Talk:List of largest art museums

Methodology of this article

- To answer to my first criticism there was absolutely no 'promotion' in the fifteen or so museums cited in the first version. I began with the most famous museums in the world and continued with museums listed in the "List of most visited museums in the world" and others. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC))

- The figures of exhibition space can be difficult to find. Many times we find the total space inside the building or the number for total space opened to the public. Knowing the museums, checking an image and a map of the museum, is recommanded. I also recommand, for better results, to use the formula "of exhibition space" in your research, or the search algorithm " "square feet" OR "sq ft" OR "m2" OR "square meters" OR "square foot" " + translations in other languages. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC))

- For better results an estimated range can be used with the search algorithm. For exemple [museum name] + "8000..15000 square meters of exhibition" (LinguisticStudent (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC))

- Country domains can also be used. For exemple : site:.it for Italy LinguisticStudent (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

- It can be useful to search for references inside the museum's official website. Type : "site:'museumsite'.org + "80000..200000 square feet" " (LinguisticStudent (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

- An easy way to track the biggest museums is by typing, alongside the keywords art + museum, the keywords million + renovation (or extension). Then look for $100+ million projects. "100..1000 million" for shortcut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinguisticStudent (talk • contribs) 11:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

- For the calculation method, Google Earth (desktop version) offers a measurement tool giving the sides of a given building. Google Earth Pro (now free) offers directly the perimeter. This number must then be confronted with the museum floor plan (multiply by number of floors, substract the non-gallery spaces etc.). Number of rooms should not be a criterium for calculations but you often realize that one room = 200 square meters. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC))

Do you really want to calculate gallery space based on space for permanent exhibitions? I don't see the rationale for excluding temporary exhibit space, as that's as much the mission of an art gallery as its permanent collection. Also, I bet that limitation would make it even harder to get reliable and comparable figures without manually calculating them all. Jbening (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The sentence means that museums must have at least 8,000sqm of collections to make it on the list. That is to distingish museums from places that are more 'exhibition halls' with (or whithout) a small collection, as can be seen in many large cities. I am not against integrating exhibition space in the numbers, but for my manual calculations I have excluded them. Maybe I was wrong. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC))

I think you're right, it was a bad idea. I can reintegrate them pretty quickly as all the maps are sourced. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC))

OK I have done it. It is fairly easy to see what proportions the temporary exhibitions occupy compared to the permanent ones. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC))

Do you think 'museums' making temporary art exhibitions only should be included ? The large ones I know are Palais de Tokyo in Paris, Hamburger Bahnhof in Berlin, Istanbul Modern, National Art Center Tokyo, Power Station of Art in Shangai. And then what about Venice Biennale (six mouths every two years) ? The Arsenal site is 17,000 sqm... (LinguisticStudent (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC))

I have started adding them. My thoughts are as follows : there is no good reason to distinguish between permanent and temporary exhibitions ; moreover there is no good reason to distinguish between a permanent museum and a 'temporary museum' that is a 'museum' that alternates long openings and long closures. What should be excluded are art fairs that last only a few days. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC))

I have removed any reference of permanent vs temporary. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC))

Let's respect the 8000 sqm cutoff

The article description suggests that, being a list of large art museums, there should be a relatively hard cutoff at 8000 square meters. Given how far above 8000 most of the museums on the list are, and how many museums (I'm told) there are in the 6000-8000 range, the 8000 cutoff strikes me as reasonable. The article description offers the possibility of exceptions for museums with a global reputation, but to my mind that exception is meaningless unless a pretty high standard is set for global reputation. I say that because even many second-tier and third-tier museums have a global reputation, since cultural institutions like museums seldom are limited by national boundaries. One example I'm familiar with is the George Eastman Museum, which is tiny by measures like exhibition space and endowment, but that has a legitimate global reputation. Going by that reasoning, I removed the Broad, Museo Soumaya, and Louvre Lens. All three of these were founded in the last five years. So if they have some kind of exceptional global reputation that entitles them to be on the list in spite of the reasonable 8000 sqm cutoff, they came by that reputation astonishingly quickly. Certainly, they're nowhere close to being in the league of the Whitney or the Guggenheim, which are among the very few institutions below 8000 that I could see qualifying for exceptions based on global reputations. Jbening (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The idea of the 4,000 to 8,000 exceptions is that powerful museums like Guggenheim could be many times larger if they wanted, but chose to have a more selective collection. 4,000 still remains pretty big though. I thing this idea outperforms the subjective bias. As for the museums you removed : Louvre-Lens is prestigious because it shares its collections with Louvre. Soumaya is already the most visited museum in Mexico (the country) and is showing the collections of its richest man. Broad is well known in the world of art for having the collection of Eli Broard, which isn't exactly new either. There are many other museums made by modern philantropists but they are usually smaller (which makes the 4,000 sq meters toll interesting, just like the 8,000 sq meters toll for more traditional museums). (LinguisticStudent (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC))

Thanks for the reply, but I still don't find those arguments particularly compelling as regards any of those three museums. If the most-visited museum in Mexico deserves inclusion only on that basis, then also the most-visited or largest museums in Indonesia or Nigeria? I think both countries have larger populations. The fact that The Broad and the Museo Soumaya are dedicated to the collections of philanthropists doesn't strike me as being of any particular note.

