Talk:List of museums in England

Table

Can I recommend converting this article from list to table format. That way, a column for "location", "local government district", "content/type" and other fields ("opened"?) could be added. We could also seek to have one image per county, with the British Museum taking the lead??? --Jza84 |  Talk  02:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Would this be one (massive) table or a separate table for each county?— Rod ^talk 07:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think seperate, county tables. I suppose a bit like Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with this - what about other editors? However the syntax looks complex - would you be able to do it as it looks a bit beyond me?— Rod ^talk 12:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

An excellent idea! As for coding it—merely pick a similar-looking table from another article, and re-use its code to modify as and when one wants. Using it will be easier than constructing its coding.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can start us off. But what headings might we want? What would be useful? Certainly a "Name", then for me a "Local authority" column would help, then perhaps a "Location" one. After that I'm not sure, --Jza84 |  Talk  12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For "Location" are you thinking of the place-name or the grid reference? (Perhaps both might be an idea?). For other headings, I suggest just an "Additional Notes" one. If it is found that the same kind of information gets being put many times under this heading, it can be split off into an additional heading more specific to it, and thus removed from the "Additional Notes" bit.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Other headings might include the year it opened (where the information is available) & possibly who runs it (eg local council, private, national trust etc)— Rod ^talk 12:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so how about:

1. Name
2. Type (i.e. Art Gallery, Museum etc)
3. Location (as in placename)
4. Local authority
5. Year opened
6. Owner (or perhaps, Operator?)
7. Notes
8. Ref(s).

Anything else? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly Entry Fee (Y or N - not amount)— Rod ^talk 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, sounds good! Might struggle fitting this in though. What would the "Notes" section include? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the notes section as including things like notable possessions or features of the facilities (and I do mean special things, not just a description of fairly routine items). Also, anything else of particular note like "the only museum of the kind in UK/England/World" kind of thing. If this got too long, it might be an indicator that a separate article could be justifiable.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is space... a quick look at Infobox Museum & a few articles shows visitor numbers p.a. to be important, particularly for the bigger publicly funded museums.— Rod ^talk 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think 4 columns will be sufficient:- Name, Location, Notes, Refs. A possible 5th column for a photo. Articles to be Wikilinked from name, locations to be wikilinked. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The need for references

Lists must also contain references. That an article is a list is not an excuse not to provide references, nor is it sufficient to say that the references are in the articles contained in the list. This list contains very few references and needs to have them. UNreferenced material should be removed after a period has elapsed to allow referencing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have re-looked both at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and whilst it is suggested citations 'can' be useful where the listed items may be open to questions of notability or controversy there apprears to be no requirement for List articles to contain verifiable sources. By their very nature such as in this case such lists are described by Wikipedia as navigational tools to assist the browser find articles and, with the exception of redlinks, soley comprises previously written wikipedia articles about museums. I would agree if it was merely a list of items where there were no links to other articles it would be essential but in this case and in the vast number of similar type lists of wikilinked articles it is not needed. To put it another way by way of an example. Taking the first museum on the list, I can see no reason why Bedford Museum needs a citation to confirm its a museum in Bedford? If there is a need for a citation it is on the museum page Tmol42 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree with Tmo142. If there is an article about the museum, then a ref is not necessary. Redlinked articles however, do need a ref. Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of museums in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516053328/http://www.mla.gov.uk/ to http://www.mla.gov.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050301201729/http://www.culture.gov.uk/museums_and_galleries/monthly_museum_visitor_figures/default.htm to http://www.culture.gov.uk/museums_and_galleries/monthly_museum_visitor_figures/default.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)