Talk:List of libraries

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

Proposed standard for this list[edit]

The library must either have an article dedicated to it in Wikipedia already, or have a reasonable expectation of an article. National libraries, libraries of major research universities, and regional libraries with unique holdings, history, etc, are all good to include; the average public library of a small town is unlikely to ever be worth an article, and so should not be listed here. Stan 05:31, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What next, a list of sweetshops? Andy Mabbett 21:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article is sort of a safety-valve to keep the list at List of Research libraries on-topic. And encyclopedias and libaries do have a historic association. Bevo 21:27, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why not just use List of libraries? There are other types of libraries that don't fall neatly into these two categories. GUllman 01:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The term "safety-valve" suggests that you're trying to solve a problem of some sort. What exactly is the problem you want to solve? Stan 02:08, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Then I think I picked an inappropriate term! (there were some entries being added to the Research library list that were actually Lending libraries so I just provided a place to move those to) Bevo 05:26, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I like the new focus (the list collects a library only if there is an article instantiated for it in the Wikipedia). Bevo 20:33, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
First, few if any articles start with "List of Wikipedia articles about..." Just use "List of libraries". Why are you so afraid of lists with links to topics that haven't been written yet? That's how Wikipedia grows -- people suggest articles by making lists, which makes it easy for someone to click on a link and start writing.
  • Have you any idea how many lending libaries exist? Andy Mabbett 14:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • There are 16,598 public libraries in the U.S. -- about 30,000 libraries of all types in the U.S., about 23,000 total in the U.K. It should be no problem for Rambot to add them all (ha ha, just joking). Seriously, you could insert a comment at the top of list of libraries that says Please add only existing articles or requested articles for well-known libraries.
Second, librarians here in the U.S. use the categories: "academic libraries", "public libraries", "school libraries" (as in grade and high school), and "special libraries" (like law, corporate, museum). Who uses the term "public lending libraries"?
  • Anyone who speaks British English, for starters Andy Mabbett 14:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I didn't know that. GUllman 21:34, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
By the way, the new San Jose (California) library is both an academic library for San Jose State University AND a public library. [1] GUllman 01:10, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • List such exceptions on both pages. Andy Mabbett 14:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been looking at all this for a week now and really hate it. I'm going to crunch it all into a single list of libraries in the next couple of days unless somebody else gets to it first. Stan 04:19, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'd like to keep the lists in concert with guideline #12 in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia entries are not mere collections of external links." - Bevo 13:32, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It should be obvious that any list of libraries must be restricted to those that are article-worthy, whether or not the article has been written yet. I'd be willing to bet that there are less than a thousand of those, maybe just a couple hundred even. For most libraries there is simply not anything interesting to be said about them, ergo no article or list entry to worry about. Stan 22:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I added the Jenkins Law Library to this list because they are the oldest law library in America. I am working with the librarians to get an article going in the near future ... just FYI :) --Talia 19:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added the Los Angeles Central Library. With the third largest amount of book and periodical holdings in the U.S., I think it is noteworthy. CancerOfJuly

I don't know, but what about the Vancouver Public Library, third largest in Canada? It does have its own article. 205.250.51.238 02:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Florida State University Music Library? It's one of the biggest music libraries in Florida.
We're trying not to include branches of university libraries. Remember, there are 50 music libraries that are the largest in their respective states.DGG 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the National Diet Library based in Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan. It is the largest library in Japan and also fairly well known for it's reasearch.

definition of list[edit]

This is an impossibly broad list with no definition. There is a point in list of (notable) public libraries , or list of research libraries, etc, but no purpose whatever in a combined list. The combination should be handled with categories. I propose a split. DGG 05:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I intend to divide the page as a first step into groups. Any objections?DGG 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-listing needed[edit]

I think two separate list need to be made. One that lists name of Libraries in alphabet order and another that list Libraries by country/or city in alphabet order.

As it currently stand its too confusing.

