Talk:State Library Victoria

Image filenames
A pity three images in this page have "Gallery" spelled "Gallary". Perhaps someone with more experience could rectify this?--Doug butler (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on State Library of Victoria. 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/20150725133026/http://creative.vic.gov.au/News/In_Brief/2015/Over_55_Million_To_Transform_The_State_Library_Of_Victoria to http://creative.vic.gov.au/News/In_Brief/2015/Over_55_Million_To_Transform_The_State_Library_Of_Victoria

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) 02:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Name
At some point the library must have changed its name from State library of Victoria to State Library Victoria. Could this be indicated more clearly in the text please (taking care to remove anachronistic uses of the current name). If "State Library Victoria" is now the WP:COMMONNAME, could we move the article as well? Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Teen writing bootcamp controversy
@, and  I noticed the edit warring and chose to step in to help implement the WP:CONSENSUS process of dispute resolution. I encourage everyone to stop reverting and discuss the issue here.

This topic appears to be a very minor event in relation to the topic at large. The long term significance of the event is unclear because of WP:RECENTISM but more importantly the section is way too detailed and lengthy. I also note that there is a lot of speculative reporting and speculative accusations which make this seem all rather trivial. If we do cover this at all in the article it should be limited to a couple of sentences maximum. Otherwise it is WP:UNDUE emphasis on a rather minor event that is tangential to the primary topic. I would oppose having a section devoted to this topic because of UNDUE weight. We should be able to cover this briefly in a sentence or two in the 21st century section. That’s all that is warranted, otherwise it throws the article off balance.

I have therefore removed the section until a WP:CONSENSUS opinion is arrived at here. Please don’t restore the content until it has been discussed here and a community decision is arrived at. All opinions welcome. 4meter4 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)