Talk:Museum of Bad Art

Archive 1: March 2009

Self Portrait as a Bird/Drainpipe

The article calls the second stolen work Self Portrait as a Drainpipe, but [1] and cited source [2] identify it as "Self Portrait as a Bird". The other cited source, [3], calls it Self-Portrait as a Drainpipe. Judging by the picture in the latter citation, it's hard for me to imagine it as a bird, I'm pretty sure the other two are referring to the same painting... Should we give both names? -kotra (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• The second book by MOBA states that it is "Self Portrait as a Drain Pipe'" and i believe that that is where the name has come from. I think that there was just some bad reporting somewhere allong the line that has weasled its way into multiple sources. I would be fine with putting something in about the name discrepency, but "Drain pipe" is the correct one.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's drainpipe. Reliable sources are hideous sometimes. The best you can hope for is a balance between all the discrepancies you can find. It's much worse when the majority of your sources are newspapers. I found the same frustration when I wrote my only other "pop culture" article, Mulholland Dr.--Moni3 (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's worth pointing out that one of the reviewers has made a silly mistake. Also, "Self-portrait as a drainpipe" is the best laugh point in the whole article, would be a real shame to mess with it by adding a discussion about how some journalist seems to have mis-remembered the title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging by MOBA's 1998 news blurb, it seems likely they first called it "Self Portrait as a Bird" (for irony?) and then later retitled it "Self Portrait as a Drain Pipe". But even so, I agree that the earlier name probably doesn't need to be mentioned, since it's such a minor detail. -kotra (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Map

This may be minor, but since we are tying to get this page perfect is there any way to get two dots on the location map? I understand the current dot represents the original MOBA, but there are now two locations.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how close Dedham is to Somerville. Is the map so small that one dot represents both? And - for all my gifts, I don't know the secret to putting dots on maps. I'm such a failure. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dedham, Massachusetts and Somerville, Massachusetts would be noticeably separate on this map... but unfortunately, I don't think this infobox allows two locations. The documentation for {{Infobox museum}} doesn't seem to mention anything about adding a second location; I tried using latitude2 and longitude2 out of desperation, but it didn't work. -kotra (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone still cares, but I just stumbled across the page List of National Historic Landmarks in Nevada and in their map they have multiple points. The picture itself is at Template:Nevada NHLs map. Maybe we could take a page out of their book to get two dots?--Found5dollar (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They achieved multiple dots by having them as part of the image. This is an option, I suppose. -kotra (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dedham

Somerville

class=notpageimage|

IF anyone can get this in the info box... do it!

See also

This would go very well with this if anyone wants to add it to the "see also" section. --candle•wicke 19:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

speeking of the "see also" section. some one added Degenerate art. Does that realy belong in an article about kind of funny art?--Found5dollar (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

See Also links should only exist for related subjects that would be linked to in the body of a perfect article. As I see it, that means that ideally there should be a reliable source relating this subject with the See Also subject. Only the Museum of Particularly Bad Art seems to fit that bill, as it was inspired by MOBA (although its article doesn't actually give a reference for that statement) and may be worth linking because the names are similar and could be confused with each other. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I added Degenerate art as art is subjective; what was seen as "degenerate" art and what is seen as "bad" art has to be seen as relatively subjective. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

While I can (vaguely) see how you might interpretate a connection from this museum of supposedly-flawed-but-interesting art to Nazi ideology on art, I think it's rather a non-obvious connection. Unless there's a reliable source that makes the connection, I think it should be removed. Cowen nude portraits probably isn't a suitably referenced or uncontraversial connection either, although I haven't read that article because I'm not sure if it's work safe. ;) Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan Paddy; WP:SEEALSO is for links that would be in the article if it were a fully comprehensive and perfect article. I doubt either degenerate art or cowen nude portraits would be mentioned in a complete article, but I could be wrong... -kotra (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:See also - A "perfect" article then may not have a "See also" section at all, though some links may not naturally fit into the body of text and others may not be included due to size constraints. Seeing Degenerate art art as only through a Nazi filter is one way of looking at it but my understanding is that what the Nazi's deemed "degenerate" included some of the world's finest artists. I recall a documentary that included material about the art show displaying much of the art with people (silently) enamored with what was on display. I think it was considered one of the most impressive art shows of its time. The point is that calling something bad art, for whatever reason, has been done before and likely will happen again. This is, after all, just a link. -- Banjeboi 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a hundred other similarly tenuous connections could be made. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Due to the apparent concensous, i am removing Degenerate art from the see also section. --Found5dollar (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I see I was a little too early planting that comment. I completely forgot to come back on 1 April to see what scandal it had caused... ;) --candle•wicke 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Cowen nude portraits were made into a very funny Wikinews item on April 1st, but not related to MOBA... it said something like "Financial markets plunged, and the Prime Minister of Ireland was seen nude in public." Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Trademark symbols

