Jump to content

Talk:Museum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sayn9478.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Aerospace/Aviation museums is embedded in "Science"?

[edit]

Hi, I wonder why "Aerospace (or Aviation)" museums don't have an entry for themselves. Their focus is quite specific and different from a museum that focus on "science" (which can be interpreted quite widely). Additionally, can anyone confirm if there is a "List of Aviation museums"? I couldn't find it!
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are History Museums under Art museums?

[edit]

Reading through the headers, there was nothing for history museums, but then they show up under art with little or no transition from one concept to the other. I think it should either be a separate section, or the section should be re-title Art and History Museums. History Museums merit their own category in that their collections often range outside the normal definition of art; moreover, the entry includes first-person interpreted historic house museums as history museums, which really can't be considered art museums by anyone. Best, Mragsdale (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I tried to clean-up this article as much as time allowed, but it is still a mess. It needs more citations and a lot of it seems like WP:OR to me. It's too bad, because this is an important article, please feel free to join in and straighten it up!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies Section Bias

[edit]

This section presents a stream of un-substantiated claims related to museums, describing what seems to be a list of gripes with the institution of a museum as a controversy that it is involved in using un-encyclopedic diction. --JHoltzman 02:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living History Museums

[edit]

Under open-air museums, shouldn't it list living history museums because they are a type of open-air museums? --Deannarcundiff (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bandar Abbas museum-Neanderthal child.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Bandar Abbas museum-Neanderthal child.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should I bother adding mention of the Creation Museum?

[edit]

Or would such an addition be almost instantaneously removed by people who love to use scare quotes (i.e. Creation "Museum")? 67.233.245.93 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Source #7 under "Purpose": "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge." is a dead link. The working link is: http://www.si.edu/About/Mission (visited 09/27/2015) --68.97.5.108 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

image added of a very small museum

[edit]

Hi everyone,

IMHO most of the photos in this article give the impression that a museum is a very large building. Musuems can be of all sizes.\ Have added photo of very small open-aired museum that I got from browsing the 2015 photo competitions. I'm more than happy to discuss this.\Please post on my wiki page.ta Johnscotaus (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 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:

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) 16:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

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) 18:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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:

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) 21:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

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) 11:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERA

[edit]

I'm discussing this minor detail about BC/BCE in the article per WP:BRD.

It seems that going back several years (2014 at least), this article has had exactly one BC and one BCE, with no AD/CE eras. A couple days ago (3 Oct), User:Nationalmuseumofiran (currently blocked) added one more BCE, as part of a spam-like spree of adding that same image to several articles. I followed these up to correct for WP:ERA; that included this article earlier today (5 Oct). At that point, the article had two BC dates, and no other eras, establishing a consistent era style in this article for the first time.

Soon afterwards, User:Zymurgy reverted this with the comment Wp:era says don't change established era notation in an article unnecessarily - this has been bce for many months (which doesn't seem to be true) putting the article back to a mix of BC and BCE, contrary to ERA, which states: Do not change the established era style without seeking consensus to say why the style is inappropriate for the article in question.

So I'm reverting per ERA. Any are free to start a discussion on why BC might be specifically inappropriate for this article. --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I don't think it's crucial whether it's BC or BCE, I randomly went back to the page in June or July 2017 to see what it was then and at that point it was BCE, hence my comment and rv. Not a scientific survey by any means. Go with whatever you think is best. Zymurgy (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Sorry to make so much about so little, but some get cranky about this sort thing. Thanks. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great- if only all editing issues on WP were so easily resolved! Zymurgy (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

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) 22:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

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) 23:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Museums for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Museums is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Museums until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interactice map

[edit]

Hello, it seems that the "interactive map" (caption, first picture) does not work. Even with correcting the spelling error (? musuems), the link then goes to the website in general. How to fix this? Ziko (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marginalised American people section

[edit]

I took American out of the heading because this page is about all museums not just America (I'm going to guess this section is somehow left over from a more focussed page maybe?). Anyway as the page stands a section only on American marginalised people was jarring. I inserted one international example, but to be honest I think this section could do with a rewrite from someone who can give it better international focus. DrThneed (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I have just added a small section on the Decolonisation of museums, which is tangentially related to some of the content in this section. I mention it in passing - I am hoping that someone will tackle an article on this topic at some point, as it's pretty well covered in the literature and attracts quite a bit of media coverage from time to time. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo bias on page

[edit]

