Talk:List of museums in Oregon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of museums. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, and see a list of list of open tasks.
List This article has been rated as list-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
List This page is rated as List-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] General Information

This list of museums in the state was separated from List of museums in the United States on January 07, 2008. Please see List of museums in the United States for all history prior to that date.

Feel free to include Template:Infobox Museum when adding or editing articles on individual museums. Noroton (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion criteria

In February 2008 at Talk:List of museums in the United States, a consensus was reached on this statement on what kind of institutions to include on state museum-list articles:

Historic houses or halls of fame may be listed if they function as or include public museums -- see Biltmore Estate, Plumb House, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and Baseball Hall of Fame for examples. Art galleries that function primarily to sell art should not be listed, but public art museums that use "gallery" as part of their name may be listed. Nature centers and botanical gardens may be listed only if they contain historical or educational exhibits in a museum format.

Also inappropriate for this list are planetariums, aquaria and zoos, which have their own lists. Please follow these criteria when considering additional items for this list, or suggest changes at Talk:List of museums in the United States. Keep in mind there are lists for institutions similar to museums, as noted in the See also section of this article. Noroton (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

So, presently this is set up in alphabetical order by museum name but wouldn't organization by location make more sense? Obviously it was previously when Oregon was separated from List of museums in the United States. I'll wait for a response and do it myself if there are no objections. 198.6.46.11 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Sure, why not? As long as it still looks OK. I'm not crazy about the icons either (we could just as easily organize by museum type though), but we should see if there is consensus about that. BTW, Mr./Ms. Symantec, have thought about getting an account? Katr67 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have one but I always forget the password and everything I want to do works fine without one. 198.6.46.11 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Found my account, needed it to sandbox, here is what I had in mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WNW3/Sandbox biggest problem with this format is what to do about cities that are in more than one county WNW3 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That could work, with some cleanup, and without the list all mushed together, as it is currently, maybe the icons would be more helpful than distracting. For starters, prune out all the settlements from the NRHP list you're not going to use, then figure out the primary county each city is in (NRHP list has things in the "vicinity" of the nearest settlement, which may or may not be in a different county from the historic site). Salem is primarily Marion County and that's where the museums are, Portland in Multnomah, etc. Though I'm not sure you need to go so far as to organize it by counties--the list isn't currently that long, after all. Why not run this by the folks at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Oregon? Katr67 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the process of doing that now. I'm also going through all the listed cities and finding museums and adding them. If no museums I'm dropping the cities. I'll run it past Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Oregon once I finish. WNW3 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Massive update complete, only took me two weeks :) WNW3 (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about a sortable table?

Almost all other state museum lists have been put into sortable tables after a long discussion at List of museums in the United States. The advantages are that the tables can be organized alphabetically by museum (the default) or city/town or county/region or by type (all science museums, for instance, can be grouped together; it works by clicking on the icon at the top of each column). A consensus was developed at the talk page for List of museums in the United States for how to present the lists, but there was also a strong consensus that editors most involved in each state list should be able to do it their own way if they wanted. I'm willing to reformat this list into a sortable table and add some information, but not unless there's more support than objections to the idea. A typical list with a sortable table is List of museums in Idaho. Noroton (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you see this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon#List of museums in Oregon? We arrived at the current version just recently, though there was some talk of a table. You'll get more feedback if you post your ideas on the project talk page--we're a very active project striving for some consistency across Oregon articles, which might not have to conflict with a desired consistency across museum articles. Visually I think the current version is more appealing than Idaho's table (white page vs. gray box), though I can see the advantages to a sortable table. We can probably jazz up a table with some images, though I think it's agreed we weren't crazy about the museum type icons. Katr67 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, and no, I didn't see that. I'll take a look over there. The discussion on the U.S. museums list page was to defer to editors involved in each state. Although I have my own preferences, my top concern is that involved editors know the options. Consistency across state museum list pages is much less important than keeping editors with a more local interest happily involved in maintaining and expanding the lists. Noroton (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no objections. Although I agree with Katr67, you will want to vett it over at Wikiproject Oregon. I think they were pushing for a table anyway. I don't have the table skillz though. I have the google every city in the state skillz :) WNW3 (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll post a note there. Noroton (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Would you like a sortable table at List of museums in Oregon?

I'm willing to create a sortable table for the museums at List of museums in Oregon page if there's a consensus to do it. I see a short discussion above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon#List of museums in Oregon, but there are some good reasons to create a sortable table that weren't covered in that discussion:: Sortable tables, which have been put on almost every other state museum list page, allow readers to group together museums by type or by location as well as look up museums in alphabetical order. This helps readers who only have a vague idea of what museum they are looking for to get more information about it or to browse and see what other museums are in the area or whether there are similar ones in the state. List of museums in Connecticut is a good example of what a list for a similar-sized state looks like.

