the question of the correct policy is therefore highly controversial.

There seem to have been some non-sequitors: How the increase in the use of the internet has resulted in more crime in physical facilities seems a little puzzling--it would seem & I think is more likely to increase crime and risks to children located elsewhere, over the internet. An important topic, but not library-related, except in relation to the role of librarians in teaching children the safe use of the internet, & that should go under library instruction or information literacy. And school libraries, and we do have an article on that.

WP:POINT. The insertion of this material is not consistent with the generality of the article, so inserting it could be seen as POV pushing. Removing it had the support of at least 2 editors. Deleting it by a single editor, without consensus, and without an attempt to obtain consensus, would seem to be disruption.

The discussion of how to handle theses subjects should be on the specific article pages. Perhaps the editor would like to prepare a more general paragraph suitable here, and then the further discussion could be discussed on this talk page. DGG 00:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Widener library

The Harold B. Lee Library is significantly larger than the Widener library, making claims that this library is the largest academic library in the world highly doubtful. The Jade Knight 17:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have adjusted the wording here, at Widener, and at Lee so it is correct, making the distinction between single building and total collection.DGG 01:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

stats in general

But measuring total collection is 'not straightforward--the figure given for Harvard is volumes, for BYU is items. I said so without going into the difference.

  • But the information truly resides in the ARL stats, which are a morass of incompatibility, footnotes, poor & incomplete reporting, and year to year variation in the definitions used.
    • I think an excerpt is permissible--this part at the moment is university libraries only--there are a few others to add; I think it might best go in a separate article: library statistics, not here--but at least I got the table in to work with.

<html> <head> <style> </style> </head>

<body link="#0000d4" vlink="#993366">

Ranked Lists for Institutions for 2005
STANFORD reported 7.0 million in 1998/99, the last year it provided data.
Rank Institution name Volumes In Library
1 HARVARD 15,555,533
2 YALE 12,025,695
3 ILLINOIS, URBANA 10,370,777
4 TORONTO 10,342,574
5 CALIF., BERKELEY 9,985,905
6 COLUMBIA 9,277,042
7 TEXAS 8,937,002
8 MICHIGAN 8,133,917
9 CALIF., LOS ANGELES 8,064,896
10 WISCONSIN 7,911,834
11 CORNELL 7,644,371
12 CHICAGO 7,363,549
13 INDIANA 7,241,929
14 WASHINGTON 6,639,850
15 MINNESOTA 6,587,430
16 PRINCETON 6,495,597
17 ALBERTA 6,190,396
18 OHIO STATE 5,936,434
19 PENNSYLVANIA 5,760,065
20 NORTH CAROLINA 5,710,686
21 DUKE 5,560,966
22 BRITISH COLUMBIA 5,523,194
23 ARIZONA 5,340,726
24 VIRGINIA 5,053,162
25 PENNSYLVANIA STATE 5,031,196
26 NEW YORK 4,939,724
27 MICHIGAN STATE 4,830,861
28 OKLAHOMA 4,796,089
29 PITTSBURGH 4,786,175
30 NORTHWESTERN 4,603,824
31 IOWA 4,551,217
32 GEORGIA 4,179,316
33 RUTGERS 4,169,347
34 ARIZONA STATE 4,156,732
35 FLORIDA 4,137,528
36 KANSAS 4,121,573
37 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 3,921,704
38 WASHINGTON U.-ST. LOUIS 3,694,504
39 JOHNS HOPKINS 3,648,821
40 BRIGHAM YOUNG 3,621,577
41 MCGILL 3,568,651
42 ROCHESTER 3,564,683
43 COLORADO 3,554,826
44 NORTH CAROLINA STATE 3,530,949
45 BROWN 3,509,710
46 CALIF., DAVIS 3,490,356
47 SOUTH CAROLINA 3,478,256
48 TEXAS A&M 3,437,376
49 HAWAII 3,410,468
50 LOUISIANA STATE 3,406,434
51 SUNY-BUFFALO 3,390,583
52 WAYNE STATE 3,383,826
53 KENTUCKY 3,286,731
54 MARYLAND 3,259,600
55 MISSOURI 3,249,783
56 CONNECTICUT 3,247,976
57 UTAH 3,230,854
57 median 3,230,854
59 MASSACHUSETTS 3,204,025
60 NOTRE DAME 3,185,926
61 SYRACUSE 3,161,529
62 CALIF., SAN DIEGO 3,149,836
63 CINCINNATI 3,123,318
64 EMORY 3,107,525
65 WESTERN ONTARIO 3,085,319
66 MONTREAL 3,057,166
67 VANDERBILT 3,056,707
68 TEMPLE 3,016,007
69 SOUTHERN ILLINOIS 2,999,736
70 TENNESSEE 2,971,837
71 NEBRASKA 2,942,946
72 AUBURN 2,918,859
73 FLORIDA STATE 2,889,810
74 CALIF., SANTA BARBARA 2,837,752
75 MIT 2,782,406
76 LAVAL 2,731,341
77 KENT STATE 2,715,986
78 DELAWARE 2,667,242
79 NEW MEXICO 2,666,970
80 OREGON 2,643,035
81 OKLAHOMA STATE 2,624,680
82 OHIO 2,599,791
83 MIAMI 2,571,045
84 ALABAMA 2,518,290
85 YORK 2,489,193
86 PURDUE 2,475,242
87 DARTMOUTH 2,474,288
88 GEORGETOWN 2,473,208
89 CASE WESTERN RESERVE 2,471,504
90 TEXAS TECH 2,465,796
91 IOWA STATE 2,444,263
92 CALIF., IRVINE 2,439,525
93 RICE 2,437,177
94 QUEEN'S 2,437,168
95 BOSTON 2,427,253
96 GEORGIA TECH 2,410,964
97 TULANE 2,403,728
98 HOWARD 2,388,073
99 CALIF., RIVERSIDE 2,368,843
100 HOUSTON 2,357,009
101 ILLINOIS, CHICAGO 2,284,649
102 WASHINGTON STATE 2,256,229
103 VIRGINIA TECH 2,237,106
104 SUNY-STONY BROOK 2,216,589
105 GEORGE WASHINGTON 2,167,871
106 MANITOBA 2,158,148
107 BOSTON COLLEGE 2,124,242
108 SUNY-ALBANY 2,094,048
109 COLORADO STATE 2,026,508
110 LOUISVILLE 2,015,752
111 WATERLOO 2,006,887
112 MCMASTER 1,990,867
113 SASKATCHEWAN 1,976,606
114 GUELPH 1,559,078

