This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Just a thought, but might Template:British-Museum-object be useful as an article-space template (rather than Talk:-namespace)? It does after all serve a purpose for the reader - highlighting that the object can be seen in person somewhere. Could be the first of many. :-)
James F. (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Further to the discussion on peer review...
Some sources being used in articles have been superseded by other writers. Is there a recommended list from each department for key sources and possibly "bad" sources?
For example should we check that these sources are preferred in any article - http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/departments/ancient_egypt_and_sudan/reading_list.aspx ? Fæ ( talk) 16:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
First off - kudos to the BM for doing both the WiR and the Backstage Pass. I hope it works out for both parties. Just a few thoughts from me :
As part of this afternoon's discussion with Liam McNamara, we came up with a few ideas for generic questions that may assist peer review / informal review (or potentially review of an article by a curator):
—Fæ ( talk) 16:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been poking about in various BM-related pages and came across this. I have been making a few articles to do with 100 Onjects. I also started this list User:Chasuble/List of objects in the British Museum's Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan but sort of gave up on it as it seemed too many objects were not really notable. My initial aim was for the page to be a list of all the 'highlight' objects in each dept and do a page on each one I could then link to the list. Anyhow, if there is anything on it that is of use to you, please help yourself. Chasuble ( talk) 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
We need a consensus on how to reference accession numbers (two letter dept code + "big number") and potentially use the same info box on all articles. It was noted that the BM website uses the department based accession number in the text of associated articles but uses a unique database identification in URL names. There was some discussion about the possibility of the BM being able to handle accession number references (the BM search engine will recognize them).
I have created the essay User:Fæ/BM refs on using and formatting the British Museum registration number in Wikipedia articles. Comments and corrections welcome. Fæ ( talk) 08:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Mike_Peel/BM is a great resource, but I was wondering if there was an easy way for interested editors to add BM-related articles to their watchlists? I have handrolically cut & pasted the current version but it would be neat to press a button and have my watchlist updated. Fæ ( talk) 05:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I've posted a (very partial) list of books about the British Museum that are available in the public domain on the archive on wikisource - does anyone have any (either from this list, or separately from it) that they particularly want digitizing/making available via Wikisource? Mike Peel ( talk) 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Must we have these on everything? I have image preferences set large, and they have a very bad effect on the lead image, which is often the only one, for nearly all these articles. There is a much less intrusive template for the registration number which can be used. The view at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts, under which many of these articles fall, is against the blanket imposition of these, leaving the decision to the local editors. Johnbod ( talk) 17:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Based on practical use for BM articles, I have added the non-BM specific parameters of place, period and registration to the infobox. These are optional but make more sense for excavated items and those with complex identification. In the case of BM artefacts, this will help distinguish the department/exhibition/big number from the registration number where this is appropriate. Fæ ( talk) 09:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have knocked up a script for my own use and others may find it useful: User:Fæ/BM refs/imacro. The script generates content for {{ infobox artefact}} and other templates based on the BM collections database record. Drop me a note for suggestions and improvements. Fæ ( talk) 07:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to put this. The new page on Hedwig glass, which is up to be on DYK, could really do with a photo - is there any chance anyone in London could nip into the BM a take a pic of the one on display there? (Room 34, Islamic World). Is there a page where we can put in requests for BM objects that we would like photographing, either for existing articles or proposed ones? Chasuble ( talk) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
What is this for? It seems entirely superfluous to what is already quite a complicated category tree? Is it needed for the stats? If so it should be on the talkpages. Johnbod ( talk) 17:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
<includeonly>[[Category:British Museum-related articles]]</includeonly>
has been removed from {{
British-Museum-object}} and {{
British-Museum-db}}. However {{
British-Museum-stub}} still adds
Category:Stub-Class British Museum-related articles to articles. Please discuss here to reach a new consensus before re-adding any similar automatic article categorization.
Fæ (
talk)
11:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
BM department name has not been used consistently for categorizing articles. I propose that we create Category:Artefacts from Africa, Oceania and the Americas in the British Museum (unless someone can think of better wording) so that these artefacts are associated with department name rather than more general qualities. For example Crystal skull was found in Mexico, is kept by the BM Africa, Oceania & the Americas department and is currently classified under category British Museum.
I suggest this category supersede the use of Category:Ethnographic objects in the British Museum as this latter category could potentially include any artefact made by a human and does not seem to relate to any BM department. Fæ ( talk) 06:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It also seems to fly in the face of BM practice re Museum of Mankind, a page which has been swallowed up by the building which hosted it. Perhaps we need an article on Ethnography at the British Museum, and the category retained and dealing with what has been regarded as "ethnographic" by this department. THis is actually quite a big question. Harrypotter ( talk) 18:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I have created a GLAM/BM userbox at User:Fæ/Userboxes/GLAMBM for those interested in promoting the project this way. Feel free to tweak it. GLAM/BM box users can be seen at WhatLinksHere. Fæ ( talk) 12:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this article related to the BM? Could someone with a familiarity of the subject to check it? It's a bit weirdly written at first blush. Witty Lama 23:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Last week I created an article on Eric Grinstead who was an assistant keeper in the Department of Oriental Printed Books and Manuscripts at the British Museum during the 1940s through 1960s, before the British Library split off from the British Museum. Does he come within the scope of this project as his working career was spent at the British Musuem, even though his department is now part of the British Library ? BabelStone ( talk) 11:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
With regard as to what to do with these, perhaps as a thankyou for the support of uk.wikimedia.org they could be used as prizes to promote more projects of this type (any school outreach initiatives going on)?
I was wondering if the GLAM/BM experience of using these during our events is to be compiled into some short published user feedback for Openmoko? Fæ ( talk) 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the mailout this week, I reckon that the "Template:British Museum" needs a workover. This is what it looks like:
Version as of 16 June 2010
The most obvious problems IMO are that:
What I propose is the following:
Thoughts? Witty Lama 22:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
# | Article | Hits |
---|---|---|
1 | Rosetta Stone | 396,282 |
2 | The Disasters of War | 158,450 |
3 | Elgin Marbles | 83,215 |
4 | Sutton Hoo | 64,940 |
5 | Cyrus cylinder | 36,617 |
6 | Lindow Man | 36,115 |
7 | Discobolus | 26,193 |
8 | I Modi | 25,647 |
9 | Lewis chessmen | 20,309 |
10 | Dürer's Rhinoceros | 18,142 |
I've gone ahead and taken an axe to this template - dropping the "place" section completely and cutting about 1/3 to 1/2 of the people out (leaving the remainder classified into "donors" (loosely defined) and "architects". (my changes aren't showing immediately, it takes a bit for the template-fairy to work). I think this can still be shortened but the main problem remains the "objects" section. I did ask the departments to tell me their "most important objects" to decide what to put, but they didn't respond. So... I say we pick 1 or 2 from each department to make the list of objects. Witty Lama 23:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have put a version in WP:GLAM/British Museum/Archive 1/sandbox, please revise as you see fit. All departments have their own sub-list and the list of people are taken out (remove comment marks buried in the template to have them back in). Each department needs a bit of work getting populated with artefact articles before this format could replace the old version. Fæ ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it is fair to consider any article about artefacts in the British Museum or about the British Museum should be in British English rather than any other variation. One of my personal niggles is the repeated used of the American "artifact" rather than British "artefact". With an eye on consistency for FA/GA articles, can we agree that it would be reasonable to change all spelling to an OED recognized variant? Perhaps we should tag articles suffering from doubtful spelling with the {{ British English}} talk page header? Fæ ( talk) 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This template has now adopted the associated meta-template. There should be no change to functionality but it will display in the same standard way as other banners. If issues arise, it would be worth asking for help on Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Help wanted on Template:BM-related as per my original request in the same place. Fæ ( talk) 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this project sails a little close to the wind. I appreciate that the museum is a not for profit academic institution, and I'm happy to be part of this and to explore how we can collaborate with such institutions. In so far as this project furthers our aims of making the sum total of human knowledge freely available to everyone, and the museum's aim of making its collection available to everyone, then I think we have grounds to cooperate. However I'm uncomfortable with both the gift voucher program and anything that measures this in terms of clickthroughs to the BM site.
Have we had a debate on Wiki as to where to draw the line when working with museums? If so where was it? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have created this template in a similar way to some of the WP templates to easily add details to any BM artefact image on commons. The template is not intended to be used in any blanket fashion but does help add a link to the BM on-line collection database and may be particularly helpful when looking for images likely to be used in articles. Suggestions for improvement welcome.
