Talk:Ceramics museum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Content[edit]

The article lists specialist ceramics museums, and a handful of "outstanding" general museums it would be perverse not to mention in this context. It does not attempt to list all the fine ceramics collections in museums, or it would be like the 22 page listing in the book referenced. When Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia etc etc are not mentioned, there is no reason to include redlinks for Auckland and Aberwystwyth, nor 300 insulators in Japan. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The content of the article needs to avoid the subjective inclusion of personal favourites. Museums listed need to be noteworthy, and yet the following which have been removed are all highly noteworthy:
Aberystwyth University Collection
  • One of the largest collections of British studio pottery in the UK. This would be notable in itself, but it is even more so as the country was the birth place of studio pottery.
  • The collection includes pieces from noted studio potters such as Michael Cardew, Bernard Leach, Katherine Pleydell-Bouverie, and William Staite Murray.
  • The collection also includes a number of rare pieces of porcelain from Nantgarw Pottery
  • Has a significant collection of documents in the Aberystwyth University Ceramic Archive.
  • Hosts exhibitions of contemporary studio pottery.
  • References have been included in the article.
  • There is no obvious reason for its exclusion
Auckland Museum
  • Is the only NZ collection in the article.
  • Has a significant collection of both New Zealand studio pottery and New Zealand factory made ware.
  • Gives an informative timeline of transition from importing English made ware to domestic production.
  • Includes pieces by significant potters such as Len Castle and the manufacturer Crown Lynn. Crown Lynn itself is highly notable for a number of reasons, including [1] it was a significant part for the Ceramaco Group who were a major sponsor of Sir Peter Blake, who led the NZ team to victory in the America’s Cup in 1995, [2] Crown Lynn was the biggest pottery manufacturer in the Southern hemisphere, and [3] it is classed as a NZ icon and / or a prime example of kiwiana, as described in various books [1] & [2] and also at the website [3]
  • There is no other museum for Crown Lynn.
  • References have been included in the article.
  • There is no obvious reason for its exclusion
NGK Museum
  • The only insulator museum in the world.
  • Electrical porcelain is a multi-billion US$ annual market.
  • The museum contains some unique items. It also has a detailed & informative display on the material, processes & applications.
  • NGK itself is a notable company: [1] It is the Worlds largest manufacturer of electrical porcelain, with a number of plants in different countries. [2] Its annual sales exceed $USD3.5 billion, [3] it produces a very considerable amount of ceramic items, [4] it has been producing porcelain continuously for nearly 100 years, [5] sometime in the mid 1980s its total output surpassed 150 million porcelain units, and by this will now of course be even higher, and [5] its origin is also notable as it was spun off from Noritake, still a significant producer of porcelain tableware.
  • References have been included in the article.
  • There is no obvious reason for its exclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None of the linked articles mention ceramics at all, and the museums do not meet the criteria set out for the article, as explained above. The Japanese and Welsh articles do not even mention the museums. I suggest you consider writing articles or sections on them; the comments above belong there not here. If you had experience of the way "listy" articles like this easily turn into long and useless lists of redlinks, or unhelpful links, you would probably understand the reasoning better. Merely having a "noteworthy" or "extensive" collection is not enough for inclusion here, or we would have hundreds of places listed. I think it is clear who has "personal favourites" here! Johnbod (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Johnbod - please could you not remove referenced content without first getting agreement on the discussion page. As evidence that I wish to seek constructive agreement I will not immediately restore the removed material. I would also be grateful if you do not accuse me of edit-warring in the edit summary, especially as it is you that is removing referenced material. One part of your recent comment I agree with is that I do not understand why you are challenging the recent content I have added:- each of the three is fully referenced, notable and sufficiently different to other members of the list so as to warrant inclusion. Am I to assume what is deemed acceptable in the list is simply what you like? I could easily start hacking the current list but I do not consider that to be constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The ones removed are not ceramics museums. It's that simple. Whether they are notable or referenced, which I don't dispute, is irrelevant. I repeat, why don't you create articles for them, as we have nothing currently? Please do not alter the list as it now is, without first getting agreement on the discussion page, except to format and title the link references properly (just as I do will do). Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I also have experience with listy-type articles that have red-link problems, so i think i understand where Johnbod is coming from. But why not just help the IP editor get those articles started? It would be nicer / less bitey, and probably takes about the same amount of time to move the references you are deleting, to a new stub article, as it does to delete them and then have continuing argument. Start at, I suppose: NGK Museum, Auckland Museum, Aberystwyth University Collection. To the IP editor, please help work on these articles. If they develop okay, and survive the deletionist editors who might emerge to attack them, then it could be appropriate later for this list-article to link to them (or to their sections on ceramics, if they are larger museums in fact). doncram (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Started stub articles for NGK Museum and for Aberystwyth University Collection. I agree with the IP editor that they are ceramics museums and should therefore be included in the list-article. Presumably Johnbod should not disagree now that it is documented well enough that they are ceramics museums. About the Auckland Museum, that is a bigger museum and while it has a ceramics department (not yet described in its article), it is not obvious that it should be included in a list of ceramics museums. doncram (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I'll agree with that. It had not been made clear before that Aberystwyth was only a ceramics collection; it seemed to be part of a wider museum before. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

