Jump to content

Talk:Indianapolis Museum of Art

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleIndianapolis Museum of Art has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 24, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Work on the first floor

[edit]

There is a small painting on the first floor that has a group of ladies in a shop looking at paintings that are all based on works by the same artist. Does anyone know what the artists and title of this painting are? I can't find it on the website, and I no longer live in the area to see for myself. --Scottandrewhutchins 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art at the Indianapolis Museum of Art

[edit]

This event is scheduled for February, but preparations should start sooner. I suggest if you want to participate you folks form an ad-hoc committee and get in touch with the museum people. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

split proposal

[edit]

I propose splitting out the section on Oldfields to a separate article. It is NRHP-listed and further is a U.S. National Historic Landmark and there is extensive documentation available to expand the material. Currently Oldfields redirects to the "Indanapolis Museum of Art". Readers arriving from clicking on links to Oldfields currently find themselves without explanation at IMA article, which has no upfront mention of the NRHP / NHL. doncram (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article revamp

[edit]

This article was recently overhauled. Any thoughts are welcome. I will state that I updated certain portions that were recently cut down significantly, due to the fact that some edits altered the meaning of the sentence (diff) or removed pertinent information (diff) & (diff). I do want to make sure that these edits are neutral, and understand that my original phrasing may not have been. Once again, thoughts are welcome and I appreciate the dialogue! HstryQT (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geohack

[edit]

I added the latitude and longitude to the info box - could someone who knows how add a Geohack tag? Or I'll figure it out at some point. - PKM (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Anderson has left

[edit]

Hi everyone. Max Anderson is no longer the CEO of the IMA. He has now at the Dallas Museum of Art.[1][2][3] Sarah (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indianapolis Museum of Art. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indianapolis Museum of Art. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indianapolis Museum of Art. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move Article to Newfields

[edit]

I believe it is time to change the name of this article to "Newfields". Newfields is the name used for the website, the large sign at the intersection of 4000 N. Michigan Road and W. 38th Street, and is how the specific place is referred to as in most articles

The beginning sentence would now read:

Newfields is a 152-acre (0.62 km2) campus that houses the Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA), an encyclopedic art museum. It is located at the the corner of 4000 N. Michigan Road and W. 38th Street, near downtown Indianapolis, northwest of Crown Hill Cemetery. Newfields also houses the Lilly House, The Garden, The Virginia B. Fairbanks Art & Nature Park: 100 Acres, the Beer Garden, and more.

I was hoping to make sure there is no large objections to this move.

I'm not sure that is the best way to handle it. As I understand it, Newfields is the name for the entire complex, of which IMA is a part, just like Oldfields and the other components (all of which have separate articles). It seems to me it would be better to create a new article for Newfields discussing the complex as a whole, and move the material in this article that is not directly connected with the IMA to it. In addition, the article names possibly could be changed by appending "at Newfields" it each, although I'm not sure that would be necessary. Indyguy (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of "at Newfields", I think we can get away with just adding it to the first sentence, since the WP:COMMONNAME would be their current titles. I wanted to see what splitting up the articles would look like, and in doing so, I've come across a pretty big issue. All history and initiatives taken by the organization were previously said to that of the IMA. The history in particular of Newfields is that of the IMA. The organization just outgrew the name of "Indianapolis Museum of Art" and needed a banner for the entire campus. While Newfields refers to the campus, it also refers to the actions of it's board members and leadership, which would have previously been referred to as the board members and leadership of the IMA, making the IMA bigger than just a part of the campus like Oldfields. Because of this, Newfields absolutely has to have the history of the IMA in the article, as that is the correct logical progression of the entity. However, it would seem strange to have an IMA article without the history of the IMA, so we would have to have severe overlap in both articles. In my mind, this leads me to the conclusion that we should have Newfields be the name of the article, with the IMA continuing to be a part of the main article. You can find my very very rough draft for Newfields (if we find it necessary to split the articles) here. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at their tax returns we can see that Indianapolis Museum of Arts is still the legal name of the company, and they are "doing business as" Newfields. To that point, I believe the intro paragraph should read:

Newfields is a 152-acre (0.62 km2) campus that houses the Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA), Lilly House, The Garden, The Virginia B. Fairbanks Art & Nature Park: 100 Acres, the Beer Garden, and more. It is located at the the corner of North Michigan Road and West 38th Street, near downtown Indianapolis, northwest of Crown Hill Cemetery. There are exhibitions, classes, tours, and events, many of which change seasonally. The entire campus was previously referred to as the Indianapolis Museum of Art, but in 2017 the campus and organization were renamed to "Newfields" to better reflect the breadth of offerings and venues. The "Indianapolis Museum of Art" now specifically refers to the main art museum building, as well as the legal name of the organization doing business as Newfields.[1]


