Talk:List of jail and prison museums
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] This article and Old Jail Museum disambiguation article
This is a continuation of a discussion from the help desk.
The question is whether to have two separate pages, this one and the disambiguation page Old Jail Museum, or just one page.
Having looked at the two pages and at Wikipedia:Manual of style (disambiguation pages) and Wikipedia:Lists, now my opinion is that only one page is needed, and that a list page can cover all the required functionality, so the disambiguation page is not needed. A list page contains a lead section, while a disambiguation page doesn't. The two pages look very similar to me, so I don't think two are needed.
A list can contain items with very different-sounding names but some logical connection. On a disambiguation page, the names tend to be very similar. In this case, the list happens to have a lot of similar names, so it can also serve as the disambiguation page.
However, that's just my opinion. There could be good reasons to have two pages, that I'm not aware of at the moment. For example, a list has to have specific inclusion criteria, and a need might arise to disambiguate a name that has nothing to do with the topic of the list. One idea in that case might be to have most of the links in the list, and have the disambiguation page direct readers to the list, and also give them a few other choices of pages to go to that have similar names but no logical connection. It's usually better not to duplicate content on two different pages -- it's harder to keep it up-to-date and may be confusing for the reader.
I encourage you to discuss it here on this talk page and see if you can come to an agreement, based on reasons and on relevant guidelines such as the pages I just mentioned. I really don't mind if there's one page or two -- I gave my opinion but am not blocking consensus one way or the other. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Noroton, I read your comment at User talk:FieldMarine, and I'm convinced by your reasons for having a list page, but I don't understand whether there are also any reasons in this particular situation for keeping the disambiguation page rather than having only the list. Not only is it more work for Wikipedians to maintain two pages, but I think readers are poorly served if they've just looked at one page and then they follow a link to another page that has a lot of the same information plus a bit more information -- they end up reading the same material twice. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I propose consolidating the two under either name. If “List of jail and prison museums” is selected as the preferred title, that is fine with me, but I would like to move the original article Old Jail Museum to the new article name with all the links & history. I can take care of this. When that is done, Noroton, we can reformat the layout of the article using the guidance agreed upon in the Talk:List of museums in the United States. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- My concerns remain that the needs of readers won't be served well with one page because the List of jail and prison museums page will focus on helping readers find information and articles on the range of these types of museums, while the disambiguation page focuses on helping readers find a specific museum of the many named Old Jail Museum. So I think the optimum solution is two pages; but the second-best solution, the combined page for the list, isn't really much worse, so I really can't feel that strongly about it. I'd feel better if we get some advice from someone with more knowledge about disambiguation pages, so I'll put a note on that talk page. FieldMarine, you might want to post a request at Wikipedia:Third Opinion or Talk:List of museums in the United States or both to get an even broader consensus. It's a pretty discrete question and we should be able to get some participation quickly. (I don't want to over-argue it either.) I do expect the "List of jail and prison museums" to grow, and my guess is it will one day double (I know of two prison museums not on the list), and I expect it to be sortable. My main point: Not everyone knows how to use a sortable list (although they're ultimately more useful). If you confront the reader with a tool that isn't exactly made for the job at hand, the reader is forced to concentrate on trying to understand that tool, making it a bit harder for the reader to keep focused on the goal. To me, that's important, but maybe others feel differently. Noroton (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone who thinks these two lists will look much alike for much longer, please see Category:Prison museums. I expect to incorporate each article in that category, along with the similar number in the Australian subcategory, into this list, or at least the U.S. museums. Noroton (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- My concerns remain that the needs of readers won't be served well with one page because the List of jail and prison museums page will focus on helping readers find information and articles on the range of these types of museums, while the disambiguation page focuses on helping readers find a specific museum of the many named Old Jail Museum. So I think the optimum solution is two pages; but the second-best solution, the combined page for the list, isn't really much worse, so I really can't feel that strongly about it. I'd feel better if we get some advice from someone with more knowledge about disambiguation pages, so I'll put a note on that talk page. FieldMarine, you might want to post a request at Wikipedia:Third Opinion or Talk:List of museums in the United States or both to get an even broader consensus. It's a pretty discrete question and we should be able to get some participation quickly. (I don't want to over-argue it either.) I do expect the "List of jail and prison museums" to grow, and my guess is it will one day double (I know of two prison museums not on the list), and I expect it to be sortable. My main point: Not everyone knows how to use a sortable list (although they're ultimately more useful). If you confront the reader with a tool that isn't exactly made for the job at hand, the reader is forced to concentrate on trying to understand that tool, making it a bit harder for the reader to keep focused on the goal. To me, that's important, but maybe others feel differently. Noroton (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) I come here after reading the note on WT:MOSDAB. As all links on Old Jail Museum are either redlinked with no real incoming links, or are articles which aren't named Old Jail Museums per se, I suggest to merge Old Jail Museum into List of jail and prison museums, leaving a redirect there. I largely agree with what User:Coppertwig has said. The dab page should mainly be reserved for existing articles where the confusion with "Old Jail Museum" is so big that a dab page is necessary, and until then, a dab page is not really needed. Other regular dabbers may have differing opinions. – sgeureka t•c 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I came via a similar route and I agree, atm there is no need for Old Jail Museum as a dab page because there is nothing to disambiguate. My further suggestion to editors working on this is that you make the list sortable in such a way that readers can easily find all jails of one name (so that Old Jail Museums come together in a group) and that they can easily find articles that actually exist (maybe have two sections in the list, one for jails where articles exist and the other for articles not yet written). Just for your interest, this topic of list v dab comes up for discussion every now and then because it is a difficult one! Other dabbers may have different opinions (we are not made from a mould). Hope this helps. :) Abtract (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Move complete & pages consolidated. Thanks for everyone's input. FieldMarine (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