With regard to the repeated question of taking photos in the BM, the guidance at v:Museum photography is particularly helpful and could be used to put the BM policy in context. Fæ ( talk) 12:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Both Royal Gold Cup ( nom] and Cyrus Cylinder ( nom) seem to be very close to getting approved as Feature articles (with Royal Gold Cup seeming to have a smoother ride so far). What, if anything, can we do to get these articles over the line? Do we need more reviewers? Or do we need someone to copyedit or fix footnote styles? How can I help? Witty Lama 10:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Are the categories within commons:Category:British Museum by room meant to only refer to objects that are currently within that room? Or things that have ever been within that room? I ask particularly because I'm writing an article about the Ormside bowl which was temporarily in room 2 (the room for temporary exhibitions or showcases so this could potentially apply to quite a few objects as they move around) but is now presumably on its way to York Museum. JMiall ₰ 15:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried to run the pageview statistics for the category:british museum to update the quantitative section...
and it comes out that this month is the worst month ever in terms of pageviews to BM articles: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/treeviews.php?depth=9&date=2010-06&cats=British+Museum%0D%0A-British+Museum+directors%0D%0A-Employees+of+the+British+Museum%0D%0A-Trustees+of+the+British+Museum&combination=subset&autolang=0&doit=1
However, what this masks is the fact that the stats.grok.se failed to compile most of the last week of pageviews - thereby missing all of the activity we've generated. I've written to Erik Zachte to see if he can do anything but at present we have no way of measuring our impact on Wikipedia for this month :-( Witty Lama 17:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Today is my last day at the British Museum. I'm writing up a blogpost and also a mailout to the list. I've also changed the lead of this page to indicate that my time here has concluded. This of course does not mean that I won't be watching the page - but merely that I'm no longer going to be able to devote my full-time resources to it. People wishing to contact curators via the one-on-one process or people wishing to claim FA prizes can still of course contact me. The British Museum, meanwhile will be discussing internally if/how they wish to continue this relationship formally.
Thanks for all your help everyone, it's been huge. Witty Lama 10:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
As a result of the days at the BM we have 100s of images that have been transferred by one of Magnus's tools from where they were on Flickr. Lots of these are now transferred but are uncategorised. Anyone with an hour to spare might look here. Nearly all of these are "ours". There are several more 100 to come. Any categorisation is better than none. PrtableAntiquities.com has much more data but the license is not commercial. (but you can't copyright a fact). Hope you can help Victuallers ( talk) 19:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Re the coin - details of the pic are on the PA web site. I was told one gold coin pic came from Hoxne. Victuallers ( talk) 22:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The Template:Infobox artifact used on the Hoxne Hoard, Frome Hoard, Stanchester Hoard pages does not seem entirely appropriate in these cases, as the parameters are not designed for a group of objects. For example, what does the size parameter refer to in the context of a hoard? and does the date created parameter refer to the date range of all the objects in the hoard or to the date that the hoard was buried? Would it be a good idea to create a special hoard infobox with more appropriate parameters, such as date buried, date range of objects, container (e.g. box or ceramic pot), contents (for a summary of the hoard contents) ? BabelStone ( talk) 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Given the main problem with infoboxes in this area is always the oversimplifications they lead to, I would think this one would be asking for trouble myself. Johnbod ( talk) 22:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hoxne Hoard is now a featured article, in spite of obvious errors in a table (see Talk:Hoxne_Hoard#2+3=?, a thread with no response). Am I wrong? -- El Caro ( talk) 09:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The detailed descriptions (not the images which are my personal photographs) of File:Achilles_and_Troilos_vase.jpg and File:Oedipus slaying the sphinx.jpg have been challenged on my Commons talk page as potential copyvio as they include text from the BM online record for the same item. I am slightly concerned about the precedent here as I would rather accurately quote the BM record (which the text links to) on the image description rather than introduce errors by paraphrasing. I would also rather include this text rather than relying on a reader navigating to the BM website as this is an obvious aid to searching. I do not believe there is any copyvio as the website T&C's allow for "research by individuals or charities, societies, institutions or trusts existing exclusively for public benefit".
I have sent an email to web@britishmuseum.org today asking for clarification on the website T&Cs but some of the people contributing here may be able to advise. I shall add the result of any reply I get from the BM. Fæ ( talk) 09:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Sadly I've yet to receive a reply from the Museum. In the absence of any statement of their preferences, I have started adding "~ Description extract from BM record" whenever quoting text direct from the online database. I shall also try to limit such extracts to, say, less than 50 words at a time. Fæ ( talk) 10:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Which articles should appear in Template:British Museum? For example, there is Flood tablet, a redirect to Gilgamesh flood myth, not really a BM-related article in my opinion. Category:British Museum and subcategories contain so many articles! -- El Caro ( talk) 08:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Sutton Hoo has been nominated to be listed as a Good Article. A review has started and is now on hold while the reviewer does more background reading on the topic. In the meantime a few points have been listed for improvement or discussion here. This project is tagged on the talkpage as one that has an interest in the article, and any extra assistance is always appreciated during a GA review. SilkTork * YES! 10:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I came across this stub on a shield of the C4th BC in the BM. I've just added a category & won't do more, but I hope someone will. Johnbod ( talk) 00:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've bished and boshed it up to a "start" if someone cares to polish/rewrite it or make it a C then you're most welcome Victuallers ( talk) 18:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I tried to add this to my userpage boxes, but it wouldn't sit inside the box of boxes {{Boxboxtop... Does anyone know why? Johnbod ( talk) 16:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Look at the Ribchester Helmet which is the closet we have to the new helmet found at Crosby Garrett. Fancy helping? Victuallers ( talk) 21:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
After the spectacular results with the Witham Shield just above, I'd like to draw attention to excellent new photos of BM objects such as the Waterloo Helmet and Penrith Hoard by User:Ealdgyth. I'm working up Pennanular brooch which will fit with the hoard. see also [6], to which more will be added. Johnbod ( talk) 22:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, yes, in an earlier draft it was free for members. The Chapter decided however to make it a consistent number. Obviously, this does mean a higher number, but I would like to stress that this number is still below cost (especially if you eat more than your fair share of catering!) :-) I would, obviously, very much like to see as many people who've been involved in the GLAM/BM project turn up at this event. Hope to see you there. Witty Lama 14:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I've had a query from Dan Pett of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (who some of you will know for providing photos for the Crosby Garrett Helmet and Frome Hoard articles), asking if anyone would like to try to improve the Wikipedia articles on the Portable Antiquities Scheme and Palestine Exploration Fund. They are both currently at Start level, but could do with some careful editing to get them to at least C level. I think we have loads of pictures we could use for the PAS article. BabelStone ( talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, at some point there was a discussion about getting the Hoxne Hoard as an FA on the front page, and I think 16 November was the planned day, because the anniversary of the find. There's nothing here - [7] . I was going to make sure that one of the objects from the Hoard was on the Brtish Museum home page on the same day - does someone who was involved in the Hoxne Challenge want to propose this? - maybe best not me in case it is viewed as COI, and I dont know the FA protocol! Cheers Matthewcock ( talk) 08:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see that page. Great stuff. Thanks! Matthewcock ( talk) 10:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear All - there is currently a major BM exhibition on the Book of the Dead. You will note that the article on Book of the Dead - well, it sucks. Anyone up for a collaboration? ;-) The Land ( talk) 17:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The ratings for the project were done by Liam, often following those used by other projects already tagging the articles. It seems to me that, in particular, there are too few "Top importance" objects - currently only the Elgin Marbles and Rosetta Stone are so rated. Looking at, for example, the "High-importance" B class objects on the grid, I think that at the least Admonitions Scroll, Sutton Hoo, Cyrus cylinder, Mildenhall Treasure and Portland Vase would qualify, & maybe others. It occurs to me we might ask the BM themselves to comment - maybe they have lists? Perhaps we should pick a number - are we looking for the top 100, top 50, or whatever? Another issue is that a wholesale re-rating will affect before-and-after comparisons on the grid. We should at the least record the old totals before we do it. I have re-rated the odd article but not very many. What do people think? Johnbod ( talk) 23:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to weigh in here myself briefly:
I initially did the ratings with a rough idea of importance based on "what would you save first in a fire" approach :-) Top importance I deliberately kept low as these are the things in my mind which should be absolutely first thing in your mind when you think "British Museum". This is not to say that things like Cyrus Cylinder are not exceedingly important but I was making the ratings relative to the BM rather than relative to humanity at large. That said - I'm very very happy for people to start re-rating things, not just the 'importance' but also the 'quality' side of things.
