Talk:British Museum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Museum article.
Article policies
Good article British Museum was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of museums. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, and see a list of list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
This article was the showcase article of the London Portal in February 2007.
To-do list for British Museum: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand the subsections on each department with information pertaining to interesting histories - important curators / archaeologists / donors associated with them could be noted.
  • Hotlink remaining sections to Wikipedia Articles
  • Museum Building Section needs hotlinking
  • Remaining Collections section needs hotlinking

* Create some columns for placing the collection listings in, so doing away with the lengthy lists, please see National Gallery, London page for example.

  • Tidy-up the British Museum categories to reflect the:
  • Oxus Treasure (Needs References in the article)
  • Colosal Bust of Rameses II (No specicfic article but has a mention in the Ramesseum)
  • King's Library (Needs a lot of references in the main article - pics are dead as well)
  • The Department of Africa, Oceania and the Americas needs a Template created for further collections, but this isn't my strong point so if anyone knows of any other notable world collections I have misse dthen please do add them in.

--ImperialCollegeGrad 21:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)--ImperialCollegeGrad 11:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Tidy up all references, consolidate duplicates, make proper use of {{cite web}} or {{cite book}}
Priority 2  

There should be some information about the rebuilding of the Great Court, the computer-designed glass roof with its hundreds of triangular glass panels each differing slightly in shape, and the row about the use of the "wrong kind of stone" in its porticos

Err, there is a Qur'an, which dates from less than one hundred years after the death of Muhammad. One of the oldest, if not the oldest in the world. --[[User:Irishpunktom|Irishpunktom\talk]] 21:43, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but is this a printed book, or a manuscript (codex)? There are, of course, older manuscripts and codices--many owned by the British Museum (British Library) itself--but this article is specifically referring to the oldest PRINTED book (incunabula). 66.108.4.183 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Contents

[edit] Artifact Controversy?

I was under the impression many of the relics in the British Museum were highly controversial as they had been "stolen" from other nations without permission. Does anyone know if this is really the case? --Robbyslaughter 13:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted some text from the Criticism/Controversy section. I didn't do this to push either POV, but simply because I thought the section was starting to ramble and descend into a 'some say...but others counter' style debate, which is poor form for an encyc. So I just leave the strongest, cited arguments from both sides. Ashmoo 05:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Echo in the Reading Room

Does a joke, even a Hoffnung joke, really belong here? Daibhid C 23:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it's gone. Daibhid C 14:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article quality decline

This article has suffered a severe degradation of quality recently with unedited chunks of text and poor pic placement - compare it to the version of 26 December 2006. Not sure whether it is best to do a harsh revert to a much earlier version or a selective cleanup. Can all interested parties pitch in with a cleanup. Thanks, --mervyn 20:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Degradation

Thank you for the comment concerning the British Museum.

The previous article that was set in place on 26/12/2006 had inaccuracies that required remedy.

Context:

Some of the concerns included: a) The department headings were incorrect. b) The summary information of the individual Museum departments versus those for the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Musee du Louvre (in French) were inadequate. c) The pictures on the site were not referenced appropriately nor conveyed a sense of the Museum. d) The general information contained in the site including the department, collection, trivia and gallery as well as information about the Museum were inaccurate and not representative of the Museum. e) No references were used to support any of the claims.

Edition

I've begun editing the website to properly reflect the nature of the British Museum. For the most part I haven't included summaries of the changes I have made due mainly to small minor changes in positioning items. Going forward I will include more extant summaries of the changes for all to check against.

Also, I have focused entirely on the Department information, therefore the surrounding information is for the most part untouched except for the Gallery, Trivia and References.

The picture positioning is a sense of concern and would like assistance in how to deal with these.

The Department information is still very much in development and is being edited enhanced on a daily basis until there is sufficient information available.

I'm very happy to work alongside people to ensure that The British Museum Wikipedia link is satisfactory, full of information and a testament to the overall excellance of the free resource available to the public.

--ImperialCollegeGrad 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Great - let's work on improvements. Picture positioning and text formatting looks like a good start point. --mervyn 09:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent

Hey thanks for helping, this is my first Wikipedia project and am learning along the way.

I'm really into Art Museums and Archeology, and one thing I despise is claims without reference. So have tried to compare, contrast and add content to make the article comprehensive whilst giving ample note to other collections.

I've just started on the Collections section since that is my strength area having been to the Museum 1000's of times during university, a couple of years back. I know the Collection content requires editing however will get around to that once the majority of the information I've destined to include is published.

Also, I have to add hot links to other Wikipedia sites - but not sure how to? any suggestions?

Afterwards I will turn my attention to the remaining article, to compliment the excellent content already there.

It'll be great sourcing your advice and proof-read.

Cheers Muj

[edit] Departments section - cleanup needed

In the "Departments" section there are still major problems after recent edits -- such as:

  • non-standard formatting eg blocks of body text in italics (follow WP:MOS)
  • awkward image positioning
  • excessive amount of detail - note that it is an encyclopedia article so should be concise and edited for the general reader
  • In particular, the long lists of comparisons with other museums seem out of place

Hope this helps to show where work is needed. --mervyn 12:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanations and Assistance

Thx bud, I'm all happy for you help sort out the formatting since it looks better with the alterations.

When I look at other wikipedia links like The Louvre, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvre for instance, the picture placement is really bad. So I've tried to a) change the pictures such that they are a lot more informative (as I go there regularly and can take loads of snaps, which are for free usage by anyone) and b) put them in such a way as to make the page appear better.

Department Information Please be aware that this needs work, for which I am actively working on, there are sections for the departments that require more informative information, there is information in some sections for which I haven't yet edited, e.g. Department of Africa, Oceania and the Americas.

In terms of excessive information, versus say The Metropolitan Museum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Museum, the information contained in the Departments is a lot less.

