This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I propose that Henry Clay Frick House be merged into Frick Collection, as most of the history of the building (1930s until today) coincides with that of the museum. Both articles are short and duplicating information. ELEKHHT 23:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. First the building was built. Then the collection came to it. We have Louvre Palace and Louvre the museum, for example. Gryffindor (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Surely he had most of the collection before he built the house in his 60s? Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected. His collection started first and then he moved it into the house. Another part of his collection is in other museums in Pittsburgh. Gryffindor (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Merge (unlike the Louvre and Palace) this collection is more famous than the house ! DavidAnstiss (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Mild support while the house article is as short as it is. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Oppose - house article is now far longer, & far too long to merge. Indeed it is much fuller than the collection article, which is a pity. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Hudson11377 replaced the lede picture, and I reverted his change. He disputes my reversion, so here we are.
My rationale was this: the editor replaced a color picture of the building in which the Frick Collection is housed with a black-and-white angled close-up of the main entrance. The new image was nice, indeed "artsy", but did not help the reader in identifying the Frick Collection, which is one of the primary purposes of images on Wikipedia - the conveyance of information and identification.Even as a picture of the architectural detail over the entrance it was flawed, in that the "artistic" angle detracted from its informational value.
In my view, all things being equal, there is a heirarchy in image selection:
A high-def image will be preferred over a low-def image
A color image will be preferred over a black-and-white image
A clear image will be preferred over an unfocused image
An image which serves to clearly identify the subject matter will be preferred over one which does not
An image which provides the reader with information -- including in the caption -- will be preferred to one which is vague
An image which is visually interesting will be preferred over one with the same informational value which is not visually arresting
Certainly, there is a subjective part in making even these evaluations, but they are objective standards nonetheless.
In this case, the original image, while straight-forward and perhaps even "boring" from an artistic stand point, is the better lede image. BMK (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I struck out part of my comment above. In looking at Hudson1377's image again I no longer agree with what I originally wrote concerning the image's value as a depiction of architectural detail. BMK (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, here's the thing. Henry Clay Frick House has its own article, longer than this. Both of those belong there. Meanwhile, what with pictures of the building, a map of half of Manhatten, infobox clutter, and a huge table (with no images), there isn't a single image of a painting in this article about a collection of paintings for the first 5 screens, which is totally ridiculous. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree, that makes no sense - so I suggest you start to populate the article with images of some of the paintings in the collection, since there's nothing stopping you from doing so. However, unless you're suggesting that an image of a painting should be the lede image -- which then begs the question, which painting? -- your comment doesn't really help in deciding which is the better image to use in the lede. Or perhaps there's another one? In any case, your complaint, which appears to me to be justified, isn't really relevant to the question being posed here. BMK (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I am suggesting that, and there are plenty of options, and no I'm not going to populate the article, but somebody should. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks, it's always nice to have an opinion from someone who's willing to bitch but unwilling to help fix the problem. BMK (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)