There is also a point raised a couple of times in this thread - this GLAM/BM page is not a wikiproject but it does behave like one. I specifically created this in the GLAM subspace after feedback saying that a wikiproject needs to have a demonstrated community willing to run it. I would humbly suggest that I think the ongoing activity at this talkpage and in British Museum stuff in general tends to the conclusion that there now exists a reasonably active community - enough to justify making this into a fully fledged wikiproject. What do you think? Witty Lama 14:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to say, we here at the Museum would feel honoured if the GLAM/BM project became a proper Wikiproject, were that the right thing to happen. On the "importance" issue - the Museum does have highlights that we urge people to see if they have only a short time on the Museum, but as any curator will tell you, one object isn't more important to us than other - just like children, we try to be equal in our love. But that said, let me know if you want some help upping the high importance objects! Matthewcock ( talk) 08:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a rephrase suggested. By all means lets move it and leave the ephemera concerning the residency archived here, but I want to keep the list of articles. The rate has severely dropped off but I'm hoping to arrange some DYK's on the main page for the GLAM conference. Anyone care to join in? Anyone speak French? Victuallers ( talk) 16:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Late estimate just in - The Library of Congress inspired one person to create over 200 articles by releasing some cc images. Nice search designed by the LOC see here Victuallers ( talk) 18:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
To return to a theme I've raised before: is it time to move the ongoing efforts on British Museum related articles to a dedicated British Museum Wikiproject and archive this page about the residency project as complete/closed for posterity? Witty Lama 08:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not against a project, it just seems odd to create a project around one institution rather than a part of the GLAM sector. A project with clear goals to improve articles on UK GLAMs, UK Archives or UK Museum Collections would seem more sustainable than a BM project which would imply the need to create separate projects for all the largest GLAM organizations. I am also not against experimenting as the project can be redefined if its scope needs to shift. Fæ ( talk) 08:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Matthew Cock has been in touch to say that the BM is going to be moving http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/ to their main British Museum domain sometime in the new year. As you can see here there are a number of links to the current URLs and these are going to die when worldtimelines.org goes offline. Is there any alternative to going through manually removing the links and then replacing them in a couple of months when the migration's happened? Does anyone know a method of semi-automating a job like this? Regards, The Land ( talk) 20:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Matthew has made his first go at a new article -visible here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of films shot at the British Museum. However, as you can see, the AfC was rejected on the basis of a lack of references. Whilst I agree that all articles should have Reliable Sources, how does one get RS for such a list? I note that equivalent lists like list of films set in London have no referrences. Witty Lama 02:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Those subscribed to the Wikimedia-uk mailing list would have seen this message from Mike Peel, but for those that aren't:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editathon,_British_Library
Hope people can make it! Witty Lama 04:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
How was the BM-related tag set up - i.e. who went through the articles, did they have a list of BM topics to work from, was any semiautomation used? And was it done before or during the residency project? Am just curious because I tihnk it's likely to be a useful preliminary stage to setting up collaborations with other institutions. The Land ( talk) 18:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Just in case people haven't had this on their watchlist page : Wikipedia:CONTRIB/Imperial. A Wikipedia society at Imperial would be an obvious contact point for all the South Ken museums, do we have any existing contacts with them? They're such an obvious target I assume we must? Perhaps the Imperial mob would be a way to awaken some interest at UCL, who could then be a local contact for the Bloomsbury museums? Le Deluge ( talk) 20:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Following the success of the Hoxne Challenge, and by popular demand, I have been talking to a curator here about another collaboration focused on particular objects in the British Museum collection and related subject areas – with a session at the Museum, and online/email collaboration for a period afterwards.
The subject area that we would like to propose to the Wikipedians that might be interested goes back even earlier than the Hoxne Hoard, to the Palaeolithic period, beginning very close to home: the Gray’s Inn Handaxe, collected by Hans Sloane. Jill, the curator, proposes that we look at a group of records - including objects from the period, such as the handaxe, but also those related to the collectors, like Sloane and Henry Christy, and whatever other articles come into the sphere. Some of these objects are on display in the Museum’s Enlightenment Gallery, because they tell a fascinating story of how people’s view of the world was changing at that time, influenced by the emerging disciplines of archaeology and natural sciences. In late October, the exhibition that Jill is currently working on, Ice Age Art is opening at the Museum – featuring such wonderful objects as the swimming reindeer, which was in A History of the World. I hope that the collaboration on this material can extend throughout 2011 right up to include this exhibition and the publication of the catalogue, which will enable a whole lot of new references and articles I imagine.
Do let me know below here if you would be interested, and I will start to arrange a date for a session, and ask the curator to draw up a reading list / article list. I'd also be interested in hearing from anyone who was involved in the Hoxne Challenge about how we can change the format (if necessary) to make it work better. I personally think that a whole day at the Museum was too much, and that a half day would be better, and to allow more time for preparation/reading, and time after for Wiki work. Matthewcock ( talk) 15:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering... Victuallers ( talk) 23:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Not only am I pleased to see the BM wishes to run this "challenge" event again but I'm wondering whether we can scale-up to have this as the centrepiece of a worldwide simultaneous "GLAM challenge day". Similar to the way the 10th anniversary has a central organisation page perhaps we could have a list of museums around the world that wish to host such a challenge and get several communities editing all at once - one in London, on in DC, Paris, Amsterdam... We would need to get support/expressions of interest from different museums and Wikimedia communities, and we would also need to write up the documentation of what is required to have a successful day (which we have learned from doing this last year). Perhaps Matthew you would be willing to write an invitation to other museums to join, thereby making this a BM-led initiative?? What do folks think about turning the "2010 Hoxne Challenge" into the "2011 GLAM Challenge"? There would be no overt competition but I think a bit of friendly rivalry between museums trying to get good quality content on WP would go well :-) Witty Lama 01:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I can see how the day thing might be an issue - you could perhaps do something without being too specific on day, just say that it is some time in February or whatever. Just in general, winter is good for Wikitime, as far as specific timings go I can't help feeling that it would be useful to involve UCL students, whether formally during termtime, or less formally during the vacation, there's hopefully a good resource of well-informed writing talent to draw on there. I wasn't at the Hoxne day, but from my experience of the original BM day I'd definitely say that a bit of time to read up in advance and get a feel for what the articles need doing to them is definitely needed if we're to get the most out of the face time. Having said that, I'm not sure I could make it this time, I'm still waaay behind on my wiki to-do list!
As far as subject, I quite see how the BM are more interested in specific artifacts, but as I said that day, where this kind of collaboration can really help from a Wiki-world perspective is in the more general articles. They're the ones that have the most readers, yet they are the articles that are much the hardest to write by the sort of interested amateur who tends to do much of the heavy lifting towards GA/FA, you do need that deep background knowledge of the subject and to be reasonably well up on the literature. Hence we tend to do a less good job serving the areas of most interest to our "customers". So I'd definitely vote in favour of targeting a general article, and then trickling down into specific BM artifacts, somebody like Christy would be
far less of a priority from a Wiki point of view. Something like
Art of the Upper Paleolithic would be one place to start, or any of the topics on the {{
Stone Age}} and {{
Paleolithic}} templates - to take a few random ones,
Upper Paleolithic gets nearly 20,000 hits/month,
Stone tool,
Beaker culture,
Mousterian are all around 7000 hits/month,
Levallois technique half that,
Lithic reduction is at 2000/month.
Mousterian strikes me as particularly weak in comparison to
Acheulean, which is only a bit more popular. These numbers are 10-30x the readers that Hoxne was getting back in May, although it has gone up from around 600 hits/month to around 3000/month as a result of all the work on it (and the FA front-page-ing was responsible for a one-off 70,000 hits) - Matthew, can you say how many of those are coming in from you?
