Talk:Natural History Museum, London

Title

"Natural History Museum" is a rather generic title. There are several notable museums of natural history with that title. [1] [2] The one in LA is fairly famous as well. Therefore this page should be a disambiguation page. But what should we name the British Natural History Museum? Is British Natural History Museum OK, or something more formal/specific? The one in LA would be either Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or Los Angeles Natural History Museum... --mav 05:36, 22 November 2003 (UTC)~

The London one is, I believe, the original Natural History Museum. As far as I know it's never been called by any other name. Calling it "The British Natural History Museum" might imply a connection with the British Museum that no longer exists. Lee M 01:46, 2 January 2004 (UTC)

The British Museum certainly does still exist. It's between Tottenham Court Road and Holborn and recently had a huge new glass roof put in. Clinkophonist 12:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, he didn't say that :-) Defuse (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Others should go on Natural History Museum (disambiguation), with a note to that effect at the head of this article. Andy Mabbett 18:19, 11 July 2004 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but just to note the article Natural history museum for the concept of an NHM (note the capitalisation) - and Category:Natural history museums which lists others. As the list seems to show, no other NHM seems to just use NHM as its official title. (It's a bit like postage stamps - the UK invented them so they get the right to not have to specify the country. :) ) Loxlie 01:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Corridor

I believe the internal corridor linking the Science Museum and the Life Galleries may now be closed. Can anyone confirm? Lee M 04:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The Science Museum is now an entirely separate entity. A shame in some ways. The Science Museum NEVER had a corridor connecting it to the Life Galleries. You are thinking of the geological museum, also known as the "Earth Galleries", which is next door to the Science Museum, and is still connected. Clinkophonist 12:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There certainly was a link corridor to the Science Museum but it was closed a long time ago during one of the phases when charging for the museums was in place. On the NHM side the entrance was by the library and is still visible, I believe that on the Science Museum side there are now offices in the way (FTY). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.140.1.86 (talk) 16:22, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Autochthony writes: I certainly can remember - in general - going from the NHM [once the British Museum (Natural History)], through a tunnel or corridor to the Science Museum. I can't remember when I first noticed that this link was now closed, but I think it was reached through the geological section[s]. Autochthony 2032z 31 July 2009.

The link between the NHM and the Science Museum was past the library, it closed as far as I can remember in the 1980s during the Thatcherite era of museum charges. As stated above there are now offices on the Science Museum side which makes reopening the link somewhat probelmatic. It is a shame though, I remember as a child being amazed by the possibility if going from one world to another. These institutions have sought massive funding to realise the Albertopolis vision of a single arts and science campus but are unwilling to spend the minimal amount necessary to recreate the linkage between the museums.Despondenttrilobite (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it unlikely that the NHM/Earth combo was ever linked directly to the Science Museum. Their institutional history was quite different. The NHM was 'owned' by the British Museum, and they guarded their 'property' with vigour! The Sci Mus was set up in Sth Ken first, as part of a quite different scheme. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sydenham

Anyone know about a collection at Sydenham (Crystal Palace) in the 1850s? I am struggling to make sense of this Dinosaur Cartoon in Punch? I thought the Great exhibition spun off part of the Nat Hist Museum?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.171.141 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

The dinosaur sculptures at Sydenham by Waterhouse Hawkins (depicted accurately in the Punch cartoon, although now known to be hugely anatomically incorrect) were never part of the collection that went to South Kensington. See The Crystal Palace#Attractions. They survived the Crystal Palace fire of 1936 and survive to this day. They were even used in a Guinness commercial, in which Rutger Hauer stood next to one of them and muttered, "if it didn't exist you'd have to invent it" (referring either to the dinosaur or to the beer). Lee M 19:22, 30 April 2005 (UTC)

I have added two amazing pictures

I have added the picture of the hanging skeletons and the picture of the monkey face. It's a good way to illustrate a more enjoyable side of the museum. Onofre Bouvila 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pics. Love the monkey skeletons. The head pic needs a better caption I think - I've removed the old one. Could you add something more specific? I'd also like to add a pic or two (some behind-the-scenes ones), so we might have to think about space. Loxlie 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked through the Natural History Museum, London page. The picture of the monkey skeletons caught my eye, and I just wanted to comment that I really like that photo and hope to see them in person one day.(GlassLadyBug (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC))

New expansion

I've expanded the article considerably, added sections, and updated some of the old info. I've kept almost everything that was there, except trimming a few bits. More to do tomorrow, including spellcheck, some formatting, re-organising pics and adding a couple of my own, and referencing. Feel free to comment. Loxlie 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok second phase of expansion is complete, with lots new text, bit more restructuring, and spellcheck. I reordered the pics to slot into the sections, and to put the two headline pics - of the famous exterior and central hall - into the intro section. (I know the header section is a bit unusual in layout now, but seems to work fine at all window widths. Please discuss here before changing.) For the couple of pix I took out - I'm happy to insert a gallery at some point and put them back in there, unless there's objection. I've got plenty more myself, but ran out of space. What's missing IMO:

• sections on the library and picture archive (I'm happy to do that at some point)
• description of research activities, past and present (including role in identification of many species, theories, and conservation work etc.)
• current economic/political background
• maybe some more mention of historical context, conflicts (eg. Owen vs Darwin), and other events.
• the section on the Tring museum should have lots more and a pic or two - maybe even a page of its own.

