This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I propose that Rudolfinum and Galerie Rudolfinum should be merged. I already performed this merge here but it was reverted by User:Jklamo. I'm sorry you feel this merge was undiscussed but it really seemed to me that it was a trivial case. The two articles, both of which are quite short, cover a building, and a part of that building. Obviously, the history of the building described in the articles was identical, and besides that the Galerie Rudolfinum article consisted of (and still does) an unsourced, unencyclopaedic list of exhibitions, and promotional text advertising the cafe and gift shop. During the merge I removed all this cruft and the article was substantially improved. Without the cruft and the duplication, the Galerie Rudolfinum article is very short. Jdcooper (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with merge. One article is about building, one article is about institution. It is not a good idea to mix these in one article. Both articles are not stubs and can be expanded.--Jklamo (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now cleaned up Galerie Rudolfinum and as you can see there is not much encyclopaedic content. The unsourced and unformatted list of exhibitions also should not be there. It would be better for readers if these articles were on the same page. If in the future you expand them so they are too long for one article, it will be very easy to split them again. Jdcooper (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too think the articles should remain separate. Galerie Rudolfinum is a notable art institute on its own merits (see i. e. this G-News result, and Rudolfinum as a building is of course notable in a different way. Current state of our articles has nothing to do with their notability. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's nothing to do with notability either way. Of course both topics are notable. The question is how to present the information in a sensible way for readers. Jdcooper (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, on the grounds that the building seems notable only in the context of the music and art it contains, having had a consistent association with these arts since it was founded. The history of these is therefore intimately linked and therefore best discussed on the same page.Klbrain (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2018 (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.
