Talk:Science Museum, London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject London (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Museums (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Hi there - I'm from the museum and would be happy to advise on updating the entry as and when appropriate. Obviously, as I work within the company I don't want to get involved in editing the entry myself, to prevent any accusations of bias! Get in touch and I'll be happy to help. Peer Lawther (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just updating my suggestion to help with the Science Museum page, especially with our centenary upcoming on June 26th. Again, as Senior Online Marketing Executive for the museum I don't want to edit the page itself in case of claims of bias.

Peer Lawther (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good call - have you read the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines? That aside, suggestions are always welcomed :) TalkIslander 16:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a list of what are considered some of the most important or significant items. In a museum of this size it is impossible for someone, especially tourists, to see everything. While everyone might already know about the Rocket locomotive, most people wouldn't know about or understand the significance of Maudslay's screw cutting lathe, of which you have the original, a "must see" for most engineers. Another is the Well's Cathedral clock. Anything that already has one of your articles on line, a Wikipedia article or article about the inventor is a prime candidate. Perhaps the list should contain popular attractions and historically important items. It is not a conflict of interest to point out highlight of the collection and insiders are the ones who know best. The beauty of the internet is that with links and most of the details already on-line, mostly what is needed is the list. I'll be happy to search for on-line details and relationships and do some linking. Thanks.Phmoreno (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Formalisation of the Science Museum[edit]

Hi there, I've added a separate sentence relaying the date the museum was declared independent of what was to become the V&A Museum, as the museum approach our 100th birthday later this month. It's referenced, as I don't want to be part of any bias claims (see above - I'm also known as Peer Lawther)! I've also updated the visitor numbers for 2008 and changed the "director" from Martin Earwicker to Chris Rapley - Chris is the director of the museum, whereas Martin is the head of NMSI, the trading company. Rubbergenius (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Gloster E.28/39[edit]

Hello, in this Museum should be a Gloster E.28/39. But where is the image? Please look in your archives and upload it! ;-) -- 10:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been to this museum before, it was awful :/, completely dumbed down, does anyone know a good website I can cite to make a criticism section ;)? Deepdreamer 14:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of the article, and not what the article is on, I couldn't disagree more - there is no better place to introduce kids to science, nor is there a more interesting place for Adults. TheIslander 23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I felt the same way as a bratty primary school student. Actually, if you go deep enough into the labyrinth, you can find some quite challenging material (e.g., an exhibit that allows you to measure exponential decay of radioactive sources, run off a BBC Micro.) I resented it at the time, but looking back and given the dismal nature of contemporary science literacy, the dumbed-down nature of the exhibits is probably what's called for. The bookstore, BTW, is not "dumbed down" at all. Sdedeo (tips) 02:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Making of the Modern World[edit]

The 'Making the Modern world' hall exhibition is not 'relatively new'. The organisation and name of it may be, but the most of the things in it have been in situ for years. I remember the sectioned mini from my childhood. In what way is it 'new'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) August 2, 2007

Well, instead of complaining about it, might I suggest that you be bold? Also, please remember never to comment on talk pages without signing your comment, by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post, which Wikipedia converts into a signature. TheIslander 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A few things were were left over from the old land transport gallery, but the vast majority was new. Sciencefish (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

hands on exhibits for children?[edit]

I remember (this must have been back in 1990 or so) that the Science Museum created a "hands on" space for children. Paraboic reflectors to beam whispers, make a light glow on a stationary bicycle, etc. It was quite a big thing for the museum at the time when a lot of the exhibits were getting a bit dusty and behind glass. Sdedeo (tips) 02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (with fond memories of the Science Museum and now a doctorate in physics, well done Science Museum)

That was Launchpad, which used to be located on the first floor front opposite the lifts. According to the museum website, it has been updated and relocated on the third floor. There are, or used to be, also extensive science play facilities for younger children in the basement. Tasty monster (=TS ) 07:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Grossly undue weight[edit]

Scanning the article I note what appear to be two striking examples of undue weight. The first is to the cancellation of a speech by Watson, and the second is a reference to two instances of industrial action (surely not the only such instances in the museum's history). In the context of the subject, these seem to be relatively trivial items and I can't see what they're doing there. Tasty monster (=TS ) 07:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that you agree with me. The mention of industrial action is a consequence of a general rationalisation of the images that I undertook on 03 March. There was originally a photograph near the top of the page of striking employees, but no mention of strikes in the text; I added a sentence to explain the picture, but because the history section is so small this sentence stands out unduly. "moved strike photo to "origin & history" section, plus mention of strikes in text, refs", as per the edit summary. I was aware of this at the time, but assumed that other people might expand the history section around it. Unfortunately there have only been a dozen or so edits since then. I dearly wanted to delete the picture entirely - I work for the NHS, I would love to earn their salary, and the thought of erasing those striking workers gave me great pleasure - but as the edit also involved inserting an image of my own creation it would have been bad form to do so. It would have left me open to accusations of trying to dominate the article's image space. Now that you are on my side, this is less of an issue; I urge you to take the strongest measures possible. As for the speech by Watson, that's not my doing. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, especially that the mention of J. Watson's talk seems very randomly placed in the "Dana Center" section. Does this have anyhting to do with the Dana Center? If not, should there be a section just for random facts? --DeminJanu (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't someone remove that strike section? As someone who just read the page to get some information on the museum, I fail to see how a one-day strike ten years ago has anything to do with the 150-year history of it. That's totally random and useless information. Or is it that rare to go on strike in the UK? (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


