 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There are two broken links in the image gallery. I'm not sure how to fix them, or if they should be deleted. Tyrenius 19:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does someone have a better picture than the one in there at the moment? It's focus is more on the foreground than the Tate in the background. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThirteenthGreg (talk • contribs) .
Note that the current 2003 photo is now out of date, as the 2016-built Switch House is conspicuously absent. I can't see any replacement photos on Commons however. --Gapfall (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vicente Todoli is Director of Tate Modern. Serota is Director of the Tate Gallery that includes Tate Modern.
A bunch of IP editors are adding a non-notable art stunt to the list of Turbine Hall exhibitions in the Unilever series. I am removing this as spam and vandalism. The table is only for official exhibitions. Even if the stunt was notable (i.e. covered by RS sources not just by a few blogs) it would only merit a footnote and not inclusion in the table. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are the western block and the tower the same thing? They're under different headings and perhaps need merging. Also the location of the section about the chimney suggests it's part of the extension whereas I thought it was original. (I don't know nearly enough about Tate Modern to edit the article directly.) Rb (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I put back the bit about the floors getting renumbered because I remember it happening but it is unsourced, and we should try to source it if we are going to keep it. The reason it is possibly worth keeping is that sources before and after the renumbering will refer to the floors differently and that could be confusing without saying what happened. I don't have source, although I guess it could be inferred by comparing visitor maps from before and after the change. I very much doubt that they put out a press release about it. I think I remember this happening about the time The Tanks were open. I guess the idea was to make them sound more subterranean by calling that level "level 0". There is some sense to it. The main entrance takes you down a slope to level 0 but all the other entrances put you on level 1. I'm not sure about the new building but I expect it will also have level 1 as its entrance level. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just received the booklet for the opening of the new building. The way they talk about the building is changing and I think we should adopt the new terminology:
The new names seem to have slipped out without much notice a while ago. Here is an example we can use as a reference while waiting for the flood of coverage once it opens: [3].
The chimney does not seem to feature in the extension work at all and we should probably move that out of the Extension Project section although it should be included somewhere.
There is also going to be a complete rehang in both buildings. I guess we want to update the article to cover that. It would be nice to keep a little info about what the old sections were, briefly tracking how they changed since 2000, but the focus should be on the very soon to be current arrangement.
Here is what I can gather about the rehang, taken from the new Members booklet although we won't really be able to say much about what a lot of this stuff actually is until the press get to review it:
Boiler House - "Four Approaches to Modern Art":
Switch House "How Art Became Active":
--DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tate Modern. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To whoever looks after this page.
I have a note here in the Centenary Brochure of Hillier Parker May & Rowden, surveyors, published 1998. It says, Hillier Parker's involvement was:
"Nuclear Electric Plc (now Magnox Electric Plc.) Planning advice leading to a change of use of Bankside Power Station to facilitate the new Tate Gallery of Modern Art."
It looks like this means that before it was taken over as an art gallery, it used to belong to Nuclear Electric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philjones573 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To would be helpful to include some coverage of notable exhibitions at the Tate Modern, eg. Major Retrospectives, with citations to reviews. They are always reviewed national newspapers and sometimes internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerulean Air (talk • contribs) 17:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tate Modern. 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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone watching this page please read through the "Turbine Hall" section in this version and then this version. The first is much clearer, right?
I recently rearranged some of the text so that everything about the "Unilever series" is explained and mentioned first, before the table. I don't even particularly care about this article, but the reason I went to the effort to try and improve it is that the section was poorly arranged: it reeked of different editors disjointedly adding things over several years. I also fixed the images so that they vertically follow each other and fill the white space next to the table. @Coldcreation: has reverted me twice - the first without any explanation at all, and the second saying vaguely "Clearer before. Restored multiple image". I'd love to know how you think the previous version was clearer. Did you actually read the two versions?
Sorry to come on a bit aggressive but this sort of action on WP really annoys me. I'm almost sure it's because it's assumed I'm just a pointless, useless IP editor. As it happens, I used to be a regular here and have even written FAs, but for this reason I also know how IPs are treated like crap. If I was just a new, naive editor, clearly trying to help and with good intentions, this reverting would have been incredibly off-putting. Coldcreation, keep that in mind. You need to clarify with editors who are making an effort - any editors - what your issues are without practically edit-warring.
I admit I didn't put an edit summary myself, I should have, but that doesn't mean it deserved a blanker revert as if I were a vandal.
The two footnoted links I clicked (#28 & 29, currently), in search of a list of past exhibitions, are both broken. 2603:6080:6440:D2E:38A8:64B3:A606:7177 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500 (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