But the more I think of it, the less justification I can see for having any exception. The list is not of the largest and most notable museums but of the largest museums. I think 8000 is a reasonable cutoff. If there are no exceptions, then a museum not being on the list will communicate to the reader that it's smaller than 8000. Not granting exceptions also avoids inherently subjective debates as to whether a museum smaller than 8000 is notable enough to be on the list. So I'm strongly inclined to drop the Guggenheim, Whitney, and Getty. The suggestion that they could be larger if they wanted to is irrelevant when the question is how large they are, not how large they could be.Jbening (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have objective criteria for the exceptions (investments & budgets, number of visitors, articles, etc.), there isn't a lot of subjective bias. I believe the article is more comprehensive that way. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC))

Those are way too vague as stated to amount to objective criteria. Also, they're not readily available for most museums, I'll wager. And again, the title of the article is the largest museums, not the largest and most notable. The criterion is floor space. Anything else is just wiggle room to get around one's discomfort that a few major museums aren't on the list, but that's not really a problem, because it's merely a list of the largest museums.Jbening (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok I remove them... (LinguisticStudent (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC))

I'm glad we could agree on that--thanks. Thanks also for creating this article, and for the incredible amount of work you did to fill it with content.Jbening (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and great ideas. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC))

Boston MFA and Philadelphia Museum

I have my doubts about the Boston MFA number. It's based on an Indoor Space Available number. Judging from the floor plan, that includes a few dining spaces including one rather large courtyard, entrance spaces, bookstore, etc.

Can it really be impossible to find a number for Philadelphia that is at least as reliable as numbers for some of the other museums? I ask that having looked around myself for a while, without success. But it's such a significant museum, that it is a pity not to be able to add it to the table.Jbening (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I just got a sqft for the Philadelphia museum of 162,000, as follows. I zoomed into the Google Maps satellite view so the museum filled the screen, pasted the screencap into an image viewer, used the Google Maps scale bar to determine that 50 ft was 69 pixels, and rotated the image so the walls of the Philadelphia museum ran horizontal and vertical in the image. Then working from the floor plan on the museum website, I outlined the parts of the ground, first, and second floors that were identified as gallery space (not including the Great Stair Hall, recorded their dimensions in pixels, and converted those dimensions to ft based on the scale bar. Given the level of resolution I was working from, it would be reasonable to round to 160,000 sqft, which is in line with the precision of many other values in the table. I bet my value is at least as accurate as the other values in the table, and probably a fair bit more realistic than some. Shall I add it? I could cite the museum floor plan as source, with a brief description of scaling it with reference to Google Maps.Jbening (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the pictures + map method is great, I have used for many museums (for example to debunk the claim that the MET was three times larger than the Louvre or Hermitage). But it can only support or invalid an already sourced number, I believe. The only solution would be to make a special page outside Wikipedia with all your reasoning and figures, and then refer to it. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC))

I disagree--if calculations based on publicly available and independently verifiable information can be used to debunk a sourced number, then logically there's no reason they couldn't also be used to provide a number. Jbening (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean ? The calculations just told me the MET number wasn't good (which was pretty obvious...), but the published number was found on the internet. I agree with your method, but you have to source it outside Wikipedia I believe. [by the way with the calculation method you can also know the total footage by knowing the total space floor of only one part of a museum, usually the one that has been renovated or added which has more accessible numbers). (LinguisticStudent (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC))

I don't understand you--did you use the calculation to correct a flawed number (in which case you're in effect doing the same thing I did), or did you use it to choose between two published numbers? Even if the latter, you're using an analysis of publicly available and verifiable information to to support a claim that isn't stated in so many words in any given source. Doing that is far less common on Wikipedia than simply reiterating things actually said in sources, but it's not OR if it's simply a calculation. For an example, check out the article on Farkle, which includes many calculations that weren't reported in any relibable sources but were simply calculated using accepted probability methods. As long as there's no dispute over what the right method to calculate is, it's okay.Jbening (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The flawed number for the MET is the one you find everywhere. But it is flawed... So I searched a lot until I could find somewhere a number close to the estimated truth...

So you tell me the calculation method is acceptable, well that's great news ! The missing pieces can find their way ! The method is to put the details in the talk page ? Can you add a footnote from the numbers in the article to the calculations in the talk page ? (LinguisticStudent (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC))

I've just added an entry for the Philadelphia Museum, using a referencing format that ought to be appropriate. If you use that method for other museums, you can refer to the same note by adding "ref name=calculation|ref group=note" in <>, followed by /ref in <>. If the museum you're adding is ahead of the Philadelphia Museum in the list, you may need to move my whole ref text to that entry and then have "ref name=calculation|ref group=note" in <>, followed by /ref in <> at the Philadelphia Museum entry. I can't 100% guarantee that every Wikipedian will be fine with this approach, but there are precedents in other articles on Wikipedia, and it is within the spirit of the no-OR rule. Also, that no-OR rule only strictly speaking applies to OR that anyone challenges. If the square footage yielded by such calculations is accurate, and independently verifiable using publicly available information, then no one should have any basis to challenge it.Jbening (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the Boston number not being excellent. As you said, it is a pity when significant museums are put in the unknown list. The Prado number isn't great as well. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC))

Reference issues

Any better references than the following?

• Museum #1 - reference to a remark stating "about [or, exactly?] 66,842 m2" made by an intern
• #2 - states 60,000 when reference totals to only 51,615 (total of the 2 figures provided: 21390+30225) placing it in 3rd position
• #3 - a blog source (blogs are not considered reliable sources) - should be #9 based on blog #'s
• #4 - from an online summary apparently "quoted" (copied and pasted) from an unspecified source
• #5 - a non-English article, but does state "42000 m2 d'expositions"
• #6 - based on an editor's measurements from satellite maps & floor plans (as mentioned above - may or may not be considered original research)
• #7 - only counts main Exhibition Hall, excluding others in same building
• #8 - see #6
• #9 - blog source again - should be #3 based on blog #'s
• #10 - area not mentioned in reference, but this is: The J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles split itself in two, remodeling and expanding a 490,000-square-foot center for ancient art in Malibu and building a 945,000-square-foot complex in Brentwood.ref The Getty Center complex looks like multiple, but interconnected, buildings so may not be eligible for this list, but the Getty Villa in Malibu should probably be in the list, at #4 if the #'s are correct.