The comparison between museums is something I've done a lot of research on and I'm yet to find any website or book that details the direct comparisons between holdings which is so important to a) validate claims whilst giving enough information for those wanting to see other collections.

I would really like to keep this, yes we can format it better - but I r4eally think this is important as it substantiates the information.

Thanks for the message.

--ImperialCollegeGrad 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Your desire to substantiate all the article's claims is definitely to be applauded! In order to do so without bogging the article down with figures, may I suggest moving the italicised sections, which the majority of readers will skim over, to an appendix? It could perhaps be titled British Museum (statistics in relation to other collections) or some such, though something snappier would be preferable. There is a precedent of sorts in the page Holocaust (resources), which serves as the bibliography section for the article The Holocaust but is a list of substantial length in itself. Giving those lists a dedicated page will keep the footnotes section of the main article at a more reasonable size, and we could then concentrate our efforts on translating the remaining lists (of objects in each department) into prose. What do you think? [talk to the] HAM 20:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, in principle your suggestions sounds great...but how would it work? how do you create a new page? and how would it link to the main article? also I don't understand what you mean by "translating the remaining lists (of objects in each department) into prose"? I do like the new look of the page, it does require some additional work however the structure and content is more original and encyclopedic now. --ImperialCollegeGrad 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in answering; I've been very busy for the past few days. Creating a new page is easy – just type the title you want into the search field on the left-hand side of any page on the wiki; then, on the page that comes up, click the red link create this page. Perhaps consider using this method to create a page for the King's Library as well – after all, devoting 8 paragraphs to a single room is overkill unless it's in an article that's solely about that room. (Compare with the article for the British Museum Reading Room, only 5 paragraphs long.)
As regards linking to the page I'm proposing (British Museum (statistics), or BM (stats) for short), this is how it could be done: whenever the main article text makes a claim like "The British Museum houses the world's largest and most comprehensive collection of Egyptian antiquities outside the Egyptian Museum in Cairo", it could be followed with a footnote advising the user to See British Museum (statistics)#Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan. This would take him/her to the section of BM (stats) on that particular department, where he/she would find the statistics substantiating the claim. The code for such a footnote would be:
<ref>See [[British Museum (statistics)#Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan]]</ref>
By "translating into prose" I mean rewriting the lists as paragraphs, because that is the preferred style in an encyclopaedia entry – it should read more like a summary than an inventory.
You create links to other pages with double square brackets, so for instance you'd type [[Age of Enlightenment]] to get Age of Enlightenment. If the word you want to form the link is different from the article title, [[Cycladic art|Cycladic]] will give you Cycladic, and so on. Hope this helps. [talk to the] HAM 20:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to make additions to the Infobox

How do you make additions to the Infobix, because I have added a few more items and they aren't being reflected.

--81.106.79.133 13:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Museum or British Library?

Thanks for the info above and sorry for my delay. I've taken your idea of a new page for the King's Library on board have made a page for it using the title suggested, please check it out.

I'm ready to link the British Museum page to other articles but need to know what is the wikipedia standard for linking pages?, since any interesting word can be linked to other wikipedia articles.

Also, what is meant by the following line from above? "By "translating into prose" I mean rewriting the lists as paragraphs, because that is the preferred style in an encyclopaedia entry – it should read more like a summary than an inventory"

I need to think about the statistics a bit more carefully, as I kind of like them in the article, whereas in the Holocaust article there is much more information, and in particular Holocaust history is more comprehensive than that of the British Museum.

Finally, I think the history section needs a complete overhaul. If you read it, there is little reference to formation and growth of the museum, its excavations, world wars, individuals, but just about most of it mentions the British Library which is only a minor historical note. I am proposing a new history content, utilising some of the current content and moving the remaining, where applicable to the British Library page, or having a separate mentioning The British Library pre-1997. The new history section should be chronologically segmented to take into account 8-10 time periods where significant change occured followed by a short discourse about the growth of the museum and its collection. The majority of the collection history should be accompanied in the Departments section.

