User talk:Felix Folio Secundus/Libraries

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Eric Bertrand Ceadel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christ's College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antike Bibliotheken

Hello again, I came back to the German WP today and have been trying to understand what is said about the Imperial Library of Constantinople. " Man hat vermutet, dass zu dieser Zeit in Konstantinopel die Papyrusrollen auf Pergamentkodizes umgeschrieben wurden, wie es für die theologische Bibliothek von Caesarea Maritima (in Judäa) bezeugt ist." Perhaps you could explain what this really says for me so I can get the English article right. English WP has a long section on the Caesarea library under [[Pamphilus of Caesarea] but it does not help. Thank you for working on the John Rylands Library article (n.b. "John Rylands" is the correct name; "Ryland" is used as a surname in English but his family were called "Rylands", the library perpetuates his name as his children all died in his lifetime. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus 13:27, 19. Feb. 2010 (CET)

Hello, today I am sitting on the Computer of my father and I am looking out of the window. A lot of snow you can see. Ok, in the moment I take time to make some edits on the wikipedia again. My work on the Duden is not complete but I got a little bit time, this decreased the stress. So I will see: "Man hat vermutet, dass zu dieser Zeit in Konstantinopel die Papyrusrollen auf Pergamentkodizes umgeschrieben wurden, wie es für die theologische Bibliothek von Caesarea Maritima (in Judäa) bezeugt ist." means short translated into english: "(Some) People supposed, that in this time, the named papyrus rolls werde new written in pergament codices." Here is important to know that in this time Or context you must say a Codex means book. Yes realy a book, a bonded book with pages. Ok, now I will translated the entire sentence: "Man hat vermutet, dass zu dieser Zeit in Konstantinopel die Papyrusrollen auf Pergamentkodizes umgeschrieben wurden, wie es für die theologische Bibliothek von Caesarea Maritima (in Judäa) bezeugt ist." = "People supposed, that in this time in Constantinopel, the named papyrus rolls werde new written in pergament codices, like it was made with theological books of the library of Caesarea Maritima (in Judea). This converting of texts in the library of Caesarea Maritima (in Judea) is attested [or testified you can say]" with friendly greetings --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Imperial Library of Constantinople

Thank you for the update on your work, I really appreciate it :).

I think that the article is really starting to look better, especially with your edits to it. I was looking through your edits and all of them have really improved the readability and flow of the article. It could use a few more references, but sometimes those are hard to come by; and you tagged the article already so that has a better chance of getting fixed.

Thank you for your hard work and for the update,

Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 03:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the translation: I have added a note about it in the discussion of Pamphilus of Caesarea. I would need to find which writer provided the attestation before it goes into the articles which might be difficult. It is a long way from writing about the history of Cornwall which is where I began editing.--Felix Folio Secundus 11:30, 20. Feb. 2010 (CET)

Imperial Library of Constantinople; Pamphilus of Caesarea\Transfer of texts on papyrus to parchment // "Man hat vermutet, dass zu dieser Zeit in Konstantinopel die Papyrusrollen auf Pergamentkodizes umgeschrieben wurden, wie es für die theologische Bibliothek von Caesarea Maritima (in Judäa) bezeugt ist." is included in the German WP: de:Antike Bibliotheken. "It has been supposed, that at this time in Constantinople, papyrus scrolls were copied into parchment codices, as it had been done with the theological scrolls of the library of Caesarea Maritima (in Judea). This converting of texts in the library of Caesarea Maritima (in Judea) has been attested". If anyone knows the evidence for this it might be included in the two articles.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moved here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your modifications to CCSB article

Hi, I've seen your modifications to the CCSB article on 2010-11-07T16:24. As I am not native speaker in English I cannot say that your correction is wrong. Independently of the linguistic correctness there is an issue of the original title of the site. The name/title set by my colleque (who is not native speaker of English either) in 1993 was "The Collection of Computer Science Bibliographies". There is the question which name should be preserved, the real/orignal, or the linguisticly correct...

You ask also for citation for the statement about "the oldest". There is no citation and never will be. The sentence is specified in this way to not wake the suspition, that there is strong evidence, that it is "the oldest". My proof for the statement is that the site exists since 1993 (short after the Internet started in Germany), and there is no other free bibliographic collection (esp. in the field of computer science) that is older and I know of.