The amount of work put into this list is appreciated and this could become a good list someday but right now the references are seriously flawed. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"The Museum of Louvre in France is the largest museum in the world compared by The British Museum in London and Metropolitan Museum in New-York with 60,000 square meters, 58,820 square meters, and 25,700 square meters respectively."ref (blog) - the table mixes up the last two making the NY museum larger. What are the #'s in the ref though anyway - total building areas or exhibit space? The quoted Louvre figure (60,000) contradicts the ref given for exhibit space in the table (51,615) by a large amount (+8000), so they're probably total areas, not only exhibit space. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

and "The Art Institute of Chicago has added or is building 400,000 square feet." ... "Since 1970, New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art has roughly doubled in size, from 1 million to 2 million square feet."ref What do those #'s represent? Brian W. Schaller (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot a flawed numbers that the newspapers retranscribe, that's why you need a lot of searching and knowledge of the museums to find good numbers. Those are not always available, that is why we are doing satelite research compared with maps. These numbers can not be flawed more than say 5%. We haven't given the the ranks of the museums : "number 1", "number 2" etc. as some articles do, it is not the goal. We tried to show a very honest image of the art museums map of the world. LinguisticStudent (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The MET case is discussed above. If you really think that it is larger than the four other largest museums combined... and if you really think the Getty Villa is the fourth biggest museum in the world, look at a picture of the building... The article was made scrolling the internet for many many hours, and it was made with a large museums experience. Numbers are not perfect, and maybe (I say maybe, not probably) a few museums have been missed, but saying "seriously flawed" compared to the figures you propose is kind of angering. To conclude, I hope I am not rude, and I appreciate your remarks and will carefully re-read them, but your boxes in the article are really extreme ! LinguisticStudent (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer to all your points : the source about MET and British names the museums first, and then their dimensions, using the formula 'respectively'. The author just forgot in what order he first named the museums. As I said, if you have a previous knowledge of museums you don't even notice the misprint. The Louvre reference has been changed and the number has been unrounded. For the national museum of Korea, thank you for showing that the temporary exhibition space has been forgotten (we need to see if it is allocated to art). The Washington number is indeed mentioned in the article (second paragraph below the third picture). The Getty in Los Angeles is discussed above. The Art Institute of Chicago has a very good reference. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC))

It is in the culture of some countries not to release their numbers ; others tend to oversell the buildings size to journalists. These are things you get to know. That is why when you have a source giving you a number that you know is true by examination, you keep it even if the medium is not very prestigious. LinguisticStudent (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Brian W. Schaller--you do a service in calling attention to some of the iffy sources, though I'll bet LinguisticStudent was already aware of the less-than-perfect-but-still-of-some-value numbers in them, as he's been working on this list with a really fine-toothed comb. His answers to your queries are on point, in my opinion. Also, I'm with him in thinking that the wording of your notes was a bit over the top.

Can you think of many museums that meet the size cutoff and that are not either in the list or in the much shorter list of museums for which numbers couldn't be obtained? If so, please add them to that latter list, and either LinguisticStudent or I will see if we can't track down numbers. I don't know the global museum landscape well enough to be able to judge how incomplete the list is, but my sense is that LinguisticStudent knows it well enough to have ensured that the list is fairly comprehensive. If you check out the version of the article from a few weeks back, you'll see that there had been a rather lengthy list of museums for which reliable numbers weren't readily obtainable. That tells me that LinguisticStudent was striving for a comprehensive list of large museums.

Given LinguisticStudent's replies to your queries, which of the current sources would you most take issue with? I'd be happy to see if I can't find better numbers for those, though again--I bet LinguisticStudent has already beat the bushes pretty thoroughly.

See above in the talk page for my thoughts on whether the use of floor plans and Google Maps constitute original research. I agree with you that some people would consider them OR, but I would disagree with them. Their use here has been an antidote to precisely the iffiness of sources that you point out, and my feeling is that the list has been unambiguously improved by using that method when necessary. In fact, when I have more time I'd like to use that method to double-check even some of the seemingly more reliable numbers we have, and I'll be more confident in the numbers arrived at by that method than I would be in the source's numbers.Jbening (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are the info boxes, or "Notes" (in case other people are wondering):

Note: 64 museums listed on March 3, the day "info boxes" were added/removed. Within 6 days, 31 new museums added to total 95 museums.

• "maybe (I say maybe, not probably) a few museums have been missed" ... "boxes in the article are really extreme !" After just a week it seems not extreme at all. Regardless, the info boxes were only intended to inform casual readers who may wonder why their favorite large museum is not listed, or who may miss the footnote (though it's repeated a lot), the rounding, and the use of a blog (http://thecurycury.com/2015/10/31/the-louvre-museum-a-palace-treasures/) and other potentially unreliable sources for highly-ranked museums.

• For the Hermitage, the better ref would be the museum's website instead of the existing ref (both have the same figure).

• "Only a limited amount have been added" is a completely false statement and "only an estimation" is a total exaggeration. (from the article's revision history) - apparently not a false statement. Also, most of the figures are estimations. However close they may be to the actual figures, they are still estimations, rather than precise numbers based on professional surveys made with laser rangefinders or other precision equipment. Even +/-5% can be significant with large figures such as these areas. Most of the museum's own figures are rounded to the nearest 1000, making them only close approximations, or estimates, of the true sizes.

• There are many ties: 4 @ 20000, 3 @ 17000, 7 @ 15000, 7 @ 14000, 9 @ 13000... It's understood there's rounding and that it is not a sporting contest, but any ranking will be taken seriously by some readers, so position does matter. Also, the tied ones are listed randomly, not by name, country or year.

