Talk:Columbus Museum of Art

Columbus Museum of Art updates

Full disclosure: I am a Columbus Museum of Art staff member, which is why I haven’t made any direct edits to the CMA article. The Museum has had some changes since the article was last updated. The article references our Eye Spy: Adventures in Art space, which closed in 2009 when we began the renovation of our historic Broad Street building. We now have an 18,000 square foot Center for Creativity (which is mentioned in the article) that includes a studio space, our Innovation Lab, Big Idea Gallery, and Wonder Room. This link to the Columbus Dispatch contains more information about the Wonder Room, http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/life_and_entertainment/2014/01/02/museum-renovation-rooted-in-goal-to-inspire-creativity.html

The initiatives that have grown out of the Center for Creativity helped CMA gain recognition as a 2013 Institute of Museum and Library Services National Medal for Museum and Library Services. A list of winners can be found on the IMLS website here: http://www.imls.gov/imls_announces_recipients_of_2013_national_medal_for_museum_and_library_service.aspx

The article also references the Museum being in the planning stages for the final phase of its 50,000 square foot expansion. That final phase began last year (2013) with a groundbreaking ceremony on August 22. The public opening of the new wing and renovated 1974 addition will take place in October, 2015. Here are links to a few news stories about the project.

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/66114#.VFD2xqCOQ4k

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/life_and_entertainment/2014/05/04/1-venues-on-citys-menu.html

http://www.columbusalive.com/content/blogs/thelatest/2013/08/columbus-art-museum-expansion.html

If additional sources are needed before updates can be made, please let me know.

17:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)70.61.245.34 (talk) Nancy

I've crossed out the sources that were obviously not acceptable at a glance. Generally we shouldn't be using blogs and primary sources. Regarding the rest, Request Edit is for proposing specific edits. If you could propose some specific article-text and ping me on my Talk page, I will get back to you right away, so you don't have to wait in the queue again. CorporateM (Talk) 08:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Gallery

@Randy Kryn: and anyone else interested: article galleries are meant to be short and concise (WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:GALLERY). For this reason, you'd be hard-pressed to find an FA with a gallery at all, and if it did, most have five or ten images at the max. Wikimedia Commons has lovely gallery space and category space you can create, which could hold really as many relevant collections as possible.

But no, selections of artwork don't need to include every single notable painter's work in the collection. Over half of my computer screen shows the gallery, something explicitly discouraged in WP:GALLERY. Don't get me started on reading the article in the mobile view, it's even worse. ɱ (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Art museums, such as this page on a prominent museum, are defined by their collection. After a trimming there are only 33 gallery images left, not at all excessive for a prominent art museum gallery. The gallery presents a concise descriptor. None of the galleries images have articles (I moved the articled image out of the gallery into text), so this is likely their main appearance on Wikipedia. Personally, I edit Wikipedia, not Commons, and realize that the point of view of some Commons editors who add to that sister project collection may approach art museum galleries as duplicating existing images. But Wikipedia is the project almost all readers go to for information (I have never met anyone outside of Wikipedia who knows what Commons is), and it is Wikipedia where we present topics to the vast majority of readers. Art articles have been purged of Commons images before, mostly for copyright and not excessive images, so please understand that some art editors may be sensitive to image removal. I'll ping one of Wikipedia's respected art editors, Johnbod, to see if their take on this can agree with one of our viewpoints, and maybe they will even trim the gallery a bit more or leave it as is. Bottom line though, what the Columbus Museum of Art probably needs, and the best possible result, is a wikipedian-in-residence to work up articles to go with these images. Thanks for your constructive text edits and for putting needed attention on this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

p.s. left a note on the visual arts wikiproject page as well, as my bias is for good-size and inclusive galleries on art pages being used as important descriptors, so some of the experienced editors who work on visual arts pages may set me straight. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I fully disagree: an art museum is a cultural institution with programming and exhibitions, and in this case, situated in a historic/architecturally important building. The permanent collections are not significant enough to warrant half of the article space, and it plainly violates the WP:GALLERY policy.