The reason I want a consensus first is both that I don't want to work on something and have it reversed, but also because I'm not interested in maintaining the list and I think editors in this project are more likely to do so. I and some other editors have been working on improving state museum-list pages after we worked out some general ideas of how to do it on the talk page at List of museums in the United States, but one of the things we agreed on was that editors involved in editing particular lists should be able to do it their own way (although we don't want inclusion criteria to vary widely). In most of the state lists, nobody has become involved, but the Oregon Project seems to be more active than most state projects, and editors here have already become involved in editing the list. I started this discussion at Talk:List of museums in Oregon where editors suggested I come here. Noroton (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a sortable table like the CT one would be a big improvement -- thanks for the offer, Noroton! -Pete (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I love the CT one! That looks great. I like that it's sortable by county and city as well. The only concern I have is that it would be more difficult to update with new museums. Who cares though! It looks awesome! WNW3 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Naw, it's not that hard to update. Just copy and paste another entry and alter to suit. It's probably easier if the single-line table format is used though; the multi-line is harder to manage with many long columns. I think they should have made a separate column for the museum's website. Also, they should have divided the history "type" more finely. —EncMstr (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, this looks like a consensus is forming, so I expect to start adding this weekend (unless we get some opposition in the meantime). Thanks for the comments. Yes, I'd do it with the single-line format, as at the List of museums in Montana. I'm a little concerned about web links because they may be technically against some Spam policy. If anyone really supports a separate column for them, comment and give me a consensus to do it, but it's possible the links may have to go at some point in the future (I will be adding them). The links in the Montana list are all at the left-hand side of the Summary column, so they essentially work like a column already, and they can be taken out as articles are added, but removing them will be up to you (and maybe whatever spam patrollers you tangle with).
A question for you: This is something that Oregon people would be better at deciding than me (sorry about the length): In the Montana, Idaho, and Mississippi lists, I added a "regional" column with information taken from the state tourist authorities. It seemed a good way of grouping the museums geographically in a way that readers could easily understand and find useful (which is why nearly all state tourist authorities do it). In Connecticut and Delaware lists, I did it by county because counties work better than regions in those small states. For states with a lot of counties, I don't think providing the county is informative to most readers, while anybody can understand "The Coast" and "Eastern Oregon". Interestingly, nearly every state's definition of its regions comes up with 6-10 regions. Oregon's tourist authority organizes much of its website by seven regions (see here), and it seems to me that that's a good way of doing it, but you Oregonians would probably have a better handle on that than me. So if there's a problem with it, please tell me before I get started. I normally like to use a region system that somebody else has come up with because I don't know enough about other states to figure out one on my own (and doing that might violate WP:OR, I'm not sure). Once the regions are described on the List of museums in Oregon page, you can even copy it for other lists (List of state parks? List of Oregon thimgamajigs). So is the state tourism authority list OK to use, or does it violate some more-obvious Oregonian way of regionalizing the state?
(When we're done with this discussion, I'd like to copy it to the Talk:List of museums in Oregon, a practice WP allows.) Noroton (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
We often debate whether counties or regions are the more useful or meaningful. I'm a "region" proponent, but don't feel the issue is settled. List of Oregon state parks uses regions, though dividing the coast up may not be as applicable to museums as it is to state parks because of the sheer number of them at the coast. —EncMstr (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also a proponent of regions, but I don't feel the regions need to be consistent across the WikiProject. We can use whatever breakdown is most appropriate for a given article. For List of Oregon state parks, it makes sense to uses regions defined by the State Parks and Recreation Department. For the museum article, I would support using regions defined by the Oregon Museums Association (which are roughly the same regions defined at the tourist link above, although the borders differ slightly). Best practice should be to mention the source for the breakdown in the article itself, as List of Oregon state parks does.Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks EncMstr and Northwesterner. I'm not sure which regions to use, although I'm inclined to go with something that might be used on some potential future list as well (state parks looks like a bad example), so I might go with the state tourist authority. Whatever I do, it can always be changed. At this point, I just want to get it done. Noroton (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. That was helpful. I'll get started soon. I have to say, I'm really impressed with the Oregon lists (you even have a list of Oregon lists!). This is an impressive project you've got here. Noroton (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] allOregon.com

