Talk:List of national and state libraries

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Education Mid‑importance

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

Libraries Mid‑importance

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

UK

The UK has 6 legal deposit libraries, not just the British Library. Seeing as legal deposit library links to national library, they ought to be included in this list.

British Library
the Bodleian Library, Oxford
the University Library, Cambridge
the National Library of Scotland
the Library of Trinity College, Dublin
the National Library of Wales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.140.132 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fields

Nice list, but I would like to see foundation dates for each library listed as well. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been moved to the Template:Infobox Library that can be displayed on libraries' individual pages. Clpda (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone enlighten on just what "Tenable time" and "Year stops" are supposed to mean in this instance? The year of the library's founding, and its closure?--Huaiwei 01:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stumped too... GregorB 19:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marked with {{Incomplete table}}. Someone needs to be bold; the columns are nearly empty anyway, so one could decide anew what they stand for here. GregorB (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Alexandria

The article reads, Some of the first libraries were national libraries; for example, the Library of Alexandria was the national library of Ptolemaic Egypt. This is incorrect as it is anachronistic. Egypt, at any time before the mid-twentieth century, wasn't a nation and therefore couldn't have a national library. The concept of "nation" implied in the expression "national library" emerged no earlier than the late-eighteenth century - proof of it is that de facto national libraries such as the British and US Congress libraries are not termed "national libraries". 189.33.13.5 06:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from IFLA newsletter

Found this in the IFLA newsletter June 2007 [1] Help needed: Directory of National Libraries on Wikipedia The Standing Committee has discussed the creation of a Directory of national libraries worldwide, taking into account existing lists such as that maintained by the European Library Service for the national libraries of Europe members of CENL (Conference of European National Librarians). We have now learned that a worldwide list exists on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_libraries We think this is an excellent basis for developing a list: since it is open each country may add its national library details and maintain them, thus avoiding setting up another infrastructure. We encourage you therefore to check your country’s national library (and other) details on this site and update – or create - entries as required. Please let us know your comments on the entries and help maintain an up-to-date list. As an example, the reference staff of the Swiss National Library ensure that the Swiss entry is accurate and up-to-date as part of their general information service mission. Thank you for your input! Houshuang (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice :-) When Itranslated this site to Hebrew (he:רשימת ספריות לאומיות) I found in English some mistakes, but I didn't fix them all (some out of lack of real information), so we really could use an expert's eye. DGtal (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Standing Committee of IFLA’s National Libraries Section chooses Wikipedia as its directory of national libraries

After the initial suggestion above and a discussion at the 2007 IFLA Annual Conference in Durban (South Africa), the Standing Committee mandated an external consultant to study the various options available to establish a comprehensive directory of national libraries. Out of eight different possible options, the analysis retained two, among which was Wikipedia, which were submitted to the vote of the Standing Committee. Wikipedia was chosen with two thirds of the expressed votes. The Standing Committee warmly thanks the contributors to this list as having provided an invaluable basis for its directory and will be active in promoting and completing it. I (the external consultant and current holder of this account) suggest the following changes and developments to both the Wikipedia community and the IFLA-NLS Standing Committee:

About this page: standardize library names according to Wikipedia's Naming conventions with the English name (or translation where needed) first, followed by the original name (language and script), between brackets (contrary to what librarians would do in a Library catalogue, but Wikipedia conventions are clear enough) UNLESS the original name is better known and commonly used in English ~~original name first (language and script) followed by the English translation where needed, between brackets - or the other way round (please comment on preference)~~; remove the largely unused columns 'tenable time', 'quantity/year stops' and 'quantity/book'; remove the (very few) duplicates (e.g. Wales) and institutions which are not a national library (e.g. US National Archives and Records Administration, which should be transferred to a similar list of national archives); replace the hyphen by an equal sign (a standard in cataloguing) between linguistic equivalent names of a library in multilingual countries.
In most cases, the justification for inclusion into this list is obvious. When it is not, the existence of a legal mandate stating that the library has a role at a national level should determine whether inclusion is justified.
About this page's 'daughters', i.e. the individual pages of each national library: the Standing Committee would like some basic information to be provided in a standardized format, which I called 'the IFLA-NLS box', on the top of the page if more information is provided. I suggested in my report to include the geographical/postal address, electronic addresses (website, e-mail for services, information etc.), a brief description of core functions and responsibilities (e.g. items collected and criteria for collection, existence or not of a legal deposit or copyright, reference (or link) to the legal mandate, requirements for accessing the material, with the option of completing this by foundation date, collection size, staff number, annual budget etc.), as well as name, exact title and year of appointment of the CEO (with photograph, direct phone number and e-mail address being left optional).
National libraries will be encouraged to manage and update their individual pages themselves, with the National Libraries Section keeping an eye on their consistency.