Anything else? Loxlie 08:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is it possible to append organization, especially how research activities are shown on the organization? In my understanding, collections are used for both of exhibitions and research, but how researches are organized, this is what is not sure to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.39.190.151 (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Category for employees

Please help to populate Category:Employees of the Natural History Museum. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wandworth Site

Is it worth mentioning that the NHM has, besides the mentioned Tring site, a site in Wandsworth? There are as far as I know only the three sites, so it's not a stretch to note them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.140.9.207 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wandsworth site (well land) was sold off last year. The NHM rents the facility from the developer whom they sold it too. The site is largely a store for the zoological collection, but while DC2 is being built the entom collection and some of the staff has been re-located there. Mark t young (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thylacine Taxidermy

Does anyone have a picture of the thylacine taxidermy in there collection,or have a link to it? (Dirrtypittie (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Odd bit of POV/non-encyclopedic writing

In the 4th or 5th para of History and Architecture it notes: "With some justification, Bill Bryson..." Given that this justification isn't specifically mentioned or cited, isn't this a bit weaseley? The reader can draw their own conclusion of Owen's efforts and Bryson backs that up. I would normally be bold and delete it but am nervous as this is an otherwise excellent article and would like some opinion or consensus. Bigger digger (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed the wording to something more acceptable [3]. Bigger digger (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Library

This edit introduced information on the NHM Library to the lead of the article. I think it's useful info but don't think it belongs in the introduction but I'm not sure where else to put it. Any help from anyone? Bigger digger (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

'Dippy'

Autochthony writes: I was told - on my first visit, in about 1962 - that the Diplodocus cast was 'Ploddy'; was I led up the garden path? And I think it is about 87 feet long, not over a hundred. Autochthony 2026z 31 July 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.194.33 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

NHM's funding?

I wanted to find out how the museum is funded, but this is a curious omission from the Wikipedia page.

The most recent NHM annual report, available from http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0708/hc09/0908/0908.asp , shows £45.4 million (54 per cent) of the museum's £83.4 million income came from the government ("grant in aid")

(apologies if this isn't all to protocol - first go. Y) Yaffle69 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

categories

Is there a reason why the Category:natural history museum is listed as a sub-category of category:British Museum? I understand that the two institutions were once the same thing, but this was also the case for the British Library and it is independently categorised now. Is there a particular reason why the British Museum is considered a parent category to the NHM? Couldn't they just be members of each other's categories rather than in a parent-child category relationship? Witty Lama 15:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there an existing, or obviously nameable, supercat for both? If so, the fix would seem to be to make them (and the BL, VA, and NRM) into sibling children of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that i'm aware of, and IMO, it would be a pretty arbitrary category if we did that. For example, currently the whole "natural history museum" category is a sub-cat of "British Museum" but the British Library article isn't even in the "British museum" category - let alone as a subcategory! I would suggest moving them all out so they are all independent categories, but with each institution's article being potentially a member of the other's category. Witty Lama 01:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this - removed the category:natural history museum from the category:british museum, but on the other hand I've put the article Natural history museum in the category:british museum. Witty Lama 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Earth Hall to Geological Museum

I've proposed that the Earth Hall article be merge with Geological Museum, please discuss here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Director of the Natural History Museum

I have made Director of the Natural History Museum unfortunately there are a couple of gaps, if you could help fill those gaps, that'd be great. thx. Flying Fische (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

fish don't galup loop https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_History_Museum,_London 2603:8081:3F00:3415:797F:ACF7:8879:69D1 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate photograph caption

"A very young scientist at the London Natural History Museum" says the photograph with the little girl sketching a dinosaur (lower down on the right). This is an encyclopaedia. Not a platform for comedy. I'm changing the text. Rlinfinity (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Title revisited

Isn't (comma) "London" officially part of the name? I do believe there might be another "Natural History Museum" somewhere. If you go to just about any other major city in the world and ask "Where's the 'Natural History Museum'? - you are unlikely to get the answer: "London". ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC) - I added a bit to the lead [Brit: Lede] in hopes of clarifying possible ambiguity; I hope that's acceptable. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, is "comma London" officially part of the name? Their website doesn't appear to use it.

