To discuss article changes, please use:


If you see comments on this page, they remain for archive purposes.



What the heck is the purpose of this category? Why is Dogs Playing Poker in it? Powers 14:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Themes categories are fun ways to make connections between articles. Readers can browse from one article to another, and discover strange and interesting things. The Museum category is for articles about artists, or paintings, or museums. -- Danny (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Art might be a better name for it, then. It's a little confusing having real live museums with Muppet things in them mixed in with various artists and artworks. Or maybe that's just me. Powers 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a bit confusing, I'll agree. Almost everything in here is art related. This category mostly holds artists, art references, or things with artist/art themes... But there are more than just art museums (there are science museums, history museums, technology museums, pop-culture name it). As it stands now, there are 3 books (Grover and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Museum, Field Trip! and A Visit to the Sesame Street Museum) and two real-world museums (The Smithsonian Institution and Museum of Television and Radio) that are not specifically art-centric. Everything else is pretty much "Art" (some things are both "art" and "museum", but some just "art") If this category is for any museum related stuff then there is a lot of things that "could" be considered museum related aside from art. I think Category:Art might be a better grouping (basically everything here but the 5 "history museum" related things plus some other art related articles out there). We could still keep Museums to thematically group the (currently) 10 or so museum-centric articles, but have "art", "history", etc to group the non-directly related things you might find in art. I mean we have category:Library (which focuses on libraries) and category:Literature (which focuses on books). -- Brad D. (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to seperate the categories. All the art in here and artists *are* the kinds you would typically find in museums and have found; if we needed to, one could get specific exhibitions to site for each one. Something like Sarcophagi could be added too. A category definition would certainly help, but I don't really see a split as resulting in anything useful except two smaller categories. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well grouping "things that are exhibited in museums" seems really weird as many of the things in History, Prehistoric, Broadcasting, Medical, Sports,Religion, Politics and even Game Shows have had specific exhibitions that could be cited as well. And even Kermit the Frog has been in museum displays. Plus there are several art items on the wiki that aren't really "art museum" related. I think having "Category:Museum" (like "Category:Library") is fine for things directly related to Museums (there are at least 15 or so articles I found off-hand) and then have "Category:Art" (like "Category:Literature") for art related things. This category seems to be a mix of "Museum related stuff" (most of which are History museums) and then "Art related stuff that could be found in a Art Museum". -- Brad D. (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
We had this discussion last year: Category talk:ArtworkScott (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there are many art related things (such as The Cat In The Hat's Art House, Ernie's Work of Art, Andre, Big Bird the Artist...) that are not Museum related. I think a Category:Art would be worthwhile (reguardless of if it effects the definition of what is, or isn't, in this category). And there are many Museum related things that are not art related (are not in here). I think there is enough stuff to flesh out "Art" and "Museum" as both good categories - one full of Art stuff and one full of Museum stuff. The connection of "things that appear in a museum" seems weak to me, as so much could be in here then. Basically we need a good category definition for this. And I think "Art" could make a good theme category as well. -- Brad D. (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Art is too broad a term. It could mean music, performance, oration, etc. I think this category just needs a better definition. I can't think of one right now, but its current contents clearly reflect something specific. — Scott (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point of making this more complicated. I think the category is fine. If a particular reader doesn't like it, then that's okay; go look at another category. -- Danny (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well we (or at least I) need a better definition of what is, and what isn't, allowed in here. Is Big Bird the Artist allowed (it's about art)? Is Jim Henson's Fantastic World allowed (it's a museum exhibit)? Is Kermit the Frog allowed (he's been displayed in the Smithisonian)? Is Brontosauri allowed (they are often part of Museums)? Is Cleopatra or Julius Caesar allowed (they are often shown in museums)? -- Brad D. (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but you wouldn't expect to find Kermit at a museum. You go to a museum for Dalí. — Scott (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd be just as expecting to see Dinosaurs & cavemen, Historic figures, military events, displays on the human body and even Muppets and other television momoribilia just as much as I would expect to see Dogs Playing Poker, an Enid Cafritz portrait, a Ron Mueck sculpture or The Spirit of '76. -- Brad D. (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to invoke a rarely-used Muppet Wiki principle: Don't spoil somebody else's good time. Brad, you didn't care about this category at all until a few hours ago, when Powers pointed it out. Now you seem upset about it, and you want it to change.
Scott created this category, and it makes him happy. It's completely harmless. You've created a lot of frivolous categories yourself -- The Body springs to mind -- and I think it's okay just to leave this one alone and forget about it. -- Danny (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't mean to spoil a good time. I like the themes categories and I'd like to be a part of adding to these categories if missed and appropriate articles are found. But I don't want to ruin it by doing the wrong thing or adding inappropriate things. And now it seems other people aren't fully clear on the purpose of this category. I'm not saying we must change it, I'm saying we should define it (and if we can't do that sensibly, then maybe a change would be appropriate). A definition is all I'd like to see so we know what this category is, and isn't, intended to house. This category always had me a bit puzzled (basically category:Art References, category:exhibits and 4-5 miscellaneous books and episodes that feature museums) but I thought I was the only one that didn't full get what the was intended to encompass as "museum" related so I ignored it, but when Powers brought it up I saw I wasn't alone so I chimed in with my thoughts on the odd depiction of "museum" (being there was no definition). Sorry. I don't want to ruin a good thing, but I do want to understand it. -- Brad D. (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I just added a basic definition. If an argument is to be made, I could see taking out Hirschfeld and maybe Norman Rockwell, since the latter worked primarily for Saturday Evening Post. But all the other items fit nicely. Cafritz and Mueck are kind of different, but as the only performers whose work is indeed on permanent display in places like the Smithsonian, it's worth noting. Be honest, Brad. Mona Lisa is tied very much to museums, in a way that Kermit isn't. And the other things you mention are broad categories, where I feel unless you can cite a more specific item (i.e., if a Muppet brontosaurus skeleton appeared, it could go in, but I don't see a point in adding Dinosaurs or anything), don't really have a strong enough bearing. You don't go to a museum to see Julius Caesar or George Washington. You might go there to see a statue or painting of them (in which case, an article on Gilbert Stuart, whose painting of Washington has appeared or been spoofed several times, would be appropriate). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause an argument. Let me explain why this was a concern to me. I was looking for a link to the Museum of Broadcast Communications (I eventually found it in User:MuppetArchives/Current Events 13 (Sept-Oct 2006)#Museum of Broadcast Communications Archives). I wasn't sure if we had an article on it or not. So I went to the Museum of Television and Radio article (since I thought that might've been the museum I was looking for). After figuring out that was the wrong museum, I scrolled down and noticed the Museum category. So I clicked on that and found not a neat list of museums but rather a list of artworks and artists. It made it difficult to scan the list looking for museums amid the artists and artworks.

