User talk:Jothelibrarian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Adoption

Hello, Jothelibrarian! I see that you have expressed an interest in being adopted by an experienced editor. I accept your request, being an experienced editor myself. Whether you want to learn about wiki markup, find something to do, or just talk to somebody, I'm the one you can talk to - just leave a message on my talk page. Good luck with Wikipedia! Feel free to ask me any questions any time! Chupper 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I think it's awesome that your a librarian. You'll have very easy access to books, journals, etc. If I'm OCD about something, it's about using sources. I always cite anything I feel could be considered controversial. One thing I notice about Wikipedia is that people often cite external hyperlinks. While this is not necessarily bad, and I do it too, I think it would be great to also cite books, journals, etc. I've actually been trying to do this more and more. Hyperlinks go bad and can more easily present less factual/not peer reviewed information. Books, news articles, and of course journals never die and are usually peer reviewed at some level (even if its not by an academic). So, again, welcome, and feel free to bug me as much as you'd like regarding Wikipedia policies, recommendations, or anything! Chupper 22:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bodleian Library

I was looking over your edited article. Looks good! A couple of recommendations:

  1. It might not be a bad idea to create a sandbox for yourself and put the page in their instead of on your main user page. For example create User:Jothelibrarian/Sandbox1. If you wanted you could link to it from your main page. I copied your edits, and made some of my own changes @ "User:Chupper/Sandbox01".
  2. As you can see in my sandbox I moved some of the sections to subsections. I'm not sure which ones belong in early history, but you can make that decision. Hopefully that at least paints you a picture of how those subsections might work.
  3. I'm not a big fan of inline external links. The original article included these in at least the "Digital developments" section. Perhaps you could create a stub article for the ODL, instead of leaving it as an external inline link. Also, maybe change that inline citation in the sentence "Bodleian Library has also offered its support for the establishment of the JournalServer open-access digital library and allocated resources on the Oxford Digital Library Servers" (after the word also) to your style reference (using "<ref>) and placing it at the end of the sentence after any punctuation. In the last sentence of the first paragraph of that section maybe take out the hyperlink on the word "collection" and use it as a reference instead (again, keeping it consistent with your reference markup).
  4. Your references actually look great. They would be a tremendous addition to the article. I see people use a lot of different ways of typing out those references - some just put a hyperlink inbetween the <ref> & </ref>, while others follow citation styles. I prefer APA, but thats just because I'm American and an aspiring clinical psychologist. I think as long as it's consistent you're in good shape.

Let me know if there is anything else I can answer or help you out with! Awesome work! Chupper 02:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Oxford digital library

A tag has been placed on Oxford digital library, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Non notable website- it would probably best serve as a redirect, but I can't work out where to. There is no article covering all of the Oxford libraries.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. J Milburn 11:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you can see I'm not omniscient :). Doing a google search on the Oxford Digital Library and getting 13,000 hits with quotes, 4 million without, I thought it would surely merit notability and be able to have a stub. I think J Milburn disagrees and stated we should just leave the info in the Bodleian Library article until we get more content on it. Sorry about recommending that to you. Chupper 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)