Talk:Archival processing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VLBT2468. Peer reviewers: Onionpatch534.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Archival processing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061002003303/http://www.archives.org.uk/publications.html to http://www.archives.org.uk/publications.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North American?[edit]

I have been bold and removed "... is a term used in the United States of America and Canada" from the lede, first in line with WP:ISAWORDFOR, but more importantly because I don't think the term is particularly North American (or not any more). Here in the UK we'd traditionally have talked about "cataloguing" or "listing", but we'd have no problems with "processing", which encompasses a slightly wider range of activities (i.e. some basic preservation activities). Feel free to disagree. (By the way, yes, we do talk about "cataloguing", although we less frequently refer to the resultant finding aid as a "catalogue". Also, I've left the u in "cataloguing", but I don't feel strongly about it if somebody wants to take it out.) GrindtXX (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Archival processing. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Section for Arrangement?[edit]

I am working on this article as part of a class and am considering whether to separate out Arrangement as its own section. I might want to expand on the ways of organizing materials if the original order is not apparent (e.g. chronological) and briefly touch on how technology affects the need for physical (re-)arrangement. Are there any objections that come to mind for these changes? -VLBT2468 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me – presumably incorporating (and where necessary re-working) what currently constitute the final 3 paragraphs of "Surveying"? Be bold. GrindtXX (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - I'd like to pull those last three sentences into a separate section of their own and build on them a bit more. I could add more to the surveying section, such as assessing if the records are at risk in their current status and require conservation work to prevent further damage. I'd like to make it clear that surveying is an observation (seeing what we have without altering it) whereas arrangement is sometimes an activity that changes the collection, sometimes not. VLBT2468 (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]