Talk:Public library advocacy

Discussion

Hi everyone, For subsections (like stories 1, 2, 3, etc. of "success stories") should we indent the sections to set them off? Or leave them as left-justified as all the other sections?

Also, I was thinking about contacting the library director that my success story was based on to see if he has anything to add/correct in my entry. Do you think that would be a good idea? You never know what the news may misreport . . .

--Jenbrarian (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to do something with those headings.. I just added Success Story #4 and added the name of the library in the title. Maybe even put Success Story: El Paso County Library so that later if you are scrolling it is evident whether it is a success story or an unsuccessful story... What do you all think?

I looked at the page and I don't think we even need to have "Success Story" in front of it - the section is clearly labeled success stories, and I don't think it'll be so long as to be confusing. I just put in the name of the library & the city/state - how does it look? --Jenbrarian (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I also am contacting the director of the library to get her input. Hopefully I'll hear something soon. There is more to the story, but I want to hear the details. Cswilson55 (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have the #1, #2, etc in there... I'm taking mine out.....Cswilson55 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I agree - we also don't need to have "7 success stories" in there . . . so I'm gonna yank it. --Jenbrarian (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think you yanked it, so I'm going to.. Cswilson55 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, I like your suggestions... I'll take Success Story off my heading as well.Cswilson55 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I just put an external link to the ALA website.. the toolkit for advocacy... when I was going to add it Wikipedia asked me if it was appropriate to do this.. is it? would this be an appropriate link? I looked at the ALA copyright statement... Cswilson55 (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Did half the class drop or something? Cuz it's looking pretty empty in the other sections . . . should we try to round them up or something? --Jenbrarian (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm kind of amazed that there isn't more stuff posted by now... I feel like we aren't getting to collaborate very much.Cswilson55 (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with putting the library name as the title instead of story #. Enclose it with ==== and it creates subheading links under our section with I think looks professional. I think it is fine to link to the ALA toolkit--it is a great reference and resource for our project. I guess everyone else it waiting to the last minute--I can't do that! Especially when completing something new such as this. Though not too difficult it takes times to figure out all of the editing tools. At least this group is moving forward and have been able to help each other out with some questions. Good job team! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarylady9 (talk

Thanks I hadn't noticed that it made those subheading links... I think it is looking great!Cswilson55 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What about indenting the stories the way #1 did? I just did it with mine and I like how it looks. It's probably bad etiquete, but I also changed the heading for story #1 to conform with the rest of our headings (South Carolina Public Libraries). I wasn't logged in at the time, but FYI it was me --Jenbrarian (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I kind of like the way it looks too, but I looked around at other wikipedia articles and I didn't see any of them doing this kind of indentations. If there is an image, the text indents around it, but otherwise it looks like all the text is flush with the left side. Maybe someone else will say what they think???Cswilson55 (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm super late to the discussion, but I vote that we go with putting everything flush to the left side. While the indentations look nice (especially on these English major eyes!), it does seem like standard Wikipedia practice to align everything to the left. I think the leading outline/links that start the article fills the need for showing how our individual articles fit in sub-categories and relate to others. ...And now I'm off to actually ADD my article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankfox (talk • contribs) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up the picture of NYPL! Librarylady9 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

I am working on adding international considerations to this page. Text Mouse (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Text Mouse

I've added a section on International Advocacy Organizations on the main page and added information in the Friends section about the French group. I've been limited to sites that are in English or French, so I'm not able to research as much of a global perspective as I would like. Help from those who speak/read other languages would be much appreciated! My next step is to try to find examples for the success/failures section. Text Mouse (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Text Mouse

External links

A friendly reminder to everyone that Wikipedia is not a directory of links and that our guidelines regarding external links strongly discourage placing external links in the body of articles. Additionally, please remember that this should be an encyclopedia article describing this topic, not a platform for advocacy or a guide for advocacy. ElKevbo (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)