Talk:Royal Armouries Museum

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

Requested move[edit]

Royal Armouries Museum (Leeds) → Royal Armouries Museum — While "Royal Armouries" covers three sites, only the Leeds establishment is called "Royal Armouries Museum" - see the Royal Armouries website at http://www.royalarmouries.org/. Royal Armouries correctly describes the overall organisation and has links to the three sites (plus outpost in USA), but the article about the Royal Armouries Museum does not need a geographical disambiguator. PamD (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date information[edit]

A lot of the information about the tiltyard displays and performances within the museum is out of date following the funding cuts implemented in March 2011. I added a little section mentioning the cuts and the loss of acting and equestrian staff, but I don't know what events still run. The Yorkshire Evening Post article I referenced mentioned that outside organisations might provide some of the axed services during 'peak' times, so I was reluctant to remove sections about the tiltyard etc. Although it seems like it is pretty much closed now... 77.86.107.241 (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO CITE[edit]

Dear Transporterman, RE: Royal Armouries Museum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Armouries_Museum

Sections 2 and 3 have no citations or reference and are not verified. Just because they are so big why are they treated difrently to us? I feel this is not fair.Uboater (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses at User_talk:TransporterMan#No_cite and at User_talk:PamD#no_cite. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 13:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date?[edit]

I see that the Peace Gallery described is not shown on the current website, and other aspects of the museum may have been changed as a result of cuts as mentioned above. Some updating is clearly needed. PamD 13:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO CITATIONS[edit]

The citations added are all to a web site. This is not acepted, please recorect to authorised sources.Uboater (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable web sites are acceptable for use as references. Keith D (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't WP:SHOUT. PamD 11:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Museum director suspended" - copyright violation[edit]

Before I am accused of running a campaign against U-boater and his family, let me point out:

  • I have had the Royal Armouries Museum on my watchlist for ages (it's how I first encountered U-8047, when a silly spam item was added to this article)
  • I noticed the new section added about the suspension.
  • It didn't make sense as it referred to an "Evans" with no indication who he was.
  • So I followed the link to the reference ...
  • ... and found that it was copied word for word (omitting some sentences including the one which would have made sense of the "Evans" mention) from the cited source
  • So I slapped the Copyvio tag on it.
  • The information about the director could be worth adding to the article, and has a reliable source, but must not be copied word-for-word from that source, and must make sense. PamD 09:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it when it was re-added because it is still a copyright violation in violation of Wikpedia's copyright policy. But equally importantly, the source is not a reliable source and since it is negative information about a living person, it must be immediately removed in accordance with the WP:BLPREMOVE policy. It also arguably violates WP:V, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:UNDUE, though those are not so urgent as the copyright violation and the BLP violation. If Russ Jericho wishes to discuss it further, I am open to such a discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My research so far illustrates the hazards of non-reliable sources such as the museumassociation.org article. While that article mentions that the prior director resigned after being suspended while "irregularities" were being investigated, then becoming ill, it fails to report, as does a 31 May 2009 article in the Sunday Times, "Travel, food, chauffeurs - quangocrats are at it too?" by Roger Waite and Steven Swinford that "An internal investigation later cleared him of any impropriety." To include anything in the article about that director would have to mention both those facts, which would make it too insignificant for inclusion under WP:UNDUE. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk comment which was mistakenly (presumably, otherwise pure vandalism) added to main article[edit]

I removed the comment below from the article, but for the record, and in order to reply to it, am now copying it here which is where it was presumably intended to go (if the editor really meant it for the main article, then that was pure vandalism). ("Like a Vulture" might be taken as WP:Personal Attack but I won't pursue that line on this occasion.)

Copied comment[edit]

Your at it again PamD anything to do with your presus Armouries and you jump in like a Vulture. All I ever get told is that everthing should be from a reliable source and most of the writen work ion here is word for word as it was published or you remove it for having no citations. What do we have to do th let people Know that The Royal Armouries Boss is far more curupt than I allegedly was?Uboater (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on this comment[edit]

Question: "What do we have to do...?": Answer: Write something which (a) makes sense, (b) is not copied word for word from other people's writing in breach of copyright, and (c) is accurately sourced. The text I flagged as a copyright violation failed both (a) and (b). PamD 11:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Firearms Centre[edit]

National Firearms Centre redirects to Royal Armouries Museum. So what is the National Firearms Centre? 86.166.163.132 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Royal Armouries Museum/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires infobox
  2. Requires photographs
  3. Requires inline references adding using one of the {{Cite}} templates
  4. Requires expansion
Keith D 12:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 06:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 05:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Free Entry[edit]

"As at all UK National Museums, entry is free"
Well, IWM Duxford isn't free. --BjKa (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Royal Armouries 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose merging this page with Royal Armouries, as they are both pages for the Royal Armouries Museum. DanJWilde (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The Royal Armouries is an organisation primarily based in the Tower of London with various operations around the UK, whereas the Royal Armouries Museum is entirely about the operation in Leeds. I would not have an objection to renaming Royal Armouries Museum to Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds to make the distinction clearer. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as at the OTHER page. DanJWilde, you have not set this up properly, per the WP:MERGE procedure. There are TWO discussions, and neither page is tagged. Please merge the merge proposals. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Seeing the DYK article Horned helmet of Henry VIII, I browsed it, linked to here, then to the Royal Armouries website where I found no sign of a logo based on the horned helmet. According to this blog it has been superceded.--Verbarson (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the caption. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parallel change in Horned helmet of Henry VIII.--Verbarson (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Armouries_Museum&oldid=1211448492"