What would you suggest to make the article in question better? // TIA // Ortylp (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moved here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some independent input?

Hi, I've noticed that you've been done a lot of great work for WikiProject Libraries recently. I wondered if I could get you to give me some feedback on a pair of library related articles I've recently cleaned up. They've been the subject of apparent COI edits and some apparent trolling for most of their existence so there never really has been anything to revert back to. The pages are Koha (software) and LibLime. Any kind of feedback would be more than welcome. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your copy edits. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am sorry I cannot contribute towards making more serious improvements to those two articles.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moved here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Jacques

You rated this article as "Start class". I wrote it so I might be just a little biased, but "Start class" is for "an article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." The article is completely verified, using twelve reliable sources, so I fail to see how "lacks adequate reliable sources" is true. Is the quality of prose really "distinctly unencyclopedic"? Is the MOS compliance "non-existent"? This is what "Start class" means! I do not think your rating of the article follows the guidelines. Fences&Windows 00:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your comments about the rating: on a second look it has all the characteristics of a B class article so I have improved the rating.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moved here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OAI-PMH and OAI-ORE

Thanks for your improvements to OAI-PMH! I'm not really familiar with the library rankings, but Low seems odd. OAI-PMH and OAI-ORE are important in digital librarianship, but probably not well-known to the everyday (non-digital) librarian. I'd suggest mid-importance, based on comparing Category:Low-importance_Libraries_articles and Category:Mid-importance_Libraries_articles, but since I don't generally rate these, I'll wait to see what you think. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message: I have increased the rating. WP Libraries Assessment is not a very active department but I have been doing quite a few. My experience would be better with the traditional side so I am not surprised the work on some of the electronic ones is not good.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jodi.a.schneider"--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Felix, and glad you're taking up rating! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fox

[Message on Bencherlite\Talk]

Thanks for your message. I can email you a copy of his entry in Who's Who if you like. Given the status of the librarians, I don't see why a list of them shouldn't be spun out of the CUL article to match the Featured List Bodley's Librarian. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 14:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer of Who's Who details. I decided to added the Peter Fox article and see what happens next as I believe the information to be valid even though Latin WP is not allowed as a reliable source here. In depth coverage of the long series of CUL librarians would be a worthwhile project for somebody but I won't be doing it. I have just done two: F. W. Ratcliffe, and now Peter Fox. The Bodleian now has a very good set of articles. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Peter Fox (librarian). Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now has adequate refs. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moved here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F. W. Ratcliffe "I edited your sandbox"

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I edited your sandbox User:Felix Folio Secundus/Sandbox. I added colons to the Category tags so that you could still see them, but so that your sandbox will not appear in those categories. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moved here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter Cathedral Library

Hi Felix. On 16 Oct last year you made this edit to Exeter Cathedral. Earlier today an IP changed one of the dates from 1556 to 1566. Sadly none of this is clearly cited, and a quick search through Google and my books hasn't helped. Can you confirm what's correct? Ta! —SMALL JIM 19:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Everything I added at that time came from the account by L. J. Lloyd (which is cited but not down to page level). The date Lloyd gives for this donation is "1556" but what he says on p. 12 & 12fn. shows it to be wrong as Parker was not then archbishop. The Footnote cites C. Sayle's Annals of Cambridge University Library, p. 49 and says the gift was intended to influence Parker to authorise the appointment of Gregory Dodds as Dean.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Archive.org has a copy of Sayle[1] and that does confirm 1566 as the date of the gift in a footnote on p. 49. So IP 91.125.65.21 has been lucky that his/her single unreferenced edit didn't get reverted as an "unverified change to a date". The bit about influencing Parker to authorise Dodds as Dean doesn't tie up though, because Fasti ecclesiae Anglicanae,[2] (cited in Dean of Exeter) states that Dodds was Dean from 1560–1570. —SMALL JIM 21:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "1556" in Lloyd's text is an error or misprint; if Sayle says 1566 it makes the tradition of a connection between the gift and the installation of Dodds improbable. Could Sayle be added as a citation for the "1566"?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - done that. Several other sources I've since seen (e.g. [3]) state that it was "Dodde" himself who gave it away. Thanks for your help. —SMALL JIM 10:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moved here.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed National Collection

