Talk:List of museums in the United States/Archive 2

=Redesign of List of museums in the United States, Discussion phase II= It is time we move onto phase II of this discussion because we have tentatively agreed on everything thus far and a new batch of questions has developed.

Currently, we have agreed to the following:
 * Do not remove from Wikipedia.
 * Use a separate article for each state.
 * Use a link box at the top of the main page and the bottom of each state page which is a combination of the two previously developed by Ben Boldt and Sir Blofeld

If anyone disagrees with these, please let us hear your concern.
 * I agree with the three items listed above. FieldMarine (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with all three. Noroton (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Mixed reaction -- like Orlady, I prefer the Template:Museums in the US. I have no problem with the first two items. I hope we can get a consensus to go along with that template (nice pic, too) but it isn't a priority for me and there is some value in the columns of the template now on the main page. Noroton (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mixed reaction - OK on most. However, for the template at the bottom, I think I prefer Template:Museums in the US (free-form layout takes less space, plus it includes a photo), supplemented by the "pulldown" image map. --Orlady (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, we still need to discuss the format to be initially used for each state, how this format can be changed to suit different sizes of articles, and to what extent this format should be maintained to keep all the articles consistent in the future. Ben Boldt (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

City
Strong Keep - Useful information. Ben Boldt (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep I also believe there is merit to grouping museums in the same city together. This way city articles can link to that section of the list. FieldMarine (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep about as useful as it gets, and lists are all about usefulness.Noroton (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep: I've just been clued into the sortable table function by Orlady. I think the sortable table is the perfect organizational method (it will not only solve organizational problems; it will inaugurate the Age of Aquarius, result in peace on earth and solve the mosquito problem). If the city column is simply part of the sortable table, it seems that's all we need. Noroton (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, for reasons given by Noroton. However, I strongly disagree with organizing the lists by city. Because use of sortable wikitables makes it possible for a list to be organized in good old alphabetical order by name, but allows users to sort the list by city, this mode of organization should not be necessary for any list that is in the form of a table. My opinion also is influenced by my horror at seeing List of museums in Montana when it divided the entire state into "Deer Lodge" and "Elsewhere" (for the uninformed, Deer Lodge happens to be a town of about 3,000 people, so this was a pretty absurd way of formatting the state list). However, I've noticed a tendency in other states for museums to get listed under the heading for a nearby large city (rather than in the smaller towns where they are actually located), and I suspect that the existence of city-specific subheadings tends to encourage that kind of error. --Orlady (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Listing by nearby larger town or city may be because editors feel its useful for readers to know what area a museum is in. (I think it is.) Add a "County" column to the sortable table and you have a nondebatable way of organizing museums beyond towns; whether something is in "the area of" a larger town or city will be forever debated in some instances. Counties have definite boundaries, but the extent of a metropolitan area or the overlap between two metro areas can provoke conflicts. The other benefit is having another way of knowing what area a museum is in. It won't always be useful, but can't hurt. Noroton (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus??: It seems that we agree to keep the city. The city may or may not be used for a sortable wikitable. That will be decided elsewhere. Ben Boldt (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of web links alongside red wiki links
Strong Keep: They are especially useful in my opinion. Ben Boldt (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep: This, inter alia, helps contributors write articles on museums not yet in Wikipedia & helps users see complete lists of museums for an area prior to completion of individual articles on the museums. FieldMarine (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Lists are all about usefulness. Noroton (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK to keep, but put them next to the museum name, not in a separate column of a table. Even better: encourage people to format them as reference citations (and provide a ). --Orlady (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The column I've seen them in is the "Comments" section (which should be renamed "Description"). They seem to be an alternate to descriptions, or at least they'll be used by readers as an alternate before descriptions are filled in. No confusion for the reader would result either way, nor does it look worse either way, so it's not important, IMHO. I disagree with reference citations because that requires two mouse clicks for the reader to follow instead of one, and lists are all about usefulness. Noroton (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

State of discussion: It seems that we agree to keep external web links for red wiki links. It seems that they should go immediately after the name of the museum like this, the way they have in the past:

Red-link museum | web

I personally believe that the web links should only be there on red wiki links and for blue links it should not be there. If a link turns from red to blue, the web link should be removed for the simple fact that it seems to be a detail that belongs in the museum's own article. Please express whether you agree or disagree with this. Ben Boldt (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Restrict It's not really my preference, but it's not that important and I think it makes a fight with the External Links patrollers less likely. Noroton (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Type of museum
Keep: It's good to know at a glance what type of museum each one is. There are a lot of them that there's no way to tell from the name. Ben Boldt (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep: FieldMarine (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per Boldt. Noroton (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Combine with "Comments" (see my statement there). --Orlady (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Additional detail on my reasons: I think "Type of museum" is an appropriate category of information for inclusion in these lists, but because many museums are inherently difficult to classify by type, that column title imposes frustrating limits on contributors. For many specific museums, there are other types of information that are related to the topic of "type" (such as the name of the famous person whose home a particular museum is) that deserve to be listed in lieu of "type of museum". By combining the "type" field with a "comments" field, it is easier to include this other information -- and it is possible to leave the field blank if the museum type is obvious from its name. --Orlady (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep: The type of museum should use Wikipedia's list of Category:Museums by type, with appropriate subsections. Many museums fall into several categories.Jllm06 (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Type is difficult for any museum with more than one collection: science & art, art & history, natural history & science, etc. or more than 2 types of collections. Many museums have a wide variety of collections that is good to know about. Any good thoughts on how to handle type?Jllm06 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus??: It seems that we agree to keep the type or types of museum. We're not 100% sure where to put it yet, but this may depend on whether we'll use a table format or not. The point is that we do wish to keep the type(s) of each museum -- somehow. Please speak up if you disagree with this.

Use of icons for museum type
Weak Remove: The icons do serve a purpose but negative seems to outweigh positive. They require extra markup including a template and manual line break, they require referring to a key, and sometimes there are strange museums that don't really fit with any of the icons. Ben Boldt (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove: as stated above. FieldMarine (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong remove: Extra work for editors and, more importantly, for readers. Words work best in this case. Noroton (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove. per Ben Boldt. They are not as easy to understand as words, and are difficult for some editors to handle. Tim Ross ·talk 14:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove: Not needed if the museum's types are listed.Jllm06 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus??: It seems that we agree to remove the icons.

Image of museum
Remove: Creates clutter, stretches the page, less than 50% have a picture to use. No possible way for people to legally add more pictures without physically visiting the museum with a camera. Ben Boldt (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Remove: Adds no value for list & better served on the individual museum page. It also increases the row size significantly. FieldMarine (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Weak remove: Provides some nice color to the page; helps readers remember which museum is which; there's room on the pages; I am a bit concerned about how they increase the page size, especially if a lot are added. Noroton (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it, the more I think the pictures should be removed from the table. For smaller states, or in moderation in large states, pictures can be put to one side of the sortable table -- I've seen them on the left side of a table in some list pages. If there's an "Image" column of the main table, they're going to get added, and they add significantly to the bytes on a page, so for California, New York or other big states, the lists will really burden the page. Without that column, the tables will be squeezable for an occasional picture (and it shouldn't be a problem for small states). So keep pics out of the tables. Noroton (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good recommend by Noroton & Tim Ross on options for pictures on the page, either on the left or right side of a table/list or on the bottom in a gallery. This is especially good if there are only limited images available -- see List of U.S. Marines or List of tallest buildings in Boston.  But I am still a Strong Remove for pics on the table itself.  Maybe we can make adding pics on side or in gallery as an option to allow some flexibility for the editors?  Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove for reasons given by Ben Boldt and FieldMarine. --Orlady (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove: Not very useful, but uses a lot of space. Better if placed on the individual pages. Tim Ross ·talk 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep: I agree with Noroton, they are nice to have but it would be OK to remove if they take up too much room, especially for large states with many museums.Jllm06 (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Foundation date
Weak remove: It's good information but not worth the effort to produce in my opinion. I guarantee that there will be more than a handful of them that can't be easily determined. Ben Boldt (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Remove: I see no value in including this info here when it is better served in the individual museum article. FieldMarine (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove: I see no useful purpose served by them. And they're not always easy to find.Noroton (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove, for reasons given by Noroton. --Orlady (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove: Often difficult to obtain, and, I expect, rarely used. Tim Ross ·talk 18:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus??: It seems that we agree to remove the foundation date.