article title rename and need for separate Ceramics Museum disambig page[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to support move; article will be moved back to last stable name Aervanath (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


(Note to new readers: This discussion section has been subject of some heavy editing back and forth. It was started as a proposal for a rename from "Ceramics museum" to "List of ceramics museums" and for a separate disambiguation page. The rename was done and also the disambiguation page was created. Then, a new proposal to move it back to "Ceramics museum" was inserted, in front of discussion of the old proposal. So much of the discussion which follows the new proposal is about the old proposal. doncram (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Proposal[edit]

  • Restore to Ceramics museum, from which it was moved against all procedure, despite opposition to that proposal already having been expressed - see below (discussion started before that move was done). Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I think Johnbod's proposal is to rename "List of ceramics museums" to "Ceramics museum" and I think that Johnbod's proposal is not about the disambiguation page which is separate. Or, Johnbod, please clarify further. doncram (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Poll[edit]

  • Support, as explained below. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. It is more of a prose article than just a tabulated list. The disambig now at Ceramics museum seems unnecessary and awkward. --mervyn (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The list could be edited to be a numbered list or made into a sortable table. The disambiguation at Museum of Ceramics is not part of this proposal (at least as originally and now stated), despite the discussion section title (misleading because it was about a previous proposal). The disambiguation page should be kept, irregardless, as it is necessary for clarifying that the "Museum of Ceramics" in Ohio is not the only one in the world, and to distinguish between a couple of apparently identically named Iberian museums. If the list is changed to be more "list-like" does that remove your support for a rename? doncram (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I should have made it clearer that my proposal includes also redirecting Museum of Ceramics here. As discussed below, it is far from clear that there is anything just called "Museum of Ceramics" anywhere; at most there is East Liverpool. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think polling, upon a loaded proposal or otherwise, is likely to be much help, but anyhow I will say that, per some previous discussion above, I think there is some material which can make a wikipedia-notable list of ceramics museums. But I don't believe that "ceramics museum" is a term that needs defining separately in an article on its own. In the present article, the term is only defined, original-research-wise, by listing examples. So, I think it is just better to call the list what it is. doncram (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Pre-the last move[edit]