</body> </html> DGG 01:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

British libraries legislation

Reading through an old book (first decades 20th century) in a reference library I found a sticker referring to an act of the time of Queen Victoria to the effect that anyone found defacing books or any other objects belonging to a library faced a 6 months' prison sentence, "with or without hard labour" and other punishments. When was this act repealed? Jackiespeel 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tribal Libraries?

seems like patent nonsense to me. VanTucky 06:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to be responding here with an affirmation of the category. So I'll delete it. VanTucky 02:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Online Libraries

It seems ironic that online publications are given so little creedence by the online encyclopedia that is Wikipedia. It's not just online publications either. Online religions like Matrixism that have been well documented are still without articles on Wikipedia. This is very arbitrary and hypocritical. 24.20.252.74 07:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources for Matrixism, by all means write an article to right a wrong. John Vandenberg 07:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There is an article on Matrixism that is annotated using reliable sources here [[1]]. 66.212.78.89 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this what the "librarians" are trying to "hide"? 206.188.56.24 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First lending library

The first modern public lending library was created by Benjamin Franklin. Will someone please find sources for this, expand it, then add it to the article? Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Internet and catalog databases

"The emergence of the Internet, however, has led to the adoption of electronic catalog databases ..." -- Is this really true? I think the catalog databases were first used in local networks and have later been connected to the Internet --84.172.163.216 00:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Can some one explain the diffeerence bitween library and net in giving information

Moved Funding

I moved the section on public library funding to the public library page. This page should be about libraries in general and the funding issue was only about public funding. --Tinned Elk 22:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WP huh?