Comments section
Strong remove: I can't even explain how much that doesn't belong in these lists. Ben Boldt (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Remove: Adds no value. FieldMarine (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongest possible keep: Verbal descriptions are extremely useful for browsers, for those searching through the list. They're extremely easy to put together. I must've added a dozen in Connecticut, and the process only takes a few minutes apiece. And I'm fascinated to learn so much. It's one of the more pleasurable types of edits I've done.Noroton (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: Descriptions are indispensable to know the nature of the institutions we're talking about. Lots of small museums have weird combinations of things. The Barnum Museum in Bridgeport, Connecticut, has a single mummy. That doesn't mean you can call it a "natural history" museum (and if you did, it would be extremely misleading). The Connecticut Audubon Center is a bird sanctuary with stuffed birds native to Connecticut -- and stuffed African animals. The Mattatuck Museum in Waterbury, Conn. has all sorts of different things. And the examples go on and on. I agree completely with Orlady just below that "Comments" should be changed to "Description" or "About" -- or is there some other reason for that column that wouldn't be covered by either of those words? Noroton (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongest possible keep -as above. What is the point in the lists if they don't provide a summary? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, but not under the title "Comments." I'd prefer to see a somewhat free-form "About" or "Description" field encompassing the information under "type" and the information the might be provided under "comments." This would be the place to say "Art museum" or "Science museum" or "Home of President Andrew Jackson" or "Collection of Egyptian antiquities" or "History museum with an special children's area" or "Teapot collection" -- or whatever, in some instances eliminating the need to figure out what "type" a particular museum is. --Orlady (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I see where you're coming from Noroton and Orlady. I don't think this should be a "copy/paste from the article" type of thing or a formal summary. I think it would be best to use key words and phrases separated by commas. Sort of like an expansion on the museum type idea. For example, the Barnum museum mentioned could have a description like this:

Archaeology, focuses on one mummy

Or for Science Museum of Minnesota:

Physical science, archaeology, geology, ecology, natural science, medicine, ancient fossils, large dinosaur skeletons, cultural, food court, Omni theater, 3D cinema, gift shop

Just quick easy references to features of each museum. Otherwise it would take a whole page to describe that museum. Admittedly I did choose a very large and diversified museum, but I think this serves as a good example. These key words fit into a fairly small space even for gigantic museums that are difficult to describe quickly. Ben Boldt (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: IMHO, "Physical science, archaeology, geology, ecology, natural science, medicine, ancient fossils, large dinosaur skeletons, cultural, food court, Omni theater, 3D cinema, gift shop" is way too long. That's an advertising blurb, not descriptive information appropriate for a list entry in an encyclopedia. IMHO, the name "Science Museum of Minnesota" provides sufficient information on the scope of that museum; the description could be left blank. I also don't see a need to describe "Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum" or "National Ornamental Metal Museum" -- their names are pretty informative. It's museums with non-descriptive names like "C.H. Nash Museum" or "Parthenon" or "Creative Discovery Museum" or "Customs House Museum" that need short descriptions. --Orlady (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I still see no reason for a comment section. Most lists I see in wikipedia don't have one. With full description of the museum in the museum article only a click away via the wikilink, a comment section only serves to clutter the list. However, if a comment section is used, I agree with Orlady in keeping it very short & also getting rid of "Type of Museum" column. FieldMarine (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think one-click-away can be an enormous distance to make a reader go, because if they are looking down a whole list (which is why they are on the page in the first place), all they have to do is scroll and read (and watch if we keep the pics). But they have to make a decision to leave the page, wade through another article and then come back if they want to get a brief sense of the museum. Descriptions are especially helpful for people browsing, wondering if they might find a particular article interesting. And a name and one word description won't tell you that the Costume Museum in New Canaan, Conn. is a mere one-room exhibit, or that the grand-sounding National Helicopter Museum in Stratford, Conn. fits into a tiny former train station building. Also, I've been adding these descriptions to museum items that don't have articles, and you often don't find an adequate thumbnail description on the main Web pages for these museums. Descriptions on the list page make it easier on the reader. Noroton (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Examples of lists with descriptions. FieldMarine said most lists don't have descriptions, but all of these do, and they're all featured lists:


 * List of tallest buildings in Boston
 * List of medical schools in the United Kingdom, the footnotes column seems inelegant though
 * List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, shorter descriptions, but there are more columns on this list than we'll ever have.
 * List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the prosiest of the lot Noroton (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Two of those examples are not particularly applicable. List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is not a good example, because it's a very different kind of list. List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania also is not applicable, as the "Remarks" column in that article is simply mistitled -- all of those "remarks" are statements about the meaning or origin of the municipality's name. The other two examples seem more relevant, and all indicate appropriate restraints in the use of the "notes" field. The Comments field in List of medical schools in the United Kingdom is limited to useful list-relevant information -- former names of institutions, relationships with other listed institutions, and notes about institutions that may not fully fit some people's definition of "medical school." It does not go beyond that to provide information that would more properly belong in articles about the institution, and the Comments field for some schools is blank. Similarly, the Notes field in List of tallest buildings in Boston is limited to reference citations and list-relevant details, such as alternate names and details about the building's tallness. --Orlady (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: What would you suggest is the best way to describe the limits of what we should put in the "About" or "Description" field? What would be "list-related" information that should stay? Noroton (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: No doubt, these lists are impressive. The rub I see is the lists of museums for some states are changing & HUGE while the above lists are relatively finite & small. I worked extensively on the List of museums in Florida & only scratched the surface on that one & there is about 150 museums. Looking at MuseumsUSA.org, (a website that lists museums) California has 1,400 listings. Realizing that many of the museums listed on that website may not be applicable, the potential for a state list to get unwieldy is a possibility to consider. Also, at this stage in the development, I believe there is merit to facilitating a broad audience of people to easily add museums by keeping it as simple as possible. FieldMarine (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree that comments are helpful for museums where the name does not tell much about what the museum offers. The comments/description can focus on the museum's main activities, not every detail. For the casual browser of a list like this I think it will be helpful and a good way to get an overview of a museum before clicking on a page.Jllm06 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral: Comments can certainly be useful occasionally, but they are also quite unneeded in a large number of cases. Plus, they can very easily take up so much space as to make a list ungainly or difficult to use. Is there any reasonable way to restrict their size? Tim Ross ·talk 18:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment While I strongly want to keep the description sections, I think I went a bit overboard in the ones I wrote for List of museums in Connecticut and I'm going to try to cut them back a bit. The length should be short, with acceptable information limited to describing the collection, what kind of exhibitions are given, something about the essential nature of the museum that may not be explained in the "Type" column, tell the reader if the museum is very small or very large (it's important to know if a museum takes up one room or a large city block), anything superlative about the museum ("biggest button collection in North America"), and it should all be done in less than, say 80 words. It probably isn't worth making hard and fast rules about. For larger state lists, the descriptions may have to be briefer. Noroton (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of tables
Comment: Use of the sortable wikitable format should be encouraged, but in my experience it's much easier to build a list and later format it than to add massive amounts of missing information into a pre-existing tabular format. --Orlady (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommend against table -- keep it simple. FieldMarine (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Use a table format: I completely disagree with Field Marine but agree with Orlady's suggestion of sortable tables. These lists should be made encyclopedic and a table provides the information well. I thought the images would help liven them up and had some encyclopedic value but if not I'd hate to see any of my hard work deleted. This is exactly why I havent continued to help develop thes elists because I feel my efforts are not appreciated and will be deleted in one form or another ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      Talk? 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think User:Ben Boldt has the right idea…let’s reserve decision on best way to present the info after we decide on what info we are including on the page. I personally may be persuaded to support a sortable table depending on what we are including & how it looks. As far as wasted effort goes, this discussion should have taken place with consensus achieved on the new format prior to implementation of major change. As mentioned earlier, adding pictures may involve copyright issues. I don’t know how that works…maybe a review of some of the pictures currently used on the tables will answer that question. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On copyright, I wouldn't worry. I think almost all images come from editors who snapped a photo when they visited or passed by a museum. As you know, if the photo is a fair-use shot, then it can only be used for the article that directly covers the subject. Noroton (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your spot on. After reviewing pics on several lists, I see no Copyright issues for ones added.  I must admit, I am a neophyte in this issue since I rarely use them unless I take the picture myself.  What I don’t want is for editors to feel they have to add a pic in order to add a museum to the list as this might discourage contribution.  Thanks FieldMarine (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