In the graphic at the top of the infobox, don't additional "TM" symbols belong next to the "moba" logo itself, and the text "MUSEUM OF BAD ART"? I know the Museum is vigilant about protecting its intellectual property, and I believe all three TM symbols are in use there. Tempshill (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the TM is part of the image, and is attached to their motto "art too bad to be ignored". I'm not sure what you're asking, though. --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Tempshill is saying there should be a "TM" beside not only the "art too bad to be ignored" part of the logo, but also next to the "MUSEUM OF BAD ART" part and the "MOBA" graphic part. However, this is the exact same image they themselves used on their official mugs[4], so I don't think they'd have a problem with there only being one "TM" inside the image (unless they have a problem with their own mugs). -kotra (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, the museum is real. I was being facetious. Tempshill (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is real. You should never doubt Wikipedia's accuracy. -kotra (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's accuracy? Yes, right... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.57.184.11 (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad Painting

I'm surprised you didn't include this famous art movement from 1978 - Bad Painting. Featured at the New Museum and leading New York galleries of the early 80s. As well as ancillary shows in Europe as recently as 2006 and 2008...:) Modernist (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems worth including; I added it under "See also". Thanks, Modernist. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Main page summary

I have to say, kudos to whoever wrote that summary of this featured article on the main page. Usually such summaries consist of the lead section, but this one is hilarious, focusing on interesting bits and pieces of the article that the lead section doesn't mention. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Moni3 wrote this one, and did a pretty good job (I wanted to take it in a different direction, but this turned out well). -kotra (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just read this off the front page as FA. Just wanted to congratulate everyone that worked on this for the fantastic article. Read it from start to finish and enjoyed every bit. Keep up the good work! --QatBurglar (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Shennanigans?

This is the annual WP April Fool's hyuck-fest, yes? X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It's September 14. You must have fallen asleep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ooooh. :) That was rather sharp of you Colton. Bordering on the uncivil, methinks. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

All jokes aside, yes, it is. Everything in this article is true, though. -kotra (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucy in the Field with Flowers twice?

Does "Lucy in the Field with Flowers" really need to be shown twice in the article? It seems kind of odd. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for this are given in the talk archive. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly. We can come up with more reasons to include one more image of Lucy. Why would we not? --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1 April 2009

Foolish, yet true. Bravo. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear oh dear! ~Encise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.53.218.20 (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a high-brow somewhat funny Uncyclopedia article.--138.16.10.68 (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy April Fool Day!!! Very funny! HagenUK (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Probably one of WP's best articles of all time :-) SBC-YPR (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I love it! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this isn't a hoax, it is real! --Marianian (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

TINC --72.65.210.2 (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:MOBA Somerville Theater gallery.jpg

Is it just me, or does this image look photoshopped? The chair looks out of place. ∗ \ / (⁂) 07:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just the flash from the camera giving it unnatural-looking lighting. -kotra (talk)

I've been there and can asure you it is real. --Found5dollar (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Must be my eyes. :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Why is the entire article written in a facetious tone? Jackal Killer (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Check the sources. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is written in a particularly facetious tone. In fact I think it's rather well written, in a tone perfectly in keeping with its subject. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Malleus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in tone with the topic, but not with Wikipedia's rules. It's written out to be a superb magazine article, but not an encyclopedic one. Wikipedia has very clear rules with regards to including statments that are subjective, such as "masterful pieces of art so awful they prompt viewers to appeal loudly for divine intervention". What is this??.--Cuyaya (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing what's written in the article with the blurb that was written especially for today's main page. I don't think you'll find the statement you're objecting to in the article itself. I suggest that you read it. It's really quite good. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank the creators of this entry. I enjoyed reading it.Iss246 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto that, very enjoying read :-) YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation style