81.106.79.133 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand some of the above - unless you are User:M.chohan?. Can you sign in as a registered user and discuss please? Thanks. MarkThomas 14:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to sign in...can you be more specific about the above?
--ImperialCollegeGrad 16:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I didn't understand several paragraphs in your comments above, for example, what statistics are you referring to, and what is the relationship between that, the Holocaust and the British Museum that you comment on? Thanks. MarkThomas 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
No Problem...Basically I've performed quite a lot of research on different museums that make claims to the importance of their respective collections and have suggested them in the article. For example there are many global museums that have Egyptian collections, however some are great in their Anthropological content (i.e. Petrie Museum), some in Monumental Statuary (i.e. Museo Egizio), some in both (British Museum, Musee du Louvre & Egyptian Museum, Cairo). All have there own claims, however for purposes of standardisation I have merited each in terms of collection size. Therefore under the Departments Section for Egypt and Sudan, I have prosed the comparison in terms of other collection with supporting references. In a comment from a discussion point above it was suggested that this statistical analysis of comparative collections should be moved altogether to a new page, hence the Holocaust article. The Holocaust is a vast topic, which required a separate page to detail the bibliography and references. The British Museum isn't anywhere near as comprehensive a discussion point as the former thus can't see why another page needs to be made. It doesn't appeal to me, the uniqueness of this analysis makes the British Museum page a benchmark in authenticity versus other wikipedia museum pages, notably the Victoria & Albert Museum article makes many claims with reference and is a good example. Also, I would like to use hyper links for the museums compared in the British Museum article to support other articles.
This article is encyclopedic in coverage therefore isn't biased at supporting the Museum but giving ample information to correctly portray the Museum. Does this answer your question?
Cheers
Muj
--ImperialCollegeGrad 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Muj,
Glad as always to see that you have great plans for the article.
The aspects of the BM's history you mention should definitely be covered, although I have reservations about removing everything to do with the Library, even if only to a seperate, specialised article. Bear in mind that the character of the Museum has changed a few times during its history (look at Sloane's founding bequest – some 40,000 printed books, 7,000 manuscripts, extensive natural history specimens – neither books nor natural history is within the BM's remit today). Developments in the British Museum Library (until, of course, it broke away in 1973) deserve a place in a general history of the Museum because it had been such an integral part of the institution up to that point. (See how most of the floor space was dedicated to it in this 1904 map – the gallery space is shaded, the library space unshaded.) I agree with you, though, about adding chronological subsections within History and departmental history in Departments.
As regards the appendix I've been proposing, I realise that the comparison with Holocaust (resources) may not be very helpful, so I've created a very rough mock-up of what I have in mind in my userspace. I've already explained above how this would be linked to from the main article. The advantages of this method as I see it are that:
  • The main article is freed up of chunks of text that the reader is likely to skim over, thus improving the legibility and flow of the main article
  • The information appears not in blocks of text, but in bulleted lists, so it's easier to digest. Also, any errors (we all make them) would be spotted sooner if the information were presented in a more user-friendly manner.
  • Note how the References section runs to 23 footnotes. Deduct those from the 31 at the main article British Museum and you realise that there only seven claims in the article with external citations. Obviously, the very nature of my proposal means that a couple of new footnotes will be created linking to the relevant sections of BM (stats), but this still highlights the need for more facts in the body of the article to be cited – something that may not be clear to the casual surfer who sees 31 footnotes.
Now about converting lists into prose: articles with several long lists tend to be frowned upon, particularly by those who monitor Wikipedia:Peer review and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. It's better to give that information in flowing, properly structured sentences (in other words, prose), such as you'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Lists present information in its "raw" state; we encyclopaedists want to refine it by making prose out of it. That is what I mean by advocating a summary style (you could also call it encyclopaedic) as opposed to an inventory one; it's also the principle behind my suggestion of moving the italicised lists (yet more "raw information") to a dedicated appendix. Regards, [talk to the] HAM 13:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Ham,
Really sorry for not getting back to you, was in the States on business. Thanks for the comments above, I think the points and ideas you've raise are excellent. I'll get back to you on them soon, going to dash for a while.
Aside, I like your work on the National Gallery article, it's excellent. To be honest, I've been using that page, along with a few others to garner ideas as to improving this one. Personally, I still think this page is way off benchmark yet. I've sorted out most of the images, doesn't mean that they are correctly positioned yet, however they're a lot better than before. The Departments section needs much work on. I like the idea about prosing equally like the idea from LordHarris below to move some content off this page, perhaps moving the 'key highlights' off the page. The History, Foundation are way off the mark yet. But, we'll work on it.
I'll get back to your points shortly and we'll discuss more before committing. Good luck at the Courtauld Institute of Art, great place + it's only up the road to the City where I work.
--ImperialCollegeGrad 11:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

The guideline at WP:NC states that "if the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name... otherwise, do not". Any objections, then, to changing the article title (currently The British Museum) back to British Museum? [talk to the] HAM 13:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please! just look at the list of double redirects. "The" in Wikipedia articles is generally a sign of a book or film title, etc "The Raven". A more experienced user would have paused before moving a large, established article. On its letterhead Metropolitan Museum of Art is "The Metropolitan Museum of Art". Thank you, Ham.--Wetman 21:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Alas, User:Woohookitty is under a very different impression. With this edit he's delisted this page from Requested moves, his rationale being that "the official name is THE British Museum per their website". I think I'll have to point him to the overwhelming precedent for articles on institutions not having the definite article even if, as you say, it appears on their letterhead. Removing a proposal without discussion seems like poor form for an admin... [talk to the] HAM 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ham, it sounds good. The politically correct would charge a noun as extant. Since in this example , i.e. The British Museum, the definate article preceding the apparent noun is itself inclusive with the name of the organisation. However, if Wikipedia has a convention on such matters then I'm cool with your take on the name. Please revert as you have suggested. Thanks --ImperialCollegeGrad 23:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be "British Museum" on Wikipedia - see for example National Gallery, London which is officially "The National Gallery" as a close analogy. MarkThomas

It seems to me that there is a consensus for a move to "British Museum". If that's OK, I'll move it in about 24 hours--Runcorn 22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC) .

[edit] Departments

Over the past few months this article has really developed extensively, especially the departments section. However I think that the article as a whole is long and in far too much depth on the elements of the specific collections, some of which are represented here in the article better than others. I think it would be an excellent idea if someone could create new articles for the departments, allowing an expansion of the information for each department - more text, photos etc and instead have only a paragraph and a link on each department on this, the main page. That would improve the presentation, quality and scope of the British Museum article.