When the English version has reached a satisfactory state of maturity (which it almost already does), there is the objective of reproducing and adapt it in the other official languages of IFLA: Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Russian and Spanish, with the help of IFLA Resource Centres and/or national libraries using these languages.

Comments and suggestions are welcome until June 22nd 2008, after which I’ll start working according to the suggested, and maybe amended, line of action.

IFLA-nls-en (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC) - Amendment about names: IFLA-nls-en (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. While most of your suggestions are good, and we appreciate any help in improving Wikipedia, please ensure any style changes you want to make meet consensus on Wikipedia. Also make sure you understand completely that there is no ownership of articles, so there is a high probability that this article (and any others you want to help with) won't ever completely satisfy you or IFLA. We are building an encyclopedia according to the consensus decisions of the community of Wikipedia editors, which does not include the needs of outside organizations like IFLA. If you want a collaboratively-edited directory that you can be sure will meet IFLA's content requirements, I would recommend starting an IFLA wiki for this purpose, perhaps using MediaWiki, which is free. Since Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL, you would be free to copy whatever Wikipedia content you wanted to your own wiki as long as you follow the terms of the GFDL (details here).

As for your particular suggestions. Most of them are good, but there are a couple that would not work on Wikipedia. Firstly, we do not publish email addresses or phone numbers in articles. This is partially for privacy and anti-spam reasons (email addresses in Wikipedia are very public, especially since Wikipedia is scraped by dozens, perhaps hundreds of other websites), but also because email addresses and phone numbers aren't notable information by Wikipedia standards (notable for a directory, yes, but that is not Wikipedia's purpose).

The other suggestion of yours that may be an issue is if you are considering creating an infobox with "IFLA-NLS" in its name. Not only is "IFLA-NLS" indecipherable to those who are not familiar with the organization, it is inappropriate in an infobox name for neutrality reasons. I would suggest {{Infobox National library}} would be a better infobox title. See here for information about making infoboxes. You may even want to use the existing {{Infobox Library}}.

Again, thanks for your interest in Wikipedia, and I hope my comments here are helpful. Also, thank you for your candor, respect for Wikipedia policies, and for waiting for comments before you begin editing. I encourage other editors to weigh in on this discussion, since I am by no means an expert on this somewhat unusual subject. -kotra (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your useful advice. About MediaWiki, I'd have to check first that we don't lack the technical competence to run it! For e-mail addresses and phone numbers, no problem we can omit them in Wikipedia and leave to the libraries' websites the choice of providing this information. I agree with you about the title of the infobox and am grateful for the idea of a template. Clpda (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC) (formerly IFLA-nls-en)[reply]

My proposal for a revision of the existing template is now posted on Template_talk:Infobox_Library. Clpda (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries needing native language names

Additions and subtractions to this list welcome. -kotra (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Library of Afghanistan ([names in the official languages and scripts of Afghanistan needed])
National Library of Algeria (Bibliothèque nationale d'Algérie = [name in Arabic needed])

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are meaning: what do you want to remove? Clpda (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not explaining. Nothing needs to be removed, I just moved the editorial comments you added to the article to here on the talk page, and converted it into a list. Comments for future editors (or yourself) should usually go on the talk page, not in the article itself. One reason for this is that articles should not look too much like a work-in-progress to readers, even though all articles are, to varying degrees. If you want to put comments in the article page for convenience or another reason, they should be invisible comments; see here for more info. But thanks for your help on this article, the library name standardization is helpful! -kotra (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the explanation. I see your point and I agree, although, as a reader, I wouldn't mind a visible statement that an entry needs to be completed in order to match the expected standard of the whole page. I'll do a to-do-list tomorrow on this discussion page to replace my earlier comments, after reading the relevant help pages (I think there is a template for to-do-lists that I sould use). Clpda (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. A to-do list would be good. -kotra (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To-do-list created (history entry of 09:51 - oops, forgot to mention it in the edit summary) Clpda (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. -kotra (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tenable time" and "Year stops"?