Now, then, perhaps the problem was that I just didn't realize that this was a subcategory of Category:Themes. We may want to consider renaming the Themes categories to make clear that they don't just contain articles that are examples of the thing named but rather that they contain articles related in some way to that thing.

Danny, no one here is out to spoil anyone else's fun. But if this wiki is to be a resource and not just a playground, we have to give consideration to how users are going to browse the information. In this case, I think the wiki would be better served by a slightly more complex categorization structure, or at least some thought to whether the category is named appropriately.

I guess my upshot is this: regardless of what happens to this category, I think a separate category for actual museums (including real ones with Muppet-related items, real ones featured in Muppet productions, and fictional ones from Muppet productions) outside of the Category:Themes would be useful. At least, it would have been useful to me.

-- Powers 00:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit to being slightly affronted by this: "Danny, no one here is out to spoil anyone else's fun. But if this wiki is to be a resource and not just a playground..." Anyway, there's a definition now. And since the Museum of Broadcast Communications has once again cut off online public access (as seems to happen quite often, for either weeks or months at a time), I don't know how useful an article would be. Everyone browses and finds things differently. If you want to create a seperate list of real life museums, to ease such navigation, more power to you. That makes more sense to me than trying to find ways to de-construct the category. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I would, but Category:Museums is already taken. =) I'm sorry you're affronted; I didn't mean any affront. If this wiki is just for fun, then maybe I should go. If it's meant to be a useful resource, though, in addition to being fun, then I'm going to keep making suggestions to improve its utility. Powers 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. Category:Museums is not in fact taken, as it turns out, though I'd still be troubled by its similarity to this one. If a user sees both "Museum" and "Museums" at the bottom of a page, how is he or she to know which one to click on to find other museums? Thus my suggestion to name all of the "Themes" categories in a consistent way to indicate that they're thematic rather than traditional "examples" categories. Powers 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This wiki is not "just for fun," thus why I was affronted. I said a list. Create a page and call it "Museums,"or if that troubles you, "List of Museums," and place it at the top of the category : [[:Category:Museums| ]] . There's only about three or four entries anyway. Problem solved. And all categories are consistent. I'm sorry that you expected a seperate category of museums only. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Here. -- Brad D. (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Brad. `Powers
After viewing Schools and similar articles, it seems an odd way to do it, but it's at least consistent. It'll have to do absent an extensive reworking of the category system. Powers 16:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah -- a year in, we're trying to avoid that kind of thing if we can. -- Danny (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.