I have already edited the Asia Department section, creating a new article for the department, laying out structurally. I habve added a see further link with a brief intro on the main page. The new article (The British Museum Department of Asia) has the scope to be expanded to include a concise highlight of the major rooms/collections, as well as the addition of some small gallerys for each collection e.g. Islam, Korea etc. I think there is a danger that we dont want to make the British museum category of articles too extensive, as their website includes an index of all their collection! But a highlight of the museums departments is something that I think a lot of people come to wikipedia to see, before or after going to the Museum. Perhaps someone would please like to do this for the rest of the departments, as this will make more contribution possible and allow the main article to be much more encyclopedic. LordHarris 12:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi LordHarris,
Thanks for the comments above, principally I've been editing the departments section for this article over the last few months. User Ham above, has also been very active in encouraging good practice and contributing much to the structure of the page.
Since coming back from holiday I've noticed a lot of changes which is a good thing. Looking back at what the article appeared like in December, it is now hugely more readable, enjoyable, comprehensive and accurate in scope than before. I think it's important when we edit these articles that a discussion should occur first before such large changes occur as the overiding consequence normally tends to a reversion on a previous edit.
What I think is important here is not to use this main British Museum article as a proxy to other pages, hence becoming less informative then it need be. To discuss the British Museum implies you discuss the collection within, othewise what is the point in visiting a museum? To only talk about the building, it's foundation and all the individuals attached to it, is pointless unless you discuss the purpose of such an institute, i.e. a repository of knowledge of different cultures and identities. And, it should be discussed in this article, not pointed to other pages for clarity sake, this page isn't a hotlink to others unless complimentary information can be found elsewhere.
I do agree that there is cleaning to be had on certain parts of this article, however to move the collections to separate pages leaving a skeleton paragraph behind is incorrect. Since moving the Department of Asia to another link, which in itself is excellent, hugely more expansive then the prior version in this article, it has reduced the emphasis placed on the collection within this article. A summary paragraph does not do justice. Personally I think individuals who visit museums, rather who visit this page to understand more about the musuem, want to know more about the collections. The Egyptian Collection is amongst the most popular of galleries, to move this to another page and leave the remains behind is incorrect.
Thus, I disagree about having a singular paragraph to highlight the collection for each department. I do agree that we can reduce the present content where needed. As an idea to discuss we could move some of the 'key highlights' to another page as all of them aren't needed. If you revert back to some of comments above you'll see that we've tried discussing these points, i.e. what to move and what not to move. In this instance to move the commentary for the Department of Asia without prior discourse with the community on such an important point doesn't seem right considering individuals are trying to discuss these points and reach consensus. Therefore, I will be reverting back to the prior version and we'll discuss the structure more. Having said that thank you for your help, it's great that people like yourself are actively working to better this article.
--ImperialCollegeGrad 11:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, firstly thanks for replying rather than just reverting straight off. Secondly good work on all the recent approvements. Thirdly, I appreciate that the British Museum has a "community" but I find your comments "In this instance to move the commentary for the Department of Asia without prior discourse with the community on such an important point doesn't seem right considering individuals are trying to discuss these points and reach consensus" shall we say less than friendly, and less than in keeping with the spirit of the wikimedia editing policy. Moving on, I agree that a short paragraph is not the best answer. I think you are more than right in arguing that the page should list some of the key highlights. Therefore I would like to make a suggestion that we keep the extended paragraph on the department, but add the see further note. This way not only do we get a good intro do the departments main collections but also people have the opportunity to see an article for the department of Asia in detail? I hope this is a solution that is more of a middle ground?LordHarris 11:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi LordHarris,
Apologies if I sounded rude, wasn't my intent. I guess the passion overcame me and should've re-read my commentary first. I very much like the fact that you're helping here. Previously, when this article was dormant for an age, I made many changes in quick succession without commentary as I knew not of best practice until individuals like yourself pointed them out. Thanks for your help again.
I like your new idea, it sounds good, but equally I think when we look at say the Department of the Ancient Near East, which was one of my first works, it does appear over done and too long. Therefore in that instance, Ham's idea, above, to have prose instead of bullet points and my idea of moving 'key highlights' off to another page, alongside your idea of hotlinking it to a more expansive page sounds a good mix of the three.
I think we should pick one department, work on it and see how it matures. In the first instance I wrote the Department of Asia information, but it was summarised, my intent was to include more information like history and comparison's with other collections. As here there is good scope to compare between claims of other great world collections, i.e. Musee Guimet, Paris; Musee Quai Branly, Paris; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Cleveland Museum of Art; Victoria & Albert Museum, London; Palace Museum, Beijing; National Palace Museum, Taiwan, and other notable ones in Germany.
Hope this helps, I'm sure we'll work on this and get there successfully. Have to dash now, so will come back later in the day. Thanks.
--ImperialCollegeGrad 12:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for replying again, all sounds good to me. Ill keep working myself on improving the seperate article on the department of Asia - adding a few key photographs of works/general galleries etc and leave you, as your more knowledgable about the main article, to edit that. BTW I only live about 5 mins away from the BM, so not too far for me to pop to with a camera. If actually you want any photos of anything for the article than im more than happy to help. Also I think a comparison with other museums around the world is a great idea. If your interested, it would make a great starting focus for starting up a new wikimedia museums project, with the aim of linking similar museums together. Anyway thanks LordHarris 16:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Famous x 5

I have removed "famous" to describe 5 objects in the museum per MoS. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Of course the objects are famous, thats why they are in a museum. An encyclopedia doesn't describe people or things as famous, thats the tone for a fan magazines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:APT isn't meant (like any WP rule) to be absolute - it's a guideline. One or two of these "famouses" I would be inclined to accept, particularly the Rosetta Stone one, as it's making the valid point that this (along with the Elgin Marbles) is the most famous object in the Museum. Not all of the objects in the BM are famous by any means - one can stroll along corridor after corridor of minor objects that few have probably even looked at, and the museum holds tends of thousands of artefacts in the basements that are only placed on view once in a while. MarkThomas 10:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If an object is famous enough, it will probably have its own article; the fact that something is linked to its own article should be enough indication of notability.--Runcorn 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well stated, its own article determines its notability and gives it its own set of references. That just the words I was searching for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this discussion is ridiculous. 'Fan' magazine, are we now suggesting that the usage of the term famous can only be credulous in a fan magazine? To remove every entry of famous from this article on that basis shows that clearly there is a lack of understanding as to when this term should be applied.
Famous is suggestive of something having a widespread reputation, usually of a favorable nature (www.dictionary.com). Using this definition it is quite right to use the term famous whereever applicable, regardless of whether or not it is contained within this article. Please read the wikipedia article on notability & on Avoid Peacock Terms, no where does it say 'these terms can't be used'. To suggest as such is taking an extreme view of the guidelines.
Through much documented information in various sources, it is a known fact that The Royal Hunt Scenes are famous, it is known fact that the Mona Lisa is famous, therefore do we go then choose to remove every instance of the term famous throughout Wikipedia because individuals choose to base decisions on opinion? Where applicable, the term famous will be reintroduced, any objections? and please do come back with something more substantial then 'fan magazine'.
--ImperialCollegeGrad 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of the "famous"es were applied to things that are actually famous. But some not. Only the culturally literate can tell the difference. High entertainment for all! --Wetman 07:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we please have a source that explicitly describes each of these objects as "famous" or "famed". (What is the difference between these?)--Runcorn 22:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • A link to an opinion piece about returning cultural properties written by the BM's Neal Spencer was deleted from the article because its host site www.touregypt.com has been placed on Wikipedia's blacklist, eliminating numerous linked articles regarding Egyptology. The blacklisting process, currently at the pleasure of individual administrators, appears to be flawed. --Wetman 11:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You have to be an admin on Metawiki; see [1]. Unfortunately, as an admin only on this Wiki I cannot do anything about it. Please post a comment there.--Runcorn 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History Section and REFERENCES