I started this article as a disambiguation page to provide disambiguation between several places that are specifically named "Ceramics Museum" or "Museum of Ceramics". The article has been developed nicely by others to be a list-article about ceramic museums, which is great. However, there remains the need for a simple disambiguation page, and I would rather that it be located at "Ceramics Museum". I think also to be more properly descriptive the present article could best be moved/renamed to "List of ceramics museums". Is that okay? Depending on discussion here, someone else or I could make the move in a day or two. Or we could go through a wp:RM process if there is contention that can't be settled here, but I think this move should be non-controversial, if understood properly. Please comment. doncram (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree on both points. Most of the museums have titles in foreign languages, which can be translated in various ways. I really can't see any point in a disam page, nor do I think this is a list. The majority of items on the old disam list were in fact wrongly titled - see correct titles now confirmed with their websites, and were redlinks anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You're correct that many of the entries on the first version of a disambiguation page didn't need to be there. The point of a disambiguation page is to help readers find wikipedia articles, and in some cases red-links are allowable (per MOS:DABRL ). Most of the items in this list-article would not need to be included in a disambiguation page. To settle this, I will just start a disambiguation page, for now at Museum of Ceramics with a redirect from Ceramics Museum. You'll just have to see that it is different and serves a different role.
As for whether the current page is a list-article or what it is, I can just tell you that it is NOT a disambiguation page. It is nowhere near compliant with wp:MOSDAB rules, which would disallow all pictures and any description beyond the minimal necessary to help readers find their way to articles. There is no lede, no passages of text allowable, and I believe no footnotes are allowed either. It is some kind of article that is not a disambig page. You can call it a list-article or not-a-list-article, but it does contain a list of ceramics museums and I think calling it a list-article is accurate.
Offhand, it seems to me that the intro needs to be changed, because it seems to be attempting to coin a term or two, perhaps a wp:neologism, in trying to define "Ceramics museum" and "Museum of ceramics" as terms, while they are not terms you'd find in a dictionary or anywhere else. Basically, the article is about ceramics museums (plural), whether you want to call it a list-article about them or not. The wording with which the article starts appears to me to be an artifact of its origin as a disambiguation page. doncram (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I perhaps somewhat boldly moved the article to "List of ceramics museums" and revised the intro. This is intended to show what the article could look like. I think that article is better, or perhaps it should be expanded to "List of ceramics and glass museums", and then the scope of the article could likewise be expanded. Anyhow, please consider. And please don't simply revert my edits, because I also did some copy-editing and fact-tagging. If the article is to be returned to a different name, it should be moved anew. I won't mind terribly if it is moved to a different name, after consideration. Perhaps getting others' opinions via the wp:RM service would help decide matters, too. doncram (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

After the last move[edit]

That is completely outrageous! You don't even wait 5 minutes for a response. Against all procedure, you don't set up a WP:RM, despite opposition to your proposed move being registered here, and then calmly invite me to initiate one! That's some nerve!! This is the most appalling wiki-etiquette I've seen for a long time. I can't now move it back but will ask an admin to do so. Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you need to be outraged, sorry that you feel that way. I think it is okay in the spirit of wp:BRD to make some major changes. I wasn't really thinking about the fact that it might not be possible to move the page back on your own, I guess you can't. That wasn't intended or thought out. But, anyhow, the article needed some development (and/or still needs development), and I did edit it in several ways. It is perhaps a bit outrageous on your part just to revert the various edits in the article that i had done (which include inserting new items, and other copyediting), rather than considering what i wrote on this page and rather than looking at the content of the edits. So, call it even perhaps. Anyhow there is no harm done that can't be remedied, and nothing really to be outraged about, in my view. doncram (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you go away and read WP:CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:BRD, which does not cover situations where proposed changes have already been objected to! You might also consider what your arguments would lead to if applied to, say, Art Museum. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the Art museum article starts out with "An art gallery or art museum is a space for..." which does not rub me the wrong way as much as the previous start to this article as "A Ceramics Museum or Museum of Ceramics is a museum wholly or ...". The difference in use of lowercase vs. capital letters is significant. Also, a ceramics museum is, usually, an art museum, and given the broader article i don't know if there is a need for a separate article about art museums of this subtype. Are there other types of museums which have articles, and/or other discussion of notability of museum type articles? I admit i am not familiar with such discussion. I am just sensing that "Ceramics museum" is not wikipedia-notable, while "List of ceramics museums" is fine. And, I probably would not make such a bold change at the Art museum article, because it dates from 2002 and reflects thousands of edits by many editors. In the present example, i myself recently started the article as a disambiguation page and I am much more familiar with its development to date. It's not as if there is a big consensus any which way, on how the present article should look. It's mainly just you and me discussing it, here. And there has been at least one other person dissatisfied with how you were attempting to define what should or should not be covered. I don't think it is clear what is manageable or appropriate to include or not. So, sure, I'll go browse at wp:consensus. But how to edit is different on new, unsettled articles or list-articles than it is for well-established ones, and I don't think my actions are far out of line. Anyhow, we're discussing here. doncram (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You need to say why you think Art museum is an article, and this a list. You are welcome to try this at AFD. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I did check wp:consensus and Wikipedia:BRD as you suggested. The latter is very clear that bold changes are more acceptable in newer, unsettled articles. Let me reiterate or go further: I am sorry that my move of the article to the current name "List of ceramics museums" offended you. I don't think i was really far out of line in moving it, but since it does seem to have bothered you a lot, I apologize.
About how to proceed here now, the article is now titled "List of ceramics museums" and it is written sort of towards supporting that. Procedurally, I don't think i should open an AfD on it. It would be confusing about what was being asked for. Also, if there were a separate article about defining "Ceramics museum" as a term, that would not preclude having a "List of ceramics museums" article anyhow. I am in favor of having a "List of ceramics museums article and think that is actually not contentious. I also think that having a disambiguation page like that now at Museum of Ceramics is needed and also should not be contentious. It would help if we could narrow what is the area of disagreement. Could you clarify, are you okay with having the disambiguation page and having a list-article? It would help if you could concede those points. Then our disagreement, I guess, would be about whether there should be, further, a separate "Ceramics museum" article which I gather would define "Ceramics museum" as a term. Could you please clarify what is your position? doncram (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
You will recall we discussed the matter on our talk pages before I did anything to any form of the article, and you agreed my suggestion (nb I only edited after that, in stark contrast to your recent edits):

