Talk:Museum label

The link for reference 5 is broken.

File:European Women's Undergarments, late 19th Century - label - Fashioning Fashion - LACMA.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:European Women's Undergarments, late 19th Century - label - Fashioning Fashion - LACMA.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Museum label. 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/20110430212508/http://www.museumprofessionals.org/forum/member-articles/2424-writing-exhibit-labels.html to http://www.museumprofessionals.org/forum/member-articles/2424-writing-exhibit-labels.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_43_1.html

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

sections

The article has Introduction, Section, Object Labels and Credit Panel.

Serrell recognizes

• Interpretive Labels:
  • Title Labels
  • Introductory or orientation labels
  • Section or group labels
  • Captions (Object Labels)
• Non-Interpretive Labels:
  • Identification Labels
  • Donor Information
  • Credit Panels
  • Wayfinding and Orientation Signs
  • Prohibitive Signs

I believe this article would be much better and much more useful if rewritten in this format. Thoughts?

MikeVdP (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really - neither Serrell nor the types currently used in the article are especially authoritative, nor is the article very clear. We should concentrate on generalizing as to what a range of museums currently actually do, expressing this with clarity and precision. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Images

@Johnbod: Can you please refrain from edit warring with me here? You're really acting like you own this article, really controlling any changes made to it. Please let's discuss here. ɱ (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

MOS:UPRIGHT specifies that tall and narrow images (portrait orientation) should use upright with a scale of 1 or less. Especially tall images, like the two in the article, should have smaller widths to be a smaller size, especially on articles like this, where there is a high image-to-text ratio. ɱ (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The images of German and Polish museum labels provide nothing new to the article, besides that one has a longer description than the lede image, and one features a different language. Neither are things of focus in the article, or of that much relevance - people can easily imagine that museum labels in large/diverse cities feature multiple languages just as road signs do...

Meanwhile an image of a more unique museum label, like the Cole House label, shows readers that museums can and do go beyond the norm of a square/rectangular, black-and-white printed text label. I can cite numerous instances of museums around the world that are doing this; it is an increasing trend with a purpose of making museums more interesting/interactive/fun to attract a larger audience. ɱ (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Examples of labels that aren't black-text-on-white-box types

• here at the Minnesota History Center
• here at the Thomas Cole National Historic Site
• here at the Worcester Art Museum
• here at the University of Michigan Museum of Natural History
• here at the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum
• here at the Jewish Museum

Examples of reports on interactive/creative labels and their advantages over the norm

• https://blogs.stockton.edu/amst5013/files/2013/12/Chadler-Screven-Motivating-Visitors-ILVF-Review.pdf
• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sce.20291
• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1989.tb00718.x
• https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3174197

I think we can see who is asserting ownership here, and also resisting my attempts to globalize the article, for which it is rightly tagged. MOS:UPRIGHT says nothing that means the Polish image (by no means "narrow") needs an upright. Both my images added considerably to the article - the Polish one was a much-needed section label, and you appear not to have noticed that I have added text on different languages, which everywhere except the US is a considerable feature of labels. Meanwhile you revert to restore the frankly highly unusual (and of course American) "book" label. ALL your new examples are OF COURSE American.... We should try to cover conventional labels properly before worrying too much about experimental ones (so far barely touched on in the text).Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The globalization tag is more about the text in the article covering the topic in all parts of the world. It's not a requirement that we use images from every part of the world, especially when they look nearly the same. Calm down and please let's keep talking this over; you're still accusing me of things, using full caps, etc. There's no need for that. Also, this is the English Wikipedia; I think it's important that English-speaking readers can read the images' text in most of the examples if not all. MOS:UPRIGHT also says that tall and narrow images should be at smaller sizes; if you can't read that I don't know how to help you. ɱ (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The Polish image is 1308 x 1780: this is seen as a portrait format, with the height larger than the width. Images with a landscape format are typically 6000 x 4000 or a similar proportion, with width being significantly larger than the height. This really shouldn't be that difficult. ɱ (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I can add information in the article about more modern museum labels, by no means "experimental", but however the future of museum design, already in place in museums that aim to be current. The Polish label provides nothing new or useful to the reader, nor really does the German label. Perhaps edit the article text to specify how (if at all) other countries' labels are different from US/UK labels. That is the true intention of the tag, not to include a freakin label from every continent. WP:NOTGALLERY. ɱ (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Not all portrait images are "narrow". All the images have the text in English. You are now flailing wildly, misapplying policy right and left. Perhaps calm down. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"Short, wide images often call for upright of 1 or greater; tall, narrow images may look best with upright of 1 or less." The two images I'm talking about are tall and narrow, that's so obvious it's like Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. ɱ (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

See also WP:DCGAR regarding this edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)