Talk:York Museum Gardens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Yorkshire Portal York Museum Gardens is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's assessment scale. See comments for details.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-Priority on the Project's priority scale.

	York Museum Gardens has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 21, 2007 Good article nominee Listed December 16, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

Contents 1 Request for expansion 2 Manor Cottage 3 GA review 4 number format 5 UK champion trees 6 Yorkshire Museum 7 Capitalization 8 MacGyverMagic's comments 8.1 Lead section 8.2 Description 8.3 Activities and other sections 9 Article name 10 External Links

[edit] Request for expansion

I've removed the request for expansion as the article has been substantially expanded now. --Kaly99 20:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manor Cottage

Manor Cottage was built from the limestone of the ruins of St Mary's Abbey in a Tudor style. It was completed in 1844 and is currently used as offices for the York Museums Trust. I've removed the above informatin about manor cottage because I don't think the building is notible in itself. If anyone has any information that would make it more notible please feel free to add it back into the article. --Kaly99 19:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I feel this lives up to the expectations of Wikipedia:What is a good article?, all six of the major points are addressed. Well written, broad, over 30 sources, several images. Well done. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• First of all let me apologize for the immense delay in my review of this article. Unfortunately, I happen to disagree with Yorkshirian. This article is filled with grammar mishaps and in my opinion it does not meet the good article criteria. I have therefore nominated the article for reassessment, but I'd be happy to personally re-promote the article if the grammar, repetive phrases (dates back from the...) and odd word (bequest, crenellated) are addressed. There's too many issues to list, but I'd be happy to email any editor a scan of my notes and given enough time, I may be able address a lot of it myself. I recommend someone gets the WikiProject League of Copyeditors involved to rip this puppy apart. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read this and the comments on the deletion review I'll look at getting it copy edited. Is the odd words a problem with the words themselves or part of the problems with grammar? Also could you let me know which sentences need referencing? Thanks --Kaly99 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] number format

A question for User:Malleus Fatuarum, but I'll ask it here so other interested parties can see the answer: What's the advantage of using {{formatnum:112500}} rather than just typing 112,500? I can find no mention of this template in WP:MOSNUM or anywhere else, and it seems only to make the text more complicated for editors to read and work with - if anything, it makes mistakes more likely as it's less easy to spot an accidental duplication or omission of digit if the number has to be typed without commas! PamD 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's analagous to the autoformatting of full dates, which allows editors to see dates in their preferred format. Not all countries use commas to separate large numbers in the way that we in the UK do; many European countries use a decimal comma, as I'm sure you know. Whether there's any agreed consensus for the use of {{formatnum}} I couldn't say, but on balance it seems like a good idea to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your argument, but WP:MOSNUM says "Commas are used to break the sequence every three places left of the decimal point; spaces or dots are never used in this role (2,900,000, not 2 900 000). " and makes no mention of this template. On balance it seems a bad idea to me! What do other editors think? I've never seen {{formatnum}} used anywhere else, and doing a search on "formatnum" seems mostly to produce cases where a number is being processed which has been derived from some calculation, not just where a plain number has been input. I suggest that it's an unnecessary complication and makes it more difficult to type and edit the correct number! PamD 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it either way, and I certainly have no objection to you or anyone else removing it from this article. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I do. 2 pounds is way less than the intended 2085 pounds. A comma is confusing for the people who don't use that format, so numbers should be treated just like dates. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

MGM, can you show me where in WP:MOSNUM or anywhere else the use of {{formatnum}} is recommended? PamD (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at recently promoted Featured Articles (here), I find Battle of the Gebora with several 4-digit numbers (prisoners etc) but no use of {{formatnum}}, so it does not seem to be the standard usage. PamD (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As the main author of Battle of the Gebora (came here because of "what links here" from that article) and other FAs/hopefully-soon-to-be-FAs, I have never used {{formatnum}}. As Pam says, MOSNUM requires the comma. The idea of user preferences formatting these long numbers automagically is nice, certainly, but doing so via a template is, I feel, messy for the editor. Perhaps this should be taken up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of_Style (dates_and_numbers) though, rather than here? (why is {{formatnum}} showing redlinked anyway?) Carre (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've come around to your view PamD. On the English wikipedia the correct use of {{formatnum}} is to format the numerical output from other templates according to the user's preferences. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK champion trees

Before someone slams a "Citation needed" tag ... from Googling around I can only find an accessible database of UK native champion trees, none here, and a ref to a full database which is only available to members of the Tree Register - see here. The Forestry Commission seem to have published a couple of books, but nothing recent or in print! Do we have a source for 3 champion trees? PamD 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a source for the information although this may not be where I found the information on the trees originally. --Kaly99 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yorkshire Museum

Would I be alone in thinking that there is too much space devoted to the Museum in this article? Given that it now has its own article, I'd have thought that - as for St Mary's Abbey - there could be a slimline section here and a link to mainarticle Yorkshire Museum for more detail. And I think the Tempest Anderson Hall belongs with the Museum rather than the gardens. --GuillaumeTell 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