• The number of museums calculated has risen from 17 to 44, so about 27 of the 31 new ones are based on what some editors may consider original research (still not sure as no one's asked a senior editor - the NOR noticeboard could be used to find out). Brian W. Schaller (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• For the estimates, the "best available" formula found by Jbening is very good I believe.
• For the amount of museums having increased, I went back to parts of the world that had been looked upon too quickly (because I didn't go with satellites). So after going to different webpages that explained which are the museums for a specific country or city, I checked with satellites and maps countless museums in China, India, South and Central America, Australia, Japan, Korea, smaller European countries, more inner parts of the United States, South-East Asia, the Middle East, ex-USSR. For Africa it is well knowned that there are two big museums, the second one being at 9,000 square meters, but I did check for others. That is why an extra 30 museums have been found. It was quite enjoyable I can tell you, and if I could find more countries to check I would go right away. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

Title change?

I see another list is titled List of most visited art museums in the world. What do you folks think about adding "in the world" to the title of this article, to clarify that it's global in nature, and to match that other list, which has been on Wikipedia for much longer? It's a simple change. If I were to do it, I could also fix the links on pages that link to this article. Jbening (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes thank you ! (I didn't know how to do it). (LinguisticStudent (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC))

Done, and I fixed the (surprisingly many) pages that link here, so they wouldn't be linking to the old title. To move a page, click on the "More" button just to the left of the search box at the top of the page, and select "Move". Jbening (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Museums in the United States

The United States are by far the country with the most museums. The following document lists all large-but-not-huge-museums in the country (6,000 sqm - 18,000 sqm approx) : https://mam.org/pdfs/strategicPlans/06_stratPlan.pdf (page 12). They have all been checked. (LinguisticStudent (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC))

Museums of Astan Quds Razavi

Based on what I've found, these appear to be a cluster of museums in nearby buildings, administered together. While their collections are of historic as well as aesthetic interest, I think they may qualify as art museums for purposes of this list. Anyway, they sound fascinating. I can't find clear information in English as to the combined gallery space of these museums (as opposed to the entire interior space of the buildings, which isn't relevant to this list. First, is a cluster of co-administered museums one entity for purposes of this list? If so, can anyone verify the exhibition gallery floor space for these museums? Jbening (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

They appear to form a museum complex, to contain artifacts with artistic value, and to be quite large together. I have therefore added the museum in the unknown list. There are two sites that list the size of the small parts, but the numbers are conflicting (see the carpets).

I have also created a basic page for the museum. (by the way, not sure what the conventions are for translating with either 'gh' or 'q'. "Ghods" seemed to be employed more.)LinguisticStudent (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If the bulding space is 15,000, the exhibition space would be two to three times smaller. That would correlate with the eleven parts of the museum being around 500 square meters. The 6647 square meters for the carpet sections would be occupied mostly by the workshop (and not by the 100 carpets). My guess is that the museum is smaller than 8,000 square meters, but who knows ? LinguisticStudent (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Coranic : 400 sqm. Supreme Leader gifts : 400. Stamps : 500. Carpets : 800 ? Clocks : 450. Paintings : 450. Pottery : 450. Sea Life : not to be counted. Medal : only 154 medals. Weaponry : ?. History of Mashhad : 182 objects. Given these elements, it is fairer to remove the museum. It was a nice addition, though. What do you think ? LinguisticStudent (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Awesome research! That all makes sense to me. Thanks for going further with this than I did. Thanks also for creating an article on the museums. But with your transliteration, we now have Astan Quds Razavi (also called Astan-e-Qods), Central Library of Astan Quds Razavi, within that article a section on The Bureau of Museums of Astan e Qods, and you article Astan Ghods Razavi Central Museum. Would it be better if all of these mentions converged on one transliteration? Jbening (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Using Google, I find 54,700 pages for the first transliteration, and only 2000-3000 for the other two. I propose we change the name of your new article. Jbening (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There's an article on the Romanization of Persian. 'Gh' is from the ALA-LC romanization, for the transliteration of all non-latin alphabets in English. 'Q' is the UN(2012) code decided by Iran, but approved by the UN. Don't know if the UN approves both or suggests the latter should replace the former, and don't know if Wikipedia has a position on this issue. Also a problem with 'o' or 'u'. I'm fine if you want to put 'Quds' instead of 'Ghods'. I don't know how to change the name of an article anyway. On a side note, the theorical challenge is maybe the following : should it be one language having a code to integrate other langages (US-GB solution), or should it be one language deciding how to be coded in other alphabets (whatever the languages of these other alphabets) (Iran solution) ? LinguisticStudent (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Making a research on Google Books (with more informed authors), "Quds" + iran gives five times more results than "Ghods" + iran. I also agree that for the sake of clarity it is better to have all the names matching. If the English conventions are not respected by the authors, maybe they are not good enough. Can you make the change to 'Quds' ? Thanks in advance. LinguisticStudent (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Done, and I updated links on articles that had linked to the old title. A pleasure to work with you, as always. Jbening (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Page move

Any objections to moving this to List of largest art museums per this? Pinging User:Randy Kryn. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Good find and an interesting page, no objection. I wonder if any of the Stone age cave painting locations would be large enough to make this list. Randy Kryn 12:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, personally. Would you folks also edit the 70 articles with links to the current title? Jbening (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jbening. Do you mean fixing redirects? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes--links that are currently direct to this article but will become links to a redirect page. Jbening (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Good question, Randy. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

See also Talk:List of most visited art museums in the world#Page move.

So, are there more "in the world"s and how do we find them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A few more for your consideration:

• World's largest cities
• History of the world's tallest buildings
• List of tallest buildings in the world by country
• List of largest power stations in the world
• World's largest airlines

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice finds. Maybe the world's best finds. You could probably just change all of those without discussions, as the style discussion has already occurred. There is an infobox at the start of World's largest cities which is quite worldly, but it looks like some of those have been changed already. As the world turns, Randy Kryn 12:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"Changing all of those without discussion" : maybe you are right. But you should do it correctly and fix all the links on all the pages LinguisticStudent (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I was also wondering. People are using "in the world" for these kinds of requests on search engines. Will those pages still be displayed ? LinguisticStudent (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi LinguisticStudent. Not sure about that one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

But shoud we fix them per WP:NOTBROKEN? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randy. Yes, easily the world's best finds, possibly the best in the Universe.