Seeing as the article mentions Science Nights (for kids), shouldn't it also mention the Science Museum Late sessions it does for those aged 18+ --TimothyJacobson (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC) See{5763A365-1ABF-471F-B624-BCAE383C239F}

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Whether Science Museum should be changed to a dab page or redirected to Science museum is a different discussion. Favonian (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Science Museum (London)Science MuseumScience Museum has been a redirect to Science Museum (London) since July 2010, and the term does not seem ambiguous (no other articles at "Science Museum (xxx)" and only one redirect for a former title at "Science Museum, yyy"). It appears to be the only museum in en.Wikipedia calling itself plain "the Science Museum". I have created a dab page at Science Museum (disambiguation) and tidied up the hatnotes at Science museum and this page, to ensure that people can find what they need. This flurry of activity was triggered when I typed "science museum", too lazy to use shift key, to search for the one in London and was only led there through the lengthy List of science museums, which seemed unsatisfactory. PamD 14:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Weak oppose Science Museum (London) seems a good canonical name for the article. It's defensible to claim that it's "The Science Museum" even though many other cities have their own, under the simple, local, name of "Science Museum".
For the page Science Museum though, I think this should remain a redirect to Science Museum (London). This preserves the disambiguator on the canonical name. That's clearer for those simply typing in "science museum", as to where they've ended up. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose highly generic title. It should be disambiguated. (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose Totally generic names need to be clarified. This probably is the best known (and perhaps the best) science museum in the English speaking world, but at this title one would expect an article on science museums in general. The easiest way of indicating the subject is with the qualifier--and it does not harm. Pam;s concern could be met by altering the List page to indicate that this one might be the one most likely being looked for. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Which policy states that "Totally generic names need to be clarified"? It looks to me as if the London museum is the primary usage of "Science Museum", so that no disambiguation is needed. There is an article on "science museums in general" at Science museum, lower case "m". I understand it to be WP policy for it to be quite acceptable to have different articles differing only by capitalisation. Hatnotes link from each to other, and to the list and the new dab page (now that I've done some tidying up). PamD 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose per DGG. WE achieve much greater clarity for readers and for editors when totally generic names need are clarified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. If you google "science museum" -wikipedia, the London museum edges out museums in Minnesota (Science Museum of Minnesota), Boston (Museum of Science), LA (California Science Center), and Philly (Franklin Institute). But none of those are actually named "Science Museum". Britannica`s entry on this subject is entitled "Science Museum". WP:PRECISION allows us to have an article both on the generic "Science museum", as well as one on a specific "Science Museum." However, this type of disambiguation is a bit subtle. I'd prefer "The Science Museum", which the museum itself uses on its Website. Either way, I hope we can rid of the "(London)", which makes it look like its part of a chain.Kauffner (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: the website uses "the Science Museum", not "The Science Museum", so per WP:THE we should not be using "The" in the title ... unless we can squeeze it in as being in the spirit of the exception noted at the third bullet point, of "If a word without a definite article would have a general meaning, while the same word has a specific and identifiable meaning, understood by all, if adding the article,....", taking the phrase "Science Museum" to be analogous to a word as discussed. PamD 16:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I feel that the generic term has potential for an article, and the disambiguated title does not prejudice against that; if/when a generic article is created, links to Science Museum (London) will continue to function as expected, whereas if moved, a bunch of corrections will be needed. Josh Parris 07:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • Note that WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION, and WP:DISAMBIGUATION all point against having a base name redirect to the same title plus a qualifier. If this title is somehow too generic for a single topic, even though it has served to lead readers to a single topic since July 2010, we can move the generic disambiguation to the generic title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note that there are currently a large number of incoming links to the redirect at Science Museum, and the ones I have looked at are all intended for Science Museum (London) (ie the redirect is correct for those links). If there is any decision to move anything else to that title ("Science Museum"), whether a dab page or a redirect to Science museum, please note that all those links will need to be updated to point to the museum in London. 08:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Making the Modern World gallery pic[edit]

Not sure if this alternative is better. Opinions?


©Geni 23:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Brighter, and it shows Columbine too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Science Museum, London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)