Not sure why only large western art/antiquities museums are listed at the top of the page. It gives a very biased view of world culture. Changing it up to represent other cultures and topics. Myotus (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible move, thank you for taking the time to make the change. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The map used at the top of the page contains an external link that goes to TravelGeo a commercial map company not another Wikpedia page. The URL of the site has changed from "ShareMap.org" a site that just had advertising space to "travegeo.com" which now appears to sell services. I am unsure of Wikpedia's relationship with Travegeo/ShareMap. Having the link appears not to violate Wikipedia policy WP:EL. However, would it be more appropriate to have the link/graphic down under the External links section or at least identify it as an external link leading out of Wikipedia? Myotus (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibition histories section removed

[edit]

Several issues beyond the lack of representation of a worldwide view of the subject as already flagged. It lacks relevancy to the article with no real context and appears only to serve to promote the museums listed with outdated external links. No reason for adding it was given back in March 8, 2013‎. Myotus (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there was a reason--letting readers connect to major exhibitions, which is especially relevant in the age of COVID. A mpre complete global listing is better (and very difficult to compile), but let us not let better be the enemy of good material. Rjensen (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensen COVID is not a relevant argument. This section was put up way before COVID (2013) and these exhibits were in person not online exhibits. Additionally, the pages that are linked, (non-Wikipedia) if they are functional at all, are only to listings of past exhibits, not actual online exhibits. If the reason is to "connect readers to major exhibitions", then these large major museums should use their advertising budget for doing that, not use Wikipedia for free publicity. Additionally, the limited scope of the section focuses only on large western ART museums (the exception in the list is oddly the Canadian Museum of Nature) the section is very narrow in it focus (as pointed out for several years with no action taken to correct). My advice is instead getting into a revert edit war defending a badly executed section, please take it on, rewrite it, rebuild it and resubmit it when it is comprehensive and representative of all museums and no longer functions as marketing for a few large art museums. Myotus (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" resubmit it when it is comprehensive and representative of all museums" that's the formula for mediocrity . Wait for someone else to achieve perfection and meanwhile erase/delete/stop until that is reached. the point about COVID is that museums depend much more on Wikipedia given all the restrictions worldwide. Rjensen (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most Visited museums

[edit]

SiefkinDR and Sparafucil I saw your edits to the second paragraph on world's largest and most visited museums and I wonder if the whole thing should be reworked a bit. That sentence seems to be more for vanity and bragging rights than for information. I propose moving the following sentence:

The world's largest and most visited museums include the Louvre in Paris, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, the National Museum of China in Beijing, the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. the British Museum and National Gallery in London, and the Vatican Museums in Vatican City.

...to the "Most-visited museums" section AND then move that section below the Decolonization of museums" section as it seem to have more with the "See also" section. Thoughts? Myotus (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SiefkinDR I have removed the link again. However, lets discuss here. I disagree with your logic "majority of top museums are art museums" to reinsert the list of most-visited art museums link. I am unsure what your use of the word "top" means. If is by importance, that is subjective and highly open to criticism. If most visited museums are art museums then they are already well represented in the link to the List of most-visited museums. List of largest art museums link is already in the "See also" section, do not see the need to include in anywhere else in the article.

