![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hello, I note the link in footnote #1 is broken. Mcsorley j ( talk) 17:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)mcsorley j
Dude, WTF is up with the frickin' (no pun intended) big picture at the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.18.111 ( talk) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ELEKHH T 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)
Merge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.251.185 ( talk) 01:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Merge (unlike the Louvre and Palace) this collection is more famous than the house ! DavidAnstiss ( talk) 22:24, 28 October 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:
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)
Closed discussion
|
---|
|
Can somebody please get a 2017 info about the about finance board attendance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The recent news on the Frick Collection expansion proposal is not mentioned in this article. I would like to add it but wonder if it should go here or in the Henry Clay Frick House article, or both. Does anyone have thoughts in this matter? Eveningceremony ( talk) 03:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frick Collection. 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) 01:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hello, I note the link in footnote #1 is broken. Mcsorley j ( talk) 17:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)mcsorley j
Dude, WTF is up with the frickin' (no pun intended) big picture at the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.18.111 ( talk) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ELEKHH T 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)
Merge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.251.185 ( talk) 01:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Merge (unlike the Louvre and Palace) this collection is more famous than the house ! DavidAnstiss ( talk) 22:24, 28 October 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:
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)
Closed discussion
|
---|
|
Can somebody please get a 2017 info about the about finance board attendance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The recent news on the Frick Collection expansion proposal is not mentioned in this article. I would like to add it but wonder if it should go here or in the Henry Clay Frick House article, or both. Does anyone have thoughts in this matter? Eveningceremony ( talk) 03:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frick Collection. 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) 01:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)