Talk:List of digital library projects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Libraries (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Categories[edit]

Hello everybody. I can see no mention for the Arabic Language nor the Arabic virtual libraries. Can you help me to update the page with this piece of info?

I know about AskZad.com, which is the first Arabic Virtual Library with more than 500 Million Pages archived on it. Thanks in advance.

___________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minshawy (talkcontribs) 12:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings all, I would like to support the comment by Imran. Categories could start with countries, perhaps (!) From a quick read below, it looks like this section has got off to a good start, and then ...

Not sure how to proceed from here, because the wikipedia editing rules are a lot to take in at first, but how do people feel about starting categories with countries? avaiki 03:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to other project from the Project Gutenberg article:

Also, Project Runeberg maintains a large list of digital library projects at http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/admin/foreign.html -- Stephen Gilbert 18:17 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

More links:

This list just looks like a data dump at the moment. I think we need to clean it up, break them into seperate categories and provide at least a short description for each. --Imran 20:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--

large western mss libs see http://wiki.netbib.de/coma/DigitaleHandschriften

lots of unknown projects http://wiki.netbib.de/coma/DeutscheDrucke#titelanker4

incunabula http://wiki.netbib.de/coma/InkunabelLinks

Shouldn't wikisource be on here?

We can add

It seems to be new. Oriel

The Hearth - Home Economics Archive at Cornell University http://hearth.library.cornell.edu/

--

Though I have found no firm statements, East of the Web appears to be inactive. Its copyright dates end in 2003 and there has been nothing in the "New Titles" section for some time. Should we perhaps place a note beside the link in this article? 82.11.32.93 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Links[edit]

If an online library site is down long-term, then we should not maintain a link here.--SallyForth123 01:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

unless it has been really important previously. . The link should be marked to show it is dead. See WP:EL. DGG (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think that we should NOT double-link. If the online library already has a W page, then please do not provide a URL: it only contributes to linkrot overhead.--SallyForth123 01:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Individual libraries[edit]

I think we should be very reluctant to includee collections at individual libraries--I would argue for a certain major level of notability, such that Akron-Summit County Public Library's Digital Exhibits is not included. There's a distinction between a notable digital library project, and a mere Institutional repository, such as almost every major university now hasDGG (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

External links or citations[edit]

The {{external links}} template was added to this article with an edit history comment of

03:39, 9 November 2007 user:ZimZalaBim (why so many external links? Wikipedia isn't a directly of links)

I think this is a misunderstanding of term external links. When external links are used as they are in this article at the moment, they are "embedded citations" and are covered under the verification policy. So unless there is a consensus not to do so, I would like to remove the template. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. These are not embedded citations in the sense that a claim is made that needs to be verified by an external source. These are simply links to external websites, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of external websites. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that the claims need citations. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
These aren't claims - these are merely lists of external projects with links, ie, a directory. A claim is something like "XYZ's digital library project is the largest..." - that would need an external citation. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Normally I would say that each listing in articles like this ought to have a corresponding individual article, and that we would therefore not need the external links, but in this particular case there are many such projects that need & deserve mention here, and we can not keep up with them in writing articles. We do however need some better specification of just what the standards should be for inclusion. DGG (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The argument that there are too many projects to keep up with doesn't hold water givin this (WP) is a collaborative-based project where there is no shortage of people/energy (let alone bots) to create articles, and that's no reason to create a linkfarm.-ZimZalaBim talk 11:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
From my perspective, this article is a linkfarm, and all the external links should be removed. This is standard practice and I believe there's a great deal of consensus for it across Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Safari[edit]

http://safari.oreilly.com/

... books from a bunch of publishers, as a service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.25.184 (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria[edit]