I have largely updated the article to include Newfields where it is needed. As there haven't been any follow ups by the one dissent (albeit no other supporters either), I'm going to go ahead and request a move for the article today. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "2018 Form 990 Tax Return" (PDF). Newfields. Retrieved 2 October 2019.
[edit]

On October 2, 2019, a copyright violation notice was incorrectly brought against Draft:Newfields, claiming the text was copied from here. The draft for Newfields was copied from the Indianapolis Museum of Art as discussed here. I looked back at the latest revision before the article in question was published on 3/23/2016, and found that the Wikipedia text predates the ArchiTravel article . In fact, the text was first introduced in 2011 with this edit that completely overhauled the article. Please note that there was no copyright violation on my or anyone on Wikipedia's part in this instance and make sure the current version of the text in question goes undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebral726 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 October 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Indianapolis Museum of Art → Newfields – Newfields is the name used for the website, the large sign at the intersection of N. Michigan Road and W. 38th Street, and is how the specific place is referred to as in recent articles Also, looking at their tax returns we can see that "Indianapolis Museum of Art" is still the legal name of the company, and they are d/b/a Newfields. This indicates this is a WP:NAMECHANGES, not just a new name for the entire complex. The organization has changed its name, even if the IMA is still the name for the museum proper. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change to "Newfields", as it conflicts with the town of Newfields, New Hampshire. "Newfields" should become a disambiguation page, and the museum article should have a unique name, such as "Newfields (museum)", or whatever you feel most succinctly distinguishes the subject from other places. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to go that direction, I believe that "Newfields (museum campus)" would be the best option, as the entire campus is referred to as Newfields, while the museum building itself is the Indianapolis Museum of Art. However, I think that Newfields would count as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Googling Newfields shows only results relating to the campus and an engineering firm on the first page. Also, "Indianapolis Museum of Art" gives 20+ million results, while "Newfields New Hampshire" gives ~550,000 results and the IMA Wikipedia article received almost 5 times the number of page views this year. Finally, I know this may be apples to oranges, but Newfields, NH has a population of 1,680 people, compared to the IMA having an attendance of 397,163 in 2014 (which has only gone up since then). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebral726 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the common and still the actual name for this museum is the Indianapolis Museum of Art [EDIT: although Indianapolis Museum of Art (Newfields) covers it all, per discussion below]. One of the major art museums in Midwest America. It seems Newfields is the larger area which encompasses several buildings and sites. This article is about the museum, not the overall "campus". I'd suggest a split off to a "Newfields" campus page if needed, but the art museum is a major museum stand-alone page. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the targer requested is a different topic on Wikipedia, and no rationale has been made regarding that. However, there could be a disambiguation page emplaced since there are two topics contending; by redirecting Newfields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Newfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and having that disambiguation page cover both "Newfield" and "Newfields" (as many dab pages cover both singular and plural) -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change to "Newfields" as the requester. I believe there is a misunderstanding of what Newfields really is. Newfields is not just the campus, the organization previously known as the Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA) is now known as Newfields. The IMA now simply refers to a building with art in it, which is only half of what an art museum is, the other half being the actions of the people behind the museum. When people used to refer to the actions of its board member and trustees they would say "The IMA recently did XYZ", but those same actions would now strictly be referred to as what Newfields has done. An example of this is looking at the 2015-2016 Annual Report vs the 2016-2017 Annual Report. This is similar to in 1969 when the Art Association of Indianapolis became the Indianapolis Museum of Art, the association was still an association, not just a museum. Even the front entrance of the museum has Newfields written all over it. I also strongly disagree that Indianapolis Museum of Art is still the common name. Looking at any article in recent times, including the ones I linked, you can see Newfields used extremely commonly, with IMA almost always being used strictly to refer to the museum proper, especially by Newfields itself, who renamed "IMA Lab" to "Newfields Lab" for one. To sum up my point, this article isn't about a collection of art, it is about an organization that has a history, launches initiatives, has employees, has an art museum, etc. That used to all be known as the IMA, but it is now Newfields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebral726 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is about the Indianapolis Museum of Art, which is still the name of the notable and important American art museum. The images you provide for the entrance do not show that the museum has "Newfields" written all over it (a beautiful entrance by the way, thanks), although I didn't enlarge them to see what the museum is titled at its site. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good images, they do add weight to your contention. The sign still contains the name "Indianapolis Museum of Art", which seems to remain the official name (and common name) of the museum. If it hasn't been then possibly this RM should be listed on the Museum wikiproject and visual arts wikiproject pages (I know the visual arts project is active) to get further input, which may agree with your request. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, I posted a notice on both project pages. I'm (genuinely) interested in what makes you think it is the common name over Newfields. Yes, "the IMA" is still in use by both the media and the organization as the official name of the building with the art galleries, but it is always at least in conjunction with Newfields if it is included, and journalists almost always use the term "Newfields" in the headline. Some examples of recent articles that do not use "the IMA" when referencing the organization or even an exhibit in the museum: [4][5]. The first sentence in this article is a good example of how the institution has been fundamentally renamed, even if the museum building is still referred to as "the IMA". Also, all of their social media is under the Newfields name. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Going by the number you quoted above, that google returns over twenty million results for "Indianapolis Museum of Art", the long-time name seems to be the common name. From your well presented case and images it seems like there is a sincere attempt to change the common name of the museum site (which provides the front entrance to the campus), even though the building is still named the "Indianapolis Museum of Art" (although the name at the entrance is now overshadowed by the name "Newfields", thus mixing two names into a notable building and art collection and a larger campus). If either the present name is kept, or if "Newfields" is chosen, may I'd suggest that the same thing we discussed and you did on the template, titling its visible title Indianapolis Museum of Art (Newfields), occur with that name or Newfields (Indianapolis Museum of Art) (I'll turn both red links blue). Either would cover both bases, with several redirects funneling other traffic to this page. I look forward to museum and art editors' comments and analysis of the proper name while leaning a little more to "Neutral" (but still in favor of the present name, with "Newfields" attached). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the kind words and you taking the time to have an extensive back-and-forth. Just in response to the Google results: Since this name change was recent (2 years ago) in the context of the broader history of the organization , the twenty million results for the IMA was for comparison of the importance of this article versus Newfields, NH. In terms of recent articles (which we should give extra weight to per WP:NAMECHANGES), within the last year, GoogleNews gives 1830 results for "Newfields""Indianapolis" and 461 results for "Indianapolis Museum of Art".
  • Oppose – nom says "there is a misunderstanding of what Newfields really is" – perhaps true – because the common name for the museum is what we use already. If that "confusion" resolves and "Newfields" becomes the commonname, then maybe will move it at that time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to what users in this thread were saying Newfields is, that they were thinking it was only a museum campus and not a true re-branding of the entire organization previously known as "the Indianapolis Museum of Art". From the articles I have linked (such as these two from the last month that do not even mention the IMA [6][7]), I find it apparent that in the media, to the general audience, and for those who go to Newfields, there is no confusion, and that we have fulfilled the criteria of WP:NAMECHANGES. See also my point above about GoogleNews search results from the last year. Anyone who goes to the museum gets a sticker on it that says Newfields (to indicate you have paid admission) while being handed a map that says "Welcome to Newfields" on the cover after walking through an entryway lined with the Newfields logo and name, also after having probably passed at least one or two signs that says Newfields, which have in the past said Indianapolis Museum of Art. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose To quote from the bottom of the main page of their website:

*Indianapolis Museum of Art 11 AM - 5 PM

  • Lilly House 11 AM - 5 PM
  • Beer Garden 11 AM - 5 PM
  • The Garden 11 AM - 5 PM
  • Fairbanks Park sunrise - sunset
  • Miller House & Gardens Open for tours - Closed on Mondays
  • The Museum & Garden Shop 11 AM - 5 PM
  • The Cafe 11 AM - 5 PM
- this article is about the Indianapolis Museum of Art, not the Beer Garden. Newfields could, perhaps should, have its own article, as other broader sites do - Berlin State Museums for example. Two of the other attractions there already have their own articles. You need to add this to the Newfield disam page. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per nomination, "... [Indianapolis Museum of Art] is still the name for the museum proper". Our article is about that institution, so there's no reason to change to name to any other (and strong reasons not to). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not enough time or evidence to validate a change in the subject's current and long-standing WP:COMMONNAME. Steel1943 (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

    Requested move 27 May 2022

    [edit]
    The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus that the current title is still the name of the museum and as such the most suitable title. (non-admin closure) Turnagra (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Indianapolis Museum of Art → Newfields – Some condensed background from the article: The Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA) is an art museum located at Newfields, a 152-acre (62 ha) campus that has several components (the art museum, gardens, historic mansion, etc.). The institution was founded in 1883 as the Art Association of Indianapolis and the first permanent museum was opened in 1906 as part of the John Herron Art Institute. In 1969, the Art Association of Indianapolis changed its name to the Indianapolis Museum of Art, and in 1970 the museum moved to its current location. At this point the entire campus and organization was referred to as the Indianapolis Museum of Art, but in 2017 the campus and organization were renamed "Newfields" in a rebranding intended to better reflect the breadth of offerings and venues. The "Indianapolis Museum of Art" now specifically refers to the main art museum building that acts as the cornerstone of the campus, as well as the legal name of the organization doing business as Newfields.[1]

