Talk:Baltimore County Public Library

Maryland Mid‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libraries Low‑importance

	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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citation style

Why aren't we using any of the standard citation types for these refs? That's a whole line (or more) of text in each entry whose primary effect is to require more vertical scrolling and to break up the flow of the timeline. DMacks 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with the Baltimore County Public Library article. It was created by another staff member, with many errors, including the name of the page, and then assigned to me to correct. Unfortunately, the person who created the page left with the account, password and all the experience. Could you tell I had quite a learning curve?

Regarding the citing of sources, I’ve removed all the individual source information. I hope the link at the top of History will suffice.

I don’t anticipate doing any more edits for awhile.Infoserv 23:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of dates

Wikipedia Manual of Style explicitly states that decades are formatting as "1920s" not "1920's", which is in keeping with standard English meaning of the apostrophe. I am again fixing them. Please do not revert MOS-fix-changes without explaining why. DMacks 08:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of history list

Why would we want this to have the date with a bullet indented under the previous-date—isn't the date more like a header for the material that follows it? I had changed it to a standard definition list—a list where each entry is a term followed by an explanation of it—but this change was reverted with no explanation. Why shouldn't this be formatted as a deflist, or else with use of standard wiki headers for each date? DMacks 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks with no comment, so I'll re-fix it. Do not re-re-change it without discussing first. DMacks 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size of History Section

I believe that the history section for this article is way too long and needs to be shortened to only the most revelant points. If anyone has any opinion on this matter, please tell me, so we can figure what the best size of the history section should be.JHoltzman 15:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]