comment Field Marine, wikipedia is not a directory. We discussed this previously and with Rich Farmborough also. Categories are best for lists if you are just to list names. Whats the encyclopedic use of this? The tables provide some sort of information which most if not all pages of an encyclopedia should. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     Talk? 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That’s a straw man argument: I have not seen any discussion from anyone about just listing names of museums.FieldMarine (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Will the average Wikipedia viewer understand that a sortable table can be sorted? Can you give a link to a page that already uses this feature? For a small state like Connecticut, Noroton's use of three ways to look at museums is helpful for a new viewer, but it is time consuming to create three entries for each museum. One table with full info would be great.Jllm06 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I believe that a sortable table, especially one without the several possible graphic elements, would be the easiest way for users to obtain information. Several levels of location could be included: city, county, etc. Thus, sorts by name, type, and location would be convenient and, in the absence of the graphics, the list could be relatively compact (depending upon whether notes were included). Tim Ross ·talk 19:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I saw the List of museums in Alabama sortable table. I think there should be instructions at the top for viewers, like "Click on an arrow to sort by column". I think it is important to add County to group museums by general location. Type is difficult for any museum with more than one collection: science & art, art & history, natural history & science, etc. or more than 2 types of collections. Any good thoughts on how to handle type? Jllm06 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: You make a very good point. There are many sortable wikitables in Wikipedia now, but it is likely that many users are unaware of their sortability. Looking for precedent on how to document that functionality, I find that Help:Sorting does not currently seem to have suggestions. Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas says "The following sortable table lists the 123 Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs) of the United States of America," but it does not explain how to sort the table. On the other hand, List of science fiction conventions is excessively self-referential; it includes an article section called "How to use the list" that explains in great detail how to sort a table: "Click on the double triangles to sort the list by that column, either ascending, or descending. Subsequent sorts will preserve the previous sort order as a secondary sort. For example: Sort by date ascending, then country ascending, will produce a list that is grouped by country, then sorted by date." I suggest that any sortable tables of museums should use the words sortable table somewhere in the introduction. One possible approach to providing how-to documentation would be to include a wikilink to Help:Sorting, but I think many users would find that page to be overwhelming. A better alternative (my preference) would be to insert a small-font note immediately above the first such list in an article, explaining (simply) "Click on the double triangles at the top of a column to sort the table by that column." --Orlady (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I just changed the List of museums in Connecticut into a sortable table, thanks to Orlady's suggestion and with some support from the evil genius Blofeld. I put a "how to use" description in a sentence or two at the top. Feel free to take a look and improve it. I absolutely agree that these tables need a little "How to" information, although once you know what a sortable list does, it's all pretty intuitive. Sortable lists do make multiple "Category" listings pretty much impossilbe, which is another reason for a good "Description" section. Noroton (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Noroton, I played around with this table & I'm not tracking on the sortable feature for the images & the comments -- why are these sortable? Am I missing something here? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The value of the sort table comes with the other columns, not those two. You might want to sort by name (although that's default), by town, by county or by type of museum. One big problem with the sort function is the type-of-museum sorting either follows the first word or you would need multiple listings for the same museum. That's a drawback of the table sorting style, but it's still better than any other method, IMHO. If you go back in the history of List of museums in Connecticut or even see my comments above, you'll see I was groping for this kind of functionality and doing it with three clunky lists before, because I think it's so important to be able to list by museum name, by town and by county. Noroton (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I recommend eliminating it on columns where that functionality is not needed like in List of medical schools in the United Kingdom. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't logically follow. There's no reason at all to drop a feature just because the software doesn't have a use for it. What matters is whether the reader has a use for it. No one will be frustrated by clicking on the sort button on top of the "Description" column or the "Image" column and find that nothing useful happens.Noroton (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that users won’t get frustrated by that unneeded functionality; I just think the way that aspect was done on List of medical schools in the United Kingdom was squared away & showed good attention to detail. That’s why I offered the recommendation.  Thanks!  FieldMarine (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with you Ben Boldt, but I'm not sure how we can have a comment section in a non-table format. I think these two items are inseparable. Any ideas here or examples in Wikipedia where this is done? FieldMarine (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: One feature I envisioned when I first engaged in this project several months ago was being able to link lists of museums with city pages. I always thought this was a neat feature with lots of lists I see on Wikipedia, such as historic sites, etc for a specific city. See the award winning site San Francisco, California where it links to the San Francisco section of lots of lists, including museums. Is there a way to preserve this feature with the table format that is proposed like the List of museums in Connecticut? If there is, I would support this option (minus the picture). FieldMarine (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I have realized that some of the decisions above depend on whether we choose to use a table format. Because of this, it probably is important that we discuss this now. I apologize for not considering this earlier.

I think the sortable table format is a good idea. There are advantages and drawbacks.

Advantages that I see:
 * No need to have a separate section for each city and the awkward elsewhere section. The user can sort by city to accomplish that.
 * More information can be attached to each item in the list, and this is good for quick reference.
 * Users can sort by type of museum so they can see all the same types of museums together.

Drawbacks that I see:
 * Not as easy to understand the table format when editing for new contributors.
 * Table format more difficult/time consuming to edit even when you know exactly what you're doing.

If we reduce the amount of information given for each museum (which we're deciding up higher on this page), each museum will be able to fit on one line like before. The current table format is bloated and I am fairly sure it can be reduced, possibly to take up the same amount of space as the original non-table format.

I don't see how we can incorporate all the features people have decided they want into a non-table format.

Please feel free to comment on this - I was wrong to say not to talk about this before. Ben Boldt (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment (new example): Please have a look at List of museums in Alabama. I have modified it to incorporate most of the things agreed to so far on this discussion page. There are some things we haven't agreed on yet so this definitely is not "the way it's going to be". I did this to help us gain a little perspective on where we are - that's it. Also this is an opportunity for you to say what you like and dislike about the example. The example incorporates the sortable table. Please comment on that.