Per WP:LIST, I think the only list entries allowed in the article should be those with their own article. At least until a different inclusion criteria is agreed upon and made clear in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Would agree with that inclusion criterion. Adding empty Red links to an article does not add any content or meaning to wikipedia and is an unhelpful contribution. WP:WTAF is worth a read.--Hu12 (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started cleaning up the list, removing all linkspam and entries without their own articles. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

unable to see the rule that says there should be no red links - the need, one would imagine, is that the links essentially be to articles that either exist or should exist. A lot of content on wikipedia is structured using lists and articles are subsequently added to remove red links. Shyamal (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
the problem here is how to show it, and there is really no clear way except to try to write an article about it, or add it as a redirect to an article. The only alternative is to at least indicate something to make it clear that an article could be written. DGG (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just looked at the recently deleted ones, and some really should go back,. National library sites are notable. The projects at Berkeley, Cornell, Beinecke!! are notable. LANL & NIST are notable. I'm not restoring them immediately, because some should go in particular sections, not the general list & I want to think about just where--for example, we probably need a section for State Libraries to go along with the National ones.
A reasonable way to proceed would be to first remove those not sponsored by major institutions & not affiliated with them or with other notable projects. Ronz, please slow down. It takes time to write these articles, given the very small number of interested editors. DGG (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What inclusion criteria are you proposing? --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not proposing a finished statement. I am trying to approach it from both ends: At the extremes: National libraries, major state libraries, the star quality academic and special libraries, and the main academic or research societies in a subject are included--for all of these I know I can write acceptable articles or redirects. Commercial organisations providing vanity published material are not, along with miscellaneous web enterprising repackaging material from other sites. In between, I'm not sure. I'm prepared to include for special subjects whatever is the most important collection, even if otherwise less than optimum. Again, i think notability could be shown for these. DGG (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There ought to be some form of inclusion criteria. Reliance on DGG's opinion for inclusion is a poor substitute. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Complete rewrite[edit]

A complete rewrite of this page is being discussed over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talkcontribs) 23:40, 19 May 2009