Is there no Libraries Project? Nothing to encompass Library at Alexandria, Library of Congress, & the great libraries of London & Paris? I'm shocked. TREKphiler 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What is a Library

I find the 2nd paragraph offensive. i.e.,

The collection and services are used by people who choose not to — or cannot afford to — purchase an extensive collection themselves, who need material no individual can reasonably be expected to have, or who require professional assistance with their research.:

This states that libraries are for poor people, uneducated people, or misers. It is derrogatory. I use libraries because they are efficient places to research information, because I regard purchasing books for incidental lookup, especially reference works, to be wasteful of resources, and that reading, viewing, or listening to materials borrowed from a library is more ecological than buying individual copies for each person. 129.174.54.165 (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Dr. Robert A. Amsler

What would you suggest as an alternative to the current wording? →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to be general to all types of libraries in one paragraph, i.e., given the first paragraph the discussion could refer to a "public library", a "university library" or a "private library". These may belong in separate articles on special types of libraries with only a brief mention. Here's an attempt at rewriting:

In a "public library", the collection and services are used by adults and children seeking information or entertainment from an extensive collection of cataloged and indexed materials that have been professionally selected and paid for through public financing. Most library materials are available for free and are borrowed by patrons upon obtaining a free library card which can be acquired at the library upon showing proof of identity and an address at which the borrower can be contacted. Materials are loaned out for a short period of time, ranging from a few days to a few weeks, and must be returned or else monetary fines are imposed on the borrower.

In a "university library", the collection and services are paid for by tuition fees charged to students by the university (as well as money received from government sources) and the collection and services are primarily provided for students, faculty and staff of the university. The general public may have limited access to a university library, but may not be able to borrow materials.

In a "private library", the collection may be closed except through special arrangements with the library's owner. Private libraries of famous individuals may be preserved as historic landmarks.

Amsler (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

Images

The lead images for the article appear to be rather non-descript; that is, while depicting library facilities, the images themselves have little iconic or expressive value of the sum content of the article - instead, they are a rather narrow and repetitive depiction of Neoclassical/Beaux Arts styled buildings. Would anyone object to having a replacement and relocation, so that at least something more iconic and definite to the subject matter, e.g. a reading room or stacks or interior facilities, might be depicted? Morgan Riley (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a rough attempt at revising images, with reasons for changes thusly. 1st) the exteriors that were shown before were generic neoclassical buildings, and could equally have been opera houses as libraries. However, interiors of libraries are totally unique and iconic to the topic, as informative about their purpose, and thus three were selected: a traditional reading room, a small library, and the stacks of a massive modern library, showing geographic and topical diversity (not to mention distinctions in appearance and color). 2nd), there was a repetition of very similar-looking stacks, with little extra value as to distinguish one set of rows of books from another (compare with the new lead photos, which represent strong distinctions), and so were removed (usually to comments for posterity). 3rd), several images were, while perhaps, not as useful at the standard resolution, or were of poor color usage, contrast, etc., such that photographically better images were out there. 4th) and finally, several images were added to illustrate portions not previously with them. I hope it has helped! Morgan Riley (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is still rather cluttered with redundant images. Too many images are discouraged per WP:LAYIM, WP:Galleries and WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The amount of images seems OK now, though selection could be changed as and when more appropriate ones are found. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Source moved from article

The following source was placed in the main body of the article. It might be suitable for a further reading section, though as the information takes up a lot of space, and it is quite an old text, I wonder if it is appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel this is useful as further reading either here or in the main History of libraries article. Whether there are any more recent editions of thess texts I do not know but the web links are useful as not many readers will have access to the printed editions of 1906-07 and 1967.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Felix. I've read the first one - The duties & qualifications of a librarian - and it is very charming, but doesn't actually provide encyclopedic information. As the texts are in the public domain, they could be put in Wikisource. Consensus is to limit external links and further reading on Wikipedia otherwise articles would get swamped. I've just glanced at the rest of them, and the one that appears on the surface to offer the most, A brief outline of the history of libraries, is an inaccurate and speculative text. I think that while they are somewhat charming, they offer nothing to the general reader, and because they are older primary texts, they are potentially misleading as they need interpreting. The history, for example, talks about "Osymandyas" as being the first king in history to have a library of note. "Osymandyas" needs to be translated into Ramesses II, and then we realise that the information is incorrect, as the writer was ignorant of the Library of Ashurbanipal from five centuries earlier, and it is not clear what library he is talking about - possibly he is referring to the Ramesseum, which is a temple rather than a library. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It could certainly be left out now there is an assessment of the contents: it came from the John Cotton Dana article where it has more relevance.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Buildings