Please also look at the source code. I think that when it is written in this fashion that it isn't too bad to understand. Ben Boldt (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Several comment on new Alabama list - Overall, it looks fine. However: (1) I'm not fond of fixing the widths of list columns. It works OK on "typical" displays, but on a wide display it's pretty stretched out. Why not let the software adjust the columns to fit the content? (2) "Area of study" sounds like something from a field-trip-planning guide for middle school teachers; I think most other participants in this discussion have strongly preferred "Type". (3) This table nicely illustrates some of the problems with requiring classification of museums according to a pre-determined set of "types." Its seems extraneous ("brain dead" in the lingo of a middle-schooler) to point out that the Bessemer Hall of History is about History or the McWane Science Center is about Science. Meanwhile, however, it looks "wrong" to say that the United States Space & Rocket Center is about Aviation, when any middle school child could tell you that it's topic is "SPACE." (4) I inserted a real example of the kind of information that I think would be appropriate to add as a note, namely, identification of a defunct museum whose collection is now at the McWane Science Center. (5) I agree that the source code format is much easier to work with than what was there previously, but it is still likely to discourage someone who has a list of 100 museums (perhaps from a state museum organization) needing to be added to the current list of 11 museums. --Orlady (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the improvements laid out by Orlady for the proposed table by Ben Boldt. I am also not a big fan for listing “type” for the many reasons listed above such as museums having multiple types or some not fitting neatly into the taxonomy we establish.  However, if we employ sortable tables, there may be merit to their use to allow a “rough” sorting by this category.  Theoretically (from my understanding of the guidelines in Wikipedia), we as editors are not supposed to determine such things as a museum "type" (I fully realize this is not always practical to follow).  What I have always done in the past when writing articles for museums in Wikipedia is use one of the many 3d party orgs that specialize in museums lists, such as MuseumsUSA.org.  They generally list “type” & I use that since they are the “experts”.  Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: in response to Orlady:


 * (1) Fixing widths - OK, we can discuss that. Freely floating columns allows for one museum with a particularly long entry to change the entire spacing of the table so that's why I chose to leave them fixed for the example.  We can experiment with that though.


 * (2) "Area of Study" - That's just a minor detail. I have changed it to "Type" as you have suggested.


 * (3) Predetermined types - Because we no longer use icons, the possible types are no longer predetermined. Notice how I made the "Space" change as you suggested.  I also agree with FieldMarine that this allows a rough sortability by museum type.  It won't work particularly well with museums that are multiple types but I think it still provides some usefulness as far as generally grouping types together.  Nearly all museums that have multiple areas focus on one are more than the others.  There are a rare few I have seen that are evenly split among 2 or even 3 areas, and these would not work especially well with sorting this column.  I personally believe it's worth it to have the column even with this "bug", so to speak.  This is definitely up for debate.


 * (4) Good example.


 * (5) Source code still more difficult than before - I think we need to find a middle ground between how easy it is to edit and how easy it is to use. Each column we eliminate makes it easier to edit and each column we choose to include potentially makes it easier to use.


 * Do you suggest we use a non-table format for easier editing? I think sortability is worth slightly more complicated editing.


 * Ben Boldt (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think the List of museums in Alabama works fine. Why not add a photo to the side, the way List of medical schools in the United Kingdom does? It fulfills my desire to have a little more color on the page (you can also do it by having the photo on top, but I think a few photos on the left side work nicely). If the images are outside the box, editors won't feel encouraged to add to every item. For large states perhaps we should only add one up top and not add any more, but I don't think a few photos are ever going to be a burden at the Alabama list. Addressing other issues:


 * (1) I haven't found free-floating widths to be a problem; why not free float as default and if a problem comes up, address it with fixed widths. The function may be useful to break up some lines, although wikilinks complicate it
 * (2) "Type" -- an improvement
 * (3) Sortability by type is an enormous advantage, despite the bug; it seems we have to accept imperfection; I could see a "Major Area of Study" column and "Secondary Area of Study", but it may be complicated for the editors and confusing for the readers. I'd be interested in seeing examples.
 * (4) Personal experience: I didn't find it that hard to add to the Connecticut box, but I'm probably more patient that way. (I got my museum list from a AAA guide, by the way -- long but not comprehensive.) I've found in the past that some editors simply add informaton at the bottom of the article and let someone else format it. We might encourage that on the talk page.
 * (5) The Alabama source code format seems especially easy, to me. I've used only about six of these on Wikipedia and it's the simplest table format I've seen.

I think some kind of additional geography column on the Alabama table would be especially useful. You might make it kind of free form and when some knowledgable editor from that state comes along, let that editor change it around. You might stick "Northern Alabama", "Birmingham area" and "Gulf Coast" in a "Region" column. On a long list with museums in small communities, I think it's enormously helpful to give the reader an instant idea about what area a museum is in. There may well be a locally recognizable region we know nothing about, perhaps even one with definite boundaries, or perhaps a U.S. Census region, or maybe local Alambama editors might want to use counties. It should be all right if the Region column is left blank in spots. That might even encourage editing. Noroton (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added the br/ line-break function for the Tuskegee/Booker T. Washington House item in the List of museums in Alabama. Worked fine in this case. Noroton (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The List of museums in Alabama, as it now stands, look both good and usable to my mind. (Usable both by readers and by editors.) I would really recommend added another location column, though, for "county" or "region", taking a bit of space from the "name" column for that purpose. Would anyone object to adding an optional photo gallery? Tim Ross ·talk 11:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(convenience break)
Here's what the List of museums in Alabama might look like with one regional column added. If you click on the "Location" links, you'll see where in the state the museums are, and I used that to call some areas, very roughly, "West central" and "East central" and "North Alabama". I don't think we have to be exact to be useful. It wasn't difficult to add the column or populate it. Noroton (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And we can even define the Birmingham area easily: Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman Combined Statistical Area. I'm going to add that as a link to the table below. Noroton (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gotta go, but this might be useful, too. Someone's obviously thought about Alabama's regions. That won't be true for a lot of states (nit sure how many). But this might be useful if we wanted to have more exact ideas about what region a museum is in: Category:Regions of Alabama. -- Noroton (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, actually, 48 states have these categories: Category:Regions of the United States by state. -- Noroton (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Consistency across articles
How much should consistency be enforced now and in the future for these articles?

