Talk:Conservation science (cultural property)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservation science (cultural heritage). 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/20080619183322/http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/main_e.aspx to http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/main_e.aspx/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615055634/http://www.icr.beniculturali.it/ to http://www.icr.beniculturali.it/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Structure
Space to discuss structure Froselong (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys,

As far as structure goes, the outline I have in mind includes 4 main sections (Introduction, History, Fundamentals [different name maybe?], Research) Within Fundamentals we will cover Material Properties, Mechanisms of Deterioration, and Tools. Tools can be further broken down to Examination/Analysis and Treatment. These were some of the most important parts that I thought we should add. Thoughts?Dagriffin (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, That is similar to the structure I was thinking of:


 * Introduction (History/background/motivation for conservation science. I think this can be a brief paragraph as we don't want to set up expectations for a timeline level history but rather some background into the field, how it came to be, and why it is relevant today)
 * Agreed. Let's ensure there is also a comprehensive definition of what conservation science is, and how it relates to cultural heritage and functions in the conservation-restoration field.Caroline Randy (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * History
 * Added a separate section for History.Caroline Randy (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * About (this can cover the fundamentals portion. It is a generic term certainly but it's accurate! It is a nice way to introduce the section in a small paragraph and then have sub headings for material properties, mechanisms of deterioration, and then tools. We can then have a new section for methods where we dive a little deeper into tools but keep the About section a little more generic rather than deeply specific).
 * I'm not sure that we will need separate sections for "Introduction" and "About." I think we can consolidate the two. I agree that we want to add history and background (for example, the inception of conservation science and how it came to be) as well as why it's relevant today, citing specific examples.  Let's not forget we will want to expand on the definition of what conservation science is.  Not sure we need to have sub-headings in this the introductory paragraph.Caroline Randy (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Methods/Common Practices (here we can talk about specific techniques and the most common research methods and do that deep dive)
 * I agree adding research methods and techniques. I propose we also add a link to agents of deterioration and preventive conservation.Caroline Randy (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Applications (maybe here we could insert a few descriptions of conservation science in action, we can pull examples from the MFA textbook?)
 * Yes, let's absolutely include case studies. We don't have to go into detail with the case studies, but can identify them and link to resources where appropriate.  Perhaps we can expand on treatment from the previous section.Caroline Randy (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think tools should be in this section as well.Caroline Randy (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We could then end it with a "Future of Conservation Science" section and perhaps talk about the ethics, the way the field is growing, new technologies being explored, etc.
 * Agreed!

I think the biggest thing in my opinion is to limit how many sub-headings we have because it can make it harder to navigate the space sometimes. I would prefer more main headings than having a lot of little ones but if we can come up with a method that works I am very open to changing my mind! I think we have a lot to work with here for certain and the current state of the article means we can really go in any direction as there isn't much to be salvaged or worked around. Froselong (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should limit subheadings, and instead link to other articles in Wikipedia as applicable.Caroline Randy (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Content
Hi Everyone, you need to start adding more content on the article page! Rose Daly (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)