The place is not called "York Museum Gardens for nothing. By removing the capital letters in gardens, the meaning of the phrase "The Gardens" changes. By the way, who removed the wikilink on rockery? That is not a word that is common enough for someone to know what it is (only that it has to do with rocks)- Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you feel that there's some advantage to be gained by sticking to the normal English convention that only proper nouns are capitalised, not improper ones like gardens? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Institutions goes against capitalising G/gardens, as I read it. PamD (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

... as I think would most, if not all, style guides. I do find the gratuitous use of capitals when referring to "the Gardens" in this article to be a little grating, but what I find even more grating is the inconsistency. My very strong preference is to follow the normal rules of English and the wikipedia style guide, and to do that consistently. Having said that, not following the style guide in this case would not be a cause for failing a GA review, as GA doesn't mandate that the complete style guide is followed. It would be a problem though if the article was ever put forward as an FA, where MOS compliance is mandatory. So why create a potential future problem? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth saying as well, that whatever decision is taken about G/gardens ought also to be taken equally consistently with M/museum. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MacGyverMagic's comments

[edit] Lead section

• There are multiple references to the medieval period. Why not call it the Middle Ages as is the common term? The word medieval even links there.
• Why isn't the number of visitors showing in the infobox?
  • Good question! I've enquired at Template talk:Infobox park - noting that the example given on the documentation page for the infobox has a visitor number which doesn't display! PamD (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The number of visitors are now showing on the infobox, the template needed it entered under visitors rather than annual visitors. --Kaly99 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done! I've now amended the template documentation to reflect this, and the example on the doc page now works properly. Thanks! PamD (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Article doesn't mention if events in the Gardens cost anything despite the Gardens' free admission. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description

• The map should have an arrow indicating north.

I've added an arrowing showing north to the plan. --Kaly99 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I can understand a ban on drinking alcohol and perhaps bikes are bad for the grass, but why are ball games not allowed, and more importantly, why do they have a Bowling Green if you're not allowed to use it? How old is it and when was its use discontinued?
  • It's very common for ball games not to be allowed in more formal parks or gardens, as they can spoil the enjoyment of the park for other visitors (and damage plants too, I suppose). As for the bowling green... I leave it to a York resident to say whether it's still in use (Google only finds a B&B which advertises itself as overlooking this bowling green). PamD (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It was in use last August [1]. Maybe I'll go round and have a look in the next day or two. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The Bowling Green is indeed where it's shown on the map, and seems to be in good condition (as far as one can tell on a frosty day in winter). There is an apparently well-maintained hut/clubhouse at the Bootham end (also indicated on the map) which presumably contains the bowls, jack and other kit. I can't believe that it's only there for the Lord Mayor's annual charity bowls match, but there were no obvious signs - maybe they are taken down in the off-season. I'll ask in the Museum when I'm next passing, unless this is (gulp!) Original Research. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• "They originally contained a conservatory, a pond and a menagerie, which was destroyed when a bear escaped and had brief control of the area." This line doesn't specify if the bear only destroyed the menagerie or everything else in the list. It also doesn't mention why the bear was there in the first place.
  • The use of "was", not "were", makes it clear that only the last-mentioned item, the menagerie, was destroyed. Why was the bear there? Well, it was a menagerie. But the sentence could be clarified slightly, which I'll do. PamD (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• I couldn't find an article about UK Champion Trees (only US ones). Anyway, I think champion tree is a phrase that deserves explanation - if not by linking, then by additional explanation within the text.

- Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Activities and other sections

Upcoming... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

It may be a bit late to ask this, but should the article be at "Museum Gardens, York", or just "Museum Gardens", rather than the current title? I see it was Moved from "Museum Gardens" in July 2006, apparently half an hour after it was created. Are the gardens ever actually referred to as "York Museum Gardens"? Not much evidence of this on a quick Google, except for name used in Flickr etc. PamD (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well technically the museum and the gardens are called the "Yorkshire Museum and Botanical Gardens". Splitting both into separate articles is going to cause naming problems. I'm guessing it was moved because the name was too generic. Adding York to the end would solve that. Technically, I don't have anything against renaming, but let's not rush. This issue requires the attention of a local like, I expect, User:Yorkshirian. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that technically and officially its named as "Yorkshire Museum and Botanical Gardens". Locally everybody just calls them the "Museum Gardens", considering that "Museum Gardens" just redirects to this page anyway, it might be best to make that this articles title. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit more Googling fails to find anywhere else which uses the name "Museum Gardens", rather to my surprise, so there should be no problem of ambiguity. So I'd be in favour of Moving it back to "Museum Gardens" ... would that mess up the GA nomination, I wonder? PamD (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The GA reassessment is now over, so if you feel that you need to change the name of the article it won't affect that at least. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I've removed the external link to the history of york website as it doesn't contain information about the gardens and does not add significant information about the buildings in the gardens. If there is information on the site that I've missed let me know. --Kaly99 (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)