If someone can find a better list of museums than at allOregon.com or if this list becomes more complete (i.e. fewer redlinks), can we remove this link? Though not blatantly commercial, I don't think it's the most reliable source and I avoid using it when better sources can be found. Katr67 (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I thought it would be marginally useful to have, but I've got no problem with removing it. When I found it I was actually searching around for an Oregon state tourist authority museum list (those tend to be the kind that are most accurate and complete), but I still haven't found one yet. Noroton (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not that offended by it, and it's handy for now, until this list surpasses it in usefulness! TravelOregon.com is probably your best bet for an "official" site (from the State's tourism commission); I didn't look to see if they have a comprehensive list. Katr67 (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. All I see there are search functions, none of which turns up a single list of all museums in the state (at least that I can find). They do have regional listings, and I've incorporated into regional designations in other state lists like List of museums in Idaho, List of museums in Montana and List of museums in Mississippi. Noroton (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing plans

My plan is to work on the list for the rest of this week, when I hope to be done (I'll leave a note here when I'm done). I still haven't decided which regions to put some museums in because I wanted to start going through both the museum association website and the Explore Oregon feature of the state tourist website. Also to be done is to list the regions in a separate section with a description, as in List of museums in Montana and List of museums in Idaho. I'll also expect to add website links for all the items without Wikipedia articles, add very brief descriptions at that point and add entries in the "Type" column (looking at the websites makes sure that's accurate, it's easy to mistake these). I normally work alone, and I'd expected just to get the job done in a week and hand it over to you guys, but if you'd like to help, I'm fine with that (although it's better if we don't edit at the same time because of edit conflicts). I expect to be editing in the early evenings (Eastern Time). I'll put up an in-use tag when I'm working on it.

[edit] Explanation of recent edits

Here are some of the reasons for the changes to the article over the past week (of course, any edits here can be changed and should be looked over):

  • Removed some items that I could conclude were not, in fact, museums. They should all be noted in the edit summaries.
  • Retained or added some items still on the list that appear to be existing museums, but a Web search only confirms their existence, nothing more. I assume Wikipedia articles can be written about all the items now on the list (the common standard for inclusion of items on a list), from sources others can find; any real museum, even the smallest, will have sufficient sources, at least in local newspapers.
  • I'm doubtful, but I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not the Astoria Column and Oregon City Municipal Elevator are really museums.
  • The "Museums and organizations encompassed by Antique Powerland Museums" section is meant to help someone looking for, say, the "Northwest Vintage Car and Motorcycle Museum". That museum and most of the others within the "Antique Powerland Museums" group are not on the sortable table because I doubt there will be enough sourcing to support an independent article on it, but it also explains what the Antique Powerland Museums group is about, without creating a huge paragraph in the sortable table.
  • The Oregon Museum Association regions are used, partly because Northwesterner1 really wanted it and put it together for me. I think the Regions column accurately reflects the description of the region boundaries, but the Mt. Hood/Gorge, Central and Portland Metro boundaries are confusing to me and it would be helpful if someone could double check that.
  • The page is long at about 92K, which is not preferred, but not unprecedented, either. Some other state museum lists are just as long. It's important to keep the Summary column entries short.
  • The "Type" entries are primarily meant to help sort similar museums together, so the first words and phrases must be relatively general; since the "History - Local" type is so widespread, the sorting function is less useful for that group, so when the websites gave me a clue that there was something more than a small proportion of a museum devoted to some other subject, I listed that subject first (therefore: "Natural history / History - Local" instead of "History - Local / Natural history", so that when sorted for Type, the item will appear under "Natural history"). Otherwise, the primary type was put first in that box. (Confusing enough?) Noroton (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks for all the hard work. I fixed a few minor errors that I noticed. I should note also that I'm not tied to the Oregon Museum Association regions, so if anyone wants to switch things up, be my guest; I was just trying to provide you with something clear to go by, and the OMA list has the added benefit of being divided by county in most cases. I think these regions line up pretty well with most folks' sense of things, but when in doubt, and outside source helps draw the line. There are a few tough calls in the Portland Metro area. Sandy could go either way, as could Molalla/Canby in southern Clackamas County. But really this list is in great shape. Thanks for giving us some incentive to turn some red links blue! Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting stuff that might make for good articles

  • Things I've never seen before in any other state: Vacuum cleaner museum, Hat museum, Velveteria Museum of Velvet Paintings. (If you don't have an article on the Velveteria within four months, I'm doing it for you. That's a gem, and I already know it's notable (see the website, which has independent articles). It ranks with the unfortunately defunct Madison Museum of Bathroom Tissue.)
  • Absolutely charming museums: Petersen Rock Garden & Museum (some guy's crazy, passionate hobbyhorse turned into something unexpected that people pay money to see), Asher Car Museum (about the same, but not weird), Kidd's Toy Museum (next door to the family auto parts store, and apparently one world-class toy collection). Neither of these last two does any publicizing, apparently, and they don't have websites, but these kinds of places attract interest and, inevitably, good sources. The last two don't even charge admission. The Manuel Museum is another interesting one. Noroton (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)