As for World's largest cities and World's largest airlines, maybe those are okay to leave. The title would seem a bit bald without "World's". Then again, maybe not.

In a few hundred years I can see a discussion: Universe's largest world --> Largest world. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"in the world" might not be necessary for the title itself (and even less if you look at those titles through a list as you do : optical illusion), but it might be for other reasons : for the page to be well referenced on search engines (and not be behind badly informed articles), for a more logical relationship with countries lists, for not encountering any confusion or feelings of "something missing". I personaly didn't put "in the world" in the first version of the article, but was glad it was added. LinguisticStudent (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Good points. Well, I'll leave all this up to you and others. And congrats on this creation of yours. Nice! It gets the equivalent hits of a decent DYK each month every month. Good work! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the first issue (people typing "in the world" for their requests), I'm wrong on two points. First : "in the world" is still mentioned in the first line of the articles. Second, it seems like people type "largest x" a lot more than "largest x in the world" : https://www.google.fr/trends/explore?q=%22tallest%20buildings%22,%22tallest%20buildings%20in%20the%20world%22 ; or https://www.google.fr/trends/explore?q=%22largest%20cities%22,%22largest%20cities%20in%20the%20world%22 LinguisticStudent (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of largest art museums. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151101005529/http://www.mbam.qc.ca/en/museum-district/future-michal-and-renata-hornstein-pavilion-for-peace/ to http://www.mbam.qc.ca/en/museum-district/future-michal-and-renata-hornstein-pavilion-for-peace/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.ccomptes.fr/content/download/81285/2006891/file/201500416-CAPA-71113.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130704085056/http://old.namoc.org/en/about_NAMOC/History/index.html to http://old.namoc.org/en/about_NAMOC/History/index.html

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) 02:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hebei Provincial Museum

I think this museum should be on the list. The floor space is about the same as Shandong Provincial Museum, I would have thought possibly bigger. Sorry, I can't add it myself. XierZhanmusi (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A good faith suggestion, but the page reads like it might be more of a cultural museum than an art museum. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, XierZhanmusi, but I agree with Randy Kryn. Hebei Museum looks very much to be an, "institution holding collections of historic, archaeological or scientific artefacts, rather than fine art." (That distinction being from the article art museum.) That said, some of these distinctions aren't clear-cut. For example, the National Museum of Anthropology (Mexico) is on the list, as is the Three Gorges Museum, either of which could be judged more cultural than art. LinguisticStudent has given more thought to these distinctions than anyone else here. I'd be interested in hearing their thoughts. Jbening (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jbening, it's been a long time. The distinction between artistic museums and cultural/historical museums is indeed difficult. Here are a few criteria :

- density of valuable objects

- valuable objects are defined by age or by uniqueness, and tend not to mix with other objects (replicas, videos).

- documents inside the rooms illustrate the objects, and not the opposite : the objects "stand" by themselves. On the contrary, an army museum would exhibit a painting of a certain general whatever its inherent quality.

For example I did not include the German Historical Museum in Berlin : it has great artifacts, but they principally highlight the historical storyline, they are less dense and less rare than a typical art museum.

Some museums mix rooms that are more cultural and other that are more "artistic". This is the case of all four museums that you mentioned : Hebei, Shandong, Mexico, and Three Gorges. The general rule would be that the museum crosses the 8,000 sqm toll considering the "artistic" rooms alone (though we then ignore the distinction for the figures displayed). Hebei has 11,216 sqm of exhibition spaces, including "History of Biological Evolvement" (not to be counted), "Hebei people's struggles 1840-1949" and "Heibei Folklore" (more cultural than artistic). Three Gorges and Shandong have a similar organization, but they are bigger.

Source : https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042341/http://arts.cultural-china.com/en/102Arts8042.html LinguisticStudent (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for making the distinction clear. Hebei Museum is very large, a number of rooms in the older section of the building were closed presumably to change the exhibitions. I did not see any related to biological evolution although there was a mixed paleolithic, Neolithic, Xia, Shang section with a small area about animals the prehistoric people would encounter.

There was one room for the anti-Japanese war which was not art related. The other rooms included a large room on ceramics, a huge room with very large number of paintings of scenes from the book Dream of the Red Chamber, another room of tomb paintings.

The other rooms were I guess what you would call cultural, mixes of objects, some artistic, others functional.

Whether you wish to include the museum or not I will leave to you as I don't feel strongly about it. My advice however is that it is as much if not more of an art museum than the Shandong Museum; the collections are very similar in size and content. Many exhibition areas in Shandong are also cultural/historical: it also has a prehistoric section, plus there were 2 large spaces given over to an exhibition of models of African animals there 2 weeks ago.