Is anyone against switching citations on this article to use templates? ←Spidern→ 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am against changing the citation style. Citation templates are inconsistent and unnecessarily clunk up the article text, which is why some editors object to them. See Wikipedia:CITE#Citation templates and tools. I also think that messing with cite templates on a busy mainpage day would not be wise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am as well. Cite templates are a pain. It's much easier to type citations freehand. --Moni3 (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Defer to SG and Moni3. I personally prefer them because they generate the COinS metadata, but the established choice has priority. In any case, don't change while on the Main page.LeadSongDog come howl 13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

citation templates may be mildly inconsistent, but there are already plenty of inconsistencies already (for example "Volume 104, no. 7", "Volume 106, Issue 5" and "Vol. 6, No. 4"). at least the inconsistencies in templates can be maintained by a bot.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

One template that would be particularly useful here (not really "clunky" at all) is the {{Harvnb}} template, which would give direct links to the reference anchors at the bottom of the page, if formatted correctly. ←Spidern→ 15:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely prefer citation templates for several reasons (in fact, this is the first time I've heard of anyone preferring written-out citations), but I agree with all above: this isn't a good time to switch. -kotra (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I agree with SandyGeorgia and Moni3. Citation templates are unnecessary.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Impact

Thanks for all your work on the MOBA article. We’ve had a very strong response. People have been sending email, entering the interpretation contest, signing up for our newsletter, calling, and (most importantly) buying MOBA merchandise.

The first note we got included this:

It was obviously written by your staff (which is totally acceptable, I suppose) but it really reads like a shameless act of self-promotion. Not that I think that self-promotion should be a shameful act. But if there were an "impartiality alert" flag on the wiki (like the "flags" on the craigslist, I would without hesitation click a mouse on the one next to your entry.

What I also thought added to the offensiveness of it was the deceiving use of a third person and a tone of highly subjective fascination with the museum, as if it was written by a completely smitten, if somewhat eccentric visitor/bad art scholar/wannabe biographer.

I am really quite a big fan of wiki and I think there should be a common contract/agreement within the contributing community to present all the information in a neutral or impartial manner.

Sincerely,

(name removed)

(a truly atrocious artist among other things)

Mike set (the writer) straight:

The "staff" of MOBA are Permanent Interim Acting Executive Director Louise Reilly Sacco and myself, and I assure you neither of us wrote the article on Wikipedia. The person who wrote the article emailed us to verify some information and point her toward sources of information. Neither of us has ever met her. I assume she likes MOBA, or she would not have spent many hours researching and writing the article.

Speaking of self-promotion, for a good time, check out Museum of Bad Art: Masterworks

As always I remain,

Mike

Michael Frank, Curator-in-Chief

Museum of Bad Art

People are passionate about Wikipedia!

