Talk:Royal Air Force Museum London

Untitled

I visited the London site this year and I can say is a wonderful place.- Jor70 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible split?

I see this article is not much loved! Although the article is not very big yet it would be very convenient if it were split into two articles for the Hendon and Cosford sites. The problem comes when I link in 'Engines on display' sections in aircraft engine articles, this will happen with aircraft articles as well soon. An example can be seen at Armstrong Siddeley Mamba where I just piped the link to indicate the Cosford site. Would be willing to expand both articles. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for a split. It looks awkward with the two sites in one article. The Imperial War Museum and Imperial War Museum North provide a similar example. Grim23 (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, will wait for others to add their thoughts. I see that someone has sensibly split the commons category in two. I 've spruced up a couple of aviation museum articles so I've got a reasonable idea of layout etc. Would be nice to include some history of the Hendon site as it was my father's first posting in the RAF, circa 1949. Coming from Shepherd's Bush he did not have very far to travel home!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Support split. Go ahead and do it! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough I had been thinking about this again recently after visiting both museums, it is logical to split them, just need to figure out how to do it cleanly. Might ask an admin to help with history merging, I'm on it. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved and split as requested - just need the text sorted. Perhaps change the original Royal Air Force Museum to a dab page once it is sorted. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Our finest hour

The split is a good move and we can cover the museums properly now, I have seen the 'finest hour' showings, it needs to be described for the readers, quite stirring. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Light railway speculation

The plan is just a proposal by a pressure group. Expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place wp:crystal. These plans have been added to few articles in this area of north London by an editor who is involved with the group and might have a conflict of interest. Grim²³★ 17:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fair. I just saw that it was referenced and appeared to be relevant to the museum. Don't worry about the big lists, I've got plenty of images to add (I won't be going mad though!). Cheers, I will take the railway bit out again for you. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Air Force Museum London. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121125841/http://aviation.elettra.co.uk/rafmuseum/ to http://aviation.elettra.co.uk/rafmuseum/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mad-web.org/Pages/Gallery/2141/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Raf-first-100-years credit-jigsaw.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 2014 11 26 09 Grahame White Factory.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Cosford FWW 3 Aircraft.jpg (discussion)
• Map site.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have sent a scanned letter by the RAF Museum supporting its release ! --Krishendrix78 (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverts and removals

On the course of a few edits since yesterday (allegory strictly they were the same edit!) I have removed much unnecessary material. It was, to say the least, inconsistent with an encyclopedic summary style, which perforce takes an overview of its topic, but doesn't list every known fact— or in this case, every page or engine (!!!) the place holds. More, though, the article must also adhere to Wikipedia's core-content policies: on verifiability, neutrality and copyright. Now; it falls at the first policy, as yet most of the prose is unsourced. For the second, it is approaching neutrality, but only because multiple editors have repeatedly removed the cruft and promotional language. As for copyright issues, I haven't yet looked into these, but the fact that (three?) of its images are more up for deletion of Commons, it may not bode well.

However: all is not lost. If Krishendrix78 can be persuaded to cease edit warring over the introduction of unencyclopedic material which is against policy, then the article may eventually look good. But it will do so according to Wikipedia's wishes, not the museum's. ——SerialNumber54129 09:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask you to have a look at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_War_Museum_Duxford

This is considered 'a good article' and it is very similar to my latest edit. Also, most aviation museum wikipedia pages give an overview of aircraft and engines on display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_aviation_museums_in_England My only concern is that I want people to be able to use wikipedia to find about the RAF Museum. They find it important to know what the exhibitions are and what aircraft are on display. This is not about promotion, this is about information. --Krishendrix78 (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Krishendrix78: Please note the instructions regarding your conflict of interest:

Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. Also, COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but propose changes on article talk pages instead.

Please note the bolded section; make your proposed edits to the article here, and experienced editors will advise you whether they are suitable for inclusion. Many thanks, ——SerialNumber54129 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

alright... --Krishendrix78 (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging David Biddulph, Bonadea and Cullen328, experienced editors whose input will be of great help to you. ——SerialNumber54129 10:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)