My final feeling is that both are mainly historical⁄cultural museums with some artistic exhibitions & many art objects in other galleries so neither should be included on the list, but if one is then both should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XierZhanmusi (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If modern art galleries are included then Shandong Art Gallery should be included instead of Shandong Museum. It is next to the Museum, is an enormous building. See the article below for exhibition space. Please see Jinan Wikivoyage page (mostly edited by me) for location. It doesn't appear on Google Maps but I can confirm it exists & is open, I've visited twice. It has very good collections of modern Chinese art & hosts travelling exhibitions too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XierZhanmusi (talk • contribs) 01:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

https://www.archdaily.com/877095/shandong-art-gallery-tjad — Preceding unsigned comment added by XierZhanmusi (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello XierZhanmusi. Thank you for your comments. I relied on your experience and removed Shandong Provincial Museum. I also added Shandong Art Museum. It is amazing that a museum this big is so unknown outside of China (no Wikipedia or Tripadvisor page). For the figures, the Archdaily reference is precise, and also provides maps of each floor with scales. I also created a Wikipedia page for the museum, but with very few information. LinguisticStudent (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello LinguisticStudent, I can tell you that Shandong Museum has very few visitors, and Shandong Art Gallery has even fewer (despite taking only 3 minutes to walk between the entrances). Jinan is a vast city and they are a good half hour bus ride from the city center in a newly developed business district and residential district at the east of the city. The Jinan metro lines are still being built and it will be at least 3 years before there is a decent public transport link to that area. Both times I visited the Shandong Art Gallery, including 2 weeks ago, I'd estimate there were only about 20 visitors; there were actually more staff. I had entire galleries to myself for 5 or 10 minutes at a time. It has the most luxury gallery / museum cafe I've ever been to with piano, jazz drum kit, plush sofas, cigars for sale, luxury books, I had it to myself for the whole hour I was there.XierZhanmusi (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting. And how would you define the art inside the museum ? From what period does it start ? Does it have art from all the country or mostly from the province ? Do they exhibit modern Chinese masters ?LinguisticStudent (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The permanent collection is Chinese art from the 1950s onwards. Some galleries show modern updates of traditional Chinese art (landscapes, bird & flower paintings), others show modern Chinese art in a variety of mediums, oil painting, line drawing, sculpture, paintings on plates, with widely varying Chinese themes, some historical, some modern, but the styles and mediums are similar to & as varied as those in any modern international art gallery (Tate Modern for example). The landscape paintings stretch back to the 50s & are updated to show agricultural machinery, industrialization, dam construction, motorized boats, signs of industrial progress which I guess were an important theme in 1st decades of the PRC. The art more firmly in the Western tradition is later, from the 90s onwards, many play with themes from traditional Chinese culture or history but with unique & modern styles. I've also seen 2 travelling exhibitions there: 1 was 19th Century Russian oil painting; the other was a large exhibition of works by Pan Lusheng. When I visited last month a large section of the gallery was being prepared for an Olympic Art Exhibition which I unfortunately missed by a couple of days. The quality of the art works in the permanent gallery is high, there are a large number of interesting and well painted pictures. I don't know enough about Chinese art & the artists to comment on how important the artists are or if the focus is only on provincial artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XierZhanmusi (talk • contribs) 03:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The following link shows part of the collection so you can see for yourself: http://www.sdam.org.cn/folder/gcjp XierZhanmusi (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ! Let us know in the future if you find more errors or things missings about China. I have never been there and information can be difficult track. LinguisticStudent (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

El Prado surface

El Prado had 41,995m² surface in 2012 [1]. In 2019 it was 45,322 m² [2]. The extension by Foster will add another 2,500m² to the museum in 2021/22. --Ecelan (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

According to the museum's website, the area of ​​the exhibition halls is 14,000 square meters.[3] Hontañon3 (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• The Louvre Abu Dhabi (249423583).jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Centre Georges-Pompidou from Notre-Dame de Paris 2011.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Vatican Museums outside.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The article lost much of its encyclopedic flavor. DEBATE needed.

Hello,

I am LinguisticStudent and I have written most of the article a few years ago, doing a lot of research to track art museums and figures across the internet. The idea was to share to the world a list of the very large museums, some very unknown, and to have it all in one list. It was meant as a gateway to the importance of collections. The size was a good criteria to introduce and organize this list (and to limit it: the 8,000 square meter toll was perfect for that).

I have stopped from updating or even checking this page for many months. The new updates by some users are frustrating, with an obsession on perfect ranking and not on exhaustiveness. By exhaustiveness I mean giving an overview that is the most faithful to reality while doing the best with metrics. I guess two different conceptions of encyclopedia oppose each other: all-metric vs inclusiveness. I must add that I have nothing against perfect figures: I actually spent hundreds of hours searching for that, sometimes a few hours for only one museum.

What has disappeared from the article:

- some museums with approximate size space (but with a controlled methodology). Thus the ranking strategy is all the more irrevelant.

- all the museums in the 8,000-12,000 square meters range (because apparently "ranking lists" shouldn't excess 50 entries. What a shame to have these removed. No one could say that 8,000 sqm isn't very big).

- list of large museums with unknown size.

What has appeared :

- explicit rankings (i.e. number 1, number 43, etc.)

There are two things I would like to debate :

- Does anybody think that these changes should be reversed ? Perharps User:Epistulae ad Familiares could justify to the assembly why he did many of those? Could you at least bring back the 8,000 sqm - 12,000 sqm museums? No one cares if a ranking is limited to 50 or 80 entries. But people care to know about these museums!

- The page itself could maybe be renamed "List of very large museums", using a classification by continents. It would bring more focus on the museums themselves, rather than on the metrics.

I am pinging User:Jbening, who helped me at the beginning, and others who made the most contributions according to the stats : User:Derek R Bullamore, User:Anna Frodesiak, User:Qono, User:Jaedglass, User:Horse Eye's Back, User:Randy Kryn, User:DerechoReguerraz, User:Uvo.

Finally, I am not aware how you could move the subject to Wikipedians who debate such things, but it could be a good idea if anyone could do that. I also have to say that I won't have time to make changes to the page for the next coming months.

Have a great day!

Antoine

LinguisticStudent (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I overruled the changes of Epistulae, which had simply decided to remove half of the museums without discussing it beforehand, and also did not want to take part in the discussion that I had then launched here. Any similar changes to these big efforts made by the community will have to be discussed first. LinguisticStudent (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to allow a longer list if there is a consensus for it, and I see that you have reverted most of the entries already, which I entirely welcome in the spirit of WP:BRD. I personally felt that 50 is adequate, but if we are able to maintain a longer list and keep it reliably sourced by then by all means. However there should still be a reasonable limit on its length so as to ensure that the article remains of encyclopediac value. I am open to discussion about what such a limit would look like.