The London museum is hopefully the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, within context. I'm sure most locals would direct a tourist to a local museum if asked your question, but if the question was "if I open this encyclopaedia at the entry for 'the Natural History Museum', what would you expect to see?", would most people guess it was probably the original London one? --McGeddon (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If you type "Natural History Museum" in 'Britannica Online Encyclopedia' (where "facts matter") you get a disambiguation "Results: 1-10 of 516 items" - and the link relating to this museum is 'Natural History Museum (museum, London, United Kingdom)'. If you try the same thing in WP search, you go straight to this page. I don't think one could argue that 'Britannica Online Encyclopedia' is Amer-centric, or whatever. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC) - Btw, do they still make those collated and bound hard-copy text modules anymore? ;) ...Anyway, just my 2¢ worth. ≈[0.0155038]EUR - E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's just how Britannica's interface works - type anything in the search box, however specific (even the unique name of a person), and it will give you a page of all possible search results rather than taking you directly to a particular article that might match your search. It will also put brackets with relevant keywords after every title, even if there is only one result. Apart from the order in which it returns those results, Britannica makes no judgment on which result the reader might have been expecting. (Although I'd note that London's NHM always appears at the top of the Britannica results, and this is seemly unaffected by which country I fake my IP as being from.)

Wikipedia's approach is laid out at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - it's up to editors to decide whether something is "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" and whether it has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". --McGeddon (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

