User talk:Moglucy

Welcome,

Re Archaeological illustration

Hello - i recognize that some of the pages you are adding the link to are appropriate, but adding nothing but links is considered spamming. Please consider adding content, not just links. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new to this. I wrote the content earlier today and I was adding the links I thought were relevant. I thought I was supposed to this so as not to create orphans. Sorry, I'll stop right away! Moglucy (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - some of them are indeed appropriate, but we don't usually simply add external links just because they are "relevant" - Wikipedia is not a list of links. If we did, we would rapidly become a very cumbersome version of Google. Anyway, thanks. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small questions on Archaeological illustration page

I just went by chance to the tidy Wiki page you did. A few little things:

1) Most black-and-white negatives and photos (although not inkjet) and Kodachrome are highly stable, so no need to imply they are only "considered" as such. However other color slide films besides are often anything but archival. This all leads me to wonder what exactly the current state of practice is.

2) Photography is used for all stages of archeology, so the statement "landscapes as they look now" is too restrictive.

3) Since 3D and virtual reality are new on the scene, those will be the areas where researching current techniques will be most revealing (and where I'd enjoy seeing the article considerably expanded.) In fact, the article itself could fruitfully be four or five times as long. Unfortunately, this isn't my field, so I can't contribute much.

4) I got rather leery of adding photographs after learning how complicated the discussion is about "free use", but...it would be nice if the photos in the article were clear enough to see what is being represented. Also, ha, you'll be delighted to read the Wiki policy on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_description_page

My "approach" to dealing with article photos was been: a) To take my own photographs, b) to keep them small on the Wiki page, and c) to follow along with photo conventions in similar articles. So far, the "worst" that's happened to one of my photos is that another editor reduced the size, so this approach seems to be working.

Keep up the interesting work!

Regards

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1: In the UK, colour slide and BW print on acid-free photographic paper are seen as the only archive stable formats see: http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/node-files/ifa_practice_archives.pdf

It seems to be quite a good document although it does mix up its "musts" and "shoulds" making it a bit easy to get away with not following best practice. It is also a bit mixed up when it comes to the digital archive but all in all it is the best document out there at present.

Re 2: True – I have modified it.

Re 3: I would like others in the field to get involved so that the page isn’t just my work. I’m a member of the AAI&S (see article) and I intend to mention in their next newsletter that I have created this stub. What I’m hoping is that members will add much more detail relating to their specific areas of interest.

Re 4: Yes images do seem to be a bit of a nightmare! Thanks for pointing me to the help page. As for better images as 3 above.

Thanks a lot for you interest!

Moglucy (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]