Mostly consistent now, less enforced later: It would be difficult, time consuming, and almost unfair to periodically undo deviations from the original format. Many arguments would arise. Each article should still at least fit and work together with the other articles even as they begin to change. Ben Boldt (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Against consistency If an article deviates in a good way (that is, it's very easy to use with no confusion), there's no point to consistency. If there's a problem with a particular article, address the problem individually (you have to anyway). I don't expect most readers to be going from state list to state list but to be interested in other things in the state, so consistency has little point. To put it another way, if you want to change anything in the List of museums in Connecticut then I'm against consistency, but if you want to change the other 49 state lists to make them just like Connecticut's ... well, I'm fine with that. ;) Noroton (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I agree with Noroton - the Connecticut list is the way these lists should be built. If they are completely filled in with info they will be very useful indeed. I have no idea how any of you think that the List of museums in Alabama is an improvement than before when there is now no summary of the museum or anything really worth visiting the page for. It's pretty pointless now. Nobody said that the whole article had to be put into the tables but a summary and date founded were the only encyclopedic details which you are now removing. I'm glad you've got it all worked out. Anf why on earth have we gone back to that template with the map for? If you filled in the notes section with a decent summary of the museums rather than two words or nothing at all I would be more likely to approve of the new version ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <font size="-4"><font color="Black">Talk? 14:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Noroton with respect to against consistency. I think the format in List of museums in Alabama was a vast improvement from List of museums in Connecticut in terms of content placed on the table & utility for users. If the editors on List of museums in Connecticut are unwilling to bend, then I am for inconsistency across the lists. Thus, I think we should have a level of inconsistency that allows editors to improve the state articles as they see fit. Also, I believe that the format of the List of museums in California was an improvement by breaking the tables out for the big cities. This preserves the ability for other Wikipedia articles to incorporate the lists of museums in cool ways such as the way San Francisco, California did as I mentioned in the above discussion paragraph. It is my intent to incorporate this feature for Florida cities. IMHO, the strength of Wikipedia is the ability for articles to link to each other, which I am afraid we will lose if we adopt the List of museums in Connecticut in its current state. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I, too, prefer the Alabama format over the Connecticut format. It offers easier access to the basic information which is, after all, the purpose of a list. I must disagree with FieldMarine, though, about the format of the California list. It seems to be an unnecessary complication, given that a list is sortable by city or region. True, one can link from a city article to a paragraph in the California-style listing, but I don't think that advantage is worth the cost in added size and complexity. Tim Ross ·<sup style="color:green; font-family:courier;">talk 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point about the added complexity is very valid -- it would at least require an index at the top of the article to link to the city table. The added size comment I'm not so sure about -- at least in a large way (I don’t think the California list would be that much shorter without breaking down by city).  A workaround for this is only doing it for major cities.  I believe if this is not done, editors will create other lists of museums for areas to accomplish what the individual state lists are not, creating redundancy & possibility of different info on the different lists.  In the end, this also potentially complicates the issue.  List of tallest buildings in Boston is a good example of multiple tables on one list.  I am very interested if anyone has ideas for work-arounds on this -- maybe there is a technical solution?  Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * FieldMarine, your response prompted me to create a new section below, about size considerations. I think regional lists in addition to state lists will eventually be necessary for large states, please take a look further down. Noroton (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Ripley's could be added to several state lists
I added a link to Ripley's Believe It or Not in List of museums in Tennessee. They have museums in several other states, where similar links may be appropriate. --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead an add it to the other states using the appropriate anchor links like you demonstrated - I don't see how that could be a problem. (???) Ben Boldt (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * FTR, I have no interest in adding Ripley's links to other states, but simply mentioned it here for the edification of others. --Orlady (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Noted. Ben Boldt (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Considerations of size and regional listings in establishing format
In deciding on what kind of table to use, maybe we need to consider just how big these lists eventually will become. How big will the big-state lists become? How big will an average list be? Can we treat small states with inevitably small lists differently, with more detail perhaps? It's reasonable to suppose that many of them (eventually maybe all) will have listings for every museum. The lists for New York and California (wealthy states with lots of people and local communities) may grow so big that we have to cut back on either details or have some tighter criteria. I think tighter criteria are difficult to enforce and are contentious (more on that below). I think it's easier to have very inclusive criteria and strip down the listing, when we have to, to just the basic information (at its most extreme, just name and location and type in a sortable list). If that happens, then some kind of "regional list" (by which I mean lists for museums in a region or city or metropolitan area) should be linked at the top of the state page. Those regional lists preserve FieldMarine's desire to be able to link, for instance, the San Francisco, California article to the section that lists museums in San Francisco. It also allows for some more detail, and even pictures, if we want that. It might be worth looking at List of Registered Historic Places in Connecticut to see how someone solved a similar problem.

If we can contemplate California regional lists being broken out fairly quickly, we might even make the "region" a column on a sortable list and provide a link to the regional page, such as "Los Angeles area" linking to the regional list for that metropolitan area. For California, we can set up regional lists fairly quickly using the organization List of museums in California already has.

FieldMarine has linked to MuseumsUSA.org that has an exhaustive listing of museums by state and breakdowns by city (Los Angeles has 87 items, some of which may not be appropriate, but it's still a lot ). Now these state lists also have historic homes and other institutions that I think we really shouldn't list, but the point is that it gives some indication that there are lots of museums out there. Whatever format we choose should be able to handle that number. I think even the largest states can handle the List of museums in Alabama sortable-table format with the addition of a few pictures on the page, very short summaries and a column for regions. Sorry for the length of this post and the next one. Thanks for your patience. Noroton (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on inclusion criteria
Maybe we should think about inclusion criteria, because even if we don't impose one for all lists, it could help us to envision what these lists will eventually look like. We may not want to set up inclusion criteria, but I'm putting this out there just so we can think about it. I think any criteria should be pretty loose. At List of museums in Connecticut I described what was on the list as (1) any Connecticut entity that calls itself a museum, including places that really aren't museums in the way most people would think of them; (2) nonprofit entities that have exhibit space (except galleries for paintings/photographs, etc.), and this would include nature centers with exhibit space, and historical society buildings with exhibits. Some items on the list, including some I put there, may not belong.

We've got about 100 items on the Connecticut list, and with the criteria above I could imagine more historical society buildings and other small places bringing the list up to maybe 200 items. This is in an old, wealthy state with roughly 3.5 million people, maybe 35 nature centers and about 140 historical societies (most of which probably don't have exhibit spaces). (At a rough guess, this criteria might mean 8,000 total items on all the U.S. lists combined). Is this manageable? If not, we need easy criteria for inclusion in order to keep down the work and avoid unnecessary future conflicts with whoever wants to add their favorite item to the list.

We can easily break out nature centers so that they would have their own future statewide lists. It's easy because they almost always have "Nature Center" in the title or something similar. Historical societies would be harder because some have pretty extensive museums and it requires more research to figure out what's essentially a museum and what's an entity with a few small exhibits. Entities that are former homes (single buildings) with some exhibition space could be broken out as well, but that's even a bit harder.

Maybe the best solution for now is to just let the lists grow and when there are plenty of nature centers on the list, prune them and create a list for them on their own state page, and do the same with historic houses/mansions, etc. But it seems to me it's good to consider what we're dealing with. Noroton (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on inclusion. Sometimes it's easier to say what the list is not in addition to saying what it is.  A few months ago, criteria for listing was loose & that’s what precipitated the no planetaria,  Aquaria & zoos guidance as seen on the top of the page  -- the list was riddled with these & it became necessary to tightened it up.  Since then I have seen less of these added overall.  The list also has many Halls of Fame, because these usually duel serve as museums.  Also, the list does exclude cyber-museums.  However, many historic houses also serve as museums -- see Calvin B. Taylor House or Plumb House.  Using historic houses for museums seems especially prevalent for smaller towns.  On the other hand, a historic house by itself or not open to the public does not warrant listing (IMHO).  Also, I personally am a firm believer in keeping defunct museums as discussed above as it is good historical/reference information, but should be annotated as defunct.  The bottom line is with separate articles, it is more likely that each will have different editors with decentralized policing across the pages.  Thus, expanding the guidelines (as Noroton suggests) at the top of each discussion page would be very helpful to maintain some semblance of standardization.  With this in mind, my initial thoughts are not to include nature centers & art galleries unless they display exhibits that are historical or interpretive.  Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent summary, FieldMarine. I'd like to put in a "plug" for including art museums in these lists (including museums that use the name "Gallery") -- they are bona fide museums in most people's minds. (If the Metropolitan Museum of Art is a museum, how can you exclude Frederic Remington Art Museum or Dixon Gallery and Gardens or Katherine E. Nash Gallery or Neue Galerie?) What should be excluded are commercial art galleries such as Andrea Rosen Gallery, Bodley Gallery and Zach Feuer Gallery. As for "house museums", it's my impression that many historic houses open to the public on a regular basis are widely considered to be "museums" even if they don't display much of anything other than period furniture and decor (for example, Biltmore Estate, Moss Mansion and Belle Meade Plantation). However, I strongly agree that historic houses that are not normally open to the public (for example, Alexander Faribault House and Bleak House, Knoxville, Tennessee) are not museums. There are some borderline cases (such as Blount Mansion), but I think it's easier to be inclusive than to split hairs... Regarding halls of fame, be careful -- I've discovered a few that don't seem to have any physical displays or facilities... --Orlady (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Draft header with guidelines for inclusion added to Talk:List of museums in Alabama. This is posted purely for brainstorming purposes -- please chop away.  Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest rewording the main paragraph as follows (I don't think this changes the meaning):
 * Museums that exist only in cyberspace (i.e., "virtual museums", "cyber museums", or "online museums" do not belong in this list. Historic houses or halls of fame may be listed if they function as or include public museums -- see Biltmore Estate, Plumb House, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and Baseball Hall of Fame for examples.  Art galleries that function primarily to sell art should not be listed, but public art museums that use "gallery" as part of their name may be listed. Nature centers and botanical gardens may be listed only if they contain historical or educational exhibits in a museum format.


