Talk:Lyrasis

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: do not move. — ξ^xplicit 01:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Lyrasis → LYRASIS — The article name should be changed to LYRASIS as the company name has been changed from Lyrasis to the all caps LYRASIS. OneHandClapping (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: see WP:MOSTM on why we don't use funny spellings sponsored by company public relations offices. What this needs, and does not have, is evidence that other people have adopted the word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Response: Here are a few references that show a wide adoption of the new spelling LYRASIS:

from the American Library Association from the Library of Congress from the Library Journal from BCR, another library network from a Harvard law blog My purpose for correcting the spelling of the article name is so that other articles may link internally using LYRASIS.OneHandClapping (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Whatever ridiculous way the company choses to style itself does not affect how Wikipedia treats the name. hence EasyJet, not easyJet and BMI, not bmi. The styling preferred by the company can be referred to in the opening paragraph. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: Since internal links require the exact spelling of the referenced article, is it possible for other articles to have internal links with the correct "LYRASIS" spelling? We are trying to allow LYRASIS member institutions to link to the entry.OneHandClapping (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply Internal links don't necessarily require the correct spelling. You can always use [[Lyrasis|LYRASIS]]. However, the general rule in the Manual of Style is that we should use Lyrasis throughout. I'm not clear why that should pose a problem to allowing LYRASIS member institutions to link to the entry. Can you explain what you mean, and I'll see if we can come up with a solution. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Thought And anyway, cannot a redirect from LYRASIS solve the problem? Skinsmoke (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Have set the redirect up for you. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Thank you, the redirect seems to be doing what I wanted to accomplish. An internal link reading "LYRASIS" can link to the "Lyrasis" article. It isn't necessary to change to article name. Thanks again! OneHandClapping (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lyrasis. 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/20100711042952/http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6652252.html to http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6652252.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420094427/http://lln.lyrasis.org/ to http://lln.lyrasis.org/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Tone and sourcing

This article has been re-written in a way that I don't think currently complies with NPOV or RS guidelines. I am assuming good faith on the part of the editors but don't know if a rollback is in order or not? Merrilee (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I went on a bit of an editing spree, especially when I realized a lot of the text had been lifted from the Lyrasis website. The services section still needs work. Merrilee (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think Lyrasis staff members have been editing the page, so I did a rollback and have also sent an email -- hoping to get them on the right track. Merrilee (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the organization may have decided to disregard that advice and continue to abuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes. I have just done some further major cleanup to bring the article more in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)