Is this for museums with steam-related exhibits, or for displays of working steam? Almost any engineering or general museum could fall under the first, but the second would seem a more useful categorization for readers trying to browse.
An intermediate definition might be the second, but also including those with particularly notable exhibits, e.g. the Science Museum's Stephenson's Rocket.
Also does this include steam railways that are functional railways, but not museums? Local park miniature tracks? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Andy, was working on a reply to BulldozerD11 about just this on my talk page, and didn't think of looking here. I updated the page before noticing your comments.
- This is an extremely tricky one. Limiting scope to 'working steam' is certainly one which would fit with category conventions (ie 'finite scope'), but would potentially exclude places such as Elsecar Heritage Centre which has the (non-working) "last-remaining Newcomen engine in its original location". I have avoided words such as 'mainly' or 'primarily' since the cat people don't like them (too vague).
- Perhaps we should start by saying the category is for museums where working steam may be found (using better wording!) AND other museums featuring steam engines among their exhibits. Is the word 'featuring' (a) permissible and (b) appropriate, or is it too vague? The Science Museum certainly 'features' steam engines, as it has an exhibition hall devoted to them! But what about a farm park that has one (non-working) portable engine? And if that one engine is actually working, can it then be included?
- Can we get away with the words 'significant proportion' (of exhibits)? Looking from the other direction, if you saw this cat on the Science Museum page, would it look out-of-place? Could we get away with this name rather than the technically accurate "Museums in the United Kingdom with working steam engines"
- The more I think about this, the more I agree. There is a boat museum in Liverpool which now houses a (no-longer working) steam dredger from the Basingstoke Canal; there is a museum in Lincolnshire (I think) that has a restored-but-not-necessarily-working steam shovel, but the museums focus is on 'bygone times', not 'steam' -- neither of these would generally be regarded as 'steam museums'.
- I think the problem comes down to how we can specify the term "features" to distinguish the museums that really fit in the cat.
- EdJogg (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather see "significant exhibit" (or somesuch wording) rather than "significant proportion". One Stephenson's Rocket, or one Newcomen beam engine is important, even though the Science Museum has so much in total that even their power gallery might not be all that much as a proportion of the collection. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. I've had another go and specifically included museums with working steam engines, since that can sweep up any farm museums with significant steam content!
- Readers may also be interested in Category:Museums by type, into which Category:Steam museums should exist as a (grand-)parent category of this one. (Incidentally, there is another, Category:Types of museum which would be where an article on steam museums would reside, which would define the category scope for us!)
- Also, should we immediately divide the category into countries? Admittedly the vast majority will be in England, but it would save some time later.
- For potential category members, also try: Category:Industry museums and Category:Industry museums in the United Kingdom
- EdJogg (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- As I was uncertain about the wording to define it as you say Andy certain exhibits are significant, so the definition needs to be wide but not fuzy hence passing note to Edjogg for 2nd opinion, and start debate. The definition of museum, is not met by some potential entrants, but then they dont all call them selves museums. The linking to related articles should help clear up ambiguities. The term "Significant xyz" works for me Andy in some ways but I can see Edjoggs reasoning, that some may consider it a bit vauge. How many sub catagories do you break down into as then its avoiding duplication in articles. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)