Talk:Cambridge University Library
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject University of Cambridge, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cambridge, which tries to improve the quality of all articles related to Cambridge, UK. |
[edit] Collections at the UL
This article could do with a paragraph or two detailing the collections found at the library. The University Archives, and the collected papers of not a few Cambridge scholars, are there, but whose? Ewjw 12:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Matching Buildings?
"The library was built between 1931 and 1934 under architect Giles Gilbert Scott to match the neighbouring Clare Memorial Court"
Who says it was built 'to match' the Memorial Court? Who can say, unless Gilbert Scott specifically stated that? Sure, they're by the same architect and have certain similarities. They may even have been two parts of a masterplan, but I don't think this amounts to building something 'to match' something else. Can we delete this?
81.102.253.212 18:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think I got this from The Builder when it covered the opening of the building in the 1930s. David | Talk 22:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clean up "fun" section?
Should an encyclopedia really have e.g. lists of the funniest graffiti found in a building? I vote for most of this material to be deleted, although the Paper Trail and Hide and Seek are perhaps more worthy of mention. Rnt20 14:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I think the section is really "funny" and should mostly stay, but I'm not that fussed. I'm in the UL now, by the way, so I could look into all this stuff if you want! My own personal UL motto is: "So many books. So little knowledge!" It's more a comment on the state of the world really.—Laurence Boyce 15:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Unimportant things are important, too", says Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Other issues. Although they shouldn't dominate, these titbits are lovely and definitely worth their space. But then I'm a fan of Chambers Dictionary as well...JackyR | Talk 19:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think they add to the article. They don't dominate and are rightfully at the bottom after all the "proper" stuff. Ultimately Uni Libraries are filled with students and academics, and the various long running fun things add a bit of identifiable character to an otherwise “standard” uni library article. As long as the section doesn't turn into a student vanity area, with people adding rubbish, then I think it is better kept. SFC9394 23:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