Just a heads up, I have made some edits to remove some entries that do not have reliably sourced statistics, and also the ranking system because I felt it would be misleading given that the list wouldn't be comprehensive anyway. I hope this seems reasonable. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Epistulae ad Familiares. Your latest changes do seem reasonable to me (from a certain point of view).I hope that some people will consider reading the previous states of this article to continue the search: they will find the museums for which we don't have references yet (or rather, what I will do is to add this list in the Talk page). And thanks for removing those stupid rankings! LinguisticStudent (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

art institute of chicago size

That's considerably off, there's nearly one million square feet of gallery space, the 264,000 sq feet is just the modern wing and per the cited source increased the gallery space by ~35%. (See 2010-Present section and floor plan for "almost a million square feet to explore". The original building seems to be 562,000 square feet ([4] and our [[5]]. But it is certainly larger than the 280k sq feet we have listed now (and also larger than Houston's museum, with several sources saying it is the second largest art museum in the US behind the Met. nableezy - 23:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing building space ("the total area of the museum to approximately one million square feet") and gallery space. As we have mentioned, 65,000 square feet of gallery space are added. I could agree that the museum might be bigger, but these are the only official figures that we have.

"Of the Modern Wing’s 264,000 total square footage, 65,000 square feet on the second and third floor are devoted to the Art Institute’s outstanding collections of twentieth- and twenty-first-century paintings, sculptures, photographs, film and video, and architectural and design objects. The ground floor includes the two-story-high, block-long “main street” of the addition, called Griffin Court, as well as a state-of-the-art education center, with classrooms, studios, a resource center for teachers, a children’s bookstore, and more; and a Museum Shop focused on modern and contemporary art and design. The top floor houses a restaurant, Terzo Piano, graced by an outdoor sculpture terrace with views of Millennium Park and the city’s spectacular Michigan Avenue skyline." LinguisticStudent (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Centre Georges-Pompidou from Notre-Dame de Paris 2011.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The British Museum

According to your own Wikipedia Page, the British Museum is 807,000 sq ft (75,000 m2) in 94 galleries and has been the subject of a major 22,000 square metre extension by Norman Foster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Museum

However it is cited on this wikipedia page as being 277,000 sq ft (25,700 m2) and this apparently includes the 22,000 metre extension cited in the 1993 link you have used in relation to the British Museum.

Both can't be right, so which is the correct figure???

The British Museum is by fat the largest museum in London, and this inaccuracy is making Wikipedia look like a laughing stock.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9937:A400:F0E4:B71B:F3B7:68C7 (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC) 

Hello ! You must be aware that different pages have different authors! The figures on the museum page are the total size of the building, and the number here is limited to gallery space. British Museum is of course very big, but 75,000 would make it bigger than the Louvre, which is of course not the case.

LinguisticStudent (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Quote - Today, the British Museum has grown to become one of the largest museums in the world, covering an area of over 92,000 m2 (990,000 sq. ft).[3][59] In addition to 21,600 m2 (232,000 sq. ft)[60] of on-site storage space, and 9,400 m2 (101,000 sq. ft)[60] of external storage space. Altogether the British Museum showcases on public display less than 1%[60] of its entire collection, approximately 50,000 items.[61] There are nearly one hundred galleries open to the public, representing 2 miles (3.2 km) of exhibition space, although the less popular ones have restricted opening times. However, the lack of a large temporary exhibition space has led to the £135 million World Conservation and Exhibition Centre to provide one and to concentrate all the museum's conservation facilities into one Conservation Centre. This project was announced in July 2007, with the architects Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners. It was granted planning permission in December 2009 and was completed in time for the Viking exhibition in March 2014.[62][63]

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Museum#Building

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9937:A400:69C8:6722:D7B8:E57E (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote, but I don't see what it adds. 92,000 m2 of total surface is in fact consistent with an exhibition area of about a third that size. LinguisticStudent (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, both you and Wikipedia are now laughing stocks.

The V&A is not even the largest museum in London, and the letter from a no one back in 1993 is hardly credible evidence.

The moral being don't believe anything written on Wikipedia or quote it as a credible or reliable source. 2A02:C7E:3CEB:3B00:198C:A424:EB7D:54D7 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

To compare with the 3.2 km of corridors in the British Museum that you mention, the Louvre has a total of 14.5 km. But I'm not sure you want to be convinced, given the tone of your message. LinguisticStudent (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Hermitage

The official webpage of Hermitage has suddenly changed its exhibition size from 66,842 to 100,000 square meters. I wonder what could motivate such a big change, as well as the passage from a very precise number to this over the top figure. I suspect that it could be State propaganda to be able to steal the first place from the Louvre, but there is nothing we can do about it... https://hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/about/facts_and_figures/?lng=en LinguisticStudent (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added 'unreliable source' next to the museum reference. LinguisticStudent (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I have another explanation for this change in exhibition size. The page says:

"Total area of the premises (buildings) – 233 345 sq. metres

Exhibition area – 100 000 sq. metres"

But the page is also listing sites in Amsterdam, Venice, Kazan & Vyborg.

Thus 100,000 sqm is the exhibition of all Hermitage sites in the world.