That's much better! There are a whole lot more in Category:Decorative arts museums. Let me know when you are done, & I will add some. I think myself it is better treated as a listy article than a disam page, but whatever. Cheers. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC) (copied from Doncram's talk page.)

By all means, feel free to develop Museum of Ceramics into a list-article instead of a disambiguation page. Be sure to change it from being a disambiguation page using {{disambig}} to a set index article wp:sia using {{SIA}} instead, or the disambig page police will wreak their havoc eventually. Disambig pages are not allowed to have external links or footnotes. You might move it to "Ceramics museums", instead, too. Also, I just posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums about it, please see that too. I am done for now, myself. Cheers, doncram (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the coverage was fine as it was when the article was on the main page recently - what I called a "listy-article", but still an article rather than a list, and no additional disam page, which seems pointless to me given the varietry of terms, and the different languages involved. Even the East Liverpool museum seems to call itself "Museum of Ceramics, East Liverpool" on its website, so I don;'t believe there is in fact any institution unequivocably just called the "Museum of Ceramics" or "Ceramics Museum". Among the other consequences of your move, btw, is that all the DYK archive links now lead to the revived and incomplete disam page. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i was in favor of your developing a list-article which would have a {{SIA}} template for being a wp:Set Index Article, which might then have made a separate disambiguation page unnecessary. You didn't carry that out, and the current article is subject to edit warring or nearly that, about which museums should be listed, and I think the current page is not suitable to be labelled as a set index article even. So I think the disambiguation page is necessary. A disambiguation page is not "pointless": it facilitates readers finding what they may be looking for, and it clarifies that there are different places with very similar names. I am sorry that moving the article has caused DYK archive links to direct to the wrong place now. If/when this situation is stable I would be happy to revise those links to direct more appropriately. However, currently your position seems to be to oppose having a list article (whether labelled a set index article or not) and to oppose having disambiguation. If i am misunderstanding, please clarify, but that seems unreasonable. doncram (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
My position is pretty clear, I think. The current disam page, which includes some articles and excludes others for no apparent reason, seems unlikely to help anyone find anything better than this page. This is the first mention you have made of wp:Set Index Article, which doesn't in fact seem to meet the situation here, as the names are all so different. Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Above, you quote me on our talk pages suggesting your setting up a SIA (set index article), which is what i thought would be developed. Yes, the current list-article as developed, because it includes places not named similarly, does not seem amenable to being labelled a SIA. Hence, the need for a SIA or disambiguation page again. I had anticipated that there were going to be more places named exactly "Museum of Ceramics" or "Ceramics Museum" which would have justified having a SIA, but from what has shown up so far on the present list-article, it seems like there perhaps are not, so the need for disambiguation seems to be best handled by a disambiguation page, after all.
About the current disambiguation page, it currently lists every so-far-known place with "Museum of Ceramics" or "Museu de Cerâmica" in their name and it lists a representative few with "Ceramics Museum" in their names, and it links to this list-article. Feel free to add to the disambig page any others with "Ceramic Museum" in their name, if you think a reader who tries a search on "Ceramics Museum" might be looking for one of them. Places named differently like "Gardiner Museum" should not be included. With the several items that it has, the disambiguation page is developed enough to support the idea that "Museum of Ceramics" should not simply redirect to the museum in Ohio (which is listed on the U.S. NRHP exactly as "Museum of Ceramics" as "East Liverpool Post Office"). My involvement here is because I set up disambiguation for NRHP places (creating new disambig pages and adding NRHP places to existing disambig pages). While I do want to ensure disambiguation for NRHP places, I also want to avoid appearance of U.S.-centrism in wikipedia. Relatedly, I don't think it is right for "Museum of Ceramics" to be the actual article name for the Ohio museum (which didn't appear to me to be the most important ceramics museum world-wide) or for it to redirect to the Ohio museum under a slightly different article name. The current disambiguation page avoids that, and it allows for the addition of new places as they may be discovered. Sorry if this is all a bit obscure. Not everyone needs to know a lot about the roles of SIAs and disambiguations, and about guidelines governing their construction. But does this now suffice as explanation for you? It would help, again, if we could agree to narrow our zone of disagreement and/or misunderstanding. doncram (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
When I said a "listy article" I meant a normal article that had a significant list component, just like Art museum, not an SIA, of which I had never heard at that point. I think you were jumping to the wrong conclusion there. The current disam page includes Spanish/Catalan, Portuguese, and translations to English from Thai and Chinese. It excludes French, Italian, German & a host of other languages for no obvious reason at all. If Museums with ceramics and museum in their names from all languages were added the list would be so similar to the one here that the pointlessness of having it would be much clearer. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wording and grammar issues[edit]

