Talk:Jewry Wall Museum

Merger proposal

I'm proposing the article for Jewry Wall Museum to be merged with the article for the Jewry Wall.

In line with the Merger Criteria:

• There is significant overlap between the subjects of these articles. Although the museum does have some other exhibitions, its primary objective is as a museum to the Jewry Wall. And equally, the museum is part of the history of the Jewry Wall; leaving it out of the article means that article does not represent the complete history.
• The Text is very short and shows no sign of being added to. There have been no edits whatsoever since August 2011 and no additions to the actual factual content of the article since it was created in February 2011. Added to that, there isn't actually a great deal to say (most of which would just be duplicating the Jewry Wall article anyway) which leads onto:
• The Context - The museum primarily deals with the Jewry Wall and its history and environs; the article relies on the Jewry Wall article for its context.

There is never going to be a large article about this museum and there has been no interest in enlarging, with no edits in the last 2 years. It relies heavily on the Jewry Wall article for context, and even if it was expanded, it would simply be copying much said on that article. The Jewry Wall article is either incomplete by not mentioning the museum, or there is duplication if it does.
It is better merged to the Jewry Wall article so that we have one complete, good quality article showing the entire history of the site.

Rushton2010 (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Mild oppose Everything the nom says is true, but it messes up the categories somewhat to classify the site as a museum, or lose it to museum categories. Listed buildings likewise. Maybe someone will do Leicesterpedia one day.... There seems to be plenty that could be added. As usual we prefer to argue about things rather than improve the article so the question does not arise. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how it messes up any categories as both articles are already categorised as museum. And, after-all, the site is a museum: the wall and ruins are part of the museum complex which is fenced and only accessible during disclosed opening times.

Besides that, the Jewry Wall article is already included in the categories for "Visitor attractions in Leicestershire", "Archaeological museums in England", "Museums of Ancient Rome in the United Kingdom" and "History museums in Leicestershire". The page for the Jewry Wall Museum isn't included in any of those. If you look at examples for other Roman Ruins: Birdoswald Roman Fort, for example, is included in the categories for "Museums in Cumbria" and "Museums of Ancient Rome in the United Kingdom"; Lullingstone_Roman_Villa in "Museums in Kent" among a few others. So categorisation really isn't a much if any problem at all.

With regards to additions; it would still leave you with a situation where you either have both the articles duplicating each other or you are leaving one incomplete.

Rushton2010 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. While I disagree that the museum deals primarily with the wall (last time I went, which admittedly was several years ago, its focus was on the wider Roman history of Leicester as well as other periods) there is so little being said here about the museum that a merger seems appropriate. Should someone come along at some point and add significantly expanded content about the museum then a separate article may be justified. --Michig (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly neutral This is an interesting case. I think the museum might be notable enough in its own right to merit its own article. In some cases, such as at Brougham Castle, a museum is very much an afterthought and dependent on the site it is associated with, however at Leicester the Jewry Wall Museum (despite its name) has branched out a bit to cover the whole of the city's history, and a quick search of Culture24 produces a few pages on stories not solely to Roman history [1] [2] [3]. It's not hard to imagine one article about the Jewry Wall and the Roman baths at Leicester, with a couple of sentences on the museum, and another article about the museum detailing its history and fortunes. In part I think it depends on how long the articles are. At the moment this article fits comfortably within the article on the wall (isn't it just a duplication of the text?) without unbalancing it. Our readers aren't being done a disservice if the two articles are merged. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They could actually be doing readers a favour: the Wall article receives over 3 times as many visitors than the museum (2219 versus 741, in the last 90 days). So a merge would not only does it make the information easier to find, it would improve the museum's "hits".

Rushton2010 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the staff would be very surprised to learn that the museum's "primary objective is as a museum to the Jewry Wall". According to its website, it is "about the people of Leicester from Prehistoric times to the Medieval period". Leaving aside the interpretative material outside the museum building, there is relatively little inside which relates directly to the wall (or, more broadly, to the baths site). The headline displays of Roman mosaics and wall plaster, and of artefacts of various periods, all come from other sites elsewhere in the city: they are fairly represented by the four gallery images currently in the article (three Roman, one medieval; none from the baths site), which would be quite out of place in an article on the wall. The collections also include a fair amount of material from elsewhere in Leicestershire.

It is disingenuous to argue that the wall "is fenced and only accessible during disclosed opening times": the wall forms part of the perimeter of the site, and is accessible at close quarters from St Nicholas churchyard when the museum is closed.

It is unfortunate that the museum article remains an undeveloped stub, and the categories do need some rationalisation, but the museum is an important local and regional one, which deserves its own article, independent of the site after which it is named. GrindtXX (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To merge the article isn't to call the museum unimportant; the idea is to create the fullest article possible (with the "featured article status" the ultimate ideal goal);as I've said before, the museum needs to be mentioned on the Wall article (for users who are unfamiliar with the site the name "Jewry Wall" doesn't refer solely to a "wall" but the building and ruins of which the wall is the largest remaining part of)- so we either end up with duplication or something that is incomplete. If anything, merging the articles will draw more attention to the museum: the Wall article receives over 3 times as many visitors than the museum (2219 versus 741, in the last 90 days). I have actually visited the museum and would argue it is near totally about the Roman Ruins which include the wall, but I will also remind that merging needn't necessarily be seen as permanent: if someone later creates an article which proves the museum's independence from the ruins after which it is named, and which is of significant length and solves the duplication/incomplete problem... then a new article can easily be created; but with no edits in the last 2 years I don't think it's going to happen.

And so were back to merging- create the best, complete article with no duplication and overlap, no context issues and which ensures maximum "hits" for the article.

Rushton2010 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not at all persuaded by your arguments about numbers of hits, which suggests a concern with quantity rather than quality. I would argue that we are not trying to attract the maximum number of visitors to any particular article, but to guide readers as painlessly as possible to the article, articles, or sections of articles which come closest to meeting their informational needs. I have some sympathy with Johnbod's point that we would all be making better use of our time editing constructively rather than debating angels-on-pinheads issues such as this; but the reason I feel strongly about this particular case is precisely because the name of the museum is (arguably) misleading. As Nev1 says, there are dozens of small museums based at particular archaeological sites, which are named after those sites, and are essentially museums of those sites. Jewry Wall Museum is rather different: it is a city museum with a fairly wide remit, which happens to be located at (and so takes its name from) the Jewry Wall site. I think that distinction should be made crystal clear to the passing reader; and the best way of doing that is through having two articles. I agree that the Jewry Wall article needs to include a certain amount about the museum (more than it did until a few days ago); and, yes, of course that means there will be a certain amout of duplication, though it can be kept to a minimum. I am delighted to see that, stimulated by this debate, the Museum article is now beginning to grow a bit (thanks to edits by both Rushton2010 and Nev1); and, if consensus is to merge the articles, I will certainly be doing my best to expand the museum content further, to the point where the Museum article can be hived off again. GrindtXX (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewry Wall 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121708492900/http://www.archaeology.co.uk/join-in/local-societies/jewry-wall-museum-leicester-friends-of.htm to http://www.archaeology.co.uk/join-in/local-societies/jewry-wall-museum-leicester-friends-of.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewry Wall 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130616083326/http://www.redp.org.uk/news/archive/leicester-city-council-makes-u-turn-on-some-of-its-planned-cuts/ to http://www.redp.org.uk/news/archive/leicester-city-council-makes-u-turn-on-some-of-its-planned-cuts/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)