Hi Felix. What do you know about the Distributed National Collection, and the Research Support Libraries Programme? At the moment we have Research Support Libraries Programme redirecting to a section in Ronald Milne, and no redirection for Distributed National Collection, but a mention in the Ronald Milne article. A search for Distributed National Collection online gives global results which go beyond Ronald Milne. My brief research so far indicates that the Research Support Libraries Programme was a means of delivering a UK Distributed National Collection. I am wondering how important it is, and if it deserves some form of mention in the Library article. If it does, perhaps merging information from Ronald_Milne#Research_libraries which seems to sit awkwardly in a biographical article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Distributed National Collection is not something I was aware of apart from what it says in the Ronald Milne article. Research Support Libraries Programme was during those years a source of funding for libraries whose collections were recognised as containing material which was either uncatalogued or catalogued only in catalogues available in that library. Part of my work in those years was contributing to the RSLP funded projects in an academic library. (Immediately before there had been a period when retrospective conversion projects were funded by the Higher Education Funding Council England and I remember working on some of that too.) This does not help very much since reliable sources are needed. Many of the larger academic libraries and some special libraries have participated in RSLP so perhaps their annual reports for those years would provide some facts. Preferably RSLP would stand separately from Ronald Milne. Perhaps it is too specific to the UK to be included in the Library article. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What I was wondering is if Distributed National Collection is a global form of Research Support Libraries Programme, in that the aim was (is?) to have a national catalogue. I was wondering if the Research Support Libraries Programme was formed to fund, promote and organise the creation of a UK Distributed National Collection. This paper by Milne seems helpful. I am uncomfortable with the material on Research Support Libraries Programme being placed in a biography - if the material is important, it should be placed in a more appropriate location. If Research Support Libraries Programme was the means of delivering Distributed National Collection in the UK, then Distributed National Collection is the main material, and Research Support Libraries Programme should be mentioned as part of that, rather than as part of Ronald Milne. Am I making sense? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is another article at The ‘Distributed National Collection’ Access, and Cross-sectoral Collaboration: the Research Support Libraries Programme. I agree with your logic about whether RSLP should have its own article but ideally it would benefit from independent reliable sources as well as what Ronald Milne has written about it. The origin of the UK DNC is at the level of the HEFCE and its equivalents in the other three British nations. If a DNC article existed Ronald Milne's article would have a summary of his contribution to it only. I suppose the idea is a particular example of "Universal Bibliographic Control" which came from the International Federation of Library Associations a long time ago.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the Anderson Report. Do you have any insight to that? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And can I ask you again to consider archiving your talkpage? As I value your insight to library matters and wish to continue corresponding with you on this matter, it would be VERY HELPFUL (big capital letters) if you moved the bulk of the no-longer-relevant material into an archive (where it can be consulted by you, or any other interested party, at ease, without hindering the ongoing correspondence of active Wikipedia discussion). I can do this for you quite quickly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would the archiving be done by setting a date and storing everything before that date in "Archive 1"?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological is the most common method, but some people archive by theme. I started by theme, then found that chronological was easier to do, so changed to that. There's an archive box that provides a search function. See User talk:SilkTork/Archives (the search box is bottom right). When archiving I may keep useful or active conversations on my talkpage, even though archiving more recent conversations. When next archiving I may or may not interleave the older conversations into their correct chronological order - it depends on the conversation, how out-of-date-sequence it is, and if the material is going into a different archive page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

The Bibliography article appears to be dealing with two different topics, and there are a number of related sub-articles which look like they could be merged into a parent article. There is Bibliography - the study of books, and Bibliography - a list of books. I feel the article should be split in two, and the sub articles merged appropriately into the two parent articles.

Bibliography (list of books)

Bibliography (study of books)

...Should Bibliography (study of books)/Bibliology come under Library and information science?

Your thoughts? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hereford Cathedral Library

On 8 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hereford Cathedral Library, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the oldest volume in the Hereford Cathedral Library is the Hereford Gospels, dated to around the year 780? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hereford Cathedral Library.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RSLP

Hello again, If you are still interested in the Research Support Libraries Programme I have found and added some information to the Ronald Milne article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Felix. I am a bit of a grasshopper when it comes to articles and topics. I have now hopped off to other topics, but I will be hopping back to libraries at some point. Thanks for all your help. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]