Talk:Library

Lists of libraries

There would not seem to be any basis for removal of this list altogether, but moving it to a separate article was not a bad ideaCategories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Some believe that going to the library and reading a whole book to find information takes up too much time as opposed to two clicks in a search engine.

"Some believe that going to the library and reading a whole book to find information takes up too much time as opposed to two clicks in a search engine."

It would be helpful to have a citation here. Also, I don't think this is only a matter of opinion. Manually searching through a whole book does take significantly more time than a text search (within a single book or on the internet) Although "two clicks in a search engine" does explain the idea, the language is a little too imprecise for an encyclopedia article. Tumacama (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the sentences in question. Undergraduates' attitudes towards print vs. electronic resources may be relevant to the article, but this statement shouldn't have been made without a citation. And even if this is a real opinion, it's misleading to include it unchallenged – there are very few types of information that can be found online in "two clicks" and can't be found in print unless one reads an entire book.

Incidentally, as it's currently written, the "Shift to digital libraries" section is violating WP:SYN in associating declining print circulation with increased use of ebooks. EALacey (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The concept of the "library volumes"...

• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+library+volumes&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

• Further information: Talk:Academic library § Measuring the library size by volumes.....
• (cur) (prev) 05:12, 7 April 2010 222.64.214.173 (talk) (6,402 bytes) (→List of the largest academic libraries: --Definition of the volumes...? Volumes of the journals held ? Does it include the books/docs. held ...?) (undo)

--222.64.214.173 (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Decrease in Library usage may be an Academic Library issue

The section on the shift to digital libraries is based on the premise that library usage is decreasing, but this is not the case for public libraries. A June 2010 FY2008 Public Libraries Survey Report from the Institute of Museum and Library Studies found that library usage has increased by 20% from 1999 to 2008. I suggest that the text under the shift to digital libraries be moved to the wikipedia page Academic Library, with a paragraph with a broader view on the shift to digital libraries retained here.Dczarnik (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

dates please

This article is quite hard to read when many different cultures are referred to but no dates given. It would be useful to instead of say Sumer cities, Qin dynasty in china and a certain roman emperor to put in brackets a date afterward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Types of Libraries (2.1)

In the current format of the types of libraries list, there seems to be an imbalance; there is a list of various types of libraries and even a little blurb on each kind of library, but then there is a relatively huge section just on the public libraries, which doesn't seem to mesh well with the list/short blurb format of the section. Would it be better to either delete the big blurb on public libraries (and perhaps append it to the public libraries entry), or to fill out the other types of libraries so that there is more balance, visually and textually? Is the goal to add more content for each type of library to match that of the public library subsection? FutureInfoPro (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this area needs to be cleaned up. I was also wondering others thoughts of including human libraries into this section. So far I cannot find any information on Wikipedia about living books or human libraries. Would this information be best included here or on another page? Northoff (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't know if that would go here or it might make an interesting article in itself? I'm doing an academic project in collaboration with Wikipedia and my university; I was thinking of using this entry for my project (assuming I get approval from my professors) and filling out this portion of the article with various types of libraries, so it's more balanced and fleshed out. Perhaps you can create a section on human libraries? I personally think it would be interesting, but I'm very new to Wikipedia too. If you don't get a response in the next few days, maybe try the talk pages of one of the previous contributors? FutureInfoPro (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Wikipedia Canada Education Program (please see banner at top of page), I will be adding a section here on Academic Libraries (and perhaps Special Libraries, if I have time). There are other students participating who will likely be adding more to the 2.1 Types of Libraries sections in the near future. Please see the banner above or feel free to contact my via my Talk Page if you have any questions or concerns, or of course feel free to leave a message here if it relates to this section of the article. FutureInfoPro (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to expand on the section on "Islamic Libraries" under "Early History" over the next week or so - will appreciate any advice or guidance along the way. Artoronto (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a new section about living libraries under public libraries. Though I think this information may be better on its own page as there is a fair bit of information that could be added. Any more thoughts on how to clean up the type section? If the public libraries section is being removed to have only this informaiton on a seperate page then I will do the same with the living libaries section.Northoff (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you do end up moving living libraries to a new page, it might be helpful to keep at least some information on this page - perhaps something like a synopsis. Artoronto (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the public libraries section is a bit overkill, since there is a great, separate, whole public libraries article elsewhere on WP, but I'm hesitant to edit it or move it around or mess with it without having someone more experienced involved and ensuring that there is some consensus here that it is indeed too long. FutureInfoPro (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions Artoronto. I'm not sure what needs to be added to the "Islamic Libraries" section. Looking at the "Early History" section as a whole though, I think the first paragraph under "Early History" should be reworked. At present, the paragraph seems to be referring to early libraries in Mesopotamia and provides some dates- but overall is unclear. Perhaps a timeline or map could be beneficial here to better illustrate to the reader the locations and times of formation of the first library systems.Northoff (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So I went ahead and made some changes to the subsection on Islamic libraries - now, "Libraries and Islam" (felt the original subtitle was a little reductionist) and reintroduced the subject with more regard to the Islamic religious tradition and based on what some of the academic authorities writing about Islam have said. Hope that works. Artoronto (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

resource

Overdue Notice: Defend Our Libraries by Antonino D'Ambrosio, in the November 2011 issue of The Progressive.

Excerpt ...

If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.—Cicero

99.109.126.73 (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiya, I admittedly haven't had a look at your link yet, but if you feel it's relevant to something on the Library entry and it follows the guidelines (and you're not the author), feel free to edit and include it in the entry.

FutureInfoPro (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)