Talk:M Shed

Merge proposal

I strongly oppose the merger proposed by Ajuk with this edit.[1] Obviously, the discussion at Talk:Bristol Industrial Museum#? rename or new article for M shed completely escaped the attention of Ajuk. I note also that a merger banner has not beeen placed on the intended target page and no rationale for the merger has been proposed. Consequently, I shall remove the banner if this is not addressed in 24 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose the merger but without a reason for the merger given I can't say what it is that I actually object to. Without that all I can say is that these are two completely different institutions. The only thing they have in common is that they occupy/occupied some of the same premises. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose One was a museum, one's a web site stuck in an expensive shed. The only purpose I can see to this merge would be to erode the history of the Industrial Museum and pretend that the new M Shed is all that there ever was. This is not a view we should support. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"a web site stuck in an expensive shed" - that's an interesting perspective, care to share? I haven't been down to the M Shed yet but visited the Industrial Museum a few times. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 17:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The BIM had things in it. At its best, which usually meant when the printers were working, you might have a hands-on experience with an industrial device that you couldn't see anywhere else, and in a way that was achievable by only a few museums anywhere. The new place is totally passive - slabs of canned infotainment pop up in front of you. That's your lot, that's all there is. In a world where the ability to deliver pictures to screens is now commonplace in our homes, there is still a place for museums (despite some calls to the contrary), but only if they deliver something that the Web can't do for us just as easily. With the M shed, you might just as well sit at home and download it. There's very little additional to the M shed that you couldn't just watch in this way.

On, and how long could this vast budget have funded Wildscreen for, or brought access to @Bristol down to an affordable price? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have invited Ajuk to post a rationale here. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As no rationale has been forthcoming I have removed the merger tag from the article. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Link update

I just made a change to the URL for the 1st reference to the M-Shed page on the Council website as the existing one was broken - --Jukesie (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

'Championed'

'The dispute was championed by Labour socialist Tony Benn...' I bet it wasn't, though I am prepared to believe that he championed one of the parties in dispute. 86.185.216.32 (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M Shed. 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/20070928121716/http://www.farvis.com/crane.htm to http://www.farvis.com/crane.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)