there was no discussion there, and there has been little here. There needs to be a bit more activity before you delete this much material.--Buridan (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, that edit seemed to have cleared things up for the better. This page in its current state is little more than a respository of spam and inappropriate external links. At the very least, entries without specific articles shouldn't be here as we are a discriminate encyclopedia. Yourrevert turned an organized categorical article back into the mess that it had been. Bravo to Stuartyeats for trying to fix this mess. ThemFromSpace 13:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I see no spam there. I see a list of things that seem to be digital library projects. Without a clear criteria of inclusion, that is what you get. I'd say bravo too, but... alas there was no discussion, nor justification, just deletion of content. perhaps he was recategorizing it, perhaps the whole article needs to be deleted and turned into a category, but that's something to be discussed. --Buridan (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This page has been in breach of Wikipedia:LINKFARM#LINK and Wikipedia:List for many years. It's a huge spam magnet, as the history clearly shows. An AfD attempt has failed. I tried to generate discussion over the rewrite, but failed. If anyone has any better suggestion, I'm all for it, but a rewrite like this is the only way I can see to bring the page in line with wikipedia polices. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I like the proposed rewrite. No editors have offered any rationale for making an exception to WP:LINKFARM and WP:LIST, let alone gained consensus for such exceptions. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had a frustrating time trying to help maintain the list, but I see a number of problems with this approach:
A. There could and should be lists for each of the categories--as a general rule any category of discrete things should have a list. The links here should link to those lists, not to the categories. We will of course have similar problems watching them. The best way is to stick to the rule that they much have a WP articles, perhaps not including the exception that they be obviously qualified for one--for this subject such is not going to be all that obvious as for some lists of people.
B. In some cases, a comprehensive list may be appropriate: certainly with the major national digital library of those countries having one.
C. I see considerable problems though in deciding in which of the categories a particular project fits. There are not really clear divisions between them.
D. the meaning of the various types are perfectly clear to me, as they will be to anyone discussing it here, but I do not think they will be the least clear to most readers. There needs to be more of a discussion for each, and i think that there do have to be examples. The examples should be the 2 or 3 best known and unquestionably important of each kind. we'll still have spam problems, but it will be difficult for someone with a small database to argue that its as important as, say, Project Gutenberg.
This is not quite as easy a problem as it appears. I am not even sure that this should not be an exception to the principle of not being a web directory--the rationale is that the purposes of these projects is very close to the purpose of our own. I think we could and should have fairly complete lists of major projects of this sort. We're an obvious place to look, and we are qualified to maintain it. DGG (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that none of the links, individually or as a group, are supported by veriable evidence that they should included in Wikipedia at all. Without some evidence of notability, topics and lists of topics tend to fail WP:NOT#DIR, and therefore fall outside the scope of Wikipedia. It seems to me that compiling our own lists based on your opinion as to which one goes where is more or less original research, and would tend to invite more of the same. At the end of the day, you can't use lists as a dump for non-notable content. Better to scrap the list altogether and salvage the more notable digital library links by starting new articles for them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
verifiable evidence with this list is just a web search away, from press releases to academic journals you'll find almost all of them substantiated with little effort. However, few of them rise to the level of needing a full article and would be stubs, which is why people make lists, to avoid stubification.--Buridan (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of the rewrite, here's why:
  • Basically, by linking to the categories, you're just requiring that the reader take an extra step before they find the information they're looking for
  • There is no problem with lists that have redlinks to notable topics, it's an invitation for people to develop articles, and I agree with Buridan that most if not all of the items on the list are notable if one takes the time to actually seek out sources
  • The larger issue is that the article is very difficult to navigate, something which might be fixed by applying a different hierarchy of sections
Geraldk (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I second all of Buridan and Geraldk's remarks, especially the conclusion that what this list needs is a reorganization, not a gutting. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a table format, something like this, might be the direction to go, with some of it? -- Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If we are going to do just the most notable as example, the WP articles are a guide, along with the sources for them. I mention project G, because its easy to show by excellent secondary sources that it's exceedingly notable and the pioneering and most important db of its sort. One could do the same for arXiv, and PMC, for example. One could do it for LC's National Memory. If owe are going to go somewhat wider, then, a good many of them have wp articles, and thus certainly can be justified. I do not think we could write wp articles to show the notability of every one of them, but we could for probably 1/3 to 2/3 of what's here. That always justifies inclusion on a list of notable anything. . Beyond there, i can certainly propose specific criteria, such as the main national database for each country. Gavin, how about a positive approach: keep the list, and start writing articles? DGG (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found this list quite useful in my digital library work. Please don't eviscerate it simply for policy's sake. In particular, I have not found that the list, as I used it, was full of spam, and the categorizations (and inclusion of sites and organizations not yet graced with their own WP article) was particularly helpful for providing a sense of balance and guidance for further inquiry. +sj+ 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying my position. I'm not proposing that we follow the applicable policies and guidelines just because they are there. They serve a purpose - to keep us from creating articles we cannot maintain that are unencyclopedic. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Why not split this into two pages: One, Wikipedia:List of digital library projects would be a list of any digital library projects useful to Wikipedia editors. The other, List of digital library projects, would attempt a more encyclopedic, tighter admissions criteria? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lists of reference sources are a good idea, of which a list of digital libraries would be a part. I'd prefer tables that include ways to search the libraries and other sources. --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a good idea, but it's a separate project, because there should be a focus upon the actual user needs here. Be aware that not all of these are of free projects, or even those with open access. . The present article should include major projects without regard to practical use here, and, fortunately there are a great many of them. That doesn't mean the list should be smaller. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary of the issues with this page[edit]

A few days back I continued the cleanup that earlier editors started, deleting redlinks and external links, but before I continued too much further, I wanted to lay out my rationale (much of which echoes earlier comments on this talk page), so here goes:

The lede section of this list is woefully inadequate. In particular, it does not list the inclusion criterion for listed items, which is required for all list articles under the WP:SAL guideline. Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable about the specific subject matter to write a good, useful, encyclopedic lede section.
The listing of external links, without any comment, within the text (as opposed to an external links section) violates WP:LINKFARM, which is policy. These external links should be deleted. I suggest replacing them with the dmoz template in the external links section at the bottom.
The presence of redlinks is contrary to the WP:SAL guideline. Fundamentally, how is this page different from List of Sun Microsystems employees, where the addition of people without WP articles would be quickly deleted?
The headings within the article should not contain Wikilinks, per WP:Accessibility.
There are many, many mislinks within the article. For example, if someone thinks there is a digital library project at Harvard University, putting that link on the list, and thus linking to the main Harvard article without any explanation or sourcing, constitutes the adding of unreferenced content to the list.