In the table, there is a "Tenable time" column and, below "Quantity", a "Year stops" column. What do these mean? Is "Tenable time" the foundation date, and "Year stops" the year of the most recent item in their collection? This is unclear. -kotra (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This relevant question has already been asked months ago, to no avail (section Fields above). I've no idea either what the intention was. These fields have been used only once, apparently as 'foundation year' and 'year of the statistics [provided in the next column]'. This is why I suggested to remove these columns and move the corresponding information to the infobox I'll develop soon. Clpda (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. My bad for not reading the section above. I'll go ahead and remove the columns. -kotra (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, since I'm not sure I could do this properly! I can however contribute if you give me a few hints about how to do it - this alignment of vertical bars is a bit daunting and looks even worse than DOS in the 80's. Over 20 years of Excel have pushed up my expectations about table management... Clpda (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they aren't very intuitive. I tried yesterday but couldn't get it to look right before I had to leave. Tried again today with the "A" table and figured it out. Here's what I did: removed the second row (which just had "Year stops" and "Book"), removed all the colspans and rowspans in the header except for "Country" which still spans two columns, and removed all instances of the two deleted columns.

Do you think "Quantity of books" will ever get much use? If not, then maybe it should be removed as well. -kotra (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'll see if I can manage other letters. About "Quantity of books", I plan to include a field for collections size (documents rather than books) in the infobox. I would remove this column as well. 85.3.135.186 (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC) - oops, timeout has hit... Clpda (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English vs. original name

According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions, library names should be in English in their main entry and in their individual pages that are linked from this page. I started to apply this general policy using in priority the English name used by the library itself or, if not available, a direct translation (with one case pending - Brunei - because of the special/unclear status of the NL). I met 2 cases (done A-F only yet) where there would have been a double redirect, i.e. the page was under the original name and there was a redirect from the English name. In the first case (Austrian National Library), I just put a note on the discussion page and the swap was performed by someone else within 24h. In the second case, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, I felt it could be more controversial and put the proposal for change on Wikipedia:Move_requests. Comments, by the way given by non-French people only (so, no chauvinism involved), were against that move. They basically all said that the English name was inappropriate or even ridiculous. As a French speaker myself, I cannot appreciate the 'penetration' of the BnF's own name. On the other hand, its website does not, as far as I could see, display a name in English. In addition, I must admit that labelling the British Library on the French Wikipedia as 'Bibliothèque britannique' would sound quite daft, so I quite understand the points raised. I'm now stuck with my homogeneization idea because if France gets its library name in its original language, why not the others? Clpda (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the BNF is the BNF, but I can think of examples where the English is more common (Laurentian Library) and examples where both are common (Vatican Library or Bibliotheca Apostolica). I think this might have to be done library by library... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really should be done library by library. One point of having a category is that it groups things without needing homogenization. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no across-the-board standardisation in the "real world", so there is no warrant for imposing one here in "Wikiland". (In short, I concur with Adam and PMA.) Srnec (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first instinct is to go by the English name first for all, just because it appeals to my sense of tidiness to standardize all the names, but it does make more sense to use whatever is more common in English, on a case-by-case basis. This is supported by Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words. But since it's probably impractical to investigate every single non-English library to determine the most common name in English, I would go with the English version by default for most of them unless one has doubts or other editors object to it. -kotra (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I cancelled my move request and shall revert the BnF entry to its original name. The proposal section above and the to-do-list will be updated accordingly. Clpda (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections for currently unused letters W and Y

These currently unused sections should exist, I think. While there may not be anything in them at the moment, there may be in the future. According to List of countries, there are countries starting with W and Y. X should probably stay removed, though, since there is no country or territory starting with X. -kotra (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree. I'll open the sections and look for national libraries in these countries. If I fail, there are other blank lines in the table, so this would remain 'consistent'. Clpda (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 'W' has no independent country: had they a NL, Wallis & Futuna should be listed under France, Western Sahara - for the time being, it may change in the future - under Morocco. For Yemen, I couldn't find anything, except that your link #2 on the NL of Albania (Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science) did not work by me (I was trying to see whether said encyclopedia had an entry for Yemen). Clpda (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Western Sahara is probably the only potentially independent country, and it isn't at the moment. Well, there is also West Bank, but I think that is considered part of the Palestinian Territories? I'm not sure, the jurisdiction there seems very complicated. In any case, what you've done seems good to me.

About the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, here's a page on it: [2]. You may already have seen that though, and I don't see Yemen there anyway. However, I Googled for "National Library" and "Yemen" and found these: [3][4][5]. Judging by these, it seems there is a National Library in Aden, Yemen. The last link has a book that I think is all about that National Library in Arabic, but with an abstract in English. Anyway, it's somewhere to start from maybe. -kotra (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, West Bank would be part of the Palestinian Territories and both would still be to be listed as 'province' of Israel. I'll search whether there is a NL or equivalent there.

About the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, I knew its existence, but not the link, thank you.