Yours in bad art,

Louise

Louise Reilly Sacco

Permanent Acting Interim Executive Director

Museum of Bad Art

Email just received. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

On that note, it seems that we currently link directly to their gift shop in the external links. Am I the only one that is slightly bothered by this? If people really want to find the gift shop, it's already linked to on their homepage, which we also have in the external links. ←Spidern→ 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently (from the above email) our readers are clicking on it, so I think it's doing them a service and should remain. Raul654 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that they are good people, and I'm sure they're quite pleased with all of this recent attention, but a link directly to their gift shop strikes me as a type of link normally to be avoided. ←Spidern→ 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with Spidern on this one. WP:ELNO discourages "links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services."Ferrylodge (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on the link. It was there for a long time, through FAC and the multitude of edits that came before today. It seems just the appearance of this note to inform us that people are using it is the impetus for the controversy. I don't think that's necessarily a good idea to remove it since we just now realize what it's doing. Of course, removing it does comply with guidelines, and it then requires interested parties to click once more on the MOBA website. It leaves me ambivalent, except for putting a post-it note in my brain that perhaps I should not share relevant emails. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Leave it. Any time you dare write an article, a main page FA no less, about a commercial organization, all kinds of people will appear out of the woodwork screaming conflict of interest, impropriety, spam, and so on. If you remove the link, they'll find something else. Not that I know from any kind of personal experience. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I was going to raise it before you posted the email. You beat me to mentioning it, so I figured I'd post it here. I wasn't here for the FAC process, otherwise I would have raised it as a concern there. But don't let it discourage you from sharing tidbits like this, because they are quite interesting. I see no controversy here: I've done a lot of removing of promotional links from the external links section on other pages, so I didn't think we should treat this one any differently. It's purely a matter of consistency. ←Spidern→ 16:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd support removing the link regardless of the email. It clearly falls under WP:ELNO. No reason the article has to be frozen after becoming featured. I just didn't notice the link before today. No one's screaming about this, as far as I can tell.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, originally written in response to Laser brain) Each complaint should be handled individually and on its own merits. This link does seem to violate WP:ELNO, and I don't really see any usefulness in it anyway, since it's already available on the MOBA website, which we link to. We shouldn't care if we're doing them a service or not (we already are doing them a huge service by featuring the article, but that's of course not why we're doing it). We should only care if the link is useful. So I agree with Spidern and Ferrylodge. -kotra (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In the news

News:

• Sprechen ze what?
• Fox News
• Annals of Improbable Research
• The AP

Funny. "...mit den schönsten Fundstücken aus den Abfalldeponien Bostons bestückt..."; I told you that was a good line. ;P Эlcobbola _talk 19:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. I'm funny in German. --Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet oddly, this abstract from today's in Boston Commentary Magazine makes no mention of WP! Ah well, I suppose we can reference it anyhow. LeadSongDog come howl 22:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This well read blog post was inspired by us as well. --Found5dollar (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I just have to say that the AP mention is catty: Perhaps the most dizzying April Fools' mock-reality came from Wikipedia, which annually redesigns its home page with spoof articles and headlines. The user-generated encyclopedia was even more unreliable than usual on Wednesday. Its feature article was on "the Museum of Bad Art" or "MOBA."

More unreliable than usual? Meow, AP. How about if I just continue to add content to the article I'm currently working on, Rosewood massacre, in which numerous sources refer to the notoriously unreliable reports made by the Associated Press, that, in fact, probably escalated the situation even more, causing more people to die. Yeah? Good times. I'll do that. --Moni3 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've let Jay know about the AP story and he said he'll contact them. Raul654 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not shy about writing to folks about what I write about (evidence above). I've never written to a reporter to call their attention to their own POV, however. Was this your objective? Because if someone from Wiki is going to contact him, I'll lay off, wander over to my corner and contemplate paint drying, as usual. --Moni3 (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Jay is paid to do Wikipedia PR stuff (including contacting reporters about bad stories, like this one) and he's good at what he does. Raul654 (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I chose a nice shade of ecru. If possible, I would like to be informed of the response, though. I appreciate it. --Moni3 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I love how Fox News thinks the article is a fake. "Fair and Balanced", now there's a great hoax. ;) Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

More coverage on Bruce Schneier's blog: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/thefts_at_the_m.html Raul654 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we are all unwitting pawns of the Secret Capitalist Anti-Art Exploiting Establishment that runs MOBA for profit.LeadSongDog come howl 17:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate for a Feature Article

The article covers its subject well, but what is its subject? This museum is just another example of douchey hipsterism. Really, its the same joke as wearing an ugly t-shirt on purpose, just brought to another level (of scale but not inspiration). The subjects of feature articles should be of more importance than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.148.195.184 (talk)

