Talk:Columbus Museum of Art

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Columbus Museum of Art updates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: So when did the name change? Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually WP:R#PLA is the relevant policy. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Boldfacing of former name in lede

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  nrhp infobox 

message: * Inside the hidden treasure trove behind the scenes at the Columbus Museum of Art (cached). ɱ (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref to use