Talk:Cambridge University Library

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)

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)

I've heard that it was supposed to 'match' the Memorial Court physically, as in the center of each lines up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.161.95 (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

7 Million Volumes

According to Cambridge University Library Website and Reports the University Libraries hold 7 million Volumes. [[1]] [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.104.67 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Classification scheme

Lots of libraries have their own home-grown classification schemes. This article is not well-served by being swamped by a transcription of the UL's one. If the scheme is really that notable, it should probably go in its own article on Cambridge Univserity Library classification scheme, or some such. That is why I have twice deleted this section. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not required. This is an encyclopaedic article, not a user guide or manual for a library, and the content is wholly out of place, hence I have removed it. Hopefully we will have some discursive engagement on this from the user concerned. SFC9394 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Would an abridged version be more suitable, or should it just be forgotten about? Mark J (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't serve any purpose, so I can't see any real requirement for it. Information at that level of detail is only going to be useful to someone who is in the library and wants to find a book. If they are already there then there are a great deal of resources available to them in the building above and beyond WP!. SFC9394 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I was thinking it might be of more use as an example of a historical classification system & the way knowledge is structured, not to suggest that every library goes and adds their own if they do all have their own systems, which I was unaware of. I guess it should be moved to its own article if it is to be kept at all. Are you going to fiercely oppose me on that? Mark J (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would neither oppose nor encourage - the article would have to meet the guidelines for being kept. Is it a scheme that is used in many places? Does it have notability? Is it of value? SFC9394 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure! I doubt it! Mark J (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Librarians

A listing of these may be found on in la:Bibliotheca Universitatis Cantabrigiensis.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter Fox

This a draft of a new article on Peter Fox (translating the Latin WP article): however it has no sources so I am leaving it here for the time being. If he has a Who's Who entry that would provide enough to be a reliable source. Peter Fox (born 1949) is a British professional librarian. He was the librarian of Trinity College, Dublin and then became librarian of the [Cambridge University Library]] until he retired in 2009.

Publications

• 1973: Reader Instruction Methods in Academic Libraries. Cambridge: University Library
• 1986: 'Treasures of the Library: Trinity College Dublin. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy ISBN 9780901714459
• 1998: Cambridge University Library: the Great Collections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-62636-6 (editor)
• 2000: "The Librarians of Trinity College", in: Vincent Kinane, Anne Walshe, eds., A History of Trinity College Library, Dublin. Dublin: Four Courts Press ISBN 1-85182-467-7

--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Fox (librarian) now has an article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge Digital Library

As it is becoming more notable and is a resource which serves a wider audience than the University Library itself should the Cambridge Digital Library have it's own article?--Acc60 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in Article

I noticed a mistake in the article, as Cambridge is not one of three University Legal Deposit Libraries in England, it is one of only two, the other being the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford. There is a third University Library in the British Isles which has legal deposit status but it's the Library of Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland and not a University in England. The other two legal deposit libraries are the National Libraries of Scotland and Wales, whilst the British Library also operates as a legal deposit under a Complementary arrangement.

http://www.legaldeposit.org.uk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.189.240 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed GrindtXX (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)