The question you should probably be asking is not whether the subject is important enough, but whether it is notable and covered by reliable sources. And bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. ←Spidern→ 17:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Spidern is correct; the criteria for an FA and even a front-page FA isn't the importance of the subject, but the excellence of the article. Or, that's what the criteria are supposed to be. Tempshill (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir, if we made the respectability of a subject into a criteria for inclusion, wouldn't we have to start the purge with our articles on wars?
Further, as Wikipedia can't become known for its academic respectability, and won't become known for its accuracy, is it not a good thing to be known for our breadth and, when possible, valid coverage on even the patently insane matters? --Kizor 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have been excepted into taking-a-joke class. Have you noticed that it was featured on APRIL 1ST? Saberwolf116 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite the exceptional subject, it was accepted as a featured article on March 15. While it was always expected to be used on the front page on April 1, if you read its nomination, I'm sure you'll accept without exception that its promotion wasn't a joke. --Underpants 20:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This article was totally appropriate for a feature article. It should be read by every editor to illustrate to them that WP is about faithfully summarising the authoritative sources, without censorship, over-interpretation or too much editorial 'judgement' (a self-justification word for inserting POV into articles). The editors here have recognised the notability of the MOBA, and faithfully reproduced the content and balance of the published sources. This is what an encyclopedia should do - we seek to reproduce what humans KNOW about a subject NOT the TRUTH about a subject. They are two entirely different things, the first is possible, the second, for multiple reasons, is neither possible, nor even desireable (at least in an encyclopedia). Riversider (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But isn't knowledge generally defined as justified true belief? Btyner (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Only by Plato. More modern philosphers generally distinguish between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. It appears to me that Riversider is arguing from an a priori perspective, and as such "truth" and "justification" are irrelevant. A Kantian "universal truth" if you will, one that requires neither justification nor reason, just something that Riversider believes that we all know to be true without the inconvenience of having to provide any evidence. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Having read that again I see that it looks like I'm disagreeing with Riversider, but I'm not; I'm in absolute agreement. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm the person who wrote the original comment and I'll say I totally missed the April Fool's aspect. That's embarrassing :( But still, it's an encyclopedia, not a college newspaper, and there's got to be standards. I wrote that comment because this has been one of several articles on the front page that are of very little notability. Like the feature article about some Lost webisodes. THAT should have been the April Fool's article, because it was almost a parody of notability. And then Did You Know article that was basically some random guy's resume. I have to say that I strongly, strongly disagree with the idea that notability is not an important criterion for feature articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.148.195.184 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your view is often argued when the editors who write featured articles get together to discuss policy. There was a period a few months ago where the subject of the arguments was very short articles, much shorter than this one, and it went on for months and months. So I can't say that you're not the only person to discuss this view. But notability is relative in many cases. My first FA was an obscure pulp fiction writer that never used her real name and was virtually forgotten for many years except by the lesbians she wrote books for and about. I don't write much about pop culture, like television episodes a lot, but the merit in their articles being featured is that they get a huge amount of hits. I just wanted to say that your view is valid. Many editors feel as you do. We try to find a happy medium most of the time, however. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I left a comment for you above, but here's an addition: Don't you feel that notability has caused enough damage already? This is the ninth most popular website on the entire encyclopedia. We're a lot better for writing articles than writing rules. Being online, we're fertile ground for vicious arguments. Being a wiki, our survival rests on cooperation. I can't see the addition of an inherently subjective criteria going over well. It would effectively rob a lot of people of a goal and a chance of recognition in their chosen fields. What's more important, history or cars? Asteroids or supermodels? Theology or programming? Why?
Finally, FA is actually an outgrowth of the original Brilliant Prose (copy). It's always been a recognition of writing quality. --Kizor 18:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only is notability not an important criteria for featured articles, it's not actually a criteria for featured articles at all. Which I think is as it should be. The place to discuss changing the FAC criteria in the way you want is WT:FAC. The idea's been discussed before though, and has never gained consensus, rightly or wrongly. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, my previous message was started before yours and appeared above it seamlessly. It looks like the software has gotten a lot smarter in dealing with edit conflicts. --Kizor 18:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really know the official criteria for feature articles. I assumed notability was on there and I think it should be. And I still take a strong stand against hipster douchiness! I'm going to open a double-reverse ironic museum called The Museum of Good Art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.107.236.253 (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Page views