In sum, can someone provide me with the reason I should not proceed with the cleanup that addresses these issues (other than WP:ITSUSEFUL)? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

of course we should fix the incorrect links, and remove the obsolete. no quarrel with that. The presence of redlinks is appropriate, for it indicates projects for which we should have articles.Even for alumni/employee etc lists, we include those for which there clearly can be an article. I am prepared to argue if necessary that our criteria here should be very general, and our purpose is to give the best possible links within each special area. This is one of the places for exceptions--this is core material for us in many different respects. The proper contents of this page, as I see it, should be:
1. Each of the major comprehensive international nonprofit projects
2. Each of the national ones, for as many nations as possible
3. Each of the subnational ones at the state or major city level, if they are significant. (Most cities do not have one, most US states do--I do not know elsewhere)
4. Major university collections--some of these are key resources by any standard. Wedo not yet have articles, but they should not be hard to justify. This, as well as #3, should be grouped geographically by country. A suitable place to link to should of course be placed in the appropriate part of the university articles--usually the article for the university library if there is no separate one for the project. If the material is not there, it should be added.
5. Each of the leading or key ones for subject areas. Where the subject area is the specific language or history/geographical topic, these may well be the same as the above two classes, and can be referred to. But this will not always be the case.
6. I would include the most important commercial or noncommercial publishers' projects--many of these are very general and far reaching and should be included.
There is an alternative, and I shall pursue this if I cannot make the case here--to restrict this to the ones with existing articles, and do the more complete list in WP space, like WP:Book sources. I have asked some people involved with these topics for opinions. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the ever thoughtful response, DGG. I think your alternative approach, limiting this list to projects with WP articles, is better; quoting from the WP:RED guideine, "rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." That said, I'll await the opinions of the involved editors before we decide how to proceed on that particular step, while moving forward on the other fixes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed most of the list[edit]

Note: Pre-removal page diff, for easier tracking.

I have no history at all with this page before today, but I have been chasing down external links to Wikipedia mirrors and forks where they don't belong, and this is one of the pages that popped up. I see the article has been tagged for various things since 2008, and I expect that in a few minutes I will even read the sections above this on the talk page and that they will say something about it being a big job to clean the list up. It really isn't; we're not a directory of external links, not even well-meaning ones, and we aren't a research service either, even though we might be sympathetic to such things. Anything without an article or reference also has no claim of notability - so I have removed everything without either an article or a reference, which turned out to be most of the list. The resulting list probably still needs work, but working on the reduced list should be much easier.

