Wikipedia talk:Metropolitan New York Library Council

Categorization

Important to have main category of GLAM listed. Reduces clarity of GLAM connection.BrillLyle (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My recent edit was reverted, so I would like to discuss categorization here. There is no reason this page should be categorized in the parent GLAM category. It should be within the GLAM in the US category, just like all of the other US GLAM collaborations. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The parent category would become impossibly full if every collaboration was included there. Please use the subcategories. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think discoverability and the connection to the GLAM community is lost by (a) removing the GLAM categories -- especially the main one -- because METRO is a leading force in collocating GLAM efforts in New York City (b) removing the subcategories is not helpful either for the same reason and (c) changing the category to Wikipedia-New York Public Library collaboration is incorrect.

Regarding this newly selected category and my contention it is an imprecise and erroneous category, METRO is absolutely _NOT_ an organization that focuses on New York. METRO is regional, and includes Westchester County), but it also has a national impact because of the concentration (and impact) of talent within New York City that represents innovation nationally.

Nor does METRO simply focus on Public Libraries. If you look at their Wikipedia entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_New_York_Library_Council you will note that the community METRO supports includes libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural institutions in the New York metropolitan area. It serves as an umbrella member organization to over 250 organizations (see: http://metro.org/corporatememberships/applications/search/), provides training programs to a very large, active, innovative, and technologist savvy library & information science community, and provides training and networking opportunities for working librarians, archivists, preservation, conservation, digitization, and information professionals. All of whom are important stakeholders in this new GLAM movement. And METRO, with its current Wikipedian in Residence, is at the forefront of the GLAM movement.

I understand the need to have Wikipedia self-edit things and appreciate the effort to conform things but I truly think this issue over categories is not serving the Wikipedia GLAM initiative effectively.

Respectfully, BrillLyle (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the "Wikipedia-New York Public Library collaboration" category is appropriate. However, this collaboration should at least be filed into the United States category. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Another Believer. This is a much better category. I think the categories for GLAM are very messy in general, wish they were better. I know that a lot of times I am looking for GLAM projects that I know exist but they do not tie to the main GLAM portal -- or take a frustrating amount of time to find. Thanks for fixing this! BrillLyle (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes in Commons, which is where I ought to be fixing. However, at least for this week I'll be busy with other things, including pictures of things out there in the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 23:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]