Talk:Digital reference

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeschooling, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeschoolingWikipedia:WikiProject HomeschoolingTemplate:WikiProject HomeschoolingHomeschooling

Libraries Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plagiarism claim

Untitled

I've started writing a new entry: see the temporary subpage. It seems to me that it might make sense to have one single entry on reference services, with dig ref being a large sub-topic. Currently there's an entry on Reference work that deals with reference sources, & an entry on the Library reference desk. I suggest a different split: an entry on reference sources & an entry on reference services, which will include all forms of dig ref, desk, email, chat, etc. Thoughts? - Jeffrey Pomerantz, 3/17/05

commercial applications

I am not certain of the notability of some of these applications; I think it would be a good practice to try to write defensible WP articles on individual ones, and only include those. It should be possible, for the professional magazines tend to have articles on the important ones. DGG 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles tags

Note that I reduced the number of tags from many to two. With the number of tags, the article did not even appear (for me) until I scrolled down (diff). I do agree that the article needs to be expanded and have a few more sources (and thus left those tags), but I do not agree that (among other things) it is confusing, needs copyediting, is a dead-end, needs more links, etc (and thus removed those tags). Hopefully that is agreeable? If not, we can decide what needs to be done - and then possible do it! :-) --Iamunknown 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]