"Most-visited museums" is purely a vanity section and honestly should not be a section in the museum article. In fact it is destructive to museums as it gives the appearance that size of audience is what is important about a museum not its collection, curation or educational programming. Please respond with your positions for keeping the link, indeed it would be good to have a discussion if that whole section has any worth in being retained. Myotus (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Glad to discuss. The reason I like a link to the list of most-visited art museums is largely a practical one; it's the most complete, most up-to date list of museums out there, thanks to the Art Newspaper, and it also comes out much earlier than the List of most-visited museums, which is largely based on the TEA_AECOM list. The list of most visited art museums is published in March each year, while the list of most-visited museums from TEA-AECOM was only published this year in September. Over the last year, the article based on the the Art News list has regularly gotten twice the number of visits as the TEA-AECOM museum list, because the TEA-AECOM list was slow to be updated. I think it's a service to readers to give them the most current figures.
As to top-visited museums, I agree entirely that the number of visitors isn't the most important characteristic feature of a museum, but readers seem to be interested in knowing which ones are the most popular. Almost all Wikipedia articles on large museums include attendance figures, though often the numbers are several years old. In short, I think ncluding the Art News list link as well as the TEA_AECOM numbers will give readers more accurate and current information, which is the advantage of Wikipedia over other news sources.
Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article and a link to the "Most-visited art museums" article from the "Museum" article is fine, but I question its placement in the "Most-visited museums" section. Addtionally the problem I am seeing is organization and emphasis for the "Most-visited museums" section. While there could be justification for inclusion for the links in the "See also" section what is the justification for creating a "Most-visited art museums" section - all it does is repeat facts already in the article, it provides no new context.
Are Wikipedia articles created or organized to response to popularity? As stated in Wikipedia's purpose "The goal of a Wikipedia article is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic." Having a section in the museum on "Most-visited museums" comes dangerously close to marketing. WP:PROMO I moved the "Most-visited museums" section to the bottom of the article because it had no business being at the top but it should ultimately be removed and the links going to "List of most-visited museums" and "List of most-visited museums by region" should also be moved to the "See also" section. Myotus (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem deleting the section on most-visited museums, and replacing it with links to the relevant articles. It adds no new information on the subject. On the other hand, I don't really understand why an article on museums includes zoos, botanical gardens and aquariums. Those topics have their own articles, and links to those would be more useful. I think the article needs a little more structure and focus if it is to rise above C-class. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR You bring up a good issue. zoos, botanical gardens and aquariums are the red-headed step-children in the museum world. They are in some sense museums as they have collections of animals, plants, and fish. I would add to that list of awkward museums "Children's museums" as they have no children in their collections. :-) Actually they usually have no collections at all.Myotus (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this (Myotus) is pretty fair nonsense, & possibly WP:COI. If I was in Minnesota I might possibly visit his museum (not on any most-visited list, I imagine) but like most people at all interested in museums I know what are the top ones near me, & if I travel it will normally be very obvious what the local equivalents are. Indeed, in the summer one might feel that "most-visited" is a cue to avoid places in big cities. I agree that "zoos, botanical gardens and aquariums" should not be here. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod I do list my job/work up front on my page for transparency, it would be helpful if you did as well. How you can think working with museums is a conflict of interest in this case? It could be if I was promoting the Minnesota Historical Society which I am not. However, over-promoting "Most-visited museums" "Most-visited art museums" strikes me as having a elitist, classist and possibly racist bias much like promoting a list of "Most published artists" since there's simply less [published] documentation on many accomplished women and minorities throughout history. There are many high-quality (subjective) museums that do not have access to the resources that "Most-visited museums" do. Many of these fall outside of wealthy industrialized counties.
Additionally Another very big issue is what constitutes a visit? How to measure visitor and what is considered a visit has always been a problem. Museums can and have inflated numbers for their own benefit. It appears that Wikipedia is only feeding this misinformation monster.
Articles:
Myotus (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used to when I did work in any area relevant to my editing. Even less impressed with this latest post. No doubt the people who go to these museums have "a elitist, classist and possibly racist bias". Since most of them charge for entry, I can't imagine there's a huge issue with the numbers myself. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art Museum and Design Museum sections combined

[edit]

Both have relatively similar missions and often can be found referenced together in literature. In many addition museums listed under the art museum section were not art museums but rather were national/encyclopedic museums which contained art collections in addition to natural history, historical, and antiquity collections. Myotus (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing museum type descriptions

[edit]

There were 26 museum type descriptions listed on the page.There are 149 categories listing museums by type. It would be ridiculous to describe each one on the museum page. One of the ideas of an encyclopedic article is brevity. Even listing out 26 museum types is too much. Several do not even have their own page and some have longer descriptions on the museum page than on their own page. I have pulled the descriptions of museum types from the article, and instead create a list of the "types" of museums with each linking to its own page. This will allow the users decide on their own if they want to learn more about the type and then click on the link to go to the page. Please discuss here about the Museum type descriptions if you feel one way or the other. The following museum types were added: Agricultural, Architectural, Archaeological, Art, Design, Biographical, Children's, Community, Encyclopedic, Folk, Historic houses, Historic sites, Living history, Local, Maritime, Medical, Memorial, Natural history, Open-air , Science

The following were removed due to no pages or just lists. Marginalized people, Transport museum, Specialized museum, Virtual museum, Military and war, Ethnological and ethnographic, Pop-up, Mobile Myotus (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes museum types

[edit]

Replaced war museum with local history museum in lead. No article in Wikipedia for War museum (or military museum) it was only linked back to Museum article. Local history museums are some of the most common museums. Removed duplicate listing of Virtual museum. Myotus (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibition, not exhibit

[edit]