It's not an excuse that you don't know any outsiders familiar with Commons. If you need to place a Commons category or gallery tag higher up on the article than the EL section, that's allowed. People will see that Commons has images related to the topic; that's all that matters. ɱ (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

M-thingy, you clearly haven't looked at many FAs on visual subjects, most of which have galleries, nor read the policies you quote very carefully. Nor museum articles in general, the better examples of which mostly give massively more than half the article to the collections, as they should. The article text is pretty short, and should be expanded in all areas, but especially the collections. You seem to be local, but as far as the world outside Columbus is concerned, the collections are really the only interesting thing about the museum. The gallery is a little long, but well-captioned, & with a good choice of images. Personally, I'd be inclined to use something other than the Monet in the main text, especially as it is so vertical. As it is, the article contains not a word describing the "historic/architecturally important building". Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the insult. I have; you may be looking at old FAs when poorer standards abounded. What about the policies lets galleries over half the size of the article, not even mentioned in the text, nor concise whatsoever, exist in an article like this? And I frankly don't care at all if C-class-type museum articles have crufty annals of their collections. Per policy they should have concise galleries of a few selected works, not taking up a majority of the article. And sure I'm local now but I lived in New York most of my life, among many other states. ɱ (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm looking at recent ones, many of which I participated in. I'm afraid this just doesn't seem to be an area you are familiar with (or very interested in). The gallery would be better split up into mini-galleries, in between sections of text on that part of the collection. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at this old version - some of the text on the collection & display style has actually been removed since then, I don't know why. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(EC!) I do edit a great many articles on cultural institutions, historical buildings, landmarks, etc. Not as many on art museums; I take it the ones I have looked at aren't so atrocious in that half of the article shows dozens of (all 20th c. and prior) art. ɱ (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

But, yes, thank you, per policies and guidelines the collection highlights (if you insist on keeping all of them) must be split into different galleries with relevant text around them. ɱ (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of New York, significant art institutions include the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Museum of Modern Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Whitney Museum of American Art, Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum, New Museum, American Folk Art Museum, Rubin Museum of Art, Leslie-Lohman Museum of Art, Museum of Arts and Design, and the Met Breuer. Am I missing any other major ones? Anyhow, my point is, the only article here that has anything resembling an obscenely long gallery is the Met, which I understand given it's the largest in the US, third most trafficked in the world. And even then, the gallery is probably only a quarter the size of the full article, so it is appropriate in scale. ɱ (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I've never heard of some of these but I have heard of The Cloisters, made FA in 2018, which shows an excellent balance on the collection vs the rest. It could do with some galleries though, despite lots of images. The ones you mention are neglected articles, especially the dire Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum - they have recently released a five-figure number of very good images to Commons (not well-categorized, so very difficult to look around). That article badly needs a large number of decent images. Thank you for reminding me. MOMA Guggenheim, & Leslie-Lohman Museum of Art (no images on Commons really) have copyright issues, & I believe the Breuer displays change rapidly. Rubin Museum of Art is an excellent example of how not to do a museum arrticle - appalling. It doesn't even have a section on the collection. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes the Cloisters appears to be only one of two art museums that are FAs, both of which lack collection galleries whatsoever. There's probably a reason for that... Please do not add large collection galleries to it or Cooper Hewitt; you may experience resistance there as well. And MoMA and Guggenheim both still show a great deal of their collections, just not in an absurdly long and disproportionate gallery like we have here. ɱ (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the reason is that they have lots of text, and can fit lots of images in it. That is the solution here. These has been about 3x as much text added to talk here today as the entire article has. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Another problem with this article is that the infobox is too long, and includes dubious, unreferenced, information. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not the reason as much as the fact that any galleries whatsoever are discouraged on Wikipedia, period. All of the collections images from the Cloisters together wouldn't be nearly as many as what we have/had here. And okay, if you see problems with the infobox, go ahead and fix them. ɱ (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it is the reason. You said "article galleries are meant to be short and concise (WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:GALLERY)". You really need to actually read those policies. You will see the first is not relevant at all here - "gallery-only" articles used to be a menace say 12 years ago - and the other just doesn't say what you seem to think. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(←) And so you further insult me - I've read them. "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article." "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images." "Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted." The second is the most-cited instance for removing galleries. Articles are not meant to be image repositories; they should not have over 1/2 of the page display images. That is the case here, that is the policy it is violating, that you ignore. Where are your supporting policies, that half an article can be photos, that galleries don't need to be concise? It's pretty clearly the opposite with mine. ɱ (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are many people who continue to misread these policies, & there have been many discussions on the subject, prwetty much all with thye same result; "they should not have over 1/2 of the page display images" is your arbitary invention. If an article has lots of text, but no pictures (when it is a visual subject, & many are available) the solution is not to remove text, but to add pictures. The same in reverse applies here. The problem with the article is it has far too little text. The gallery here is "well-crafted" - "well-captioned, & with a good choice of images" I said above. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