 * --Orlady (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better -- looks good to me. FieldMarine (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't object to this language, although I am concerned at how long the California list might get with historic houses included. On the other hand, I don't really have a good idea for a clear boundary that would really separate them from other kinds of museums. I would add the following, probably at the top:


 * This is a list of museums, defined for this context as an institution that exists primarily to display exhibits to the public for educational purposes. The institution may be public, private, nonprofit or a business.


 * This would clarify the criteria in a positive way that would be pretty easy to understand and avoid inappropriate cases we haven't thought of. The type of "business" I'm thinking of is the Ripley's Believe It Or Not museums. I've been to one and I don't see how it could be left out. What we want out are places that primarily exist as stores, whether they call themselves museums, galleries or something else. Wouldn't defunct museums be best on a separate list beneath the main list of operating museums? On a sortable list, maybe it doesn't matter, but my guess is that readers who would find it useful to know about defunct museums are very few, and more readers would find defunct museums a distraction on the main list. The defunct list shouldn't be sortable unless there are more than, say, 10 of them. Noroton (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Inclusion of an introductory sentence is a very good idea. The linked article "Museum" ought to help in clarifying what's considered a "museum" and what isn't, but it's too long to substitute for a stand-alone definition in this article. The closest thing I found there to a succinct definition is "Museums collect and care for objects of scientific, artistic, or historical importance and make them available for public viewing through exhibits that may be permanent or temporary." That highlights one concern I had with Noroton's sentence: for many museums, the display of exhibits is not the primary purpose. For many traditional museums, collecting stuff and caring for the collection truly is the primary purpose. Education (not necessarily related to display of exhibits) is an increasingly important purpose for many museums (especially children's museums) and research always has been an important purpose at many museums (especially natural history museums). Finally, as Noroton hints, a lot of museums have little or no relevance to education. (I was going to try to write a substitute sentence, but no time right now...) --Orlady (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point about Children's museums. Is there a single-sentence definition you would suggest to replace my idea? I'd like something pretty simple, even if we're forced to say "In general ..." I'm very open to alternative ideas. I've never heard of a museum that didn't have had (oops! self edit) as a primary purpose, ahead of exhibiting things and educating the public, "collecting stuff and caring for the collection". Would those institutions better be called archives? This isn't something I'm familiar with. Noroton (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC) self edit as noted. Sorry to confuse. Noroton (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to Noroton: The purpose as perceived by the museum visitor may not actually be the primary purpose of the institution as it perceives itself. I think you will find that many museums were established primarily to "curate" the collections of the wealthy people who endowed them, and only secondarily to share those collections with the world. Also, you might recall the great museums of natural history have historically been heavily involved in sponsoring expeditions to exotic places to acquire new materials for their collections (which typically are much larger than what the public ever sees). --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggested revised sentence(s) for intro (comments welcome!):
 * This is a list of museums, defined for this context as institutions (including nonprofit organizations, government entities, and private businesses) that collect and care for objects of scientific, artistic, or historical interest and make their collections or related exhibits available for public viewing. Museums that exist only in cyberspace (i.e., virtual museums) are not included.
 * --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Why not add "cultural" to "scientific, artistic or historical"? Actually, what if we simply said "objects" and left it at that? Would children's museums fit in here or in the second paragraph? I do want to include them. There is one way that I would surrender to the inclusion of what I personally wouldn't consider a museum: I would include historic homes that call themselves museums even if they have no other items exhibited inside. My real reason for including these is practical: People are going to add some local institution called a "museum" anyway. If it's a commercial entity that's really a store, then it's worth fighting to keep it out, but if it's a regular historic mansion or house that calls itself a museum, I don't think it's worth the chore of taking it out and explaining the decision, and it can be hard to research whether or not the place exhibits something besides the building. And readers who don't know anything about an institution that calls itself a museum would look here for it, especially if there's no article for it. So I say just wave the white flag on that one. I made that surrender on the List of museums in Connecticut page. Any thoughts? Noroton (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "cultural" is a great addition. I would not shorten it to "objects," since it is important to retain the notion (which is borrowed from Museums) that the collections have some sort of redeeming social value. --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a good way to make sure uncertain listings get notice is to add links to other non-museum categories at the end, as was done in List of museums in Connecticut: List of Registered Historic Places in Connecticut, List of National Historic Landmarks in Connecticut, List of nature centers in the United States#Connecticut, Category:Aquaria in Connecticut, Category:Astronomical observatories in Connecticut, Category:Visitor attractions in Connecticut, Category:Houses in Connecticut, Category:Forts in Connecticut, Category:Botanical gardens in Connecticut, Category:Arboreta in Connecticut Some listings in these categories overlap, but many organizations have multiple features. Often botanical gardens, arboreta and other entities have visitor centers with exhibits and displays that visitors would consider to be a museum, as do many national and state parks. Jllm06 (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with J11m06. I think a strong "See also" section similar to what Connecticut has now should be standard on all lists, and it will tend to discourage people from adding inappropriate items by encouraging them to add them to more exact, more appropriate categories and lists elsewhere. In many cases, we could copy the Connecticut "See also" list, paste it onto another state's list and replace the state names. If nobody objects, I'll do it. The best, most efficient way we maintain the quality of lists is by helping future contributors add to them in the right way. Noroton (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me -- I recommend alphabetizing the list. Also, "Visitor attractions" seems redundant with basically all the subcategories already listed.  Overall, I think this has merit. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting point about the order of the "See also" links. Sometimes I've alphabetized things like that, other times some one or two items stand out so much that they deserve to go up top, IMHO. Need to think about that a bit. Alphabetizing is probably best. Noroton (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(redent) I took a look at the list, put it in alphabetical order and even put in key words, which I thought might make it clearer. I may well have gone far with that. Please tell me what you think: Noroton (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arboreta: Category:Arboreta in Connecticut
 * Aquaria: Category:Aquaria in Connecticut
 * Botanical gardens: Category:Botanical gardens in Connecticut
 * Historic places: List of Registered Historic Places in Connecticut
 * Historic landmarks: ;List of National Historic Landmarks in Connecticut
 * Houses: Category:Houses in Connecticut
 * Forts: Category:Forts in Connecticut
 * Nature centers: List of nature centers in the United States
 * Observatories: Category:Astronomical observatories in Connecticut

Noroton -- looks good. Here's a slight modification to your list for consideration.