In heavily editing this article, the two sections that I least touched were the History & Buildings section. I tended not to edit these as more work was required in the Departments section, however anyone who knows of the Museum, has visted there and has a keen idea of Museology would understand the History section as unappreciating to the museum.

If you were to read it, there is little reference to formation and growth of the museum, its excavations, world wars, individuals, but just about most of it mentions the British Library which is only a minor historical note.

I previously proposed a new history content, which Ham and others had agreed and without chopping and changing within the article, I have written it offline, and will include it shortly. It will utilise, wherever appliable, some of the current content and moving the remaining to the British Library page, King's Library Page, Round Reading Room Page, Great Court Page. The new history section will be chronologically segmented to take into account 10-12 time periods where significant change occured followed by a short discourse about the growth of the museum and its collection. The majority of the collection history should be accompanied in the Departments section.

--ImperialCollegeGrad 11:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the history section looks great, a lot of work has made it really comprehensive these last few months. However its almost entirely unsourced. Surely those who have written and edited it used the information from websites, books etc - this needs to be referenced in the article. LordHarris 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a reference request tag on the article. To those editors who have made all the recent edits, expansions etc please reference where you got all that material, facts, dates etc. WP:REF, Wikipedia:Attribution. Please do not remove it until you have cited where all this information comes from - books, websites, british museum leaflets etc. If this article gets more references then it can quite easily be nominated for good article status LordHarris 19:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the feedback. The History section has changed significantly over the last few weeks, with a lot of effort going into it. Though there aren't any immediate references, I assure the community there are ample references to support the claims, however additions of references are being added to the gradually, once the content is finalised. I gathered it was more important to ensure the information was formatted and represented clearly with supportive images and linking. I am now in the process of citing References and attaching them not only to the history section but overall throughout the article. There are many sources of information for such an institution, some through websites, most through reference books, others in journalist articles.
Bear in mind, in December 2006, the British Museum article had little or no content and even fewer references. Looking at the article now, it is very much improved and due to the efforts of many individuals it is looking a lot better. Havinug said that, I would like to remove the tag above, as it tends to demean the activity of this article, the effort involved and since this is an area currently being worked on, I don't think it is needed. It only deters visitors to the page, when the ultimate aim is

to reflect an unbiased, concise yet comprehensive article on the British Museum.

Thanks once again.
--ImperialCollegeGrad 00:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi sorry you quite clearly are a little confused over the purpose of the tab. Its there to get editors to supply references for the info they they have already placed and are going to place in the article. As for your arguments about 'detering visitors to the page' - i'm sorry that is not a viable argument and it most certainly doesnt demean the activity of the article! I understand you feel strongly about this article, but a tag is designed to help improve it, not to deman it!!! Most importantly you say your aim is to reflect an unbiased, concise yet comprehensive article on the British Museum and this is the whole purpose of a tag and supplying references. If you yourself and other editors have been able to provide all this new content that wasnt there before. then you must have got it from somewhere. As you were transfering the knowledge from books, journals, websites etc, you surely must have been aware of it and therefore what reason is there for not giving a reference after typing? Either supplying multiple references is a problem because recent edits only include information that has been directly copied, word for word from a book etc - which is just unacceptable on wikipedia unless that book is in the public domain. If this isnt the case then I assume its because in the glory of adding new info you forgot to add the reference. In that case the tag serves as a reminder to all editors to add those references for past and future work. May I suggest that if you are to provide large quantities of information in the future then you practice first in your sandbox and focus on trying to attach references to facts, figures and statements requiring verification. I have replaced the tag and would ask all editors to this article to continue providing (good job on the few already provided) references. Finally although "important to ensure the information was formatted and represented clearly with supportive images and linking" it is more important that information provided be attributed and be either your own work, or referenced if another. WP:REF, Wikipedia:Attribution Please continue to reference all recent edits. As the tag suggests if an editor feels that information isnt supported by a reference and should be, he is free to remove it and I will not refrain from doing that, though first I wil add fact citations across the article - in an effort to get more references. My whole aim of putting the tag and requesting more sources is not to demean the article or destroy 'your work' but rather to improve the article in relation to everything wikipedia stands for. I hope you understand and will endeavour to reference away. Thanks.LordHarris 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that everything must be verifiable. Of course, many articles lack adequate references, but one of substantial length such as this certainly should be properly referenced.--Runcorn 12:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for employees

Please help to populate Category:Employees of the British Museum (past and present). Thank you. Andy Mabbett 21:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There already exists Category:People associated with the British Museum, which includes directors, employees, benefactors etc. Could the Employees cat not be merged with this more wide-ranging one? [talk to the] HAM 22:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that (I don't think its mentioned on the BM article). I would prefer 'employees...' to be a sub-category of "people...". Andy Mabbett 23:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help: Columns for collection listing

