Talk:Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum

message: I've increased the banner assessments to B-class.  If you agree, please increase the Vital Articles assessment likewise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Remagoxer, courtesy ping in case you didn't see this comment. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: While TBV isn't directly linked to the Vital Articles WikiProject, I've taken a short look over the article and agree that this should be re-assessed as B - therefore, I have done so accordingly. Thanks for your work on this article! Remagoxer (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class?

message: User:Epicgenius:  In the section called "1970s and 1980s", we say that the annex design was 11 stories. Everywhere else we say ten-stories.  Was there a change, or is the 11-story mention just wrong?  Also, in the Architecture section under the Annex heading, we say that Gwathmey analyzed Wright's design but built the tower on "the 1968 wing's steel framework".  Can we say what major differences/similarities there are between the final annex and Wright's original annex design?  Does it have the same dimensions Wright envisioned? Does it still contain the artists' studios, apartments and balconies? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ssilvers, thanks for bringing this up. The annex was originally planned as an 11-story structure, but it was downsized to 10 stories during the planning process due to opposition by residents. I'll add some detail about the annex later, but basically, the 1968 wing was demolished except for the steel framework, and six stories were added on top of the existing frame. The apartments and studios in Wright's design were removed before the museum even opened; the current annex contains galleries and administrative spaces. I don't know if the current annex has the same dimensions as Wright's design. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the change you already made on this. Any further clarification you can make of the major changes to the Annex from Wright to 1968 to present will be much appreciated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Annex

message: We say that the museum "can only show about 300 works at a time", but the source is from 1992.  Is this still true after the Annex was completed and ban exhibiting works? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We also say "620 of the remaining works were designated as part of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Founding Collection".  Do we mean that only 620 of the original collection remains, or that there are more that remain, but only 620 were so designated? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ssilvers, sorry, I did not see this before. In regards to the "620 remaining works" sentence, officials designated 620 works as part of the collection. I'm not sure whether 620 of the original collection remain, in which case all of the original collection would've been designated.In regards to "about 300 works", the source actually says about 6% of the collection (compared to about 3% before the renovation). There were about 5,000 works at the time. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, User:Epicgenius.  Please update if you find a newer source stating how many works can now be displayed since the Annex and other additions were added.  Also, if you ever see further clarification on the 620, please add it.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Collection

message: In the Design section's 2nd paragraph, we have a nice quote by Goldberger about the design.  But the 3rd paragraph under "Impact and retrospective commentary" could use something like it. Anyhow, good job on upgrading the article! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on adding something to the third paragraph of "Impact and retrospective commentary", as that paragraph is mostly a description right now. Also, thanks - hopefully this could be improved further to GA in the future. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact and retrospective commentary

message: I've partially reverted this edit, which updated the attendance while removing large parts of the museum building's description in the lead. The edit summary was , but I have two issues with this.
# The museum's architecture isn't actually mentioned anywhere else in the lead. It is a major enough aspect of the article; the building was given National Historic Landmark and UNESCO World Heritage Site designations, and it is an official city landmark. Furthermore, the building itself is the reason this museum has a separate article from, say, Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation.
# The lead is supposed to summarize the body, per WP:LEAD. In that sense, it intentionally duplicates the body.
Thus, I've restored the description of the architecture. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Epicgenius. I support your revisions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: The foundation began in 1937 but the museum was opened in 1939.  However, the infobox uses the 1937 date. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and changed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this change as well. I think this may be a holdover from a time when the article discussed the foundation at length as well, but the first museum space didn't open till 1939. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incept date