Le Deluge (
talk)
21:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem I can see is language. It might be wise to start with just English Born speakers and strong English speaking (e.g. The Dutch and Norwegians, before trying more unusual locations. But in the long run the multi-language approach might be beneficial Victuallers ( talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Just thinking of other things that might tick boxes among Matthew's overlords - you could explicitly go for an interwiki challenge, the same article in multiple languages. It would probably involve fewer institutions, which might help the availability thing and there's obvious synergies with France/Germany/Spain/Portugal if you're going for something in the vicinity of Art of the Upper Paleolithic. It's a good idea to "front-run" BM exhibitions so something in the Stone Age (artifact or overview or both) makes sense, but just looking further ahead, there's a lot of the peoples of western Asia among the Level 4 Vital Articles (our "top 10,000") which might represent fertile territory for future collaborations; Stone Age and Neolithic Revolution are both Level 3 (top 1000), the former isn't in brilliant shape. I know I said I'd help with some of the template things - I'll bump it up the list.... Le Deluge ( talk) 12:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been back to the page for a few days, and realise lots of questions/observations aimed at me! I'll try and respond to all of them. Yes, we're perfectly happy to focus on 'subject' articles as well as 'object articles, provided those subjects are relevant to us, and at some point link to notable objects in our collection. I see that the GLAM/BM 2011 Challenge, as I will call it until we think of a better name will be on a group of articles that include both, and the articles included can evolve over time - I'm happy not to fix it - and let editors move around as they want. If it goes too far from our expertise, we'll say so, and leave it to the editors to decide what to do. On the view to pull this into something more meta (the relay, the interwiki, the cross-Museum); I will leave that to others. My 2 curators may well suggest other people who know this stuff, and we can see if they want to be involved, but I dont want to set any targets for the sake of it. In the end, the BM have only done this once (Hoxne) - we'd prefer we evolve the model with subtle tweaks, rather than taking it up a level for the sake of it. That works for us. I'm open for others to fit that into other cogs, and support. Re languages: Definitely interested in Arabic and Farsi, but as you say in another collaboration around more relevant objects. Happy to discuss.
Next steps from me is to produce a list of articles (on subjects, and objects) and a reading list from the curators, and post that up for those interested to comment on. Can I make a plea that we have a new page for the GLAM/BM 2011 Challenge?
Matthewcock (
talk)
17:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
For those of you interested in changes to the British Museum photos on Commons, there are current attempts to blanket change the tailored templates to standard ones, refer to Commons:User_talk:Zolo#Blanking_of_information. I was unaware of any consensus to do this, perhaps someone was involved? In the meantime I have complained about the factual errors this appears to be arbitrarily introducing. Thanks Fæ ( talk) 18:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
With the Nimrud Ivories in the news, I've been re-reading an article about another Mesopotamian BM artefact, the Cyrus Cylinder, and I think it could be worth considering as a possible Good Article candidate. It already seems to have gone through a featured article review last year but evidently failed, for reasons that I'm not clear about. However, even if it doesn't meet the standard for featured articles it certainly looks a lot more comprehensive than most articles I've read about BM artefacts.
Could someone please advise on how the article could be put forward as a Good Article candidate and who might be available to do a review? Prioryman ( talk) 23:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm having difficulties explaining to two editors what WP:LEAD requires. They are concerned that the lead of Cyrus Cylinder is "repetitive" because it summarises material that is covered in more detail later in the article. I have explained that this is in fact what the lead is meant to do. I would appreciate it if someone could provide some advice at Talk:Cyrus Cylinder#Arbitrary break on whether this understanding of the requirements of WP:LEAD is in fact correct, and if so whether the current lead (as of this diff) meets these requirements. Prioryman ( talk) 02:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You might want to check out pages 12-13: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report :-) Witty Lama 07:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Please note that due to the enforced harmonization on Commons of the Artwork template (which is being used to transclude artwork descriptions from a Category page), it seems likely that I will be forced to propose purging Commons of all quoted text from the British Museum database in order to protect the interests of the copyright holder. Until now, the text has been used in a limited form (normally less than 50 word extracts) in order to provide an easy to find accurate description of artefacts. Due to the process of mass transclusion, the data is being presented in a data-mining friendly format and is stepping well outside our normal expectations for how to handle limited quotes from non-commercial only text. Your comments would be welcome at Commons:Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2011/03/Category:Old_Babylonian_period_Queen_of_Night_relief in advance of any proposal to make such blanket changes. Thanks Fæ ( talk) 11:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a RM discussion going on which y'all're welcome to participate in. Doubtless you have experience in the current nomenclature regardless of what Google says.
More importantly, regardless of the eventual name of the article, it's certainly an important one and remains an absolute pig's breakfast despite my efforts at cleanup. It's a big topic but when some of you have time and interest, a clear overview of the history (as it was understood and is considered today) and historiology (as it was constructed and is currently debated) would be welcome. — LlywelynII 01:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The newly-discovered Silverdale Hoard is in the news today, and I've written up an article on it (which I've nominating for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Silverdale Hoard). It's worth noting that the Portable Antiquities Scheme appears to have a very enlightened Wikipedia-friendly policy of releasing photos as CC-BY-SA. Their photostream may be worth browsing through to see if there are any images that would be useful to us. Prioryman ( talk) 20:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Is this project still alive? There doesn't seem to be much happening on this page... Prioryman ( talk) 12:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there an equivalent GLAM project for English Heritage or the National Trust? Prioryman ( talk) 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
ITV and the British Museum to reveal the 50 greatest treasures discovered by the British public. Could be the focus for some article creation/expansion, or at least a list article along the lines of A History of the World in 100 Objects. BabelStone ( talk) 23:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated Cyrus Cylinder for consideration as a Good Article. I'd be grateful if someone could review it - the review page is at [9]. Prioryman ( talk) 06:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
All images on the Portable Antiquities Scheme site ( http://finds.org.uk/), including the database of nearly 800,000 objects, are now licensed as CC BY-SA 3.0. A number of BM-related articles may benefit from this resource. BabelStone ( talk) 21:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we use the images of prints from the British Museum website, some of which are the only known pictures of notable individuals? If so, should they be uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia, and are there any templates that should be used in their file pages? From what I can make of the terms and conditions, the thumbnails and "larger images" can be used under certain conditions, but not the free image service, and I've seen prints on Commons just tagged PD with no explanation. -- xensyria T 18:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please upload snaps of one or both of these cups?
I will use them in articles. Thanks.
TCO ( talk) 18:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's have the Crawford snaps. Something is better than nothing. TCO ( talk) 00:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't there an article on the recent 'Life & Death' exhibition? Are we forbidden until it gets over (in two days)? -- TerentiusNew ( talk) 21:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Recent activity has created 20 new articles including several DYKs including the 3rd most popular DYK ever (described overleaf).
The most recent need some good free images. Can we get pictures of Sintra Collar and Zemi Figures from Vere, Jamaica?
If this could happen within a few days then we may get another 50,000 hits as we did with Statue of Tara Victuallers ( talk) 23:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone add the talk page templates to this article? I have been away from editing from so long that I'm rusty on the conventions now. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 13:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, we think that this image ( File:Tangata_manu_statuette.jpg) is this. How would we go about getting a photo of it? cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a long shot request: I've been working on expanding the article Ralph Vary Chamberlin, a prolific Amreican biologist, and just thought I'd put out a request for anyone that might have access to the German publication Arachnologisches Magazin, which only appears in a few libraries on WorldCat (none of them in the United States): one of them being the Natural History Museum in London.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)If anyone has or could obtain the above article, and could email me a scan or photocopy, I would be very much appreciative. Cheers, --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The article on the British Museum is (rightfully) very long and detailed. It might be time to split the article into sections regarding the different departments of the museum. Currently only the Department of Asiahas its own article. Every department having its own article would make the main article and the different departments easier to navigate. It would also allow more details to be added to each section. SpiritedMichelle ( talk) 02:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Constitution of the Athenians to be moved to The Polity of Athenians. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 15:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate finding help identifying, citing, and potentially accessing pictures of the 6th century document British Museum 14654 f. 32 referred to in Phillips, George (1876). The doctrine of Addai, the apostle. London: Trübner & Co. p. 51. for the Doctrine of Addai article. My apologies in advance if this is the wrong page to ask. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 14:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Tried to post this on the image request page, but it got sent to some sort of redirect purgatory. Reposting here:
Although this page hasn't been active in a while, figured it was worth a shot asking. Is there any chance of getting a photograph of this object? The current image on the article page is a public domain sketch from 1904, and other than the BM photographs and one B&W photograph in a 1999 book, I haven't seen any photographs of the object at all. The article is currently a featured article candidate, and getting an actual photo would be a nice touch.