Bill Sat Mar 7, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.127.45 (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Also confusing is that the country is not always stated, especially for US libraries. I agree that the list should be arranged by country. That would at the same time solve that problem. For a big country like the US there could also be sub-sections per state. And there could be a separate section for historical libraries (eg the Alexandria library). But I don't see the need for a separate alphabetical list beside that, in other words the current list.
Furthermore, a short statement about the type of library (scientific or general, public or private) would seem handy. for which it might be made into a table. The size or (perceived?) importance might also be included, but maybe only for the really big libraries. DirkvdM 09:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing for a statement about importance runs the risk of POV pushing by certain editors. If this is a list article, best to keep it related to function: list of names. The articles for each item can then go into detail. ColdmachineTalk 16:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was doubtful about that too. Size in number of books might still be added, though, when that info is available.
But more importantly, do you agree that an ordering by country would make sense? As this list gets longer (which is undoubtedly will), then it will at the same time become more desirable and more work to do that. So a 'final' decision should be made soon. DirkvdM 12:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is not just a matter of size. Lists in Wikipedia are preferred if they give more information than a simple list of name, which could be done as well as a category. At the very least an indication of location and size and type and special feature justifying importance should be given. See WP:LIST. Bare lists tend to get proposed for deletion. How to organize it is a matter of choice. I would go by country. Lists of libraries of special types can go in articles fort hat type.DGG (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good reason why lists are discouraged in Wikipedia. You have at least one (Probably more than that) lending library in a tiny town, that is, however, a historic landmark. It shouldn't be on this list because of its architecture from the description. And yes, it needs to be broken down by state and maybe city, so editors can purge the list of "undesirables." Without knowing in advance, I don't see how you would ever find the library I am talking about. But I don't see what good the list is in the first place. Once any list gets too long, it is not useful to anyone IMO. Student7 (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list was already alphabetical, but it didn't have a new section for each letter, which I added, as well as reordering some so as not to include the "the" in the alphabetical list. Please do not remove this list. If you want there to be a list by region, please add it in a new section, and don't remove this order. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regionalized just USA libraries up to but not including the O's of the alphebatized list, excaptfor these:

UNIT A4B1 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chaniging the appearance of the article[edit]

What do you think about changing the appearance of the article like the German Wiki: de: Liste von Bibliotheken. To divide the libraries into countries is clearer and better. -- 78.43.121.238 (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sure. DGG (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That works. I'd prefer just a normal sortable table with: Name | Country | City | Number of Volumes | References. This way we could sort by size, location, etc. gren グレン 03:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this one: List of national libraries

---
The format of List of newspapers is very appealing to me though--222.67.204.235 (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see above. An alphabetical and a regional list would be best. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Library Systems or Library Buildings?[edit]

Is this a list of Library systems (meaning the organizations themselves) or of library buildings (meaning the actual physical structure)? I see examples of both here. Opinions? --Olegkagan (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate entry for libraries in Egypt[edit]

It appears Bibliotheca Alexandrina and Library of Alexandria are the same thing (both in Egypt), if I am not mistaken their external link point to the same website. —M@sssly✉ 20:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time to retire this list.[edit]

This list is way too overbroad and unmaintainable. An alphabetical list of all libraries of all types in the entire world? If properly expanded, it would be unusable in its current form. I'm retiring this list as {{Historical}}. Assuming no objections are made, it will eventually be changed into a redirect, pointing to a list of lists. Of course, the edit history of this old list will remain available, if needed. In the meantime, you may look at existing lists in Category:Lists of libraries, or better yet, go directly to Category:WikiProject Libraries categories which is being reorganized. Categories will always be the most current source of available articles, as lists have to be built and maintained by hand. If you wish to join the effort to dust off and revitalize library-related articles, you are welcome to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries. Thanks! LibraryGeek (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinkers in a list of "notable" libraries[edit]

Since this is a list article about notable libraries, shouldn't we remove red-linked entries? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_libraries&oldid=1205157051"