I indeed think a section on buildings is needed for this article. I work mostly by dredging things up from older encyclopedias, and I have been surveying their articles on libraries lately, and this struck me as a section that was needed, but in general I am just assembling materials at this point and will come back and, if necessary, do fuller justice to this topic if I think my materials are worthwhile for a modern article. And I would like to invite other contributions at this point by having a stubby sort of section, now with a limited sort of content, but really just something to get the ball rolling. This seems to be happening in the library management article as well, which is definitely much more sketchy, and needs developing, but a sketch seems a reasonable start. I am glad to see work also progressing here, and, SilkTork, I do hope you will honor my strategy for further developing this article. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please develop. And please don't get discouraged if some of your edits get adjusted in the process - it's not in any way personal, just the collegiate and collaborative nature of Wikipedia editing. Edits get built on, ignored, altered, moved or deleted, as an article progresses. There will be differences of opinion, and changes of opinion, and discussions to reach consensus. As for the buildings section - I think there would be a argument for a section on library architecture, and when I saw on my watchlist that one had apparently been started I was quite interested - however, there was no section, but simply a request for one. Such requests are better placed here on the talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I see there are a substantial number of references in the further reading on buildings. I have also started a section on "Laws," but only for the U.S., and with a very dated reference, but it seems like a start on a needed aspect. I notice there is something on this for the U.K. in the "History" section, but the topic is neglected in the further readings. I think wiki subsections would be much more effective for the "Types" section. They show up in the outline of the contents at the top, and can easily be further subdivided. I think the empty section with a request for expansion is useful for the reader when it concerns a major topic, as it alerts them as to an aspect of the topic which is important but as yet undeveloped. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The library buildings books added today came mostly from a browse subject search in Library of Congress catalog on Library buildings. That search produced other titles as well but either not in English or likely to be less useful. Belanger's item is only a pamphlet and may not be relevant to buildings.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Counterfunctional Design?

A Buildings section seems appropriate; but it seems we're not there yet. The one citation is to a text nearly 100 years old -- while we reported of 6D BIM five years ago. Four charges are levied at the architecture/building industries that beg substantiation. It seems a heavy charge to imply inept buyers often pay disingenuous developers for buildings poorly suited to their use. If building designs are steered from optimal utility by funder demands, or other reasons, that should be made clearer. LoneStarNot (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed section Radical Reference Libraries

I removed the section Radical Reference Libraries as not appropriate for this article. Radical Reference is not a library but a collective of volunteers who answer reference questions on their website and work on projects. The New York City Radical Reference Collective mentioned calls itself “street reference”. Even if they were libraries, no other library has its own section. Perhaps the WP article Digital Reference would be a more appropriate place for this. Also, the unsourced statement “racist and misogynistic Dewey Decimal System” fails neutral POV.

There is separate coverage of The People’s Library (Occupy Wall Street Library), now on its own page, though where the info lives on it and its sister libraries is still under discussion. When that dies down, perhaps a case could be made for a separate section of its own here, but not under “Radical Reference Libraries.” Cataobh (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Public lending libraries vs. Public libraries

Eldamorie, I don’t agree with your reversion of my change of the section Public Lending Library to Public Library, so I bring it up here for discussion. You say “It sounds archaic, but there is an important distinction being made between circulating and non-circulating public libraries.” But that distinction is made within the description of Public Library (“makes at least some of its books available for borrowing”). A totally non-circulating modern public library is pretty rare. Other sections also address this, as well as the intro to Types and the section Reference Libraries. Most types of libraries lend at least some of their material, though the community they lend to may be different.

I just don’t see that the term “Public Lending Library” is in current usage. If your knowledge is different, please give examples. A google search brings up mostly pre 20th century information. The WP article on public libraries is called “Public Library”. See also the international List of library associations.