We're clearly never going to agree, but it is a far bigger gallery than many more important museums in New York and elsewhere have. It's in the policies too, so your insistence in its being "well-crafted" is useless here. We clearly need to ask others' advice or look at precedents/past discussions. ɱ (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's a past discussion at Talk:Claude Monet. There were 75 images in galleries; a heated discussion ensued after an editor tried reducing the number to 40, and in search of a consensus we ended up with 50-something. The gallery in this CMA article seems reasonable to me. We could lose a Renoir, a Cassatt, a Kirchner, and a Hartley, who have two apiece. Ewulp (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a very different context, and six years ago. Of course the article on a famous painter should include a wide variety of their works over time, and their many, many very notable works. An article on an art museum should include a few notable works, but should also highlight the building, historical views, and more modern works, events, and exhibitions. What's especially wrong with this is it has 33 images, and yet the newest artwork here is 100 years old. This is not a good selection of the museum's collection, by any means. ɱ (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The argument was the same six years ago, and the MOS regarding galleries in 2013 had the same language you've quoted. Here it is from Aug 17, 2013: "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–75 in Western fashion for an example of a good use of galleries. However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons ... Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images." So the MOS hasn't changed. If, as you say, an article on an artist should naturally have many images to demonstrate "a wide variety of their works over time" ... doesn't CMA contain a wider variety of works over a much greater span of time? The images in our gallery range from 1635 to 1920.

Copyright is the reason most art-related articles lack modern examples. This is why our article on Pablo Picasso, who was prolific right up until his death in 1973, has more than 30 works dated 1921 or earlier, but only three examples from the last 52 years of his life. Matisse (1869–1954) has no images after 1921. We can use Kandinskys from the 1930s and 40s because he died more than 70 years ago. Ewulp (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, well first off, you shouldn't even reference the RfC at Talk:Claude Monet. It closed with "no clear consensus", so no, it's not a good precedent for how we should act. And also, you listed the MOS/policy rules, so how are you okay with blatantly contradicting them? A large swath of 100 y.o.+ paintings in the collection is almost as not representative of the museum as a whole as the few Van Goghs that hang in the New York Museum of Modern Art. It's not an excuse that newer works are not often freely licensed. If you can't create anything resembling a comprehensive, well balanced gallery of collections, you'd be better off giving an external link to a webpage that does. ɱ (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

First: The article does have an external link to CMA's webpage. Second: You've already agreed it is "of course" appropriate to show a large number of images in the Monet gallery, so that's settled, just as it was in the RfC.

