Talk:Pier 21

Untitled
This article seems to have been written by Pier 21's PR department. I have cut down the POV somewhat. It needs more sources. Letterofmarque (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos
Do we have photographs of the front of Pier 21 available that don't have parked cars front-and-centre of the image? --38.110.71.98 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Undocumented allegations
I have removed a name from this list. There is no evidence provided that this individual had any connection with the turning away of the MS St. Louis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huron (talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

References and formatting
Since I have added, upgraded, and formatted the references in late August 2012, there seems to be the misimpression that any format can go for the citations. That is not a correct reading of WP:MAN. An article has to maintain consistent citation formatting to progress to higher class ratings. The format that is at odds here, is the one for the Parks Canada recognition of Pier 21 as a historical site. Skeezix1000 keeps using an unique format that only applies to a form of Parks Canada citation. It is by no means consistent, and is impossible to replicate for any other citation in this article. I have been citing and formatting using the templates that Wikipedia offers through its ProveIt MediaWiki extension. Skeezix's doesn't follow the examples given, and the citation is markedly different in style and content from the other citations. If this article ever is to be consider a "Good"-class article, the citation formatting has to be the same. I know this requirement to be true, because I've helped write/edit several Good and Featured class articles.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have explained in detail in discussions with you on my talk page, there are hundreds of specific-source templates used all across Wikipedia, and it is nonsense to suggest that they all must be deleted whenever someone is trying to improve an article. There is nothing in the guideline at WP:CITE, or in any MOS, that requires the CRHP template, or any specific-source template, to be deleted, or that requires that subjective views of consistency trump common sense/service to the reader.  The use of this template, and templates of this type, is not unique in any way, as they are used across Wikipedia.  I am not sure what the reference to WP:MAN is intended to mean.  I simply do not see this as an affront to consistency the same way you do.  The url format over at CRHP has changed at least twice since the project went online, and there are still hundreds (if not more) dead links pointing to CRHP on Wikipedia from the last change.   Parks Canada has advised that as they develop the CRHP, future changes to the url format cannot be ruled out.  The best service to the reader is having actual live links to important sources.  Having an alternate link to an archived version is a far less preferable option to actually being able to easily maintain live links to the actual historic register in its current form.  That's why Wikipedia maintains hundreds of specific-source templates.  And notwithstanding Abebenjoe's particpation in several GA and FA articles, I would point out that he is simply implemeting one particular citation option that is available for use on Wikipedia.  While his work in improving the citations of this article is admirable, consistency with his choice of format should not cancel out every other objective.  I do not believe that specific-source templates present a problem in a article becoming Good or Featured - in fact, in the FA discussion for John A. Macdonald, the use of the CRHP was not a problem whatsoever.  Abebenjoe, please do not revert this again until there is clear consensus to make this change.  In the meantime, we should probably both give some thought to some alternatives that might satisfy both our concerns.  I will give the issue some thought and leave a note here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've played with various permutations of using the cite web, citation and CRHP templates together, or some combination thereof, in an attempt to address both sets of concerns, but the results were never less than awkward. My only suggestion is to fix the current date format in the CRHP used in this article, so it matches the others and add the reference to the archived page.  The other alternative is to make changes to CRHP so that it can be used in a manner similar to a template like cite web, for those who wish to do so. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Article Split
I am really hard-pressed to understand why we'd split the article into one on the building and the other on the museum. The article wasn't overly long, and I don't understand how that helps the reader or how the two topics can easily be separated. There were also significant problems with the split, namely that it's the site, not the museum, that is a NHSC. Please discuss here first before splitting the article so it can be worked out. I will try to re-implement subsequent, non split-related, edits. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Was the article proposed to be split because NSCAD might lease some space in the new building? The seaport campus is at Pier 21, but why would that necessitate a split? All we need to say is that NSCAD has a seaport campus at Pier 21 in an adjacent building. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not providing up front more of an explanation for the split. The rational is that the museum is about canadian immigration - the history of Pier 21 is just one piece of the museum. This confusion is created when it is simply referred to as Pier 21. That's why I created the separate article "Canadian Museum of Immigration". Also, I intend to add much more to the history of Pier 21 - not the museum. There is a president for having this split in other articles (see Grand Pre National Historical Site - is separate from the article on Grand Pre).--Hantsheroes (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A good question, but I think splitting the article makes sense for several reasons. For one, the museum and the building are not the same. The former Pier 21 facility is today occupied by a bunch of tenants, not just the Immigration Museum. A big piece is occupied by the Nova Scotia Art College while artists, architects and the NS Museums association and retailers occupy other parts of the former immigration facility. Separate Wikipedia articles are used for other museums and historic sites. For example, there is an article about the Smithsonian Institute and separate article about its historic headquarters, the Smithsonian Castle. In Canada, in addition to the Grand Pre example offered by Hantsheroes, there is an article about the the Royal Military College of Canada and a separate article about the National Historic site that it occupies, the former Kingston Royal Naval Dockyard. Finally, it should be noted that the Pier 21 Wikipedia article has been static for several five years. Splitting it will stimulate editors who want to contribute sourced material on the site's immigration history but are not interested in writing institutional stuff about the museum's gift shop and research centre etc.Dan Conlin (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * First, no need to apologize, Hantsheroes. Your subsequent explanation was helpful.  I was well aware that we often have separate articles for a building and the institution that occupies it.  But those articles are much more developed (and where they are not, the split isn't always self-evidently a good thing).  On Wikipedia, we (not you personally - all of us) have a tendency to be a pedantic/self-absorbed about these things -- we focus on the technicalities and article structure and splits, and lose sight of what we would actually write about them and what would be most helpful to the reader.   Even if the museum has a much larger scope than the site itself, the site's immigration history is tied pretty closely to the museum and it was not particularly clear to me that having the two separated would matter much to, or help, the average reader who is interested in a former immigration gateway designated as a NHSC and repurposed as an immigration museum.  And while I totally get Dan's comment about "stimulating editors", and salute his optimism, that rarely occurs and splits should follow new content and be based on that new content, not be done solely to try and stimulate interest among Wikipedians (which is placing the interests of us before the interests of readers).  There is nothing whatsoever about today's article which would prevent someone from contributing to the history of the site without being forced to write about the gift shop. Having said all that, the "splitter" is interested in expanding the article and has a long track record of good work here on Wikipedia.  If you plan to expand the Pier 21 content, then I am confident that you will do so and that the split will have been a good thing. My only concern before you revert my reverts is the precise delineation of Pier 21 -- what buildings are specifically part of Pier 21 versus Pier 20 and Pier 22?  And how does that compare to the NHSC designation, which (according to CRHP) applies to the transit shed and the brick Central Bay Office separating Piers 21 and 22.  It should be very clear, as the NHSC information and infobox belong with the Pier 21 article, not the museum article.  Presumably the split article would have a lot more information on the other tenants, beyond acknowledging their presence. You may have intended to elaborate on all of this, so apologies if I delayed you in this.  Good luck. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)