I've also rewritten the intro to Types, which addresses lending. It’s incorrect to say research libraries don’t lend. Cataobh (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's my justification - Public library and Lending library have separate articles. Not all public libraries are lending libraries, even if that is the common misconception. For example: there are plenty of branches of the New York Public Library that, despite being a public library, are non-circulating. The article Lending library includes plenty of 20th and 21th century sources. It's not really a major issue either way though. The other issue is one of geographic bias - there are many many many libraries that are non-circulating but public outside of the U.S. - the BNF, the Library of Congress and the National Library of China are all non-circulating. eldamorie (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, both the Shanghai Library and Nanjing Library are public libraries but not lending libraries. eldamorie (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that there should be a separate section for Public non-lending libraries, even though lending & non-lending are combined in the sections about other types of libraries. I don’t agree. I clarified in the public library section that they usually lend at least some material, and noted that access to digital collections may supersede “lending,” again making the term seem archaic. I agree geographic bias should be avoided, and it’s certainly possible some public libraries don’t lend anything, but your examples don’t prove that. Yes, the NYPL has collections or parts of collections that don’t circulate - like most libraries. The BNF, LC & the National Library of China aren’t public libraries, but national libraries. Websites for both the Shanghai and Nanjing libraries in fact say that they lend. I corrected the Shanghai article, which was wrong. Since you say “it’s not a major issue either way” , I’m going to assume you’re ok with changing this back to “Public library.” Cataobh (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying that there should be a section on non-lending public libraries, I'm saying that we shouldn't try and make claims about all public libraries or whatever that aren't substantiated. I'd note that the BNF, etc. are still public libraries by most definitions, since they are operated with public funds and open to the public. The NYPL isn't there because of certain collections or parts of collections - it's because certain branches don't circulate, although that may change soon. You also didn't address the main point here - that we have a separate article on lending libraries that uses current sources using that terminology. The website of the National Library of Scotland also explicitly states that they are not a "lending library", so regardless of whether or not you think national libraries can or cannot be national libraries, it's pretty clear that the term "lending libraries" is very much a part of current usage. eldamorie (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess we’re not going to agree, so I’m going to leave this for now and hope to see another opinion here. But –
--If you’re saying that the statement “A public library … usually makes at least some of its books available for borrowing” is making “claims about all public libraries or whatever that aren't substantiated”, I just don’t see it. Also, note that the first example in the section is the non-lendable “chained library.”
--I don’t agree with your new assertion, that national libraries are the same as public libraries, and worldwide I’m not so sure that they’re always “operated with public funds and open to the public.” Note “national libraries” has its own section plus its own article, both of which say “Unlike a public library, they rarely allow citizens to borrow books.”
--I don’t understand why it’s different if an entire branch doesn’t circulate, as opposed to a collection or a book. Again, “ usually makes at least some of its books available for borrowing” covers it. If you mean the 4 NYPL “research libraries”, which include “research collections” , some of their physical material can be checked out if used on-site, muddling what is meant by “lending library.”
--My point was not that the term “lending libraries” isn’t in current usage in general, but, as I said, the term “public lending libraries” has been pretty much superseded by “public libraries”. The WP article on lending libraries (which needs some work) uses some current sources, but has a strong historical and British slant, other than defining it properly and generally as “a library from which books are lent out” and the “Hidden libraries” section. Cataobh (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Size of libraries

The size of libraries may mean different things: it could be the number of items, the size of the buildings where they are kept (which is quite a problem as it can be assessed in different ways, e.g. linear measurement of shelving, no. of boxes in which the contents are stored, etc.) Something else which could go in the article is "non-book materials" i.e all the other types of material held in a library apart from books and other printed materials. Perhaps this does not belong in the lead since it is librarians' jargon.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The largest library the Lenin Library, Moscow: 23,000,000 items. A small library: perhaps about a hundred books.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, size can mean different things, though I think it's clear that it means number of items here. I was just reducing the original statement which I thought too specific, which was: "Libraries range in size from a few shelves of books in a small organization's library to collections of several million items in the larger national and academic libraries." But I'm fine with taking this sentence out altogether from the lead. Cataobh (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The "non-book materials": I was thinking, do not use that term in the lead because most of those who read this article will not be librarians. However some version of that sentence about size should be in the lead I think; perhaps other editors will comment too.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Certainly I'm against jargon too. I don't see the term "non-book materials" in the article at all, nor do I think it needs to be there. I do think the lead should be clear in concept that libraries can include books and "non-books". I had changed the wording of the lead to be more inclusive, referring to "resources" and "physical or digital access to material", for example. There are numerous examples of the most common kinds of material in the lead, not only books. Cataobh (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Series of books called "Library of---" or "--- Library"

Would this be best dealt with as a separate article? John Harvard Library is a rare example of the same name being used for an institution and for a series of books. There is a long history of these series e.g. Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology (1841).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a separate article could be appropriate. But is it necessary? I say individual series/collections of books published under the same imprint with the word Library in the title can each have their own articles (ie Library of America). I don't think the subject requires an article of its own, however if you have the urge...There are plenty of examples. --Olegkagan (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Vocabulary