About Yemen, excellent links, the piece of legislation proves that there is a NL in Aden, so I added it to the list. Clpda (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the Palestinian Territories (which includes 42% of the West Bank) is a province of Israel (though the other 58% of the West Bank certainly is). At least, that's the impression I get from Palestinian territories#Political status, though I imagine that particular article gets a lot of controversy. But in either case, you're right, West Bank itself is not a country. I did a search for a Palestinian National Library anyway, and I only found two webpages about it: One said a Palestinian National Library was planned to be built in Gaza by 2000, and the other, in 2001, said there wasn't one. So, I don't know. -01:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The "West bank" is one of the nicknames of a geopolitical area (called by others "Judea and Samaria"). It is not a political entity. The only relevent entity is the "Palestinian Authority" (considered an autonomous entity on an area not claimed by any nation, strange as it may sound). To the best of my knowledge there is no designates Palestinian national library, and any plans for the Gaza Strip are currently irrelevant as the "official" authority does not control "Hamastan". DGtal (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, thanks for explaining. -kotra (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Library of Education

If I am correct there is a NL in the US called the National Library of Education (see site), which is famous for ERIC (Education Resources Information Center). The wikipedia article on ERIC ignores this and claims it is run by the Institute of Education Sciences. Are we missing an important US national library? DGtal (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important may be too strong a word but I think it is worth adding it. Its site claims to be a repository, a keyword for the patrimonial function that characterizes - among other roles - a national library. As for IES vs. NLE, the site shows that NLE is part of IES, so the WP article on ERIC just referred to the encompassing body. Clpda (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IFLA's feedback and status on 2008-09-08

The work done on this list has been welcomed by IFLA (both from the National Libraries Section and Headquarters). In my view, after the research I've done, the list can be considered complete with the following (non-essential) exceptions:

Many names in original language(s) and script(s), as complements to the main entries in English, are still missing. In many cases, especially in the Arabic script, original names on the relevant websites are calligraphied in a cartouche (i.e. with intertwined letters) loaded as an image, preventing a copy-and-paste and, with my minimal knowledge of the script, a transcription in ordinary characters. I've sent various messages (within WP and per e-mail) to get help. This will progressively improve, with the help of the libraries concerned too. For the English version of Wikipedia, this shortcoming can be considered as minor.
National specialized libraries, e.g. 'National Library of Agriculture' have not been systematically researched, especially when there was an 'ordinary' national library. This will also progressively improve with time and this shortcoming can be considered as minor too.
There is a possibility that dependant territories have a library fulfilling the role of a national library but having not declared it or having no visibility at all on the Internet. This will be certainly corrected in the future, probably in a serendipitious way.

IFLA will consider this list as a reference and promote it as such. Its own (outdated and less complete) list may remain for libraries having neither an individual page nor a website.

About 95% of the national libraries listed here have been (or are going to be soon - there are two rounds planned) personally informed of the existence of the list by IFLA and requested to check it, provide data where needed, and create or complete their individual page, including the Infobox Library. Among other advice, their attention has been / will be specifically drawn to WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The results will show in a few weeks or months. The editors' scrutiny, welcome all the time of course, is definitely requested for the months to come!

Given this evolution, I think this article is a reasonable candidate for moving from grade B to grade GA within the WikiProject Education. Clpda (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to the List of countries

This list is currently organised according to the late List of countries which has recently disappeared, changed into a disambiguation page leading to all sorts of countries lists. The reference at least should be changed and, preferably in my view, the order and layout of entries as well. The main reference now seems to be the List of sovereign states, which includes dependent territories as sub-items. I'm ready to rearrange this list according to the order of the List of sovereign states if most of the other editors contributing to it agree with this change. Clpda (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having had no reaction for more than one month, I decided to proceed. Here is a list of the changes:

Entries have been reordered according to the list of sovereign states; this mostly meant moving dependant territories states under their sovereign state's entry and non-sovereign states at the end.
Sovereign states that were previously missing have been added to the list and the existence of a national library researched again; success in one case, failure in the rest, leaving about half a dozen empty entries.
See-references have been added in the main list for constituent countries, dependant territories and non-sovereign states.
Rules for inclusion have been made more specific.

