Talk:Preservation (library and archive)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Libraries Mid‑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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Museums Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Collections Care (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Collections Care, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Collections CareWikipedia:WikiProject Collections CareTemplate:WikiProject Collections CareCollections Care articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Color photography#Preservation|Color photography § Preservation issues]] The anchor (#Preservation) has been deleted. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have found workshop discriptions helpful for this sort of thing in the past. Take a look at the SAA, SOLINET and AMIGOS sites - often they will cite commonly used techniques in their advertising, and they sometimes include short bios of the presenters as well. A lot of preservation information is given in regional workshops, so once you find a citation for your information, pick it up and use this template just after a sentence's period:

{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2007-06-23 |format= |work= }}

It's also perfectly OK to use the newsletters of folks like Collections Care Network - just use the news cite for those. A particularly rich resource for myself are the power points that folks post on the web after conferences. Even if the link is temporary (i.e. they only leave up the PP for a few weeks), you can still cite the work while it's active. CYA by including *all* the information on the presentation, including the author, title, date, etc. Encourage folks to make their materials available on university servers. Once it's on the web, it's a web publication.Efkeathley 17:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Cite journal, Template:Cite book, Template:Cite web for all the citation parameters; and Wikipedia:School and university projects for help with the class work. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-23t03:23z, -- Jeandré, 2007-06-23t03:28z

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)[reply]

Preservation: Library and Archival Science needs to be moved to something complying with our article naming policy, I don't know what tho. -- Jeandré, 2007-04-16t19:48z

Thanks for the redirect Jeandré; the original name was chosen to provide scope and a clean url, but the suggestion you made seems just fine to me Jnadal 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These lists need to be wikified and edited for style. 128.158.145.51 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey,

For this article, apart from the few citations included, the rest of the information was provided by Paul Conway whom I wrote to and he sent his Curriculum Vitae to me. This was after I could not find many publications about him. Thank you.

I think it's great that you've put this information in, but it needs to be from a published source. Even just web publishing counts! Does Conway have his Vitae on a web page somewhere? If so, we can cite the web page. Sadly, if it's not published elsewhere, this counts as original research, and it can't be used in the wiki. I know it's frustrating, but it's true. I had to take some good stuff out of the archivist article because I didn't have published cites. I'm going to copy these comments over to the preservation article page, because I think other contributors need to know this as well. I enjoy Conway's work, but we need to find a cite. Maybe we can pull from a bio published to advertise one of his classes?Efkeathley 11:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe some of the confusion can be cleared up by making a Category: Preservation Science page? If the two articles are merged, I suggest Preservation Science as the new title. This title fits well with the current intro paragraph.Efkeathley 17:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea!! though I'd suggest that "preservation administration" and "conservation science" are probably the more accurate category titles in the library and archives context. I'll go read up on category pages and then should I put together a roadmap for moving the various topics? (I submitted grades last night, so now I have a few months where I can actually work on this myself!) Thanks again for all your advice! Jnadal 10:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the category name. The media preservation article needs work but I think a combined article might overlap. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is there a particular justification to having so many links to different vendors? — Anarchivist | (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is up-to-date with working links. Sebastion fox (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150508072810/http://www.aia.org/ to http://www.aia.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427124537/http://www.buffalostate.edu/depts/artconservation/ to http://www.buffalostate.edu/depts/artconservation/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070510063100/http://www.nbss.org/home/index_flash.asp to http://www.nbss.org/home/index_flash.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609194538/http://www.archives.gov/preservation/internal/index.html to http://www.archives.gov/preservation/internal/index.html

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) 12:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

"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.

Dfmoler (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]