Talk:Royal Ontario Museum
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.|
|WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Toronto||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Museums||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Royal Ontario Museum. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Royal Ontario Museum at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This article is written in Canadian English. Some terms that are used in it differ from or are not used in other varieties of English. According to the Manual of Style, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
in the first paragraph i see the sentence " opened on March 19, 1914" but in the second "Construction began in 1914" can it possible ?
by the way sorry for my mistake in english
Why did the planetarium close in 1995? Why turn it into a temporary childrens museum and now office space?--Quena@sympatico.ca 04:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think because it wasn't profitable enough to maintain as a planetarium and the children's museum was successful enough either. I miss the planetarium. -- Paradiso 01:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I recommend a new fund raiser to bring back the planitarium by 2010 marking 15 years since it was closed. Perhapes more modern equipment should be used (up to date version). Still the ROM wouldn't be the same at all if you have no Egyptian mummies or dinosaurs. --King of the Dancehall 04:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Where is located at telephone number?
Added webcam that tracks constructionTreleth 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, there has been some improvement. But the article is still substandard. It reads like it was translated from the Serbo-Croat by a very bad computer program. The section about the first expansion is especially weak. Is there a wikignome out there can can copy edit and re-structure? Better yet, how about an old-time newspaperman? This is really a case of "Hello, sweatheart, get me rewrite" Help!
- That oughta do it. Mr random 01:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Botch on Bloor
I agree with Pomte that there is no hard evidence that the crystal is called "botch on Bloor." If anybody wants to discuss the verifiability of this, feel free to discuss here. Johnny Au 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've heard "Eyesore At Avenue," "monstrosity," and "what is that supposed to be." Perhaps Johnny could go to a TPL branch and read up on the negative critcism. Personally, you may also wish to re-evaluate your taste. A fine old building was destroyed to make way for this project. I avoid that corner now. 68Kustom (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the crystal looks good, but I believe that this addition should belong to a geology museum in Northern Ontario rather than on a general museum, although the ROM has exhibits on geology. Johnny Au 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The comment "Botch on Bloor" has been overheard by people at the Future Bakery on Bloor at Brunswick and there was an 8.5 by 11 inch paper "poster?" pasted nearby in the Annex as well. Fair comment has a place in the Wikipedia World. I hope that there are no apologists for the subjects of various Wikipedia articles, paid or otherwise, editing out fair comment. It should be noted that Slinger's article in the Toronto Star was certainly a "mock" and there were several supporters of the article as the letters to the editor attest. By the way, I have also heard the Crystal called "a Cancer on the ROM", and "the Abortion" but I declined to proffer those comments in the article on the ROM in the spirit of fair comment. Dan 23:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Things that are overheard in a bakery, or invented in school one day, are not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. There has been extensive discussion about this kind of thing already (for example, see this discussion about nicknames for Scarborough). Briefly, for inclusion, a nickname etc. must be well-known, in use by a a non-trivial segment of the population, and also used by media that has a reasonably wide distribution. Botch on Bloor and Cancer on the ROM certainly don't qualify. By the way, the fact that some editors don't believe this information is encyclopedic does not make them apologists for the article or its subject matter, nor should you assume that something you want included is fair comment. (By the way: I do support the inclusion of comments regarding the criticism of the design (artistic, architectural etc.), which does have verifiable sources for citation.) Mindmatrix 14:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I've written in a proper bit about the criticism the building received, citing Lisa Rochon's opening-day review. Beyond a doubt, reaction to the thing has been mixed, and that needs to be included. But "something I overheard at Future's" isn't enyclopedia-grade material, even if there was an 8.5 x 11 inch piece of paper to support it. Besides, what Rochon had to say was so much more cutting. Mr random 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I came to the page expecting a "Controversy" field. The only Torontonians I have heard speak positively of The Botch are ROM staffers; everyone I've met hates and resents it. Please cite contemporary examples of tyhis and it's technical shortcomings (change in materials used, sheets of ice falling below, etc). I would dismantle it myself if I could... --184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- The current guidelines for Wikipedia articles is to try to fold controversies into the text itself, instead of having a separate section for them. The architectural merits, or lack thereof, of the crystal are included in the text, though if there's anything missing, it may be added providing that sufficiently reliable sources are included. Mindmatrix 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Edits around the Crystal's reception
An IP has tried to insert info about the Crystal being named one of the worst designs of the decade into the lede (second sentence). Obviously, that's not the place for it and furthermore, this is already mentioned later in the article. I don't want to keep reverting this and turning it into an edit war. Just a heads-up to other editors. If anyone feels this info belongs in the intro, that's fine. It would just need to be written better and incorporated into the text properly, although my feeling is WP:UNDUE applies here. freshacconci talktalk 15:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I reverted the same edit and also felt it was giving the mixed reception (and it is mixed) undue weight. The cited reference also points out that it was only the opinion of a single reporter and that "Critics were divided on their opinions when the building opened, with many praising the bold design as a fresh addition to Toronto's usual stodgy architecture." Matt Deres (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Institute for Contemporary Culture
I would suggest adding the following content to the ROM entry, under the heading "Galleries" after the "World cultures galleries", with subheading "Institute for Contemporary Culture":
Located on Level 4 of the Lee-Chin Chrystal, the Roloff Beny Gallery of the Institute for Contemporary Culture (ICC) hosts the Royal Ontario Museum's contemporary art exhibitions. This high-ceilinged multimedia gallery of approximately 6000 sq. ft serves as the main exhibition space of the ICC. The ICC serves as the ROM's window on contemporary society, connecting the ROM's vast natural history and world cultures collection to today's society. The ICC has created and hosted most recently exhibitions on fashion photography, street art, Chinese urban design and architecture, and contemporary Japanese art.
Hi I am reverting back to the version with an exhibition section. I did not mean to make it sound like an advertisement. My mistake. I will rewrite the section to avoid this. Sorry still new to the process. I am just trying to put facts about the exhibition up. Please let me know If I am still doing this incorrectly. Thanks! MJMcGowan (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Rather than adding such a lengthy and detailed description of the exhibition, which can only ever be promotional, just put a brief outline referenced by the website. Surely the ROM site is a better place for me to go to, than what you have been trying to paraphrase here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is great that you are taking this initiative. Others should pitch in too. I am doing my part as well. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)