Clpda (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I didn't visit this page when the above proposal was put forward. I must admit that I fail to see the logic of this change. The article is titled 'List of national libraries' not 'List of national libraries by sovereign state'. What was the point in changing the listing? We now read that "The list below is organized alphabetically by country, according to the list of sovereign states..." But both Wales and Scotland are countries; they have national libraries (and other national institutions, including their own governments, albeit non-sovereign). They should be listed as such rather than sub-divisions in a UK section. Just because a country is not a sovereign state does not mean it is not a country, which is why, of course, Wales and Scotland have their own national libraries. This article exists solely to list those national libraries, not to make unsound and unacceptable political judgements about what is or is not a country. I propose that the list should simply be based on existing national libraries, ordered alphabetically: the national libraries of Wales and Scotland should be on that list in their own right, not hidden away under the UK. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list contains a number of glaring anomalies. Why are the central libraries of Hong Kong and Macau listed here? Although under (the PR of) China, HK and Macau appear in the countries list when clearly they have no national status as such, unlike Wales and Scotland. More pertinent in the context of the original purpose of this list is the fact that "Hong Kong Central Library is the main library in Hong Kong, China" (according to that article), i.e. it is not a national library either in name or status and quite rightly has not been categoried as such either. This would be resolved by having a straightforward alphabetical list of recognised national libraries organised by national entity rather than sovereign state. One more reason why this list badly needs amending. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National library in Denmark

In 1927 a number of research libraries in Denmark organized a voluntary division of labour on acquisition of foreign books. This arrangement, termed subject-division, means that many Danish research libraries undertook special obligations as main subject libraries. They made their collections of foreign literature available to users in the whole country and played a role as documentation and information centres (reference: Jørgen Svane-Mikkelsen: The library system in Denmark , Copenhagen 1997). Some of these libraries carried / or still carries the title "national" in their names (National Library of Education, National Library of Agriculture, National Library for Science and Medicine); even they were de facto not national libraries. In the it-age, this system is fading out.

The National Library in Denmark is Det Kongelige Bibliotek, Royal Danish Library in cooperation and division of labour with the State and University Library. These two libraries cooperate about legal deposit and national library obligations. The obligation as national library is stated in the Annual State Budget and (for example) in the official library statistics, published by Danish National Library Authority, reference: [6] Billelar (talk) 15 January 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Given the additional information you provided, I think that the removal from the list of the so-called "national" libraries in Denmark is justified. I won't revert it again, please go ahead. Clpda (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian State libraries

User:Muzi added state libraries to the Australian entry. I question their national library status. Do they collect all material from their state on a systematic basis and with a legal mandate to do so? do they receive copyright copies on similar grounds? If not, I think that these secondary entries should be removed, since this list is not intended to libraries not matching the definition of a national library. Clpda (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State Library of South Australia was already there ...so add add other state library.... i donno about they status ...so i removed it..accept for State Library of South Australia. (Muzi (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, you're right, SLSA was there long before I got interested in this list and I must admit that I didn't check the appropriateness of its presence. I'll check now whether it should be removed as well. Clpda (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from an Australian library official: "None of the state libraries have national library status. The State Library of South Australia has no special status. I think they should all be removed from the directory of national libraries." I acted accordingly. Clpda (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia

Is Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library really a national deposit library? If not, it should be removed from the list. --Rakerman (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the english version of the official site "Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library is one of three national libraries of the Russian Federation" and "On 28 October 2008, the President of Russia Dmitri Medvedev signed the law On introducing changes to clause 18 of the Federal Law “On library science”, that gave the Presidential library the status of the national library." (About the library). Assuming these claimed facts are true, we should consider it a new NL. I haven't seen yet and claim that this is a deposit library, but this is not a absolute requiremnt in defining a library as a NL, especialy in this case, where we deal with a purely Digital library. DGtal (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Library of Liberia

While developing wikiverse came across [7]. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of national and state libraries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archives wiki

Would anyone be willing to tidy up [8] - in exchange for the stubs I have created for some of the entries not yet developed on Wikipedia. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of national and state libraries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bibliotecanacional.aw/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328091608/http://www.bn.br/portal/ to http://www.bn.br/portal/
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6BPJcaGdn?url=http://www.uneca.org/Library/Library_associations.htm to http://www.uneca.org/Library/Library_associations.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202070012/http://www.bnf.fr/pages/zNavigat/frame/version_anglaise.htm?ancre=english.htm to http://www.bnf.fr/pages/zNavigat/frame/version_anglaise.htm?ancre=english.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027082313/http://geocities.com/MotorCity/Lane/4444/ to http://www.d-nb.de/eng/index.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111202144501/http://www.bibliotecanacional.aw/ to http://www.bibliotecanacional.aw/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uneca.org/Library/Library_associations.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adach.ae/en/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Republika Srpska

Should this not be moved to 'S'? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on List of national and state libraries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on List of national and state libraries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of national and state libraries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]