Is this: "astronomic/astrological texts" correct US English? ("Astronomic" is uncommon in British English so "astronomical/astrological texts" would be expected.)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Islam heading

I can't understand the reasoning for a separate heading for Islam at the bottom of the page. I've searched the archived talks and it isn't mentioned anywhere. Some of the material under the heading seems to be redundant as the matter has been somewhat discussed under the Middle Ages section of the History heading. The matter under the Islam heading is about history. My idea is to remove this heading and move the material under the Middle Ages section of the History heading. Your thoughts? Nbl06 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To editor Nbl06: I agree this heading struck me as out of place as well. Any other editors want to weigh in before the material here is incorporated into the history section? Chimp1cards (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It's still there, so I suggest moving it to the history section, although to me it fits in better with History of books which has a section on Middle Ages and another on Book Culture that are very European-centric. The Islam section here could become a section on the history of the book in Islamic culture. LaMona (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Classical Period

Classical Period I added more detailed information about the earliest Roman libraries with corresponding citations. I removed one sentence that was made redundant by my section.--Petercannon usf (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Middle Ages

Major textual additions were made to the section in order to accentuate the importance of the Byzantine Empire during this period and also to add a better organizational structure to the development of libraries during this period.--Petercannon usf (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Timeline Section Changes

Generally speaking, division of history into segments such as "Classical" and "Middle Ages" would be sufficient. However, when discussing the development of libraries, the major division between the periods is the move of the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople. Most library historians consider this the logical division between periods since the libraries in Rome decline during this period and the libraries in Byzantium develop. This is the reason why I have changed the subdivision timelines for the "Classical" and "Middle Ages" periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petercannon usf (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oldest Modern Library

Nalanda Library is not mentioned in this article. - http://www.nalandauniv.edu.in/library.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.16.69.5 (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Library architecture

This rich and timely topic may warrant its own article. There is a separate article for Church architecture, for example. Thoughts? -- M2545 (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Library. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Laws" section

The "Laws" section only mentions US law, so I tagged it. I like doors (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I edited the header until other areas are included. Robvanvee 05:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I like doors (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference vs. Research Libraries

The British Library, the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and the New York Public Library Main Branch are research libraries, not reference libraries according to these sources: www.bl.uk/aboutus/governance/blact/#one, www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/whats-on/visit/old-bodleian/groups and www.nypl.org/help/about-nypl Don't mean to step on anyone's toes but I made these changes because I've been a librarian for 25 years and familiar with these libraries. Lakelandcrib 11/21/15Lakelandcrib (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What are the definitions of wayside and track-side at the railway area?

English: What are the definitions of wayside and track-side at the railway area?

Are there any international standard to define the scope of these two terms???(EN standard or IEC standard...etc.)

Chinese: 在鐵路軌道站場，請問道旁及軌旁的定義為何?? 是否有任何規範去定義這兩個名詞的範圍(EN standard or IEC standard...等)

Sam20010718 (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)User talk:Sam20010718

You have already asked this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk here, and it's been answered. There's no need to ask it again, and this not the correct place for questions like that. —Bruce1eetalk 10:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

new darkweby section?

SO like the Imperial Library of Trantor that pirates loads of books, should that sort of thing be mentioned here?

Also TPB has books and similar material. Maybe there should be mention of the transition from libraries to the internet?

because people read librariesque materials online all the time so like, its the same but.

SO should someone add something about this modern shift?

sorry my writing style is not coo but if someone can make the article better thats good ty Krehel (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

No mention of the 15,000 volumes collected by Fernando Columbus

No mention of the 15,000 volumes collected by Fernando Columbus (early 16th century) - surviving volumes now form Biblioteca Colombina. It was widely known and consulted in his day and since. - Rod57 (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this sounds really interesting and you should add it to the page ValentinesDay88 (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Untrained or unwilling staff

The webpage says "An antiquated or clumsy search system, or staff unwilling or untrained to engage their patrons, will limit a library's usefulness." Even though I agree with the statement, it seems unfair to include that in the webpage. I've never met a librarian or library team member that was unwilling to help a student or community member. Does this need to be on this page? ValentinesDay88 (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it. This is recently uploaded and added to this article by a student. theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Library/Archive_1&oldid=1182828917"