Thanks for any help! -- Usernameunique ( talk) 05:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
See Template talk:British-Museum-db and Commons:Template talk:British-Museum-db. BabelStone ( talk) 11:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Just a thought, but might Template:British-Museum-object be useful as an article-space template (rather than Talk:-namespace)? It does after all serve a purpose for the reader - highlighting that the object can be seen in person somewhere. Could be the first of many. :-)
James F. (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Further to the discussion on peer review...
Some sources being used in articles have been superseded by other writers. Is there a recommended list from each department for key sources and possibly "bad" sources?
For example should we check that these sources are preferred in any article - http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/departments/ancient_egypt_and_sudan/reading_list.aspx ? Fæ ( talk) 16:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
First off - kudos to the BM for doing both the WiR and the Backstage Pass. I hope it works out for both parties. Just a few thoughts from me :
As part of this afternoon's discussion with Liam McNamara, we came up with a few ideas for generic questions that may assist peer review / informal review (or potentially review of an article by a curator):
—Fæ ( talk) 16:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been poking about in various BM-related pages and came across this. I have been making a few articles to do with 100 Onjects. I also started this list User:Chasuble/List of objects in the British Museum's Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan but sort of gave up on it as it seemed too many objects were not really notable. My initial aim was for the page to be a list of all the 'highlight' objects in each dept and do a page on each one I could then link to the list. Anyhow, if there is anything on it that is of use to you, please help yourself. Chasuble ( talk) 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
We need a consensus on how to reference accession numbers (two letter dept code + "big number") and potentially use the same info box on all articles. It was noted that the BM website uses the department based accession number in the text of associated articles but uses a unique database identification in URL names. There was some discussion about the possibility of the BM being able to handle accession number references (the BM search engine will recognize them).
I have created the essay User:Fæ/BM refs on using and formatting the British Museum registration number in Wikipedia articles. Comments and corrections welcome. Fæ ( talk) 08:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Mike_Peel/BM is a great resource, but I was wondering if there was an easy way for interested editors to add BM-related articles to their watchlists? I have handrolically cut & pasted the current version but it would be neat to press a button and have my watchlist updated. Fæ ( talk) 05:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I've posted a (very partial) list of books about the British Museum that are available in the public domain on the archive on wikisource - does anyone have any (either from this list, or separately from it) that they particularly want digitizing/making available via Wikisource? Mike Peel ( talk) 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Must we have these on everything? I have image preferences set large, and they have a very bad effect on the lead image, which is often the only one, for nearly all these articles. There is a much less intrusive template for the registration number which can be used. The view at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts, under which many of these articles fall, is against the blanket imposition of these, leaving the decision to the local editors. Johnbod ( talk) 17:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Based on practical use for BM articles, I have added the non-BM specific parameters of place, period and registration to the infobox. These are optional but make more sense for excavated items and those with complex identification. In the case of BM artefacts, this will help distinguish the department/exhibition/big number from the registration number where this is appropriate. Fæ ( talk) 09:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have knocked up a script for my own use and others may find it useful: User:Fæ/BM refs/imacro. The script generates content for {{ infobox artefact}} and other templates based on the BM collections database record. Drop me a note for suggestions and improvements. Fæ ( talk) 07:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to put this. The new page on Hedwig glass, which is up to be on DYK, could really do with a photo - is there any chance anyone in London could nip into the BM a take a pic of the one on display there? (Room 34, Islamic World). Is there a page where we can put in requests for BM objects that we would like photographing, either for existing articles or proposed ones? Chasuble ( talk) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
What is this for? It seems entirely superfluous to what is already quite a complicated category tree? Is it needed for the stats? If so it should be on the talkpages. Johnbod ( talk) 17:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
<includeonly>[[Category:British Museum-related articles]]</includeonly>
has been removed from {{
British-Museum-object}} and {{
British-Museum-db}}. However {{
British-Museum-stub}} still adds
Category:Stub-Class British Museum-related articles to articles. Please discuss here to reach a new consensus before re-adding any similar automatic article categorization.
Fæ (
talk)
11:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
BM department name has not been used consistently for categorizing articles. I propose that we create Category:Artefacts from Africa, Oceania and the Americas in the British Museum (unless someone can think of better wording) so that these artefacts are associated with department name rather than more general qualities. For example Crystal skull was found in Mexico, is kept by the BM Africa, Oceania & the Americas department and is currently classified under category British Museum.
I suggest this category supersede the use of Category:Ethnographic objects in the British Museum as this latter category could potentially include any artefact made by a human and does not seem to relate to any BM department. Fæ ( talk) 06:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It also seems to fly in the face of BM practice re Museum of Mankind, a page which has been swallowed up by the building which hosted it. Perhaps we need an article on Ethnography at the British Museum, and the category retained and dealing with what has been regarded as "ethnographic" by this department. THis is actually quite a big question. Harrypotter ( talk) 18:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I have created a GLAM/BM userbox at User:Fæ/Userboxes/GLAMBM for those interested in promoting the project this way. Feel free to tweak it. GLAM/BM box users can be seen at WhatLinksHere. Fæ ( talk) 12:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this article related to the BM? Could someone with a familiarity of the subject to check it? It's a bit weirdly written at first blush. Witty Lama 23:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Last week I created an article on Eric Grinstead who was an assistant keeper in the Department of Oriental Printed Books and Manuscripts at the British Museum during the 1940s through 1960s, before the British Library split off from the British Museum. Does he come within the scope of this project as his working career was spent at the British Musuem, even though his department is now part of the British Library ? BabelStone ( talk) 11:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
With regard as to what to do with these, perhaps as a thankyou for the support of uk.wikimedia.org they could be used as prizes to promote more projects of this type (any school outreach initiatives going on)?
I was wondering if the GLAM/BM experience of using these during our events is to be compiled into some short published user feedback for Openmoko? Fæ ( talk) 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the mailout this week, I reckon that the "Template:British Museum" needs a workover. This is what it looks like:
Version as of 16 June 2010
The most obvious problems IMO are that:
What I propose is the following:
Thoughts? Witty Lama 22:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
# | Article | Hits |
---|---|---|
1 | Rosetta Stone | 396,282 |
2 | The Disasters of War | 158,450 |
3 | Elgin Marbles | 83,215 |
4 | Sutton Hoo | 64,940 |
5 | Cyrus cylinder | 36,617 |
6 | Lindow Man | 36,115 |
7 | Discobolus | 26,193 |
8 | I Modi | 25,647 |
9 | Lewis chessmen | 20,309 |
10 | Dürer's Rhinoceros | 18,142 |
I've gone ahead and taken an axe to this template - dropping the "place" section completely and cutting about 1/3 to 1/2 of the people out (leaving the remainder classified into "donors" (loosely defined) and "architects". (my changes aren't showing immediately, it takes a bit for the template-fairy to work). I think this can still be shortened but the main problem remains the "objects" section. I did ask the departments to tell me their "most important objects" to decide what to put, but they didn't respond. So... I say we pick 1 or 2 from each department to make the list of objects. Witty Lama 23:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have put a version in WP:GLAM/British Museum/Archive 1/sandbox, please revise as you see fit. All departments have their own sub-list and the list of people are taken out (remove comment marks buried in the template to have them back in). Each department needs a bit of work getting populated with artefact articles before this format could replace the old version. Fæ ( talk) 21:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it is fair to consider any article about artefacts in the British Museum or about the British Museum should be in British English rather than any other variation. One of my personal niggles is the repeated used of the American "artifact" rather than British "artefact". With an eye on consistency for FA/GA articles, can we agree that it would be reasonable to change all spelling to an OED recognized variant? Perhaps we should tag articles suffering from doubtful spelling with the {{ British English}} talk page header? Fæ ( talk) 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This template has now adopted the associated meta-template. There should be no change to functionality but it will display in the same standard way as other banners. If issues arise, it would be worth asking for help on Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Help wanted on Template:BM-related as per my original request in the same place. Fæ ( talk) 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this project sails a little close to the wind. I appreciate that the museum is a not for profit academic institution, and I'm happy to be part of this and to explore how we can collaborate with such institutions. In so far as this project furthers our aims of making the sum total of human knowledge freely available to everyone, and the museum's aim of making its collection available to everyone, then I think we have grounds to cooperate. However I'm uncomfortable with both the gift voucher program and anything that measures this in terms of clickthroughs to the BM site.
Have we had a debate on Wiki as to where to draw the line when working with museums? If so where was it? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have created this template in a similar way to some of the WP templates to easily add details to any BM artefact image on commons. The template is not intended to be used in any blanket fashion but does help add a link to the BM on-line collection database and may be particularly helpful when looking for images likely to be used in articles. Suggestions for improvement welcome.