FieldMarine (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arboreta in Connecticut
 * Aquaria in Connecticut
 * Botanical gardens in Connecticut
 * Historic landmarks in Connecticut
 * Houses in Connecticut
 * Forts in Connecticut
 * Nature Centers in Connecticut
 * Observatories in Connecticut
 * Registered Historic Places in Connecticut


 * I like it. If we can get a consensus, I'm willing to add it (modified to each state) to the bottom of each of the state lists. Does anyone else support that? Noroton (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I say go for it. FieldMarine (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good addition, too. Tim Ross ·<sup style="color:green; font-family:courier;">talk  10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been preoccupied with some things lately but I would like to say that I basically agree with and am enthusiastic about everything that is being talked about and would like to thank everyone for their ideas so far. This is going to turn into a very organized and useful grouping of lists. Ben Boldt (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I really like the new additions. I suggest other items of interest: Parks - Should a somewhat consistent format be established, like in California for municipal, national, regional, state, etc.? Each state seems to be very different. Zoos Lighthouses (for some states) There's lots of cleanup to do in the Visitor attractions categories! Jllm06 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As a side note, Bravo Zulu in fixing Category:Arboreta in the United States. That will be a huge help with the See also section at the state level. FieldMarine (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What we seem to have consensus/no consensus on so far
Because this discussion is so long and somewhat complex, I'd like to start adding here the things we have consensus on and what we don't, just so we can keep it straight in our heads (I know mine is spinning). If anyone disagrees that there is consensus, please just note it beneath that item and maybe we can return to it. I'm listing in two sections:Noroton (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

 * Identify cities where museums are located.


 * Keep web links alongside red wiki links


 * Having web links ONLY with red links Bolt supports, I reluctantly support and I haven't seen any other comments.
 * I agree with Bolt. Only need an external link if the museum is Red.  Otherwise, the external link should be on the museum article & not needed on the list page.  We will probably need to include some instructions on this point or it will quickly become inconsistant.  Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep 'Type' of museum, that is, a 1-3 word name of the type
 * Do I dare propose we adopt some form of broad taxonomy to try & make the sortable feature here worthwhile? Bolt had an initial construct with the icons (maybe we can refine the list, drop the pictographs & just use one or two word descriptors) FieldMarine (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No icons


 * Remove images of museums from within the table


 * Remove foundation date of each museum


 * Keep Comments/Description/Summary section, but Keep it very short Ben Boldt and FieldMarine oppose; Sir Blofeld, Noroton strongly support, Orlady, Jllm06 and Tim Ross (who's neutral) like the idea of restricting descriptions to museums where the name doesn't tell you what the museum is about; Orlady wants it combined with "Type"; Ben Boldt and FieldMarine seem willing to keep the comment section but keep it very short. Please correct me if this summarizes incorrectly.


 * Use sortable tables FieldMarine opposes; Sir Blofeld, Noroton, Tim Ross, Jllm06 support; Orlady supports but thinks we should have longer lists before implementing.
 * I support sortable tables provided we keep the proposed streamlined version with no pics or foundation date & very concise summaries. I would also like to see some flexibility for the larger states breaking out by cities as done in the California list. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Use a short "How to use sortable tables" explanation at the top Jllm06, Orlady and Noroton agree, no one else commented. I'm gonna call it a consensus, but feel free to object.
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. FieldMarine (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No consistency across articles we seem not to want to force it, although we're talking about creating a consistent initial pattern for each list, and when we talk about inclusion criteria (see below), it sounds like we want to enforce it (but perhaps it's just a strong recommendation).
 * I think if we start with an initial format for sortable tables, editors will probably stick to it. FieldMarine (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No consensus

 * NO CONSENSUS?: Template information box &mdash; we have a consensus that we want them, but as to the exact look of them, although we had initial consensus on the combined Bolt-Blofeld Box (BBB), both Orlady and I think the noncolumnar template looks better (I'm squishy on it); Ben Bolt and FieldMarine support the BBB.
 * I like the column layouts for these potentially long lists. Jllm06 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * CONSENSUS REACHED to keep the box as is. Noroton (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * NO CONSENSUS?: Region column in the sortable table/break up by city Noroton strongly supports; Tim Ross·supports (11:52, 19 January edit) but nobody else has commented so no consensus yet (see just before and after the "convenience break" in "Use of sortable tables" subsection); FieldMouse likes the somewhat related idea of breaking up the lists by city to allow links from city articles, I commented that regional lists for larger states would be one way of keeping that; Tim Ross prefers not to separate into regional lists (15:23, 19 January edit in "Consistency" section); again, no one else has commented. Perhaps the problem here is that we didn't have a separate section for this discussion
 * I think some regional groupings are helpful for most states. There are many small museums in towns people have never heard of.  In Connecticut we have large counties, but this may not be the best way for all states.  Some flexibility is probably best here, with each state's "expert" trying a system that locals might find helpful. I know it's probably not feasible, but a Google map by region would be a great help!  Jllm06 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * CONSENSUS REACHED to use a "Region" column but not to object if someone who is working on the article decides to remove it. Noroton (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why region & not county? This may not be necessary on the smaller states either, but agree with Noroton to keep it as an option. FieldMarine (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * NO CONSENSUS: Include this two-paragraph statement (it could be combined into one paragraph) at the top of the talk page for each list:
 * This is a list of museums, defined for this context as institutions (including nonprofit organizations, government entities, and private businesses) that collect and care for objects of scientific, artistic, cultural or historical interest and make their collections or related exhibits available for public viewing. Museums that exist only in cyberspace (i.e., virtual museums) are not included.


 * Historic houses or halls of fame may be listed if they function as or include public museums -- see Biltmore Estate, Plumb House, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and Baseball Hall of Fame for examples. Art galleries that function primarily to sell art should not be listed, but public art museums that use "gallery" as part of their name may be listed. Nature centers and botanical gardens may be listed only if they contain historical or educational exhibits in a museum format.
 * Orlady, FieldMarine and Noroton agree on the second paragraph, Orlady and Noroton on the first and Ben Boldt stated his general agreement with this and a number of other changes, apparently including this.


 * Color me confused. I do support both paragraphs. I thought the first paragraph (describing the scope of the list) was primarily intended to go in the lead section of each article, while the longer ancestor to the second paragraph (providing directions to contributors on what not to include) was intended for the talk page. The first paragraph clearly could be put in both places, but it seems to me that both the article and the talk page need information on scope (longer on the talk page than in the article). --Orlady (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Actually, I was wondering if that's what we meant when I typed this up. Yes, let's do the first one on each state page and the second on each state talk page.Noroton (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "I agree." This is good for a definition of what should be included in the main list, but that is also why the See Also links are helpful (see below).Jllm06 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * CONSENSUS REACHED One paragraph at the top of the talk page; another at the top of the article for each state list explaining the scope of the list.
 * The paragraph at the top of each state museum list article to read:
 * This is a list of museums, defined for this context as institutions (including nonprofit organizations, government entities, and private businesses) that collect and care for objects of cultural, artistic, scientific, or historical interest and make their collections or related exhibits available for public viewing. Museums that exist only in cyberspace (i.e., virtual museums) are not included.
 * The paragraph at the top of the talk page for each state museum list to read:
 * Museums that exist only in cyberspace (i.e., "virtual museums", "cyber museums", or "online museums" do not belong in this list. Historic houses or halls of fame may be listed if they function as or include public museums -- see Biltmore Estate, Plumb House, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and Baseball Hall of Fame for examples.  Art galleries that function primarily to sell art should not be listed, but public art museums that use "gallery" as part of their name may be listed. Nature centers and botanical gardens may be listed only if they contain historical or educational exhibits in a museum format.
 * I also recommend something along the following in the preamble for each list's Discussion page.
 * "This article contains a list of museums in the state of XXX. It was separated from List of museums in the United States on January XX, 2008. Please see List of museums in the United States for all history prior to that date."