Up the page you gave your approval to the MoMA and Guggenheim articles: "both still show a great deal of their collections, just not in an absurdly long and disproportionate gallery like we have here". But now you say those galleries should be eliminated because nothing later than 1922 can be shown? Ewulp (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

An EL to the general website is different from an EL directly showing collection highlights (whether official or not). Also I said that it was appropriate for Claude Monet's article, among the most famous painters, not for a small city museum, especially where half the page is images. As for MoMA and Guggenheim, I was judging the sizes of the galleries, like with Met Breuer. I disagree with the collections they show (Especially MoMA and Met Breuer, I personally added some images that I now realize do not exemplify what is typically on view, and should be largely removed). ɱ (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it that small? I don't know, because one of the normal basic facts the article omits is the size of the collection by major categories. The collection, as shown by the gallery, is probably at least as good at OM paintings as many museums one would call "mid-sized". You live there, and obviously have an interest in it. If you had used half the energy expended on this page writing article text, the gallery would be much less than your arbitary & personal benchmark of "half the article". Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(←) The city is small, but yes the museum is smaller and with a smaller collection than Cincinnati and Cleveland. And I’ve been a little dissuaded from further improving this article right now, given that my edits are being scrutinized so much here... ɱ (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Boldfacing of former name in lede

I'd boldfaced Columbus Gallery of Fine Arts, and it has been good faith reverted twice. This seems like an obvious boldface. It highlights the original and historical name of the museum as well as the name used by the National Register of Historic Places listings in Columbus, Ohio when the building was placed on the National Register in 1992. Either of these reasons seem worthy of the name being boldfaced, and combined seem to make a good case for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It redirects here, which is the primary reason for bolding terms. The article is vague on when the name changed, but it clearly was after 1992 - perhaps in 2007 - and references to the old name will be still be around in books etc. So it should be bolded. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Original/historical names really need not be boldfaced. The policy is to prevent clutter - only the first mention of the name should be boldfaced. I write FAs and GAs; this wouldn't fly. People can read it in the lede; it's really not important enough to be bolded. Put it in the NRHP infobox; it gets bolded there. ɱ (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

And no Johnbod, the NRHP nomination even uses "Columbus Museum of Art" too, so it's clear they used an antiquated name just to specify it's that building created with that name attached. ɱ (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

So when did the name change? Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

41 years ago. That's history, sorry. Read MOS:BOLD and MOS:LEADALT, historical names, not actively used, are not included. ɱ (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually WP:R#PLA is the relevant policy. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not. "The Center for Creativity", "Columbus Art Museum", and "Columbus museum of art" all redirect here too. I highly doubt anyone has ever searched for the Center for Creativity or the CGFA when looking for the CMA; the CAM and lowercase CMA redirects are likely used far more. ɱ (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Per the policy, "insignificant or minor redirects can skip this". The name of the institution 41 years ago is not a significant/highly trafficked redirect by any means. ɱ (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Except it's not insignificant or minor, it was the name of the place for 100 years, until 1978. I've got socks older than 1978 (as the saying goes). And it's a major name on the National Register of Historic Places. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people alive in Columbus and Ohio who remember the name. Seems like a silly argument to have, but boldfacing does seem the way to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It is currently a minor former name. I don't care about your old socks (throw them out). Check out Google Trends here. In both the US and worldwide, it's a dead term. It's used on the NRHP nomination just to clarify the building, but it includes the alternate CMA name. There is no policy or guideline outlining the use of former/historical names in bold. Bolding is tacky and distracting, and per policies, should only be used for important alternative names. Per Google Trends, that name is long since expired. ɱ (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Meia.png