With regard to the repeated question of taking photos in the BM, the guidance at v:Museum photography is particularly helpful and could be used to put the BM policy in context. Fæ ( talk) 12:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Both Royal Gold Cup ( nom] and Cyrus Cylinder ( nom) seem to be very close to getting approved as Feature articles (with Royal Gold Cup seeming to have a smoother ride so far). What, if anything, can we do to get these articles over the line? Do we need more reviewers? Or do we need someone to copyedit or fix footnote styles? How can I help? Witty Lama 10:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Are the categories within commons:Category:British Museum by room meant to only refer to objects that are currently within that room? Or things that have ever been within that room? I ask particularly because I'm writing an article about the Ormside bowl which was temporarily in room 2 (the room for temporary exhibitions or showcases so this could potentially apply to quite a few objects as they move around) but is now presumably on its way to York Museum. JMiall ₰ 15:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried to run the pageview statistics for the category:british museum to update the quantitative section...
and it comes out that this month is the worst month ever in terms of pageviews to BM articles: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/treeviews.php?depth=9&date=2010-06&cats=British+Museum%0D%0A-British+Museum+directors%0D%0A-Employees+of+the+British+Museum%0D%0A-Trustees+of+the+British+Museum&combination=subset&autolang=0&doit=1
However, what this masks is the fact that the stats.grok.se failed to compile most of the last week of pageviews - thereby missing all of the activity we've generated. I've written to Erik Zachte to see if he can do anything but at present we have no way of measuring our impact on Wikipedia for this month :-( Witty Lama 17:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Today is my last day at the British Museum. I'm writing up a blogpost and also a mailout to the list. I've also changed the lead of this page to indicate that my time here has concluded. This of course does not mean that I won't be watching the page - but merely that I'm no longer going to be able to devote my full-time resources to it. People wishing to contact curators via the one-on-one process or people wishing to claim FA prizes can still of course contact me. The British Museum, meanwhile will be discussing internally if/how they wish to continue this relationship formally.
Thanks for all your help everyone, it's been huge. Witty Lama 10:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
As a result of the days at the BM we have 100s of images that have been transferred by one of Magnus's tools from where they were on Flickr. Lots of these are now transferred but are uncategorised. Anyone with an hour to spare might look here. Nearly all of these are "ours". There are several more 100 to come. Any categorisation is better than none. PrtableAntiquities.com has much more data but the license is not commercial. (but you can't copyright a fact). Hope you can help Victuallers ( talk) 19:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Re the coin - details of the pic are on the PA web site. I was told one gold coin pic came from Hoxne. Victuallers ( talk) 22:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The Template:Infobox artifact used on the Hoxne Hoard, Frome Hoard, Stanchester Hoard pages does not seem entirely appropriate in these cases, as the parameters are not designed for a group of objects. For example, what does the size parameter refer to in the context of a hoard? and does the date created parameter refer to the date range of all the objects in the hoard or to the date that the hoard was buried? Would it be a good idea to create a special hoard infobox with more appropriate parameters, such as date buried, date range of objects, container (e.g. box or ceramic pot), contents (for a summary of the hoard contents) ? BabelStone ( talk) 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Given the main problem with infoboxes in this area is always the oversimplifications they lead to, I would think this one would be asking for trouble myself. Johnbod ( talk) 22:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hoxne Hoard is now a featured article, in spite of obvious errors in a table (see Talk:Hoxne_Hoard#2+3=?, a thread with no response). Am I wrong? -- El Caro ( talk) 09:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The detailed descriptions (not the images which are my personal photographs) of File:Achilles_and_Troilos_vase.jpg and File:Oedipus slaying the sphinx.jpg have been challenged on my Commons talk page as potential copyvio as they include text from the BM online record for the same item. I am slightly concerned about the precedent here as I would rather accurately quote the BM record (which the text links to) on the image description rather than introduce errors by paraphrasing. I would also rather include this text rather than relying on a reader navigating to the BM website as this is an obvious aid to searching. I do not believe there is any copyvio as the website T&C's allow for "research by individuals or charities, societies, institutions or trusts existing exclusively for public benefit".
I have sent an email to web@britishmuseum.org today asking for clarification on the website T&Cs but some of the people contributing here may be able to advise. I shall add the result of any reply I get from the BM. Fæ ( talk) 09:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Sadly I've yet to receive a reply from the Museum. In the absence of any statement of their preferences, I have started adding "~ Description extract from BM record" whenever quoting text direct from the online database. I shall also try to limit such extracts to, say, less than 50 words at a time. Fæ ( talk) 10:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Which articles should appear in Template:British Museum? For example, there is Flood tablet, a redirect to Gilgamesh flood myth, not really a BM-related article in my opinion. Category:British Museum and subcategories contain so many articles! -- El Caro ( talk) 08:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Sutton Hoo has been nominated to be listed as a Good Article. A review has started and is now on hold while the reviewer does more background reading on the topic. In the meantime a few points have been listed for improvement or discussion here. This project is tagged on the talkpage as one that has an interest in the article, and any extra assistance is always appreciated during a GA review. SilkTork * YES! 10:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I came across this stub on a shield of the C4th BC in the BM. I've just added a category & won't do more, but I hope someone will. Johnbod ( talk) 00:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've bished and boshed it up to a "start" if someone cares to polish/rewrite it or make it a C then you're most welcome Victuallers ( talk) 18:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I tried to add this to my userpage boxes, but it wouldn't sit inside the box of boxes {{Boxboxtop... Does anyone know why? Johnbod ( talk) 16:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Look at the Ribchester Helmet which is the closet we have to the new helmet found at Crosby Garrett. Fancy helping? Victuallers ( talk) 21:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
After the spectacular results with the Witham Shield just above, I'd like to draw attention to excellent new photos of BM objects such as the Waterloo Helmet and Penrith Hoard by User:Ealdgyth. I'm working up Pennanular brooch which will fit with the hoard. see also [6], to which more will be added. Johnbod ( talk) 22:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, yes, in an earlier draft it was free for members. The Chapter decided however to make it a consistent number. Obviously, this does mean a higher number, but I would like to stress that this number is still below cost (especially if you eat more than your fair share of catering!) :-) I would, obviously, very much like to see as many people who've been involved in the GLAM/BM project turn up at this event. Hope to see you there. Witty Lama 14:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I've had a query from Dan Pett of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (who some of you will know for providing photos for the Crosby Garrett Helmet and Frome Hoard articles), asking if anyone would like to try to improve the Wikipedia articles on the Portable Antiquities Scheme and Palestine Exploration Fund. They are both currently at Start level, but could do with some careful editing to get them to at least C level. I think we have loads of pictures we could use for the PAS article. BabelStone ( talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, at some point there was a discussion about getting the Hoxne Hoard as an FA on the front page, and I think 16 November was the planned day, because the anniversary of the find. There's nothing here - [7] . I was going to make sure that one of the objects from the Hoard was on the Brtish Museum home page on the same day - does someone who was involved in the Hoxne Challenge want to propose this? - maybe best not me in case it is viewed as COI, and I dont know the FA protocol! Cheers Matthewcock ( talk) 08:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see that page. Great stuff. Thanks! Matthewcock ( talk) 10:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear All - there is currently a major BM exhibition on the Book of the Dead. You will note that the article on Book of the Dead - well, it sucks. Anyone up for a collaboration? ;-) The Land ( talk) 17:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The ratings for the project were done by Liam, often following those used by other projects already tagging the articles. It seems to me that, in particular, there are too few "Top importance" objects - currently only the Elgin Marbles and Rosetta Stone are so rated. Looking at, for example, the "High-importance" B class objects on the grid, I think that at the least Admonitions Scroll, Sutton Hoo, Cyrus cylinder, Mildenhall Treasure and Portland Vase would qualify, & maybe others. It occurs to me we might ask the BM themselves to comment - maybe they have lists? Perhaps we should pick a number - are we looking for the top 100, top 50, or whatever? Another issue is that a wholesale re-rating will affect before-and-after comparisons on the grid. We should at the least record the old totals before we do it. I have re-rated the odd article but not very many. What do people think? Johnbod ( talk) 23:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to weigh in here myself briefly:
I initially did the ratings with a rough idea of importance based on "what would you save first in a fire" approach :-) Top importance I deliberately kept low as these are the things in my mind which should be absolutely first thing in your mind when you think "British Museum". This is not to say that things like Cyrus Cylinder are not exceedingly important but I was making the ratings relative to the BM rather than relative to humanity at large. That said - I'm very very happy for people to start re-rating things, not just the 'importance' but also the 'quality' side of things.
