Talk:The Cloisters

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Museums Mid‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The Très Riches Heures is held by the Chateau du Chantilly, France. The Met has Les Belles Heures. Corrected. Alexisr 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

See Talk:The Dakota#Requested move for a discussion about using "the" in the name of an article about an NYC building. --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Library and Archives

User:Doniago Hi, can you explain why you reverted my edits? There is not any information on the page about the library and archives, and these I would argue, are notable aspects of the institution- I provided citations and links, and the library/archives are a large institution, with published materials written about them. Also, I am very familiar with GLAM-Wiki policies, and my intention with adding that section was to expand coverage of the library/archives digitized materials as to aid researchers that wanted to dig deeper from the main Cloisters page. OR drohowa (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at my Talk page since you started a conversation there. We can bring it here if you have concerns regarding any of what I said there. DonIago (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture

Here is an article which could prove quite useful in improving the "In Popular Culture" section: http://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-museum/now-at-the-met/features/2013/cloisters-in-popular-culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalTech (talk • contribs) 16:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Trivia says (first sentence, in bolded letters): "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information". This article is on my watchlist (in fact it's my favorite museum) and for the past few days I've noticed the slow edit war. Beyond My Ken has reverted the deletion of the list of miscellaneous information now five times by my count, with the most recent edit summary of "discuss". I'm not finding a discussion here, as per BRD, (bold, revert, discuss), but will open this. We don't need that section. It consists of two entries of miscellaneous information that doesn't really add much, if anything, to the page. There a lot more that can be added to this page, but from a curating point of view, tidying/trimming trivia is common and shouldn't be controversial. If we need a straw poll of whether to keep or or not, that's ok. I don't see a compelling argument to keep it and see that according to WP:Trivia it's best to trim out at this point. Victoria (tk) 17:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a non issue that its beyond belief. I think there is a burned out editor, bitey as they come, who has backed himself into a corner, which is fine, as he has nothing else to offer the page. Or maybe he hopes to add video game mentions, at some stage. The article needs quite a bit of work; why prople who want to help should be blind reverted (from the outset), doesn't seem collegial. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Victoriaearle. The idea that this is an issue is beyond my...understanding. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well apparently this thread, that was opened a year and half ago, is an invitation to add trivia. Somehow that comment at the top of the thread slipped through the cracks and none of us bothered to point out that we don't add trivia sections. Apparently to avoid escalating we have to be clear that there's a consensus to do without the trivia; that removing trivia from articles such as this is standard; that there shouldn't be a trivia section. There's really no reason to edit war over it. It's a very clear cut issue. Victoria (tk) 17:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just to be on the record, this article doesn't need a trivia section and is better without it. As shown above, WP policy supports its removal. Can we put this to bed now? Kafka Liz (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record, I endorse that "consensus [is] to do without trivia; [and] that removing trivia from articles such as this is standard". Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that WP:IPCV discusses an RfC that concluded with "The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases." Any editor wishing to include such material is responsible for providing such sourcing if they wish their information to be retained. I would also note that this isn't the first time BMK has appeared to disregard this; I have been forced to conclude that they have somewhat of an inclusionist bias with regards to such matters. DonIago (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two sourced items, both of which point out instances where the Cloisters was used as a location for film shoots are not, by any strethch of the imagination, "trivia". They are legitimate popular culture items which are appropriate for this article. Some editors don;t like "In Popular Culture" sections in any way, shape, or form, and they attempt to delete them en masse, but there have been numerous comunity discussions, and there is no community consensus for eliminating "popcult" sections. These, considering that they are actually sourced, are absolutely legit and appropriate. BMK (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film shoots are trivia. Consensus is and has for a log time been against inclusion of this sort of passing *stuff*. I'm not sure what other community you mean, maybe a fan fiction wiki? Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]