|WikiProject Libraries||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Possible seperation of Deposit library from this article (continued)
Separation of these articles would help to link them to pages in other languages. For example - in Polish wikipedia Legal Deposit and National Library are two different articles.Plutarchus 00:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Surley the Trinity College Library in Dublin no longer has the right of deposit under the UK Parliament Act? Has an act been passed by the Irish Parliament allow this? Astrotrain 23:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
...library of congress is not a national library....
Since when???? Read the LOC article. It doesn't have to be called one to be one, does it?--220.127.116.11 11:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- LOC is de facto a national library, but de jure it isn't. The difference is a technical legal one, but you can't ignore it. DGtal (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Possible seperation of Deposit library from this article
Currently, Deposit library, Legal deposit, Legal deposit library etc. redirect here. Although almost every national library is a deposit library, many deposit libraries are not national libraries, such as Cambridge and Bodleian libraries, about 1250 Federal depository libraries in the USA, etc. The terms are far from equal, and therefore I recommend seperating the articles. DGtal 14:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- To reiterate what I wrote on שיחת משתמש:El C, it appears the .he article is on the deposit process (obligations to replicate publications), mainly in national libraries such as Bibliothèque nationale de France, but I have no objection. El_C 02:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding our discussion on my Hebrew wiki talk page, I think you should go ahead and translate the article into Legal deposit library as soon you feel like it. There won't be any objections, I'm certain of that. Be bold! :) Goodluck, David. El_C 07:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Creation of legal deposit status?
We claim here legal deposit status came from the 1911 Act - it was certainly enshrined in that Act, but I'm looking at a summary of the Copyright Act 1842, and it certainly seems to be in force there. Hmm. Shimgray | talk | 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)