Talk:Harvard Art Museums

Mergers

There are currently 4 articles:

• Harvard Art Museums
• Fogg Museum
• Arthur M. Sackler Museum
• Busch-Reisinger Museum

None of them were very well-maintained, as evidenced by the fact that I just updated them a year after the opening of the newly renovated and expanded consolidated building by Renzo Piano. Except the Fogg article, the articles are minimal, and all of them need better references. I suggest we follow the lead of Harvard University, and consolidate the separate articles into a single stronger one called "Harvard Art Museums". Reify-tech (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support No need for four articles, particularly as the museums are now in one building instead of three. Note that the Busch-Reisinger Museum article has significant text on it's history. — Lentower (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Lentower above 100%. The three collections have now been consolidated under one roof and there should be a main article that reflects that. They all have the same director, staff, etc. etc. Acmilan10italia (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Definitely not notable enough as single, but together would be much better. RES2773 (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)RES2773
• Support Should be merged into one. It's been consolidated into one major, centralized museum.--Comayagua99 (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Each museum should have its own article. There is certainly enough given the scale of each art collection.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Since the museums are now operating under one name (and in one building), I agree the articles should be merged. At the same time, I think it's important to keep the historical information about the museums (pre-2014 consolidation) that forms the bulk of the content right now. PacificWonderland (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - All operate under the aegis of the same institution, and no one is inherently more notable than the others in this instance. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks like consensus to me. I'm going to start working on these merges.PacificWonderland (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Need coverage of current building and museum services

First, I'd like to thank the Wikipedia editors who completed the merger into the current article. But there still is almost no coverage of the actual functioning of the renovated building, and the museum services and activities it houses. The article should have more details on allocation and use of interior spaces, including the central atrium, walk-through public access from two sides, cafe, lockers, museum store, auditoriums and meeting spaces, temporary and permanent exhibition spaces, Study Gallery, visible conservation labs and pigment archives, viewing of smaller artworks on paper by appointment or walk-in, etc. I have some info about these and will add them as my time and inclination allow, but welcome anybody else to help add this content. Reify-tech (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Almost 5 years later, the above-noted coverage has not yet been added to the article, which remains as Start-class. As I have time and interest, I will work on this, unless somebody else does it first. Reify-tech (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Issue with sources, possible COI

Appear to be many self published sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for details about correcting the sources. Possible history of COI edits on this and related museum pages, noted here in case this continues to be an issue. Jooojay (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox map caption

The caption on the map showing the museums’ location is “location within Boston”. But the location ‘’isn’t’’ within Boston; it’s within Cambridge. The “within Boston” caption seems to be a property of the infobox, not anything that can be edited directly on this page. But is there a way to give it a less misleading caption without screwing up the infobox for every other page it appears on? AJD (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)