Talk:List of library catalogs

Untitled
Hi, I posted a link to screenshots of a module for Drupal which qualifies as a "Next Gen Library Catalog", and is open source... but the edit was rejected (automatically I think)

Can this be put back in?

Or what would be acceptable?

Endeca is not appropriate here
Endeca is middleware that can be used to produce faceted indices for a variety of purposes. It is not itself a library catalog, although it has been used as a component of some catalogs. I suggest that it be removed from the Proprietary list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.87.222 (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of next-generation library catalogs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150420003005/https://www.kuali.org/ole to http://www.kuali.org/ole

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This list is poorly named and differentiated
The library software field is very complex and includes software systems that perform many different functions that may be more or less integrated depending on the software product. This list article does not accurately summarize this complexity. The article groups together software that serves different functions. I think it is fine to list different types of library system software in this article, but the software needs to be differentiated into more specific groups and the article title should be changed to reflect the range of types of software that is included. Biogeographist (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I thank, who did some work to improve the article and whose proposed deletion was opposed by. It may be worth sending the article to articles for deletion. I agree that it is difficult to see how this article could be shaped into something useful and maintainable. Biogeographist (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The list started as List of next-generation library catalogs. The title has been generalised and the content should be expanded to reflect this.  This will not be done by deletion, which would be disruptive, but by reference to sources.  Here's a few examples:


 * Next-gen Library Catalogs
 * Library Catalogs; Their Preservation and Maintenance...
 * Alternatives for Future Library Catalogs
 * A Guide to Published Library Catalogs
 * Future of the General Library Catalogs
 * Automating School Library Catalogs
 * Istanbul library catalogs
 * Computerized Library Catalogs: Their Growth, Cost, and Utility


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 13:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The name of the article suggests, from a library user's perspective, the catalogs of items held by particular institutions, such as Famous University Library's catalog, the Library of Congress catalog, or perhaps even WorldCat, which was previously listed here (until I removed it a couple of days ago) as a "free" catalog; perhaps it is "free" from a library user's perspective but not free for the OCLC member libraries, and it is more than a catalog of items held by particular libraries; plus there is the fact that most OCLC member libraries run their own catalogs separately from WorldCat, but some libraries use an OCLC platform that is integrated with WorldCat. As I mentioned above, there is considerable complexity in the library software field that would need to be reflected in this list article; just calling it all "library catalogs" does not suffice, as was especially true of the wide range of software vendors listed here before 's edits. FOLIO, for example, which is still listed here, is a library services platform. At least the article needs to be renamed and improved to reflect the fact that its subject is a range of software functions (e.g. "List of library software"?), and not a list of whatever library users may consider to be the "catalogs" of particular libraries. If such specification cannot be done, then deletion of this article may indeed be a solution.
 * The first step may be to answer the question: What is the subject of this article? "List of library catalogs" is not working for the reasons I mentioned above. Biogeographist (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Having identified the main purposes of the listed software allowed me to move most of them into their according articles and remove the whole table here as it finally seemed to me that there were hardly any common attributes to be comparable within a single table. I'm still happy with deleting the article or keeping the list as a kind of overview linking the somewhat related articles. Brevity (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Redirect?
What do you think about redirecting this article? The following three titles all redirect here: List of next-generation library catalogs, List of next-generation catalogs, and List of opacs. The first two could redirect to, and the third could redirect to Online public access catalog. List of library catalogs could redirect to Library catalog.

The current content of this article could be inserted into the relevant spots in OPAC: Then the few remaining links to this article could be removed from other articles. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bibliographic database is already in
 * Collection (museum) may not be relevant enough to keep?
 * Digital library is already in
 * Discovery system (bibliographic search) and discovery layer could go in a new sentence in
 * Electronic resource management could go in a new sentence in
 * Integrated library system is already in
 * Institutional repository is already in
 * Online public access catalog is one of the redirect targets


 * This sounds great to me, thanks for compiling all that information! Cheers Brevity (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I will wait a little for any other feedback and then work on it. Biogeographist (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Edited as proposed, hope I didn't miss anything. Thanks Brevity (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you beat me to it! Biogeographist (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

✅ Biogeographist (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)