Hi,

Can someone please help me create some columns for placing the collection listings in. For example, in the section 'Deaprtment of Ancient Egypt and Sudan', we currently have:

Key highlights of the collections include:

       * The Rosetta Stone (196 BC)
       * Limestone statue of a husband and wife (1300 BC)
       * Colossal bust of Ramesses II, the 'Younger Memnon' (1250 BC)
       * Colossal granite head of Amenhotep III (1350 BC)
       * Colossal head from a statue of Amenhotep III (1350 BC)
       * Colossal limestone bust of Amenhotep III (1350 BC)
       * Fragment of the beard of the Great Sphinx (1300 BC)
       * List of the kings of Egypt from the Temple of Ramesses II (1250 BC)
       * Limestone false door of Ptahshepses (2380 BC)
       * Granite statue of Senwosret III (1850 BC)
       * Mummy of Cleopatra from Thebes (100 AD)
       * Amarna Tablets (Collection of 94 out of 382 tablets found, second greatest in the world after the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin (202 tablets)) (1350 BC)

To reduce space and improve aesthetics, I want to utilise the column utility as has been excellently used on the National Gallery London wikipedia article for the example above.

Thanks Muj --ImperialCollegeGrad 12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ham!, Thanks for helping out on the columns. Really like the look of it now. Want to chat?
--ImperialCollegeGrad 20:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category Help

Hi,

Could someone please tell me how to update the British Museum category? it's not been updated in eons!

Cheers Muj --ImperialCollegeGrad 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by update it? If you want to add articles to it, you need to insert [[Category:British Museum]] into the articles. If you want to edit the text in the category itself, you may edit it like any other article.--Runcorn 22:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi I noticed that there are several articles in the British Museum category and several other articles that form part of the British Museum 'genre'. Perhaps an idea would be to create a template to help link all the British Museum articles together, to make them more accessible and navigable? Similar to templates like Template:University College London, Template:London museums? LordHarris 16:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds an excellent idea, not sure how to do it, can you help?
--ImperialCollegeGrad 22:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

Hi,

Unless anyone has anything to add to the article, or suggestions, improvements etc.

I think it's time to nominate this article for GA status.

Cheers Muj --ImperialCollegeGrad 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The departments section, and some of the other sections need more sources. I've put the GA on hold until citation problems are solved.--Sefringle 04:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added a reference for the citation request tag in the department of the near east. I have also added three references to the the department of asia, with one reference encompassing all the assertions of highlights within the department. I have removed the tags to correspond with this. Hopefully the citation requests have been answered. LordHarris 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There are a few other citation porblems I noticed in the current version. I think I tagged them all now.--Sefringle 03:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean a citation is required for the last sentance statement, or the whole section? Some of the history sections are composed of prose referencing various sources, so there is no one source to cover all of the section. Perhaps I'm not understanding clearly enough, can you please elaborate?--ImperialCollegeGrad 08:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking over the request for additional citations I see a few examples e.g. a direct quotation where a reference are required. However some of the citation tags are attached to sentances and information which does not appear to be an assertion that requires addtional referencing. For example:

The books remained here until the British Library moved to St Pancras in 1998.[citation needed] This is a common fact, one under WP:REF that is not likely to be challenged. St Pancras refers to the new British Library where the majority of the British library book collections reside. Before which they were held in the British Museum. Perhaps your request for a reference was intended for the previous parts of the paragraph - Sir Thomas Grenville (1755-1846) was a Trustee of The British Museum from 1830 and he assembled a fine library of 20,240 volumes, which he left to the Museum in his will. Surely this is a matter of contention specifically the fine library of 20,240 volumes?

Another example:

This contains the Paul Hamlyn Library of books about the Museum's collections, which is open to all visitors.[citation needed] Why does this require a citation? Is it because there is a doubt that it is not open to all visitors? If your intention is to get a web page link (so that users may follow a link to the Paul Hamylyn library online) than this is the sort of external link that goes in the external link section, not as a reference in the main article?

Obviously there are still some points where this article needs additional references. However would it be possible for you to add each individual example for a reference and explain why it is required on the talk page, in regards to guidelines say at WP:NPOV or WP:REF. A detailed explanation of the changes and edits that are required would be much easy to address. In that way we can also reply to each individual request for a reference informing you of our progress. Thanks. LordHarris 10:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In general I menat for the whole paragraph, but in some cases, it was just a single sentence.--Sefringle 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blank Space

Is it me, or is there a huge blank space at the top of the article?

Muj —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M.chohan (talk • contribs) 08:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I have a blank space, a couple of inches from the top to the text. I think it might be the image of the great court? I tried playing around with it in sandbox mode but it didnt seem to change. Great job on all the references. Hopefully the article will pass GA. I would like to review but I have had too much input! LordHarris 11:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Fixed, just changed the position of the image
--ImperialCollegeGrad 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination comments

Article has been improved greatly, but a few problems need to be sorted out first:

  • minor punctuation fixes
  • too many picture galleries
This is questionable, the images follow the text perfectly, is this a wikipedia standard concern? where is it noted, if purely on an aesthetic point of view, I can't see any reason for removal as aesthetically the images do not hinde the passage of the article, but confer credibility and add value. The positionging and textualising of them makes the article appear pleasing as opposed to the opposite in example the musee du louvre site for which no one seems to mind. Please justify.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.203.201.92 (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
  • excessive {fact} tags
Cleaned up
  • why two competing footnote styles?
I have changed the titles to make more clear. The footnote section refers to information not suitable for the main article but needed to detail the subject further. The reference section refers to the citations used for the material. The further reading (previously titled references) details books on the British Museum.LordHarris 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "trivia" section needs integrating into text appropriately
  • the linked sub-article King's Library has copyvio problems

--mervyn 07:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

I'm failing this for GA, as it has been on hold for over 7 days. Please renominate if you think the remaining issues have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Directors etc.

