Talk:Green Collection

Requested move 3 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: not moved. There does however seem to be consensus for a split. Andrewa (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Green Collection → Museum of the Bible – Not only is this the Museum's official name, but Wikipedia policy as I understand it to follow news sources. News sources appear now to be overwhelmingly referring to the Museum  as the Museum of the Bible. Google news search:  Green Collection turns this up in a news search:  E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that it appears to be usual on Wikipedia to call proposed museums by name, even ones that are not yet built. I did not even occur to me to call the Museum of the American Arts and Crafts Movement, which, like the Museum of the Bible has recently broken ground, by the name of the Two Red Roses Foundation which currently holds the collection that will fill the museum.  It was only when I went to make qhat I thought was an obviously needed title change on the Museum of the Bible that I ran into a problem.  A fairly unique problem.  It turns out that there are many articles on museums like the National Museum of the American People which may never be built, and The Boston Museum, which certainly never will. Look at Proposed museums in the United States   Museums on Wikipedia seem to get the names their founders give them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose at least; not until the new museum opens. 'Museum of the Bible' is a very unspecific name, and I rather hope they hit on something a bit more distictive.  The Amsterdam Bijbels Museum, for instance, has been translated as 'Museum of the Bible' in the past.  http://www.bijbelsmuseum.nl/en/biblical-museum . TomHennell (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like they're pretty committed to the name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe so; but the opening is still some two years away. Meanwhile the Green Collection exists and grows; and academics (and interested members of the general public) need to refer to it, as in http://www.brill.com/news/brill-publish-new-papyrus-series-green-collection.  Moreover, some (maybe most) of the really interesting items in the Green Collection are not biblical at all. See: http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/Fragments/SCS.Sappho.2015.Obbink.paper.pdf .  These freshly discovered Sappho poems are in the Green Collection, but will they be housed in the 'Museum of the Bible"?  Somehow I doubt it. I think the Museum - when it comes - will need a separate entry of its own. TomHennell (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think 2 separate pages should be created now?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not; if you are confident of the name. TomHennell (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The name is well-supported. But, do you think there is enough notability in the Green Collection to warrant a separate page?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly; the Obbink paper is about as notable as you can get. It dates from only a month ago, it represents a major discovery in classical literature, and it clearly references "The Green Collection" as such - with no mention of "The Museum of the Bible". Any discussion of recent discoveries in Sappho, is likely to reference these poems to the Green Collection - who apparently hold the re-sold smaller fragments, though not the major portion of the original scroll. It is possible that the 'Museum of the Bible' will find room for a gallery devoted to Sapphic verse; but I think it more likely that the papyri will stay in Olklahoma. TomHennell (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support either Museum of the Bible or Museum of the Bible, Oklahoma if there is another location named something like "Bible Museum".  GregKaye 23:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose the collection itself is different from the museum being built to house it. Instead SPLIT the article on the collection itself should be separate from the article on the museum -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 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.