My point would be that "...and more likely than all the other topics combined ... substantially greater enduring notability ... than any other topic associated with that term" [emphasis mine] - supports my position; and the topic Natural History Museum is a rather generic term. But, I guess one can grant a little sympathetic Anglo-centrism every now and again. (Just joshing around a bit, don't take this too seriously.) ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• We should rename this to Natural History Museum (London) and switch the disambiguation page to this name. This is just too common of a name to use for a specific place, as is shown by how many listings there are on the disambiguation page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with John Pack Lambert. I just accidentally came across this page when searching for NHMs in general. Unlike the FA or Rugby Football Union, the London NHM can't even claim seniority rights, and anyway (re:McGeddon's point), WP:PRIMARYTOPIC works against the current title, as several museums of the same (Vienna, LA) or very similar name (Paris, New York, Washington) are equally or more important.Malc82 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• In 1989 when the British Museum (Natural History) re-branded itself as The Natural History Museum (note the capital on 'The') many of the staff asked the same questions regarding confusion with other natural history museums around the world. Being on the staff at the time, I recall the capital 'T' on The was considered important by the management although many other staff felt it was a little presumptuous. The Museums and Galleries Act 1992 fixed the name as Natural History Museum with no 'The' or 'the' or 'London' as part of the official title. However, for the reasons made obvious here, everyone feels the need to add 'London' for clarity. As an aside, the public 'corporate launch' of the new name (it was called that) in 1989 seemed to cause some confusion. The name British Museum (Natural History) had tended to be used solely by museum professionals and naturalists; the British public had always called the museum 'the Natural History Museum'. The announcement to the media that the Natural History Museum would henceforth be known as The Natural History Museum caused some puzzlement. Some of the press cuttings from that period said that the museum had now changed its name to the 'National History Museum' (sic) (Pers. obs.) JordiYiman (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. 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: move to Natural History Museum, London. The numbers were rather close and bordered on "no consensus" with vote-counting alone, but the reasons to move seemed compelling enough. Key points come in Vegaswikian's rationale, particularly the first couple sentences. Indeed, it seems impossible to compare pageview statistics and insufficient to limit discussion of them to just the museum in London vs. Natural History Museum (disambiguation) (as done by one of the opposers) or vs. the museum in Oslo (which was pointed out as the only other museum that uses this title unqualified). The opposition seems to downplay the ambiguity suggested by the long list at Natural History Museum (disambiguation) (more than just London and Oslo) and the inclusion of List of natural history museums. The capitalization doesn't seem sufficient to thwart off the issues of genericism (see Talk:Science Museum, London#Requested move from February 2012). -- tariqabjotu 05:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Natural History Museum → Natural History Museum (London) – Outside the UK, I would guess almost nobody refers to this building or institution by the unqualified name. Natural History Museum (disambiguation) should move to the unqualified name. See also previous informal suggestions on the Talk: page along these lines. -- jnestorius^(talk) 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would also support Natural History Museum, London per Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Naming conventions and below Necrothesp jnestorius^(talk) 21:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I oppose a move, but if moved, it should certainly be Natural History Museum, London per normal MOS naming conventions. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support UK bias -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support – there are lots of places by this name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can only see one other place that calls itself the "Natural History Museum" without a qualifier, of those listed at Natural History Museum (disambiguation): Oslo. Washington's is the "National Museum of Natural History", Ireland's is a "Natural History" building at the National Museum of Ireland, the Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks is actually called the "Wild Center", and the Tring, Los Angeles County, Las Vegas, San Diego and University of Kansas museums all prefix or suffix the name with their location. Non-English-speaking countries obviously name their museums in the local language, but only Oslo refers to itself the "Natural History Museum" on the English translation of its site. "Natural history museum" quite rightly redirects to List of natural history museums, but the fact that every other museum avoids calling itself the Natural History Museum suggests that the London one is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, when capitalised. --McGeddon (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No, Ireland's building is not part of a single campus and still called "the Natural History Museum" by Irish people generally. The rebranding "Natural History - National Museum of Ireland" is recent, as is the merger. jnestorius^(talk) 21:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, per the nominator. Given the sizable number of natural history museums in the world (many of which are named quite similarly), it seems unlikely that most readers would understand what this one particular unqualified title refers to. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per McGeddon and the almost identical precedent at National Gallery. A hatnote is enough. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess you mean Talk:National Gallery#Requested move jnestorius^(talk) 21:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It used to be National Gallery (London), and is now just National Gallery. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per McGeddon. Always referred to as simply the Natural History Museum. But if it is moved, then it should be to Natural History Museum, London per every other disambiguated building in London and common British practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Always"? Google scholar disagrees: "natural history museum london" jnestorius^(talk) 21:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support UK bias. Calidum Sistere 05:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per McGeddon, and also the page view statistics are rather telling. The article on the National History Museum in London has 87 times more pageviews than Natural History Museum (disambiguation), and the latter's pageview stats include a noticeable spike when this RM was started. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per McGeddon and Bobrayner.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. No matter what the name, most if not all of the natural history museums are know as the Natural History Museum. If you take the time to actually look at some of the articles that link here, they actually find it necessary to disambiguate what is intended in the running text. Editors use phrases like London's Natural History Museum or Natural History Museum, London or something similar. In the past I did some cleanup on the links to this article. As I recall, there where a number of links that should have been for the generic article linked here. Bottom line is that WP:COMMONNAME does not support this being here based on the evidence provided in this discussion. While this may be the common name for this museum, that does not mean that it is the one that should be at the main name space. The argument that is being quoted as the reason for support argues that the official name carries more weight over other policies. WP:OFFICIAL clearly states the need for the title to be unambiguous. Clearly even the oppose votes feel compelled to try and establish that the official names do not create ambiguity for this specific name. But those arguments ignore WP:COMMONNAME. Page view stats are of no value in determining this issue since all of the other museums sharing this common name are dabbed. Maybe if someone whats to compare all of the museums that have this as a common name you would discover that this is not the most viewed of the articles. I suspect that it would be well under 50% of the page views. As to the rename target, I'll let the closer decide between Natural History Museum (London) or Natural History Museum, London. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that WP:COMMONNAME shouldn't overrule WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but is it "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" that a reader searching for "Natural History Museum" (with a deliberate lack of qualifiers) will be looking for the London museum rather than a museum in another city? This seems on a par New York's Museum of Modern Art, which also takes the primary topic; if somebody is talking about "the Museum of Modern Art" in a deliberate vacuum, most people will (I think) assume that the speaker is referring to the New York museum. --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2013 (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.

This needs to be moved back to its correct title at Natural History Museum. The above move(?) didn't achieve consensus and the closing admin summary is somewhat bizarre. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

"Natural History Museum" redirects here, rather than the "Natural history museum" article. The admin summary of a previous move request, which was granted, explicitly stated that capitalization alone was not sufficient to counter the more widespread generic use of the term.Recognize North (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Building information wrong

Hi. The information on the building states: Owen saw that the natural history departments needed more space, and that implied a separate building as the British Museum site was limited. Land in South Kensington was purchased, and in 1864 a competition was held to design the new museum. The winning entry was submitted by the civil engineer Captain Francis Fowke, who died shortly afterwards. The scheme was taken over by Alfred Waterhouse who substantially revised the agreed plans, and designed the façades in his own idiosyncratic Romanesque style which was inspired by his frequent visits to the Continent. The original plans included wings on either side of the main building, but these plans were soon abandoned for budgetary reasons. The space these would have occupied are now taken by the Earth Galleries and Darwin Centre. However as per the 1862 International Exhibition page and associated references, the building already existed! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

As the article referred to says, Parliament refused to purchase the original exhibition building and it was dismantled and sold for use in the construction of Alexandra Palace. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Architectural History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): September98kh (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Omar Alajmi A (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)