Recently a section entitled Leadership (which included a list of directors) was added to this article and then deleted on the grounds of irrelevance. Personally I think that such a section does have a place here, though possibly Governance would be a better title. I propose that we re-introduce the section, keeping it to no more than one or two paragraphs in length, and add a See also link to a new page titled Director of the British Museum or similar, which would include the list of past directors (which admittedly did clutter up the page). Ham 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; it was just the list that was thought irrelevant and deleted, not the entire section. I hope nobody minds me changing the title and creating the new page myself. Ham 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over the statement, "one of the greatest"

Recently there's been an edit dispute over the article's opening statement ("The British Museum ... is one of the world's greatest museums of human history and culture"); somebody added {{fact}} tag, then an anonymous IP number reverted the page, then a third user re-added the tag. I agree with the anonymous person; demanding a citation for a statement like that is overdoing it. WP:CITE states that "all material that is... likely to be challenged needs a source." Is there any serious challenge to the notion that the BM is one of the greatest – not the greatest, note, just in the first league of museums? That much is clear from the statistics in Template:Egyptian museum collections, Template:Ancient Near East Museum Collections etc. etc. These templates appear in the relevant sections of this article, so there are justifications for that initial assertion throughout the body of the text. Isn't that enough to make the statement verifiable, when the parts of the article elucidating it (i.e. explaining why exactly the BM has a claim to greatness) do have citations?

It could be argued that if the BM's greatness is so self-evident it shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source making a statement of it, but that's besides the point; can even the most general statements not be made unless we can point to specific examples of someone before us having made them? Demanding a source for that kind of statement is not a sign of scrupulousness – it shows a loss of nerve. Ham 22:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ham, that anonymous person was me! I forgot to sign in, I completely agree it is way overkill. I've left this article untouched for a while now and stepped back, I wanted others to contribute and improve the article especially after I nominated it for peer review and Good Article status. However, after the suggestions from yourself, no one has really done anything about it! which I find really disappointing.
I'll have to revisit your suggestions, the peer review plus the comments throughout the history and the discussion board before attempting to renominate the article.
Muj
--ImperialCollegeGrad 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Re [2]: an organisation's own website is not an adequate reference for a claim to be the "greatest " of anything. Andy Mabbett 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact, you're right. More importantly, this whole issue needs to be bedded with. This citation needs to be removed, so far only Ham, whom I agree with, has provided evidence supporting the reason for not including it, unless anyone begs to differ with the wiki standard - this citation will be removed. Muj --ImperialCollegeGrad 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements

Hi,

I want to improve this article to GA status, and would like anyone to contribute by recommending suggestions for improvement.

There has previous discussion on the Peer Review page and throughout this article. It's worth consolidating these ideas into one discussion and deciding which points are worth looking into.

Cheers Muj --ImperialCollegeGrad 10:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, guess no ones interested...I'll go ahead and chop and change what I like. --ImperialCollegeGrad 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On 16th April 2007, I submitted a Peer Review, these are abridged feedback items from HAM, I think some of these have now been answered, I'm thinking about the department section to reduce it.

  • The creation of some breakaway articles may be required, especially for the Departments section. A good example is the Department of Asia.
My concern here is that I do not wish to reduce the content for the sake of presentation. I appreciate there is scope for improvement, but what remains should represent a good abridgement of what is already there, and some pictures should remain.
  • One-paragraph sections tend to be frowned upon, so the sections on the Dept. of Coins and Metals through to Libraries and Archives may need to be lengthened. At least one footnote for each of those sections would also be a good thing.
I agree, this needs work upon
  • Regarding the Museums with major collections of X antiquities templates: one of these has 10 items, another 12, and a third only 5. Perhaps we should standardise them so that each is a top ten?
I agree, this will require some more research.
  • According to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, the contents of such sections 'are better presented within the context of the text' than in a dedicated trivia section.
I agree, why have a section called 'Cupboard 55', in the departments section? There is no relevance to the whole article and should be removed.
  • Footnote e states that 'understanding of the foundation of the National Gallery is complicated by the fact that there is no documented history of the institution'. If by 'documented history' you mean a general study of the Gallery's history, may I direct you to The Nation's Mantlepiece: A History of the National Gallery by Jonathan Conlin (London, 2006)?
Ok, this one needs research.
  • It would be better to conflate footnote 45 (a footnote of a footnote) into b.
Don't understand, can you expand?
  • To which book do footnotes 46 and 47 refer? There's no book by Bernard Ashmole in the bibliography.
Needs to be looked at.

ImperialCollegeGrad 17:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoa Hakananai'a

Hello there, I'm thinking of starting an article about Hoa Hakananai'a (the museum's Easter Island statue), but I'm not sure if it's sufficiently notable. A quick perusal of the category:collection of the British Museum makes me think it is, but I want a second opinion before I start. I wouldn't want to see my efforts wasted. I have the BM's own book on it as a source. Totnesmartin 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sure it's a great idea to start this, any sub articles for the museum enable us to refer to them for more information. My understanding is that outside the Easter Islands, only the Louvre has a similar statue, beside these two there is no others in the Western World perhaps that's purpose enough to discuss the importance of these artifacts. ImperialCollegeGrad 12:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've started it. I read there's one in America as well, but I forget the source. Totnesmartin 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA fail

Although this article has a lot of good material in it, it is not yet comprehensive, it needs a good copy edit and it is not sourced properly. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

Lead:

  • Putting such a large quote in the lead violates the spirit of WP:LEAD; the lead is supposed to be a standalone summary of the article.
  • The lead is not a summary of the article: some of it is too detailed (such as the opening date) and it is missing information. Carefully read WP:LEAD, which stipulates that all major sections of the article need to be introduced in the lead and so forth.

