A fact from Weald and Downland Living Museum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 May 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,213 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills 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.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills
@Dave.Dunford: re this edit and this edit, whilst I appreciate your reasoning for the removals, I'm not sure that they are good. I could write an individual article for both the watermill and windpump, but they would both struggle to get above start class, which is why I feel that they are better served by being covered in the article about the museum. Your edit emptied a category, which I got a speedy deletion notice about. I've contested the deletion pending discussion of this issue. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that strongly, so revert if you like, but it still seems peculiar to see a collection of buildings in a category that refers to a particular type of building (which doesn't apply to most of the collection). I had an analogous discussion with an editor about the inclusion of a large moorland area (Combs Moss) in a hill forts category (Category:Hill forts in Derbyshire), because the hillfort in question (called Castle Naze) only occupies a small part of the plateau and was only relevant to part of the article. The solution there was that the author created a redirect for Castle Naze that pointed to the Combs Moss article, and then he put the redirect page into the hill forts category. Is that a possibility here? Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots:Just for the record, on reflection there's no real reason to object to the inclusion of the Windmills navbox – happy for you to revert its removal without further discussion. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a wider issue, though, beyond windmills – namely, "should we include articles that mention an example of X, in Category:X"? My answer would be "no", but I don't know what the consensus is. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]