This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Preservation (library and archive) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 14 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Dfmoler. Peer reviewers:
Mcaruso42.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Styoung43.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Students at the Pratt Institute and Indiana University library schools have been adopting these topics and coordinating it with their class work. Consequently, some citations are "down the tree" in individual articles and haven't yet been applied to the main entry. Where information reflects the common practice of the profession, we're also having some discussion over the most appropriate source to cite - any pointers to wikipedia policy or practice on this would be most welcome. Your help and patience is appreciated! Jnadal 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As a part of the University of Maryland, iSchool I have been editing and removing materials deemed unnecessary to the topic, though interesting. I've also tried to make it more coherent and wikipedia friendly. I have not added any research of my own yet, as I think there is more than enough research on the page. (13 April 2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Styoung43 ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Preservation: Library and Archival Science needs to be moved to something complying with our article naming policy, I don't know what tho. -- Jeandré, 2007-04-16 t19:48z
These lists need to be wikified and edited for style. 128.158.145.51 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have begun cleaning up the citations by simply putting them in the correct format. I love the information presented here, but I agree with the two comments above. Some serious reformatting needs to happen to this article. Efkeathley 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Any citations you could give me for your info in the preservation article would be much appreciated. Just post the cites here if you like and I can add them in - I'm trying to footnote the piece and make sure the whole thing becomes wiki standard. Efkeathley 11:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think these can be merged and the topics could all be treated pretty easily under the various media specific issues. One potential problem is that the media preservation article as it stands now conflates a number of digital distribution and organizination services (eg snapfish) with preservation services. That makes some sense in the colloquial use of "preservation," but wouldn't fall within the scope of preservation as an area of library science. Jnadal 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You may be right about preservation administration and conservation science as separate categories, but I wonder about where they overlap. For example, Collections Care would seem to be preservation administration, but in archives circles this also sometimes covers basic book repair techniques, and book repair is conservation science when practiced at an in-depth level. If we separate the two concepts, there's going to be a bit of nit-picking about where things should go. Of course, this type of thing may have been already parsed out in some publication or committee of which I am unaware. I would be more inclined to separate the two concepts if we had a list somewhere of exactly what was "preservation administration" and what was "conservation science". In my practice, the two are so intertwined as to prove difficult to pry apart at their most basic level. While no one would mistake a processing archivist doing hinge tightenings for a ACA conservator reconstructing a leather binding, both these actions are related to the care of the same sort of artifact, and I hesitate to divide them. Efkeathley 13:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a particular justification to having so many links to different vendors? — Anarchivist | (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Everything is up-to-date with working links. Sebastion fox ( talk) 13:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The meaning of the numbered list under these two headings is unclear. This should be changed, but I am not sure what the intention of the section is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knjizhnjicharka ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Should a new article be created about the care or lack of it when people borrow library books with some statistical data? It could also include not returning the book and intentional vandalism (for instance the Joe Orton incident). Slightnostalgia ( talk) 15:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Preservation (library and archival science). 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Although most of the article seems cohesive, the inclusion of this paragraph into the Criticism section seems ill-fitting. Any suggestions as to where else it could go? Potentially a new heading or changing it to Critical Response?
Dfmoler ( talk) 15:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC) dfmoler
"Contamination can occur at the time of manufacture, especially with electronic materials"
This is too vague. What type of contamination? What does contamination look like? This sentence isn't helpful without more clarification.