Missing information:

  • The "Department of Asia" description needs to be fleshed out more. Compared to the other departments, it gets short-shrift. Even though it has a forked article, that article still needs to be summarized in the main article. Readers may not read the fork and will then have a distorted impression of the museum's Asian collection.
  • The "Department of Prehistory and Europe" description needs to be fleshed out more.
  • It would seem like there should also be a "Budget and finances" section. Perhaps not the most exciting element of the Museum, but definitely an element. With all of the problems of fundraising these days, money is an issue.

POV:

  • The Parthenon Marbles are one of the finest manifestations of human creation. The Magnificent Relief Frieze showing the Panathenaic procession, from Ancient Greece, often praised as the finest achievement of Greek Architecture, its decorative sculptures are considered one of the high points of Greek art. - Sentences such as this need to be reworded and sourced. See WP:NPOV.
  • It is a point of controversy whether museums should be allowed to possess artefacts taken from other countries, and the British Museum is a notable target for criticism. - Reword and source carefully per WP:NPOV.

Sources:

  • No article should be nominated for GAC when it has "citation needed tags." I have added even more, unfortunately.
  • I am a little bit concerned about the sources used for this article. Most of them seem to be British Museum publications. Is there nothing written on the Museum, except by itself? Obviously in its own publications it is going to present itself in the best light.

Organization:

  • Some of the information in "Building" is a repetition of what is related in the "History" section. Could that be deleted in one place or the other? (It is a long page.)
  • The little boxes listing the museums with major collections in particular areas don't add much, in my opinion. Put the fact that the British Museum is #2 or whatever in the prose of the section.
  • While I thought that the lists of "Key" pieces was a good idea, I did start to skip over them as I was reading. The lists are a little long. Perhaps they deserve their own page? (If the lists remain, please add a list to the "Africa, Oceania and Americas" section, as changing the structure of the description could be interpreted as a bias on the part of wikipedia.)

Images:

  • There are too many images on this page. They clutter it up and make it hard to appreciate the images as well as read the text. Having galleries in the middle of the page is distracting. I noticed that the previous GA reviewer thought this as well. People with slow computers, like myself (I am a dirt poor student), also have trouble loading the page. I would suggest a British Museum gallery at wikipedia commons, if all of the pictures are in the public domain. You can then link to that gallery from this page.

Prose:

  • The article needs a good copy editor to give it a once-over. Here are sample problematic sentences:
  • Ex: Together these four "foundation collections" included many of the most treasured books now in the British Library[9] including the Lindisfarne Gospels and the sole surviving copy of Beowulf. - Repetitive diction is a constant problem in the article.
  • Ex: After the defeat of the French in the Battle of the Nile, in 1801, the British Museum acquired more Egyptian sculpture and in 1802 King George III presented the Rosetta Stone - key to the decipherment of hieroglyphs. - There are quite a few sentences like this - they are missing words and/or clauses to make them coherent.
  • Ex: In 1802 a Buildings Committee was set up to plan for expansion of the museum, and further highlighted by the donation in 1822 of the King's Library, personal library of King George III's, comprising 65,000 volumes, 19,000 pamphlets, maps, charts and topographical drawing.
  • Ex: Sir Thomas Grenville (1755–1846) was a Trustee of The British Museum from 1830 assembled a fine library of 20,240 volumes, which he left to the Museum in his will.
  • Ex: The first stage was the construction of the northern wing beginning 1906. - There are a few dropped words in the early twentieth-century sections of the article.
  • The usage of "whence" and "whilst" is considered archaic and/or stilted.
  • The article uses commas where they are unnecessary and confusing.
  • "Department of the Ancient Near East" has repetitive sentence structures and reads like a prose list. Try to condense this information more.
  • Decide on American English or British English (it seemed mostly British to me) and then stick to that dialect.
  • There is some template that is not displaying correctly in the first paragraph of the "Scholarship and legacies" section.

Linking:

  • This article overlinks. There is no need for repetition of links to "George II", for example, in the first section. Also, please carefully consider the links you make - are they really necessary (e.g. I would argue "plays" is not)? Would they actually enhance the reader's understanding? Try to focus on linking only those. Also, try to use some consistency in your linking style (not all dates are linked, for example). See here for guidance.

If you have any questions about this review, please drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadwit,
That is excellent, thanks a lot for doing this, I've wanted someone to perform this level of analysis for a while and with this I'll get to work on fixing the issues and get this to GA status.
I'll get back in touch, thanks a lot.ImperialCollegeGrad 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Department of the Middle East

According to the previous BM webiste, the holdings for the Ancient Near East totalled 280,000 pieces.

According to the new website the departments for Islam and ANE have been consolidated, with a combined holding of 330,000, http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/the_museum/departments/me/facilities_and_services/study_room.aspx

The website, http://www.discoverislamicart.org/pm_partner.php?id=Mus01;uk&type=museum&theme=ISL&, clearly states, that the holdings for Islamic Art are 40,000 pieces.

Therefore, 330,000 - 40,000 = 290,000 pieces for the Ancient Near East.

ImperialCollegeGrad 16:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source query

I have included the opening date of the museum in the Chronology of Mary Wollstonecraft, but I need a source for the "15 January" part - does anyone here have one? Awadewit | talk 03:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it on the British Museum's website. I should have looked there first. Awadewit | talk 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bible

Isn`t one of the oldest editions of the Septuagint taken from Saint Catherine's Monastery one of the artefacts claimed (by either Greece or Egypt)? AdrianCo (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo

[edit] Another comment

as per the improvement noted in "GA fail", the templates listing museums with major collections of whatever are not really that necessary, so if there are no objections I shall remove them. Also, the key collections sections could then be turned into a collapsible template to replace them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williams119 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)