    Nomination: I suggested this move 2.5 years ago. The move ran up against two major arguments:

    1) Newfields, New Hampshire (and Newfields (CDP), New Hampshire) is a town/CDP that shares the name Newfields (it is the only conflicting article for "Newfields" on Newfield). This was not fully discussed due to the nomination failing primarily for the second argument.
    2) The art museum (which is now called "The Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields") is the topic of the article. Switching it to Newfields is changing the topic of the article, not updating to the common name.

    I contend that this article has always been about an organization/institution, which is ultimately what an art museum is, and that the sourcing and branding for Newfields as the WP:COMMONNAME for that institution has only increased over the last 2.5 years. The institution changed their name from the "Art Association of Indianapolis" to the "Indianapolis Museum of Art" and finally to "Newfields". The IMA used to refer to the entirety of this organization, but now only refers to the building that houses their art collection and is the flagship component of Newfields. The article covers actions performed by the organization, not just the physical building and the art inside. When publications talk about actions taken by this organization that used to be called the IMA, they now primarily call it "Newfields". Some examples of either using Newfields exclusively to refer to the museum/organization or primarily using "Newfields": [8][9][10][11], And a couple where the name change is specifically cited as a name change, as opposed to an additional name: "Newfields (née the Indianapolis Museum of Art)" "... Newfields, the institution formerly known as the Indianapolis Museum of Art". And some images/the official website showing how the museum presents itself: [12][13] [14]the organizations website. And finally their tax returns showing Newfields is a formal d/b/a legal name for the organization that used to be the IMA. To me it is clear the name of this article should be moved to Newfields, and I believe no disambiguation is necessary as the only other similarly named article has it's own natural disambiguation of ", New Hampshire".

    References

    1. ^ "2018 Form 990 Tax Return" (PDF). Newfields. Retrieved October 2, 2019.