I encourage anyone who sees an obvious omission from the current list to add it if it has an article, or if notability can be established independently (but we're not a directory of external links, so much better if it has an article). I don't encourage adding bare external links again, because they will just attract more inappropriate content - of which there was a lot. Requiring notability from the start is the best way to keep such things out. In the meantime, please remember that the page history is still available - if my clear-cutting approach caught something it shouldn't have, it can be rescued very easily. Most of it, however, should stay gone. Gavia immer (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice cleanup job. ThemFromSpace 04:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I've taken this same approach before with other large and seemingly unmanageable lists, and it really is the way forward when there seems to be no way forward, because large lists tend to cause a sort of intellectual paralysis at the thought of trying to work with them. Smaller lists are easier to build back up properly, if you're willing to take that first step and get rid of the clutter. Gavia immer (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added back a very few that are clearly important and which I am pretty sure I can write articles on. When I have done them , I shall try to go on. I think this will be possible for about 1/3 of the ones that were removed. Myself, I take the opposite approach, of removing incrementally from the least likely, but I admit I haven't gotten around to this, so I can hardly complain. I'm still concerned about a few dozen ones still here and several dozen removed where the institutions only are linked, but not the project; I think the way to handle such is to first, verify that the project is significant, in the sense of having a major amount of material, or notable for its plans, and then writing a section on the project, and linking to that. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't oppose readding things you believe are important; on the contrary, I hope you will do it. With the reduction in size, it should be much easier to judge whether individual items really belong here, and in any case I trust your judgement. I have to, since I as I said I have no previous engagement with this topic. On the subject of editing styles - I have no problem with the slow, careful approach, and I use it myself most of the time, but I really have had good results with the clear-cutting approach that I used here as well. It is mostly a matter of just being willing to do it, but I understand perfectly well why most editors are not willing to be quite that bold. Gavia immer (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to note, WP:Notability emphatically states: "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." and Notability does "not directly limit the content of articles."
Please do read some of the threads above, particularly #Complete rewrite. They touch on many of the points you have mentioned, providing other perspectives. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I did read the discussion above, as I said, after I had made the edit in question. I don't believe it would have stopped me from making the same bold edit if I had read the discussion beforehand, though. I appreciate editors trying to salvage "usefulness" out of the previous list, and I agree that the WP:Notability policy page is about including or excluding article topics, which is why I didn't cite it in my original comment. However, the key for managing a list such as this is to have some hard and fast criterion for inclusion or exclusion, and it's no surprise that editors will think of this broadly in terms of the Wikipedia-jargon term "notability". Whatever you call it, it is much easier to enforce this on a small, undersized list than a huge sprawling one, even if in the meantime we have some omissions (if you see one - add it back). If the list is rebuilt on strict criteria, it then becomes easier to reject additions that don't meet the criteria, so we avoid returning to the original unmanageable list. Gavia immer (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Right. Lists need some defined scope, and the key problem with a list of this sort is NOT DIRECTORY. for other sorts of lists we can make them to include subnotable topics not worth an article but with a clear criterion for inclusion, such as the list of characters in a literary work. The other is to use something more or less similar to our concept of notability. It would be possible to have lists on other grounds, and we might do so here: we might have for example a list of National digital libraries that includes the principal national DL for each country regardless of whether it would meet WP:N. Similarly for US states. In terms of splitting the list, either of them would seem a worthwhile project, and I would be prepared to argue they pass NOT DIRECTORY by being limited to these higher-order entities, not , for example, all cities in the world. In fact, I suggested, at Gavia did not reject, the concept that we could include DLs where the link was to a section of an article, not an entire article. This is a unique type of subject, and the approach needs to be somewhat similar to WP:Book sources The fundamental problem, and the basic reason behind NOT DIRECTORY, is to avoid spam, which is a danger to the value and objectivity of anything thatcalls itself an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Terminology gets me - the NLA?[edit]

I was unsure whether this fell into this list or not - "digital library" seemingly being a technical term and opaque in meaning to me. The National Library of Australia is a part of the Australian Newspapers Digitisation Program. They launched a program to have internet users collaborate on digitising Historic Australian Newspapers, from 1803 to 1954. link to website I do not know if this falls into the category or not. Useful in any case. SauliH (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge Digital Library?[edit]

As it is becoming more notable and is a resource which serves a wider audience than just the University should the Cambridge Digital Library have it's own article in order to be a part of this list?--Acc60 (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Come and join The Wikipedia Library[edit]

The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.

We are working together towards 5 big goals:

Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources
Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries
Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians
Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources
Promote broader open access in publishing and research

Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication: Join in

-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

AAARGH[edit]

The Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste (AAARGH) is a far-right, Holocaust revisionist website, that promotes itself as a holocaust-research-site with a large collection of books on it’s site. Most of these books can easily be described as “very unsavoury stuff.” If someone would look for a reliable source for an article on WP, I wouldn’t advise to look at the AAARGH-site.

Now, since AAARGH is notable enough to have it’s own article on Wikipedia, I wonder if it should be included in this article. The question is:is this list a non-partisan list that includes the AAARGH-site, or should we exclude piles of rubbish-books and demand some quality standards here? (I think I know the answer, but when we have consensus about this we don't have to discuss this when it becomes neccesary.) Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A couple of missing items[edit]

I'm not sure how this page is supposed to work, but I'm surprised these two sites aren't included:

  • Persée (portal) -- this website has a sizable number of academic & technical publications published in France; fr.wikipedia has this article listing its holdings. link (Useful here because these periodicals also publish English-language articles.)
  • The Bayerische StaatsBibliotek has another online library full of information; I used it to obtain copies of various volumes of the monumental Monumenta Germaniae Historica, vital to anyone writing on Late Ancient/Early Medieval topics. (link to the MGH webpage) I also used this site to obtain articles published in various German academic periodicals in the past.

We ignore non-English online resources at our own peril. -- llywrch (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hola bien dia Como estan Los saludar Gloria Roman Macias Jose Alfredo roman recinos (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)