The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.
The goal is to create new articles, as well as to gather existing articles, concerning conservation and collection care at museums, libraries, historic locations, archives, and other relevant sites into a collaborative project aimed at unifying the various related topics. AngelKelley (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
List of important pages and categories for this proposed group
While, technically this group could be considered a subcategory of both the Museums and Libraries WikiProjects, many of the relevant pages are not specific to one or the other. For example, historic landmarks and houses are not necessarily included in either group. The Public Art and Visual Arts groups could be considered related topics, but as not all collection items fall under the public art and/or visual arts realm, it would be inappropriate to link the projects. Additionally, the Digital Preservation group holds to narrow a focus for the wealth of pages to fall under this broader category. As a result, the Digital Preservation group could likely be considered a subcategory or sister group to this one, unless a merger is preferred. That said, the topic does certainly fall under the GLAM WikiProject and as such it would be appropriate for this project to reference said connection.
Please specify whether or not you would join the project.
I would like to start this project as part of a larger internship project, and continue contributing well past the internship requirements- AngelKelley (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Support Angel left a note at WP: Museums and I totally see her reasoning why this could be, but isn't, a subcat of either museums or libraries. Angel, you shoulld look into getting this, if approved, added to the Musuems & Libraries deletion sorting as a way of keeping track of your articles. Might also want to ping the National Register of Historic Places group as there could be some overlap there. I might watchlist the project, but I probably wouldn't join as I'm not actively editing in that area right now. StarM 01:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment - in some countries it would be implied that Museum education would in fact be the cover-all for such a subject area - and as an Australian with knowledge of the issues museum studies and cultural heritage eduction (virtually non existent due to government low interest in sustaining viable tertiary education courses or facilities) - I am confused as to what country education system actually creates a cultural heritage professional workforce that has a museums/libraries system that has a separate conservation and collections care workforce (I thought museums world wide have lack of finance and resources where it is implied that such a distinction between workforces often gets blurred) . I would counsel caution of creating such a project - as the museums project looks very low on working editors, and to have a collections and cares project with low editing workforce - it would be a pity if a pair of projects might end up on the inactive project list - it must, if created get past the initial stage to be able to stand alone... that said - best of luck! SatuSuro 07:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It's great to see effort going into this important topic, but I'm concerned that the focus is too narrow to attract a sustainable number of members; perhaps better as a task force under an existing project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the difficult to attract members, but I don't think that this project is "too narrow." Also, I think it's difficult to find a place to put this as a task force because it relates to so many notions of conservation and collections care and so many different types of cultural heritage. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I second Richard's comment. That said, if you have a particular WikiProject in mind that perhaps we have not yet considered I'm open to suggestions. Unfortunately from what I have seen, thier are no currently existing groups that this project would neatly fall under.AngelKelley (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to call it "Artifact conservation and collections care" ? (since there's also nature conservation, which also have collections) -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
That is a very valid point. It has also been proposed that more fitting titles might include the terms preventive conservation, preventive care, or collection management. All of which could probably benefit from some type of term to denote objects, artifacts, or works of art versus nature conservation collections and the like. I'd love to hear from others with opinions on the topic.AngelKelley (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
While confusion with nature conservation is often a challenge, once you add "artifact" to the term then people who deal with buildings, sites, textiles, i.e. other branches of the field that aren't focused on objects/moveable art feel that they aren't included. Terms live preventive conservation/care and collection management cover either only part of the topics listed above or much more.--AMArtCons (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
A building is still an artifact, as are textiles -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
By [definition] an artifact is a "something created by humans usually for a practical purpose; especially : an object remaining from a particular period." So, yes, textiles are artifacts, but no, an historic landmark is not an artifact (I'm not positive if buildings are artifacts or not). Since buidlings and historic sites may still fall under the perview of preventive care (usually under the term "historic preservation"), I therefore see AMArtCons point and I am inclined to think that leaving it as is, sans "artifact," would be most appropriate given that the topics covered in this WikiProject could apply to other branches of the museum/historic preservation world. AngelKelley (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Something created by humans from a particular period. A building fits that definition. A building is an object, created for a particular purpose (grain storage, worship, etc) and since we date buildings to the Edwardian period or Antebellum period, etc, they are most definitely period-related. Leaving off "artifact" would just engender confusion and possible conflict with nature conservancy projects. If it said "artifact and site conservation and collections care" would handle the grey area of sites. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The conversation so far sounds very limited - anthropologically speaking - there is a whole world out there - it would be a pity if this project was confined to country specific issues - if it weas the case - maybe it should be very carefully introduced as collection care in the usa or something - there are issues relative to cultural heritage in asia and south america that simply are not on the same page - also there seems to be little knowledge of the ICOMOS and other international standards of what constitute heritage. Maybe some very careful reading of the international standards of what constitutes moveable and fixed heritage - and what international standards exist out there on these issues SatuSuro 07:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.