To separate from other discussion, there are wording and grammar issues in the article which my edits addressed, and which have now been twice reverted. Let's discuss these separately if we must. I think for some there can be no real disagreement.

runon in 1st paragraph[edit]

The current version:

Most national collections are in a more general museum covering all the arts, or just the decorative arts, but there are a number of specialized ceramics museums, some concentrating on the production of just one country, region or manufacturer, but others with international collections.

is not grammatical. I've been reverted twice on changing it.

What do you think is ungrammatical about it? It is a rather long sentence I agree, but your version was not an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "but other with international collections" just hangs onto the end and I think it does not really add anything to the idea that some are narrow (yes, then some are not so narrow). How about, instead:

Most national collections are in a more general museum covering all the arts, or just the decorative arts. There are also a number of specialized ceramics museums, some concentrating on the production of just one country, region or manufacturer.

doncram (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

runon in 2nd paragraph[edit]

The current version (except lacking wikilinks):

In Asian and Islamic countries ceramics are usually a strong feature of general and national museums, and most specialist archaeological museums have large ceramics collections in all countries, as pottery is the commonest type of archaeological artifact.

That's a run-on sentence and it actually doesn't make sense. I don't think any specialist archeological museum is present in all countries or has large ceramics collections in all countries. I suggested, instead:

In Asian and Islamic countries ceramics are usually a strong feature of general and national museums.[citation needed] Also most specialist archaeological museums, in all countries, have large ceramics collections, as pottery is the commonest type of archaeological artifact.[citation needed] Most of these are broken shards however.

change the word order by all means. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay i'll put in what i suggested here. doncram (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding etc[edit]