There is also a point raised a couple of times in this thread - this GLAM/BM page is not a wikiproject but it does behave like one. I specifically created this in the GLAM subspace after feedback saying that a wikiproject needs to have a demonstrated community willing to run it. I would humbly suggest that I think the ongoing activity at this talkpage and in British Museum stuff in general tends to the conclusion that there now exists a reasonably active community - enough to justify making this into a fully fledged wikiproject. What do you think? Witty Lama 14:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to say, we here at the Museum would feel honoured if the GLAM/BM project became a proper Wikiproject, were that the right thing to happen. On the "importance" issue - the Museum does have highlights that we urge people to see if they have only a short time on the Museum, but as any curator will tell you, one object isn't more important to us than other - just like children, we try to be equal in our love. But that said, let me know if you want some help upping the high importance objects! Matthewcock ( talk) 08:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a rephrase suggested. By all means lets move it and leave the ephemera concerning the residency archived here, but I want to keep the list of articles. The rate has severely dropped off but I'm hoping to arrange some DYK's on the main page for the GLAM conference. Anyone care to join in? Anyone speak French? Victuallers ( talk) 16:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Late estimate just in - The Library of Congress inspired one person to create over 200 articles by releasing some cc images. Nice search designed by the LOC see here Victuallers ( talk) 18:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
To return to a theme I've raised before: is it time to move the ongoing efforts on British Museum related articles to a dedicated British Museum Wikiproject and archive this page about the residency project as complete/closed for posterity? Witty Lama 08:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not against a project, it just seems odd to create a project around one institution rather than a part of the GLAM sector. A project with clear goals to improve articles on UK GLAMs, UK Archives or UK Museum Collections would seem more sustainable than a BM project which would imply the need to create separate projects for all the largest GLAM organizations. I am also not against experimenting as the project can be redefined if its scope needs to shift. Fæ ( talk) 08:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Matthew Cock has been in touch to say that the BM is going to be moving http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/ to their main British Museum domain sometime in the new year. As you can see here there are a number of links to the current URLs and these are going to die when worldtimelines.org goes offline. Is there any alternative to going through manually removing the links and then replacing them in a couple of months when the migration's happened? Does anyone know a method of semi-automating a job like this? Regards, The Land ( talk) 20:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Matthew has made his first go at a new article -visible here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of films shot at the British Museum. However, as you can see, the AfC was rejected on the basis of a lack of references. Whilst I agree that all articles should have Reliable Sources, how does one get RS for such a list? I note that equivalent lists like list of films set in London have no referrences. Witty Lama 02:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Those subscribed to the Wikimedia-uk mailing list would have seen this message from Mike Peel, but for those that aren't:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editathon,_British_Library
Hope people can make it! Witty Lama 04:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
How was the BM-related tag set up - i.e. who went through the articles, did they have a list of BM topics to work from, was any semiautomation used? And was it done before or during the residency project? Am just curious because I tihnk it's likely to be a useful preliminary stage to setting up collaborations with other institutions. The Land ( talk) 18:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Just in case people haven't had this on their watchlist page : Wikipedia:CONTRIB/Imperial. A Wikipedia society at Imperial would be an obvious contact point for all the South Ken museums, do we have any existing contacts with them? They're such an obvious target I assume we must? Perhaps the Imperial mob would be a way to awaken some interest at UCL, who could then be a local contact for the Bloomsbury museums? Le Deluge ( talk) 20:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Following the success of the Hoxne Challenge, and by popular demand, I have been talking to a curator here about another collaboration focused on particular objects in the British Museum collection and related subject areas – with a session at the Museum, and online/email collaboration for a period afterwards.
The subject area that we would like to propose to the Wikipedians that might be interested goes back even earlier than the Hoxne Hoard, to the Palaeolithic period, beginning very close to home: the Gray’s Inn Handaxe, collected by Hans Sloane. Jill, the curator, proposes that we look at a group of records - including objects from the period, such as the handaxe, but also those related to the collectors, like Sloane and Henry Christy, and whatever other articles come into the sphere. Some of these objects are on display in the Museum’s Enlightenment Gallery, because they tell a fascinating story of how people’s view of the world was changing at that time, influenced by the emerging disciplines of archaeology and natural sciences. In late October, the exhibition that Jill is currently working on, Ice Age Art is opening at the Museum – featuring such wonderful objects as the swimming reindeer, which was in A History of the World. I hope that the collaboration on this material can extend throughout 2011 right up to include this exhibition and the publication of the catalogue, which will enable a whole lot of new references and articles I imagine.
Do let me know below here if you would be interested, and I will start to arrange a date for a session, and ask the curator to draw up a reading list / article list. I'd also be interested in hearing from anyone who was involved in the Hoxne Challenge about how we can change the format (if necessary) to make it work better. I personally think that a whole day at the Museum was too much, and that a half day would be better, and to allow more time for preparation/reading, and time after for Wiki work. Matthewcock ( talk) 15:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering... Victuallers ( talk) 23:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Not only am I pleased to see the BM wishes to run this "challenge" event again but I'm wondering whether we can scale-up to have this as the centrepiece of a worldwide simultaneous "GLAM challenge day". Similar to the way the 10th anniversary has a central organisation page perhaps we could have a list of museums around the world that wish to host such a challenge and get several communities editing all at once - one in London, on in DC, Paris, Amsterdam... We would need to get support/expressions of interest from different museums and Wikimedia communities, and we would also need to write up the documentation of what is required to have a successful day (which we have learned from doing this last year). Perhaps Matthew you would be willing to write an invitation to other museums to join, thereby making this a BM-led initiative?? What do folks think about turning the "2010 Hoxne Challenge" into the "2011 GLAM Challenge"? There would be no overt competition but I think a bit of friendly rivalry between museums trying to get good quality content on WP would go well :-) Witty Lama 01:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I can see how the day thing might be an issue - you could perhaps do something without being too specific on day, just say that it is some time in February or whatever. Just in general, winter is good for Wikitime, as far as specific timings go I can't help feeling that it would be useful to involve UCL students, whether formally during termtime, or less formally during the vacation, there's hopefully a good resource of well-informed writing talent to draw on there. I wasn't at the Hoxne day, but from my experience of the original BM day I'd definitely say that a bit of time to read up in advance and get a feel for what the articles need doing to them is definitely needed if we're to get the most out of the face time. Having said that, I'm not sure I could make it this time, I'm still waaay behind on my wiki to-do list!
As far as subject, I quite see how the BM are more interested in specific artifacts, but as I said that day, where this kind of collaboration can really help from a Wiki-world perspective is in the more general articles. They're the ones that have the most readers, yet they are the articles that are much the hardest to write by the sort of interested amateur who tends to do much of the heavy lifting towards GA/FA, you do need that deep background knowledge of the subject and to be reasonably well up on the literature. Hence we tend to do a less good job serving the areas of most interest to our "customers". So I'd definitely vote in favour of targeting a general article, and then trickling down into specific BM artifacts, somebody like Christy would be
far less of a priority from a Wiki point of view. Something like
Art of the Upper Paleolithic would be one place to start, or any of the topics on the {{
Stone Age}} and {{
Paleolithic}} templates - to take a few random ones,
Upper Paleolithic gets nearly 20,000 hits/month,
Stone tool,
Beaker culture,
Mousterian are all around 7000 hits/month,
Levallois technique half that,
Lithic reduction is at 2000/month.
Mousterian strikes me as particularly weak in comparison to
Acheulean, which is only a bit more popular. These numbers are 10-30x the readers that Hoxne was getting back in May, although it has gone up from around 600 hits/month to around 3000/month as a result of all the work on it (and the FA front-page-ing was responsible for a one-off 70,000 hits) - Matthew, can you say how many of those are coming in from you?