The second sentence uses the term "exhibit" wrongly: "Many public museums make these items available for public viewing through exhibits that may be permanent or temporary." It refers to exhibitions, i.e. spaces where objects (exhibits) are displayed (exhibited). The exhibit is an object or a group of objects displayed as a unity inside an exhibition. An exhibition is a curated collection of objects put on display, with interpretation. The word "exhibitions" should be used instead of "exhibits". Thanks! Flfeneru (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In American English an "exhibit" can describe the whole "exhibition" or show, as it must be called in British English. I think it is not actually wrong in American English to call a show an exhibition, whereas in British English it is downright wrong to call a show an "exhibit". If I'm right, and "exhibition" for a show is ok in both varieties, then we should use that per MOS:COMMONALITY. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing the article's images

[edit]

Going to just open this section to allow people to discuss this article's images here if they're ever an issue, without having to make even more sections for everyone to scroll through here. There seems to be an extant debate about worldwide representation in this article's images, as well as what seems to be minor issues with whether the exterior of a museum accurately represents what a museum is.

Of course, I'm not just opening this for nothing, so while I'm here, I might as well describe my own recent edit to the lead multi-image by explaining my additions of each image.
  • The British Museum is one of the most visited museums in the world and has a large and comprehensive collection that covers multiple types of museum. While yes, the user who added the multi-image in the first place did so because they took issue with the article's images being predominantly Western, the aforementioned reasons are a pretty good argument to keep it at the top, and the Louvre is already the lead of several other museum-related articles. Plus that shot of the entryway is seriously baller and I'm surprised it hasn't been used anywhere else; if it was less blurry, it'd undoubtedly be a featured image.
  • The Egyptian Museum covers history museums and has the largest collection of Egyptian antiquities in the world. Its image here is also one of the few really good shots of its exterior that isn't just a plain front shot. I would have kept the previous image of the Grand Egyptian Museum, but then I zoomed in and realized it's a promotional render and that the actual museum is still a construction site that's nowhere near as photogenic.
  • The Canada Science and Technology Museum is honestly just here because I needed a science and technology museum for this and remembered I had visited this place this year. It also covers representation for the Americas, seeing around this point I decided I wanted one for each continent but also didn't want 7 images in the lead (for an idea of what I was aiming for, see the continent-representing lead images in Police car). I'll admit it's honestly not a particularly great image compared to the others, so if any better shots of science and technology museums in the Americas can be found for this, by all means, but it honestly still hangs in there.
  • The Hong Kong Museum of Art covers Asia and art museums, but also isn't fully history related per se, since it seems to host contemporary art. That's it, really. I would have used other East Asian art museums like the Tokyo National Museum, Guangdong Museum, or M+, but shots of the former two didn't fit well in the multi-image's format, and I couldn't find images of the latter because it turns out searches don't consider "+" to be a character, plus HKMoA's name indicates it's an art museum pretty well compared to the others.
  • The House of Slaves was in the multi-image beforehand and I simply didn't bother to change it. All I did was change the image to show more of the building itself, and move its position in the multi-image.

As a side thing, to discuss whether we actually need interior shots in the lead or even as the thumbnail, I'd say no seeing the rest of the article can have those and already has a lot of those (plus, again, that British Museum image looks really good). AdoTang (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the image changes are an improvement and the arguments make sense. Great catch on the Grand Egyptian Museum. You bring up very important issues. 1). There should be more than just history museums represented. 2). Should there also be interior shots? However, I removed the British Museum image for the same issue I removed a photo of the British Museum the first time. The large European National antiquities museums have had over representation on the page for over a decade. Regardless of their popularity it was time to showcase the diversity of museums and museum locations. I replaced it with a very good photo of the Chilean Museum of Pre-Columbian Art which looks good when the museum page is viewed in the Wikipedia mobile app as well.
I have shown my own bias as I work at a history museum and neglected to represent other museum types such as Science and Art museums. Thank you for adding those. I have added one more additional row which addresses your concern for the need for interior shots of museums in the featured spot. I am hoping we can keep the number of photos to seven. I am already concerned that may be too much. I have added a photo showing a family looking at a diorama at the Indian Museum in Kolkata, India and a photo of an art gallery at the Sukiennice Museum, in Kraków, Poland. Myotus (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation says "Do not include pronunciations [...] for common English words just because they have pronunciations that might be counterintuitive for those learning the English language (laughter, sword).". The pronunciation of "museum" isn't even particularly counterintuitive. Including a pronunciation for this common English word is ridiculous, hence my exasperated edit summary. See also WP:NOTDICT. Un assiolo (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Museum&oldid=1232588802"