FYI, this page got about 236,000 hits yesterday, which is roughly 5x more than most featured articles get. Raul654 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw that and chortled in a paroxysm of laughter. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When I saw the blurb on the WP's front page, my first thought was, "This article has got to be an April Fool's Day joke." When I realized that the article was both legitimate and about an actual museum, I had to share the link with my friends. I know that several of them did the same double-take and passed it on to others. All in all, this is not only a very well written article worthy of front-page FA note, but the very best kind of prank, where the joke is on people who think it was a joke. TechBear (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

At first, I thought it was a joke, too. Now that I have read the talk page, I see it is about an actual museum, and I don't mind being initially fooled. The tone may be a bit different from the usual Wikipedia standard, but I agree that it is appropriate for the subject matter. --71.225.51.30 (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A probable major contributor was cryptographer/security expert Bruce Schneier blogging about it. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Added {{who}} to image

The "viewers" who speculate on the painting should be identified, I think. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New York Times

the New York Times just posted a new article about MOBA. IT states there are 3 galleries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/arts/design/03badart.html?_r=2

--Found5dollar (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. We have added that fact to this Wikipedia article, at the usual lightning-fast Wikipedia editing speed.198.228.201.150 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

third Gallery

there is a third gallery in the brookline public access television building. [5]. the article should be updated.--Found5dollar (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dedham Gallery Closing!

The Dedham gallery is closing. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/south/2013/01/13/museum-bad-art-loses-space-dedham-exhibit-its-stuff/BEXbJs6oEp0IOq4e6zC1LP/story.html--Found5dollar (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Image copyright status

There is a discussion at the Commons OTRS noticeboard about the copyright status of some of the images on this page. It is possible this will result in deletion. This is a courtesy notice. --NYKevin 15:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Museum of Bad 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228100850/http://www.northseattleherald-outlook.com/main.asp?ArticleID=56905&SectionID=35&SubSectionID=187 to http://www.northseattleherald-outlook.com/main.asp?ArticleID=56905&SectionID=35&SubSectionID=187
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140314090442/http://centerstage.net/theatre/shows/10735.html to http://centerstage.net/theatre/shows/10735.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720110249/http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/1998/0917/art3.html to http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/1998/0917/art3.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) 02:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Article tone

Not to be a buzzkill, but the whole tone of this article seems way to irreverent and humorous for a WIki article. It isn't just stating the facts, it's making a joke out of them, by stating inane things in a mockingly serious way. Not that I particulalry care, just I wonder why no-one has objected to this when I've seen less-offensive articles slammed for this.AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The article was, per wikipedia tradition, an April Fool's Day featured article, documenting something funny in the real world. The museum exists, but it is itself quite a tongue-in-cheek undertaking. See the cited sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Museum of Bad 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130102163708/http://www.foodandwine.com/thingtodo/museum/museum-of-bad-art to http://www.foodandwine.com/thingtodo/museum/museum-of-bad-art
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120917195129/http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/archive/x1658008848 to http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/archive/x1658008848
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605194632/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/02844044.htm to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/02844044.htm

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) 05:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Page images?

Are there no free or one-time-use images of the artworks, either described or not described on the page? One, two, or three would be nice, or maybe a few Wikipedia articles on their most prominent paintings. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Museum_of_Bad_Art Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I see. A sad decision for the art world, although legally a question mark writ large (which, as a statue, could very well stand outside of the museum in its sculpture garden). Does Wikipedia allow a one-page use of copyright images if the article is about the artwork (I'm also thinking of my Memory, the Heart page which is in dire need of its parent image)? In the meantime, Commons holds an image of the entrance to MOBA's men's bathroom, which will have to do for now. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NFCC might permit one image per page, but it's unusual to allow any more than this. Also there are many people (well, a handful, but they're vociferous) who would oppose this on the basis that a museum can be illustrated adequately by a photo of its building, not its contents. Commons doesn't permit NFCC - the images were originally on en:WP,[6] but were moved to Commons, then deleted once there (this happens a lot - another reason to avoid Commons). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)-

The names of paintings

Does the title assigned to a picture by the museum influence the way people assess it? For example, one painting is titled "Post Apocalypse". If it were instead titled "Winter landscape with Dawn Redwood trees" would that cause people to assess it differently?

Marcel Duchamp's Fountain might be worth thinking about. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)