I dont think adjectives like "Outstanding" describing some collections but not others, or that one museum or another is "perhaps the best of the many fine collections" belong in the article, if they are not quotes from acceptable authorities or otherwise supported. Otherwise it would appear the article is a personal essay, or original research / opinion, and it is not sustainable, i think. doncram (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagree. Some collections stand head and shoulders above others, both in general and specialist museums. That is just a fact. Most major museums have large and good ceramics collections, but the article as it stands is careful to avoid listing all these, otherwise it would turn into List of major museums. See the 22 pages of listing in the American reference. Equally it would be silly and misleading to have an article on specialist museums only, without mentioning that general museums actually usually have the best collections, and mentioning a handful of the most important. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Who are you to say which are the outstanding ones. I assume that some are spectacularly better than others, but you need to find some source identifying which those are. I also have some experience with open-ended lists, so I understand your wish to keep this limited, but there has to be an objective, defining standard for what is included vs. not included. Or, any ceramics collection has to be allowed. doncram (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Have you actually read the references that are already in place? Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There were no sources in the paragraphs where "outstanding" and other phrases were used. I have browsed in other references in the article. doncram (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record i removed the word "outstanding" and other phrases, and Johnbod reverted my changes and/or perhaps changed the wording. I won't edit war about this. doncram (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Outstanding and best are vague terms which are hard to argue or support. Perhaps we could use more concrete terms like largest, oldest, rarest, most valuable, most visited, most researched, historically significant, or diverse collection. Johnbod, if you could perhaps reword it in this way, at least I would be comfortable with just leaving a citation needed flag instead of just removing, though if you have a citation to add that would be helpful as well. I think Doncram was probably removing not only because of lack of citation, but because of the vague, unprovable nature of the words used. Plus the more concrete terms I listed above each tell me much more than a word like "best". Anythingapplied (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

article title II[edit]

The current article title is "Ceramics Museum" and the current intro starts out "A ceramics museum is a museum wholly or largely devoted to ceramics, normally ceramic art, whose collections may include glass and enamel as well, but will usually concentrate on pottery, including porcelain. Most national collections are in a more general museum...."

This situation is better than before, as the text avoids coining new terms. However, the title of the article, with its capitalization, still seems to suggest that "Ceramics Museum" is a proper noun phrase. Would it be okay to move/rename the article to "Ceramics museum", instead. doncram (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to that, as long as it does not involve reviving the disam page. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The disambiguation page exists, at Museum of Ceramics, and it will be kept always. I don't believe that has any bearing on what is the correct name for this article, but given your comment I wonder if it may affect your thinking. doncram (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


Ceramics MuseumCeramics museum — I'm putting in a Requested Move request now, to move this. The reason is to avoid appearance of coining a proper noun phrase. Since Johnbod agreed above, at least at first, I think this is not controversial, but I am making the wp:RM request in the controversial requests category so as to allow for discussion, just in case. It is not possible to simply move the page without an administrator's assistance. doncram (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Agree that it is not a controversial move. --DAJF (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with the above. YeshuaDavid (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Note this was the original title before Doncram's attempt to change it above. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Note, Johnbod got in a last word with a bit of a dig towards me before this move discussion was closed. When I moved the original article from "Ceramics museum" to a different name, it was very different. Notably, it self-identified itself as being Ceramics Museum or Museum of Ceramics, and did not self-identify itself as being Ceramics museum. It also was not written suitably at that time to be a separate article. I still don't think this is a very good article, because it is still in effect creating a subtype of museums which does not need a separate article in my view. And with Johnbod's ownership it is not a general list of ceramics museums. I would probably support an AfD to delete it, if anyone else wants to open one, but I am not going to go out of my way open an AfD myself. Good day to you sir! :) doncram (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Examination of the history will show it was not much different then from what it is now, just with fewer museums mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Johnbod. As I said, when I moved it in this diff on May 15, the article self-identified itself differently, which is a somewhat crucial difference. Yes, in terms of it being not much different, I agree besides that somewhat crucial upfront difference, the list-article is not much better than the state that it was in before. In my view, it remains unclear whether this should best be adapted into a comprehensive list-article of ceramics museums instead of Johnbod's personal, idiosyncratic list, or whether it should best be deleted altogether. doncram (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPA please. It is not a "personal, idiosyncratic list" - it includes all the ceramics museum articles I have been able to find, plus a number of museums that have been added by others (mostly redlinks, some newly written), & any other articles on ceramics museums of course should be. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ceramics museum. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ceramics museum. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ceramics museum. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)