Talk:Library

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)

• Dana, John Cotton, and Henry W. Kent, eds. Literature of Libraries in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Chicago: A. C. McClure, 1906-07; reissued Metuchen: The Scarecrow Reprint Corporation, 1967.
  • No. 1: The duties & qualifications of a librarian: a discourse ... in the Sorbonne, 1780; by Jean-Baptiste Cotton des Houssayes.
  • No. 2: The reformed librarie-keeper ... concerning the place and office of a librarie-keeper; by John Dury (1596-1680).
  • No. 3: The life of Sir Thomas Bodley written by himself together with the first draft of the statutes of the public library at Oxon.
  • No. 4: Two tracts on the founding and maintaining of parochial libraries in Scotland; by James Kirkwood (d. 1708).
  • No. 5: A brief outline of the history of libraries; by Justus Lipsius; transl. from 2nd ed, 1607
  • No. 6: News from France or a description of the library of Cardinal Mazarin preceded by The surrender of the library ... two tracts written by Gabriel Naude (1600-1653).

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)