Talk:Frick Collection/Archive 1

Broken Link
Hello, I note the link in footnote #1 is broken. Mcsorley j (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)mcsorley j

Untitled
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)

Merger proposal
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 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)
 * 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)
 * Support A link makes more sense...Modernist (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede image
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)


 * Absolutely agree with BMK's comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 17:05, 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)
 * I do enough for NY glams already, and the fact that you two have already gone so far in a bald mens' argument over a comb suggests you are best left to it. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, I bet your digital awards case is absolutely overflowing with encomia, you're so caring, and giving and sensitive. BMK (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Board management finance
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)

Expansion Information
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)
 * Can you provide a link to an article on the expansion? I can't seem to find anything. BMK (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are several, the expansion was proposed in 2014 but was then redacted after coming up against opposition to the plan.The Frick Future is the Frick Collection's viewpoint on the expansion, Unite to Save the Frick was the group that coalesced against the expansion as proposed. Finally, here are some articles from the New York Times "Frick Seeks to Expand Beyond Jewel-Box Spaces" and "Frick's Plan for Expansion Faces Fight Over Loss of Garden". There is more and would be happy to cite them if needed. Eveningceremony (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But they dropped that plan, correct? Is there a new one? BMK (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added the info to the "History" section, w/ refs. BMK (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that BMK. Eveningceremony (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005060042/http://www.artinfo.com/galleryguide/22132/8650/about/the-frick-collection-new-york/ to http://www.artinfo.com/galleryguide/22132/8650/about/the-frick-collection-new-york/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)