Talk:Field Museum of Natural History/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProject South Dakota addition

Added this page to the project due to Sue's discovery in South Dakota. RJASE1 04:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article will require some work. The whole temporary exhibits section could be cut to one line. If people want to know the temp exhibits at any given time they can check the museum website. As it is that information is unencyclopeidic as far as I can tell.A mcmurray 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a volunteer at the museum. I will begin the cleanup process immediately. Dylan 15:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Old and Oudated

The 'Temporary exhibits' section is outdated and requires work! --98.193.61.220 (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 04 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move as requested an err in nomination rationale noted probably contributed to this lack of consensus as Field Museum of Natural History is the official name per IRS filings IRS 990 2012 not The Field Museum which is their brand name. Mike Cline (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Field Museum of Natural History → The Field Museum – The Field Museum is the official name of the museum, "of Natural History" was used before 1996 – Graham (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Lemontina9: But is the name "Field Museum" distinctive enough by itself? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• @Anthony Appleyard: There are other museums with the word "Field" in their names, but none that are named after people named "Field" or that use "Field" as their primary name. Most that I found were related in some way to airfields. Here are some examples: Kimchi Field Museum Victoria Falls Field Museum March Field Air Museum Candler Field Museum Minter Field Air Museum Graham (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose current proposed title. Per Wikipedia's policy on article titles, it should be the common name used by most reliable sources, not the official name. Furthermore, I fail to find evidence that it fulfills the requirements on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). Field Museum is currently already being used as a primary topic redirect, therefore, there is really no change in meaning with respect to the same word without the "the". In addition, the "the" appears to not always be capitalized in running text.[1][2] I am not opposed to moving the article over the redirect, provided there is evidence that "Field Museum" is a more common, primary topic name. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per zzyzx11 -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support We should use the name that the museum refers to itself by. That is common practice on WP. I don't think the museums Lemontina9 will be a problem. Even Kimchi Field Museum, the only one notable enough for its own article is sufficiently different.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support purely as the museum covers a wider range of topics then just Natural History. GregKaye 23:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• If that's in reference to the culture halls, they are a common component of many (especially older) natural history museums, including the American Museum of Natural History. Dekimasuよ! 16:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Zzyzx11: "The Field Museum" is the most common way of referring to the museum in Chicago (I've never heard anyone refer to it as just "Field Museum", but I'm less worried about the presence or absence of a "The"). There is plenty of evidence of this usage (beyond my own anecdotal experience) in print [3] and news sources [4] Graham (talk)

• What seems to be captured here is a fairly consistent background noise of the phrase "field museum" in running text, and a generally larger amount of references to "Field Museum of Natural History," and thus references to "Field Museum of Natural History" are controlling the shape of the graph; when you add additional terms to a search you will get fewer hits for the longer term.... Dekimasuよ! 16:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. If it is moved (and I'm neutral on that point) then it should be to Field Museum, as there's no need for the definite article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support call them what they call themselves. Hugh (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Apparently the name Field Museum of Natural History was once "more familiar and popular" per this official announcement. I am not opposed to the change if there is evidence to support it, but aside from an assertion there is nothing here to show what name is now more common (or more official, for that matter). Britannica has "Field Museum, in full Field Museum of Natural History." Newspapers using "Field Museum of Natural History" within the last year include the Chicago Tribune, New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, The Seattle Times, The Plain Dealer, and the Washington Post, so it doesn't seem to be outdated. Dekimasuよ! 16:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• @Dekimasu: You're correct that in 1966 the museum was renamed "Field Museum of Natural History", but the announcement you're referring to states that "Field Museum of Natural History" is more popular and familiar than the previous official name: "Chicago Natural History Museum" (seen in the bronze plaque, pictured). In fact, the museum changed its name again in the 1990s to "The Field Museum", dropping "of Natural History" (as [5][6] reported in the Chicago Tribune). Since then, it has been referred to by its official name inconsistently in the press, but the majority of coverage (and usage on the museum's website) uses the official name. Of the seven articles in the New York Times mentioning the Field Museum in the last year, five use "The Field Museum exclusively [7][8][9][10][11] and two append "of Natural History" [12] [13] (both referring to the museum in the past, when it went by other names). The Chicago Tribune's coverage overwhelmingly uses "The Field Museum" [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] with few exceptions [22][23]. Graham (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose including "The" per WP:THE. Third-party sources rarely if ever capitalize "The" in the running text, so it should be excluded. Removing "of Natural History" is probably fine as it's more common.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose on several grounds raised above... best without the the, and far less recognisable, there's a tension between that and being concise but I think the reader experience is far better with the name as is. Also note that nom cites the official name as their entire rationale, but this is almost irrelevant according to WP:AT. Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Field Museum of Natural History. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archive.fieldmuseum.org/butterfly/herman.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231214313/http://harris.fieldmuseum.org/index/default.php to http://harris.fieldmuseum.org/index/default.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Both links work, even the one marked as dead. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)