~~ LinguisticStudent (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Kiev's Arsenal

The exhibition size could of course be very big, but it is far from being used to its full potential. It would thus be very misleading to consider it a bigger museum than the MET. Example for one exhibition: "70 paintings, 50 graphic artworks, 40 photographs". Of course, some others exhibitions are much bigger. Therefore, I have put the museum in the subsidiary list.

https://artarsenal.in.ua/en/vystavka/oleg-holosiy-non-stop-painting/

LinguisticStudent (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@LinguisticStudent Before 2020 it used to hold two exhibitions simultaneously. As it is stated on their website: "The Old Arsenal building has a total exhibition space of 60,000 m2; currently in use are the first floor with a space of 12,000 m2 and part of the second floor with a space of 12,000 m2." Ukrainian version of the website says: "The total area of the Arsenal reaches 60,000 m2, currently used from 12,000 to 24,000 m2.". So even if account only used space, it should still be on that list. Korwinski (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Korwinski Thank you, nice to hear those details! If they use up to 24,000m2, then it should be listed as a 24,000m2 museum, no problem with that. LinguisticStudent (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about this museum. There is a video with a virtual visit of one of the floors. Only 3 big rooms (and not huge rooms). 12,000 square meters is more like 50 rooms. Maybe they confused square meters and square feet?

https://artarsenal.in.ua/en/vystavka/forms-of-presence/

I have to remove it. LinguisticStudent (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Size does matter, but it collections not gallery space

I see comments here arguing over relative sizes of galleries as if this is a source of pride. A large gallery is only valuable if it has a sizable collection of notable art. I would rather see galleries listed by the size of their art collection and it’s net worth. 216.180.86.159 (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Notable art and net worth. Do you really think that some of these international museums have uninteresting galleries? And do you really think that interest is measured in current art market dollars? And do you really think that there are estimates of the value of the collections of each museum?

Size of art collections. Of course, gallery space is not the same thing as the size of the collections. Some museums have many more reserves than others, but for a visitor it's interesting to know the quantity of art they can expect to see in the galleries. Because the ratio of works exhibited per m2 is probably more or less the same for all museums (for a given type of object), there are museum standards for this. The exception is definitely contemporary art museums, where the rooms are larger and the works more widely spaced (and changing more often).

Another thing to bear in mind is that the total size of collections, when museums can have huge sets of repetitive or tiny objects (e.g., Egyptian amulets), is not always very informative. What would be interesting are pages devoted to very specific categories of objects, where the quantity might be relevant (number of eighteenth-century paintings, for example).

Finally, I agree that gallery size isn't really an end in itself, it's actually more of a pretext for getting people to discover different places, some of them little-known, using an objective criterion that brings them together. LinguisticStudent (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Bizarre inaccuracies

I've visited nearly every large art museum in the USA, and some of these rankings are wildly inaccurate. The Dallas museum can be seen in just a few hours, while the DIA requires a good 5 to 6 hours to cover every gallery in the museum. The Birmingham museum is also supposedly larger than the DIA, but it can be covered in less than an hour. This entire article needs a serious revamp if oversights like this have been made. To append this, a quick Google search for the largest art museums in the USA brings up a number of results that appear to be citing the exact numbers on this page. This has the effect of giving people an extremely distorted view of the size and scope of the museums listed here. The impression one would get from those web pages is that a visit to the Birmingham museum would take a similar or longer amount of time as the DIA, when in reality, its entire collection can be viewed in a fifth of the time. The emphasis in this article on "gallery space", whatever that means, is setting a false narrative throughout the web.96.27.82.176 (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

So the issue isn't that you find the list inaccurate, you just feel that largest =/= most gallery space. I believe the list did at one point also include a column for total square footage (a much better analogue for the time it will take to get through), perhaps it would be a good idea to do that again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion was also that the figures for "gallery space" are wildly, laughably incorrect, and I provided a few of the most glaring examples. 96.27.82.176 (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You didn't actually provide any examples where the figures are incorrect, you don't appear to have provided any sources at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Ive been to the DIA too, no way it takes 5-6 hours. But also, the numbers here are largely divorced from reality as well. nableezy - 22:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• MAXXI ingresso 04.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Genuine question

hi, why Did u remove the "well deserved"part while the world's largest museum is 5 times bigger than the second largest museum in the world ??? Johan5885 (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect entries

Question, why is the Royal Ontario Museum on this list? If is far from primarily an art museum, and is a major general purpose museum. There are other museums on the list which are not art museums, shouldn't this be a correct listing of purely the largest museums of art? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Have removed the entry. The museum includes artwork but, per article criteria of "largest art museums", art is just one of many exhibited collections and focuses of this general purpose museum. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:

Yes, thank you for this. Most of the museums on the list only contain art, and/or historical artifacts with an artistic value (e.g. archeological museums are included. That was explained in the methodology, before someone removed it). When I built this list, there was just a few museums which also contained a natural history part, in anglo-saxon countries or in China. My approach for inclusion was roughly that the artistic part was predominant and that it alone exceeded the 8,000 square metre threshold. I don't remember about Ontario, I probably made a mistake (or was it someone else?).

But then, what are you refering to: "other museums on the list which are not art museums"? LinguisticStudent (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello LinguisticStudent, and thank you for putting up such an important and interesting list. The Ontario museum has only a minor portion dedicated to artworks, which is why I had removed it. By "other museums" I meant places like the National Historical Museum, Bulgaria, which I know nothing about personally but the article reads as if the visual arts are just one things among many that it focuses on and exhibits, so should it be included on this list? I don't know, nor do I know about some of the others which may or may not be questionable. Your criteria first well. Thans again, Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It is funny that you are talking about the National Historical Museum, Bulgaria. It is the last addition (by someone else), and I almost removed it yesterday (but was too tired). The collection fits (historical artefacts of great value), and when the wiki page says "only 10% of them are permanently exhibited", this formulation does not mean that most of the museum is occupied by temporary exhibitions (if that's what you mean by "focuses on exhibits"), but that most of the collections are not on display for lack of space (cf. museum map). The problem with this museum is that it's too small: there are 14,000 square meters of total surface area, and total exhibition space generally occupies around a third of the total. You can see from the map that it's not very big. LinguisticStudent (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)