    – Cerebral726 (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose Although the legal name may have changed, and the organization attempted a major rebranding, I would contend that the common name is still "Indianapolis Museum of Art". Moreover, the rebranding was part of a horribly misguided strategy by the museum's now former director. I would not be at all surprised if the new director changes it back (I also don't have a crystal ball and wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't because it's too much effort). When I look at reporting about the museum, the Indianapolis Star has largely taken to calling it Newfields, but sources outside the region almost invariably refer to it as the Indianapolis Museum of Art. Often they will also use Newfields, but they do not appear to believe readers will know what they are talking about unless they use Indianapolis Museum of Art. This to me indicates that Indianapolis Museum of Art is still the WP:COMMONNAME, and what Wikipedia should use.[1][2][3]~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Solomon, Tessa (18 May 2022). "Educator Colette Pierce Burnette Will Be the First Black Woman to Lead Indianapolis Museum of Art". ARTnews. Retrieved 27 May 2022. - Refers to it as "The Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields"
    2. ^ Small, Zachary (17 May 2022). "Indianapolis Museum Announces New Leadership After Reckoning on Racism". New York Times. Retrieved 27 May 2022. - Uses Indianapolis Museum of Art in the headline, but Newfields in the body. They are using the common name in the headline as it is what people will recognize. They are using Newfields in the body as it's the official name.
    3. ^ Zummo, Maija (23 May 2022). "Immersive Monet Exhibit Coming to IndianapolisImmersive Monet Exhibit Coming to Indianapolis". Cincinnati City Beat. Retrieved 27 May 2022. - "THE LUME at Newfields, the Indianapolis Museum of Art, is getting ready to open" this, to me, is indicative that the Cincinnati paper felt the need to clarify that Newfields=the Indianapolis Museum of Art, in other words that Indianapolis Museum of Art is the common name by which readers will know the museum, and readers won't know what Newfields is or where it is in relation to Cincinnati.
    Here's an alternative that forgoes all the stress - write an article about the New fields organization, and re-gear this article to be mostly about the building and its collection. There's enough notability to both I hope, so this could help separate the differences well. ɱ (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually this needs very little in the way of changes, & should be done. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good idea, as there is history to the land that is not covered in the current article. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that solution works. If the organization did revert it's name back to "Indianapolis Museum of Art" as ONUnicorn mentioned, it would not make sense to have two articles, one titled "Indianapolis Museum of Art (museum)" and one titled "Indianapolis Museum of Art (organization)". In the same way, in the current situation, where the organization is inextricably linked with the history of the Museum building but is now commonly known by the organization's title, separating their history seem unnecessary and close to impossible in many cases without heavy overlap. It wouldn't be the best solution for reader's coming to this article hoping to find out about the institution as a whole and it's history and finding an article about a building.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not thinking of a "Indianapolis Museum of Art (museum)" article and a "Indianapolis Museum of Art (organization)" article. I'm thinking about a "Indianapolis Museum of Art" article and a "Newfields" article. The land where the museum sits was called Newfields when it was owned by the Lilly family. The Lilly family donated Newfields - the land - to the museum. In my vision for a split, Indianapolis Museum of Art should cover the museum and art inside, including the history of the museum. Newfields should cover the broader campus, the history of the land. There would be some overlap, and obvious links between them, but I don't think it would be too hard to make that distinction. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the land was previously called Oldfields, and is still partially called that or the "Lilly Estate", which has an article that may cover what you're thinking about. The title "Newfields" is a neologism created in 2017 as a pseudo-pun on the old name. Oldfields is part of Newfields, alongside the rest of the components mentioned in the article.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oldfields was the name of the original Lilly estate. When they built a house for the younger generation, it was called "Newfields". This was long before the land was donated to the museum.[1] It's not a neologism created in 2017. When Venerable was looking to rebrand, he looked for a name with connection to the land. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh that's good information, I hadn't read that before. However, Newfields was never the name of the entire land the Lilly family donated, that was Oldfields for the most part, or the Lilly Estate at other times. So in your proposal, where would information about the origin as the Art Association go and everything before 1970 when they moved to the current location? If the Newfields article should covers the campus and the history of the land, and the Indianapolis Museum of Art article covers the museum, the museum's history and the art inside, what about the organization now known as Newfields? Cerebral726 (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The museum article and/or split between the two. I'm not sure the governance is notable apart from the museum and the land. I think the land is notable, and the museum is notable. The organization exists to manage both. We can cover what the organization does in the respective articles about what they are doing it to. So, the Art Association history would go in the museum article. Both articles would need to note that the land was donated to the Art Association in 1970. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it makes sense for the Newfields article to not be about the company/institution known as Newfields, but to instead to be about the land that the museum is on, especially since that land hasn't been historically known collectively as Newfields. And for the Art Association information to go in the IMA museum article doesn't really make sense either under this proposal. If the IMA article is supposed to be about the physical museum and it's collection, than the history of the organization that governs it isn't within the scope. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not worth all this back-and-forth. Just freaking try to start that article, put things where they belong based on the sources. The Newfields article can both be about the company and the land, the distinctions don't have to be perfect. Even if some of the land isn't or wasn't technically Newfields it can still be talked about there, as relevant to the story and property. We're writing articles, not categorizing. Things don't have to be so black-and-white. ɱ (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern was that it doesn't have to be black-and-white under my proposal, but if we split it into "Newfields" and "Indianapolis Museum of Arts", there needs to be some sort distinction in order for both articles to have a purpose, which in this situation, is incredibly grey. They are both names for the same company and area of land at different points in time. Trying to suss out the reason for their splitting is exactly the kind of forethought that needs to be had before making a decision on how the article should be moved or split. I apologize if my arguments fell into tediousness, I'm just trying to make sure a detailed understanding of what I consider a complex situation was reached. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the history, the Newfields name is what the public and the org use for the entire campus, and the IMA name is used for the museum building and its collections. Go from there. It will develop naturally. Both are notable, and having two articles with sufficient interlinking will solve your naming problem. ɱ (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Bongiovanni, Dominica (15 August 2017). "New campus name and 'dramatic change' are coming to the Indianapolis Museum of Art". Indy Star. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
    ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As the nom says, the Indianapolis Museum of Art is still called that, and that just-about-internationally-famous museum is the subject of the article. Anything that isn't should be moved off to a new article on the rest of the Newfields complex/campus. Nothing has changed since the last proposal just above. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per comments above. The museum's name has not changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per discussion, the name of the museum should be, ah, the name of the museum. Sidenote: there seems a lot of room on the page for further images of items in the collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, ah well, can't say I agree with you all that this isn't a name change, but clearly I'm not going to get any support on that opinion. It's obvious which way this discussion has landed and we can probably close up shop on this discussion. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

    [edit]

    The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

    Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

    [edit]

    The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

    Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indianapolis_Museum_of_Art&oldid=1206846861"