Sock from 1977, as good as new

Are we seriously working towards a site-wide RfC on such a minor thing? Will try again: Columbus Gallery of Fine Arts was the museum's founding name and was used as its name for 100 years (not trivial, not minor, 100 years). It was only changed in 1978 (there are hundreds of thousands of people in Ohio who likely remember the name and many other thousands of people in the art world), and it is the name used when this building was added to the National Register of Historic Places. It is probably not used now, but this is an encyclopedia, not a tourist guide. As an encyclopedia it presents the history of the items it covers. The name Columbus Gallery of Fine Arts is historically connected to this building. Bolding indicates alternate names, historic names, and names which are importantly associated with a topic. This is one (founding name, name for 100 years, name important enough to be listed on the National Register, etc.). You say bolding is "tacky" and "distracting", so WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems relevant, although it is an essay. As of this point there are two editors favoring boldfacing and one opposed. If this doesn't change within the next week, or if an RfC isn't opened, will boldface it again. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(←) Russia was known as the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Russian SFSR, Soviet Russia) until 1991, far later than this museum. Probably the majority of people alive today were alive when it was around, yet do we boldface that historical name? No, because organizations change, historical names become obsolete and reflect antiquated ideas. The museum is no longer a "gallery", as it collects art like a museum, it is no longer just for "fine arts", because it includes modern conceptual, performance, and other nontraditional forms of art, and likely didn't want to be constricted by that term. Also, the old name correlates to the 1931 structure (as the nomination indicates as well), so bolding it as if it applies to the whole museum today (about half of the gallery space is in the new wing constructed long past 1978) is misleading. ɱ (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• I must say I can't get as engaged on this pretty trivial point as much as either of you. Personally I think bolding is justified, but .... What the article needs is expansion, on the collection, maybe the significant donors, and the allegedly architecturally and historically important buildings, about which not one word is currently said, beyond their dates. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. ɱ (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod knows of what he speaks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Not so sure the same can be said of ɱ, the waste of time here going over the same points over and over is appalling. I remember from and old FAC, M, that you were a then a paid editor of some kind, and whose first reaction on discovery was to ban those who uncovered the fact. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I remember you as being an extremely nutty reviewer of two of my FACs, completely irrational behavior. And yes, I've disclosed what I did several years ago, great. I don't have any banning power, so you're just trying to attack me here, thanks. Who asked you to come in here and randomly insult me? ɱ (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Pretty poor way to think of me when I've been here 10 years, have tens of thousands of volunteer edits, numerous FAs and GAs, tens of thousands of photos uploaded to Commons, and I've hosted/organized many Wiki meetups and attended a great many more. ɱ (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I treat you as you appear first hand. All the above is pretty ntagonistic, and reinforces first impressions. Now you are a time waster also; shouldn't that be addressed? Its all rather tedious and boring. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm upset that you ignore the good I do and simply come here to insult me. Can you blame me? ɱ (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Start treating others with respect, know what you are talking about before you blatter, and you'll find life easier. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop insulting me (you're still doing it), treat me with respect, and you'll also find life easier. ɱ (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't get it. Don't you know about editor retention? Do you not care how you talk to other people? ɱ (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Man, you are the one screaming at people up and down this page. Some self awareness please. Respect is earned. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't even know how to reply to this. What I do know is that you have not been constructive on this article talk page yet. ɱ (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You can take me as representing a consensus on tedious matter you are perusing, including galleys. In case its not obvious you are coming across as a light weight crank. Waht else can I say...that everybody else here has just been chuffed with your belligerence? Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, all, let's stick to the edits and not namecalling, and assume good faith. The overall effect of these discussions will be to improve the page. If improved even a little, then discussions have been worth their virtual weight in virtual gold. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

nrhp infobox

|refnum= must be a valid NRHP format refnum; if not the template flags an error and puts the article into Category:NRHP infobox needing cleanup. This is the way the template is designed. What do you mean it fixes the link? MB 23:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I get how y’all may like how Infobox NRHP is designed so that anything anywhere outside the norm goes into a little error category which you all act like it’s policy. I’ve had issues with it before. In this case, the ‘official link’ doesn’t have the nomination form digitized, but the National Archives (what the NRHP is officially moving to using) does. I changed the link to the latter so you can actually view the form, so it should not be considered an error. If you still object to it, I’ll switch to the more flexible Infobox historic site, like I’ve had to on other occasions. ɱ (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There have been many discussions about this at WP:NRHP and Template talk:NRISref but no change has been implemented. If you have a supplemental ref to the NRHP nomination form, just add it to the article. This is highly encouraged. If fact, there is a whole tracking category to flag NRHP articles that only reference the NRIS (Category:Articles sourced only to NRIS). MB 13:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ref to use

• Inside the hidden treasure trove behind the scenes at the Columbus Museum of Art (cached). ɱ (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)