Le Deluge (
talk)
21:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem I can see is language. It might be wise to start with just English Born speakers and strong English speaking (e.g. The Dutch and Norwegians, before trying more unusual locations. But in the long run the multi-language approach might be beneficial Victuallers ( talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Just thinking of other things that might tick boxes among Matthew's overlords - you could explicitly go for an interwiki challenge, the same article in multiple languages. It would probably involve fewer institutions, which might help the availability thing and there's obvious synergies with France/Germany/Spain/Portugal if you're going for something in the vicinity of Art of the Upper Paleolithic. It's a good idea to "front-run" BM exhibitions so something in the Stone Age (artifact or overview or both) makes sense, but just looking further ahead, there's a lot of the peoples of western Asia among the Level 4 Vital Articles (our "top 10,000") which might represent fertile territory for future collaborations; Stone Age and Neolithic Revolution are both Level 3 (top 1000), the former isn't in brilliant shape. I know I said I'd help with some of the template things - I'll bump it up the list.... Le Deluge ( talk) 12:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been back to the page for a few days, and realise lots of questions/observations aimed at me! I'll try and respond to all of them. Yes, we're perfectly happy to focus on 'subject' articles as well as 'object articles, provided those subjects are relevant to us, and at some point link to notable objects in our collection. I see that the GLAM/BM 2011 Challenge, as I will call it until we think of a better name will be on a group of articles that include both, and the articles included can evolve over time - I'm happy not to fix it - and let editors move around as they want. If it goes too far from our expertise, we'll say so, and leave it to the editors to decide what to do. On the view to pull this into something more meta (the relay, the interwiki, the cross-Museum); I will leave that to others. My 2 curators may well suggest other people who know this stuff, and we can see if they want to be involved, but I dont want to set any targets for the sake of it. In the end, the BM have only done this once (Hoxne) - we'd prefer we evolve the model with subtle tweaks, rather than taking it up a level for the sake of it. That works for us. I'm open for others to fit that into other cogs, and support. Re languages: Definitely interested in Arabic and Farsi, but as you say in another collaboration around more relevant objects. Happy to discuss.
Next steps from me is to produce a list of articles (on subjects, and objects) and a reading list from the curators, and post that up for those interested to comment on. Can I make a plea that we have a new page for the GLAM/BM 2011 Challenge?
Matthewcock (
talk)
17:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
For those of you interested in changes to the British Museum photos on Commons, there are current attempts to blanket change the tailored templates to standard ones, refer to Commons:User_talk:Zolo#Blanking_of_information. I was unaware of any consensus to do this, perhaps someone was involved? In the meantime I have complained about the factual errors this appears to be arbitrarily introducing. Thanks Fæ ( talk) 18:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
With the Nimrud Ivories in the news, I've been re-reading an article about another Mesopotamian BM artefact, the Cyrus Cylinder, and I think it could be worth considering as a possible Good Article candidate. It already seems to have gone through a featured article review last year but evidently failed, for reasons that I'm not clear about. However, even if it doesn't meet the standard for featured articles it certainly looks a lot more comprehensive than most articles I've read about BM artefacts.
Could someone please advise on how the article could be put forward as a Good Article candidate and who might be available to do a review? Prioryman ( talk) 23:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm having difficulties explaining to two editors what WP:LEAD requires. They are concerned that the lead of Cyrus Cylinder is "repetitive" because it summarises material that is covered in more detail later in the article. I have explained that this is in fact what the lead is meant to do. I would appreciate it if someone could provide some advice at Talk:Cyrus Cylinder#Arbitrary break on whether this understanding of the requirements of WP:LEAD is in fact correct, and if so whether the current lead (as of this diff) meets these requirements. Prioryman ( talk) 02:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You might want to check out pages 12-13: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report :-) Witty Lama 07:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Please note that due to the enforced harmonization on Commons of the Artwork template (which is being used to transclude artwork descriptions from a Category page), it seems likely that I will be forced to propose purging Commons of all quoted text from the British Museum database in order to protect the interests of the copyright holder. Until now, the text has been used in a limited form (normally less than 50 word extracts) in order to provide an easy to find accurate description of artefacts. Due to the process of mass transclusion, the data is being presented in a data-mining friendly format and is stepping well outside our normal expectations for how to handle limited quotes from non-commercial only text. Your comments would be welcome at Commons:Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2011/03/Category:Old_Babylonian_period_Queen_of_Night_relief in advance of any proposal to make such blanket changes. Thanks Fæ ( talk) 11:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a RM discussion going on which y'all're welcome to participate in. Doubtless you have experience in the current nomenclature regardless of what Google says.
More importantly, regardless of the eventual name of the article, it's certainly an important one and remains an absolute pig's breakfast despite my efforts at cleanup. It's a big topic but when some of you have time and interest, a clear overview of the history (as it was understood and is considered today) and historiology (as it was constructed and is currently debated) would be welcome. — LlywelynII 01:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The newly-discovered Silverdale Hoard is in the news today, and I've written up an article on it (which I've nominating for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Silverdale Hoard). It's worth noting that the Portable Antiquities Scheme appears to have a very enlightened Wikipedia-friendly policy of releasing photos as CC-BY-SA. Their photostream may be worth browsing through to see if there are any images that would be useful to us. Prioryman ( talk) 20:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Is this project still alive? There doesn't seem to be much happening on this page... Prioryman ( talk) 12:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there an equivalent GLAM project for English Heritage or the National Trust? Prioryman ( talk) 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
ITV and the British Museum to reveal the 50 greatest treasures discovered by the British public. Could be the focus for some article creation/expansion, or at least a list article along the lines of A History of the World in 100 Objects. BabelStone ( talk) 23:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated Cyrus Cylinder for consideration as a Good Article. I'd be grateful if someone could review it - the review page is at [9]. Prioryman ( talk) 06:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
All images on the Portable Antiquities Scheme site ( http://finds.org.uk/), including the database of nearly 800,000 objects, are now licensed as CC BY-SA 3.0. A number of BM-related articles may benefit from this resource. BabelStone ( talk) 21:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we use the images of prints from the British Museum website, some of which are the only known pictures of notable individuals? If so, should they be uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia, and are there any templates that should be used in their file pages? From what I can make of the terms and conditions, the thumbnails and "larger images" can be used under certain conditions, but not the free image service, and I've seen prints on Commons just tagged PD with no explanation. -- xensyria T 18:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please upload snaps of one or both of these cups?
I will use them in articles. Thanks.
TCO ( talk) 18:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's have the Crawford snaps. Something is better than nothing. TCO ( talk) 00:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't there an article on the recent 'Life & Death' exhibition? Are we forbidden until it gets over (in two days)? -- TerentiusNew ( talk) 21:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Recent activity has created 20 new articles including several DYKs including the 3rd most popular DYK ever (described overleaf).
The most recent need some good free images. Can we get pictures of Sintra Collar and Zemi Figures from Vere, Jamaica?
If this could happen within a few days then we may get another 50,000 hits as we did with Statue of Tara Victuallers ( talk) 23:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone add the talk page templates to this article? I have been away from editing from so long that I'm rusty on the conventions now. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 13:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, we think that this image ( File:Tangata_manu_statuette.jpg) is this. How would we go about getting a photo of it? cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a long shot request: I've been working on expanding the article Ralph Vary Chamberlin, a prolific Amreican biologist, and just thought I'd put out a request for anyone that might have access to the German publication Arachnologisches Magazin, which only appears in a few libraries on WorldCat (none of them in the United States): one of them being the Natural History Museum in London.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)If anyone has or could obtain the above article, and could email me a scan or photocopy, I would be very much appreciative. Cheers, --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The article on the British Museum is (rightfully) very long and detailed. It might be time to split the article into sections regarding the different departments of the museum. Currently only the Department of Asiahas its own article. Every department having its own article would make the main article and the different departments easier to navigate. It would also allow more details to be added to each section. SpiritedMichelle ( talk) 02:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Constitution of the Athenians to be moved to The Polity of Athenians. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 15:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate finding help identifying, citing, and potentially accessing pictures of the 6th century document British Museum 14654 f. 32 referred to in Phillips, George (1876). The doctrine of Addai, the apostle. London: Trübner & Co. p. 51. for the Doctrine of Addai article. My apologies in advance if this is the wrong page to ask. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 14:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Tried to post this on the image request page, but it got sent to some sort of redirect purgatory. Reposting here:
Although this page hasn't been active in a while, figured it was worth a shot asking. Is there any chance of getting a photograph of this object? The current image on the article page is a public domain sketch from 1904, and other than the BM photographs and one B&W photograph in a 1999 book, I haven't seen any photographs of the object at all. The article is currently a featured article candidate, and getting an actual photo would be a nice touch.
Thanks for any help! -- Usernameunique ( talk) 05:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
See Template talk:British-Museum-db and Commons:Template talk:British-Museum-db. BabelStone ( talk) 11:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)