Talk:University art museums and galleries in the United States

improvements
looks like this has been cleaned up and simplified to the point that WP:ESSAY no longer applies, still has some work to do but its a start. Jared Zimmerman (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

American bias and article move
I moved this article from University art museums and galleries to University art museums and galleries in the United States. Why?

This was a typical example of something commonly seen in the English Wikipedia: an article with a title indicating a global scope, but with contents that were all written from an American perspective, about American institutions and from American sources.

That seems to me to be a perfectly fine limitation -- it is probably far more realistic that an article with a more limited scope can evolve to become a good one -- but the title should reflect that. It really should not continue to pretend that it has a universal perspective on the subject

Some may object that the other, non-American stuff will be added later. Maybe it will, but my experience tells me that it is most likely that either it won't, or it may end up as one of those many Wikipedia articles that continues to treat the American perspective as the default, just to have a tail of badly sourced and not entirely coherently written sections at the bottom for randomly selected countries around the world. That's what usually happens. --Hegvald (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * (From your Talk page, just posted) Hi Hegvald, I can see why you were tempted to move the University art museums and galleries to University art museums and galleries in the United States, but would it be better to leave the title as it is and add a clean up template? From what I understand of the conversation of other editors at AfC, they thought an article on University art museums was a valid split from the Art museum article. Unless there are some specific issues unique to the USA, it seems worthy of a general title. (I started the conversation at your Talk page in case an edit here prevented the page move being reverted, but you've now pre-empted this) Sionk (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be better. Can someone reverse the move, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, attempts to "globalize" articles that are fundamentally biased to start with, as this one is, usually do not work, but if you really believe a template will help, just go ahead. The page already has a number of clean-up templates at the top. One more won't make much difference. --Hegvald (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly what I "now pre-empted". I moved the article, that's all. If you insist on moving it back, you can just do that. I haven't done anything to stop you from doing it. --Hegvald (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Sionk (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, what happened was exactly what usually happens in this sort of situation. Once those who want to keep the article at its original title, claiming that it can then be "globalized", get their way, they make no attempt at all to globalise it. Since the move, only few trivial edits have been made, not one of which has done anything to reduce the USA-centric nature of the article. I shall therefore move the article back. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)