 * "Please review Talk:List of museums in the United States for detailed discussion on page formatting. Also, please include Template:Infobox Museum when adding or editing articles on individual museums,." FieldMarine (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * NOT ENOUGH CONSENSUS (yet): Include this in a "See also" section at the bottom of each list, changing the state name (if there is no equivalent state list, we can link to a national list, if available):
 * Arboreta in Connecticut
 * Aquaria in Connecticut
 * Botanical gardens in Connecticut
 * Historic landmarks in Connecticut
 * Houses in Connecticut
 * Forts in Connecticut
 * Nature Centers in Connecticut
 * Observatories in Connecticut
 * Registered Historic Places in Connecticut
 * Noroton, FieldMarshall and Tim Ross like it, but this is a relatively recent discussion.


 * I'm ambivalent. Part of me thinks that list of See also items is worthwhile, but part of me thinks it's too long, and another part of me wonders if some of those lists aren't going to be pathetically underdeveloped in some states. As a compromise, some states might be better off with the a link to the "Visitor attractions" category (e.g., Visitor attractors in Indiana) instead. --Orlady (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought all the lists already had links to Category:Visitor attractions amid the category links. If not, I'd want to add that as a category link at the bottom. I don't think the state of (under)development of the pages we're linking to should matter -- or are you referring to the underdeveloped state of the museum lists? In either case, I think this encourages looking and listing elsewhere, which is best. Noroton (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the See Also list is very helpful for those people who don't know about how to get to categories in Wikipedia and to show them related categories. If Visitor Attractions in a state included all of those categories, then they would not need to be broken out, but some of these are just lists at this time with not enough articles yet.  After all, we are creating our own lists by state here, with many articles yet to be created, so I think including more institutions is the best option.  Over time states with few listings will be fleshed out.
 * Also, I still think Zoos should be included, since they can be considered "living museums".Jllm06 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In order to deal with some of these categories I have tried to add Visitor attractions in XX to many of these categories, like Aquaria, Arboreta, Botanical gardens, Astronomical observatories, etc. If we add these to Visitor attractions then we don't need to list the individual categories except where there aren't many articles. List of nature centers in particular, but there may be other statewide listings with few Wiki articles.  Jllm06 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * CONSENSUS REACHED to include the list as it appears just above, individualized by state, with the support of Noroton, FieldMarine, Jllm06, Tim Ross

Recommendation for using sortable tables in other articles
I have included a recommendation at the Help Desk regarding the issue of integrating sortable tables in articles (See “Recommendation for using sortable tables in other articles”). This would resolve my reservations about the newest versions of sortable table formats I have seen presented. I am hoping the Wikipedia technocrats can find or develop a solution. As mentioned in earlier discussions, it would be helpful to maintain this functionality. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Defunct Museums Cat
I broke out Category:Defunct museums in the United States into separate state cats. I was attempting to maintain consistency with the other museum cats by breaking down into state ones thinking these would grow over time. Perhaps I was over-zealous & made a mistake on that call because right now there are only a few museums in each cat. The cats are in discussion for deletion & I thought editors in this community may want to comment. Please take a look at the discussion page. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like they'll be merged back, although I see comments in the discussion you refer to which indicate there's some support for breaking them down again into state categories later. In my limited experience with category deletion discussions I've found it's hard to get support for keeping a new set of categories when each category only has a small number of items. While they're already separated into states, why not add the defunct museums to each state's list of museums? That accomplishes some of what the separate state categories accomplish. I may just do that myself.
 * I suggest we put the defunct museums in their own list below the regular list on the pages of those states with defunct museums. An alternative would be to put them in the regular list and note that they're defunct in the "notes" section -- the problem with that is that people might not notice the comment in the notes section. (A third alternative might be do put "(defunct)" after the name of the museum in the names column of the tables.) Having a separate list helps people look up all the defunct museums and also helps them ignore the defunct museums when they're looking for museums of a certain type within a state. Noroton (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, please everybody don't miss your chance to visit the Madison Museum of Bathroom Tissue article, since you can't visit the museum now. What the article lacks in neutrality it makes up for in charm, at least in the first paragraph. It's a hoot. Noroton (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Too funny! Agreed, lot of charmin in that one. FieldMarine (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NY Times stories
There's a large collection of articles about museums in today's NY Times (here's a link), of possible value for article writers looking for reliable independent information sources. --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of red-linked museums
Would like to gain consensus on inclusion criteria for museums without corresponding articles. I recommend that we include museums on the list even if they do not have corresponding articles in Wikipedia, despite the fact it will produce a red link on the list. The goal of course for the future will be to write articles on each museum. However, since there are so many museums & due to the huge magnitude of this project, it may take time for completed individual articles to “catch up” to what is included on the lists. I know this is basically what many editors are already doing for the lists of museums in each state, but I bring this up because it appears many red-linked museums are being eliminated from the List of museums (international list). I would hate to see editors start deleting red-linked museums from the US lists because I believe doing so would be counterproductive in the long run. So, I propose we allow red-linked museums to stay on the state lists with the understanding that corresponding articles will follow eventually at some point in the future. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, by all means, include all museums in the list. The red-links provide both information and markers for further work. Tim Ross   (talk)  10:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need to reduce the size of the state lists or most other museum lists because hardly any are too long (actually, the List of museums in Massachusetts that I lengthened is definitely too long, but that's an exception). If the lists do need to be reduced there are better ways than by going after redlinks. I can't speak to the international list -- there may well be reasons to shorten it and going after redlinks may be the only practical way, but I don't know. I don't think we can rule out the idea that any museum that has a red link won't eventually have either an article or a section of some larger article. Wikipedia grows. Noroton (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think of the articles Lists of museums in XX states as reference lists for each state, since so many states have tourism sites that are not fully inclusive, particularly with small museums and historical societies. Also, some state tourism guides are very difficult to navigate, and eventually this will give each state a complete listing of museums. Eventually, hopefully, every museum that is red-linked will get an article created. In some states that will take some time!

Several states will have very large lists of museums with lots of red links for now (New York, California, maybe others). Red links or not, the length of the list depends on the number of museums! I think we should list every museum we find. Better to be as inclusive as possible. Jllm06 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Internal formatting
I have seen two types of internal formatting for listing museums on the different state pages as illustrated below:

Method 1. Each museum listing all entered on one line


 * Adam Thoroughgood House||Virginia Beach||Hampton Roads||Historic house||



Method 2. Each museum listing broken up in multiple lines




 * Babe Ruth Birthplace and Official Orioles Museum


 * Baltimore




 * Biographical


 * Website

I recommend standardizing the internal format using method 2 as it makes it easier to enter information, especially for the occasional editor. I recommend this method for ease of use, despite the fact it may make the list longer internally. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is easier to edit and should be used. If you want to make this conversion easily, you can copy the WIKI code into a text editor, do a find/replace for the "|" character and replace it with "|[+return]". You may have to figure out how to include a return character in the replace box but it should be possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Boldt (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also prefer the multiple-lines method (Method 2), but User:Jllm06 does not, and he's the one doing more work than anybody in adding to these lists. He finds Method 1 easier. I've told him on his talk page that I'll eventually follow him around as he does each state list and convert to the Method 2 format (I like to fiddle with the Type and Region columns anyway). I think this way of doing it gives us the best overall result, since adding to the lists is a lot of work and nobody is doing more of it than Jllm06. I like Ben Boldt's idea of using a text editor to make the conversion. I hadn't thought of that. Noroton (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)