Talk:Art Gallery of Ontario

Choice of photographs

If the entrance is "seldom used" followed by a lesser used fire escape, why is this the most prominent photograph in the article?

Changes "would destroy several galleries"

This seem POV, and is certainly unclear. What is actually meant? That several exhibition chambers would be removed, I presume. But would new ones be provided? Would the items there go into storage or be distributed into other rooms? Is there anything special about those chambers? Mr. Jones 10:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outdated

Some of the information and all of the visible photographs of the AGO are outdated. There could be more information about the many galleries as well.

It is definitely outdated. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Information

There is not much information on this site and I would like to see someone come on and place more information on here because I myself am not very good at putting information on sites and what to put on them. If I was to think of going to this gallery I would not know much about it before I got there and may not even want to go. 71.117.182.142 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

10th largest art museum in North America?

The reference given for this ([1]) doesn't seem to support the 10th largest claim. (If anything, I would guess the AGO is now higher up the list.) Can anyone explain? Am I missing something? Robertbyrne (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No response, so I have removed the 10th largest claim. If you have a good reference, please put a reference to the relative size ranking (North America or otherwise) back into the article. Robertbyrne (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Mostly unreferenced

The article keeps expanding (good), but the expansions do not appear to be sourced in accordance with WP:V and WP:OR (bad). The "Transformation AGO" is the only section to be meaningfully referenced. Presumably, sections such as "History" and "Permanent Collection" would not be that difficult to appropriately reference. If I find time in the next few months, I will take a crack at adding references to those sections that are devoid of cites. In the meantime, to anyone expanding article, please add references as you go. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you draw it to the attention of the contributor who has added the information. I have noticed a slight lack of Wikipedia awareness in other edits and they may benefit from mentoring. As a newbie they also may not have this on a watch list. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Collection of Canadian art

AGO article: "Significant collections include the largest collection of Canadian art"

National Gallery of Canada article: "The Canadian collection, the most comprehensive in Canada ..."

Is this contradictory? Torontonian1 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

To me that means that the AGO would be the largest in quantity and the NG has more complete coverage in the quality of its content. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Separate article instead of image gallery

@Leventio:

It would be great if there were a separate article for notable works of art in the AGO's collection instead of an image gallery in the main article.

This would reduce clutter, as well as showcasing them with descriptions. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 12:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Gallery makes mobile view a scrolling nightmare. Makes the page overwhelming long that will lead to loss of readers. This is why we have guidelines for just this.--Moxy (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The outlines in the MoS do allow for the use of image galleries should if they assist in conveying article (and most articles regarding art galleries incorporate image galleries). I also wouldn't recommend a article split, as the article (gallery included) isn't something that Wiki's MoS considers long. Generaly, the MoS recommends article splits when the article's readable prose goes past 60-100kb (in contrast, the combined size of this article, both readable and hidden, is 40kb). I did emphasize with the clutter sentiment, so I actually edited out the works that didn't have specific Wikipedia articles about them as a compromise (it effectively reduces the gallery size by 40-50%). That said, @Coldcreation: reverted that edit to restore the larger gallery, so you may also want to ask him about it. Leventio (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, works such as the 1915 Modigliani, the c.1621 Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the Picasso of 1902-03, the Gauguin of 1893–94, are all notable artworks (clutter perhaps for others), with or without Wikipedia articles. That is why I restored them back into the article. Note, by definition, the Art Gallery of Ontario is a place where people go to see artworks (just as Museum of Modern Art, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Art Institute of Chicago, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and other museum articles, such as the Louvre, Uffizi, Hermitage Museum). Nothing speaks better than seeing a selection of works in the collection. It is unfortunate for mobile telephone users that they have to scroll down a lot, but for those on iPads, laptops and desktops that problem is virtually nonexistent. This gallery is by no means large (like those of the The Met article), nor small like Vatican Museums gallery section. It is just about right. Coldcreation (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would we want 50 percent of our readers to have such problems....article split is a good idea. Real need to think of the 50 percent of views by mobile devices.--Moxy (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we list the pros and cons of article split? I would rarely use a mobile view if I was interested in taking in as much as possible of the experience of viewing for instance a painting, but I might use a mobile view just to get a gist of what a work of art is all about. I consider the idea of separate articles just for images of artwork to be a potentially good idea. Switching between articles on a desktop is effortless. But I think it is a little more cumbersome on a small mobile phone's display, but as I say, I generally would avoid viewing art on a phone, if a lager device were available. What other pros and cons am I failing to consider? Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Subdivisions work better...Modernist (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a good idea; divide the gallery into smaller groups (subdivisions), as in the Claude Monet article. Coldcreation (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That is an excellent compromise. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with this. The lower sections of the article have no pics and some could be spread there. There is a case for not including the Durer print, which most big museum collections will have, but also one for including it, as prints tend to be neglected in our article. Johnbod (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, if we are concerned with space, the Durer could be removed. As great as Durer is, that image is likely to have been seen by most. The Chardin would benefit from a better presentation, probably taking up more space and including more detail. While it is just opinion, Chardin warrants this showcasing. Bus stop (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of Albrecht Dürer, as much as I enjoy his work. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)