This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
A fact from China Art Museum, Shanghai appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 October 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the China Art Museum(pictured), housed in the former China Pavilion of the Shanghai Expo, is the largest art museum in Asia?
Seems sensible the building may be new but most of the collection will be the same. Care to give a reason, User:Another Believer? Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, I don't know. I am confused about the best way for Wikipedia to cover the Shanghai Art Museum, Shanghai Race Club, the notable building that housed the Shanghai Race Club, and the China Art Museum. I crossed out my vote above and will let others decide. ---Another Believer(Talk) 22:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge: the website for the China Art Museum recognizes its continuity with the Shanghai art museum; for example, giving its foundation date as 1956. Having a separate page for the Shanghai Race Club, however, seems reasonable. So, then we have pages for the institutions rather the buildings, which is consistent.Klbrain (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK; withdrawing my objection and closing the discussion as there is evidently no consensus to merge, nor is anyone strongly minded to do so. I agree that separating the material about the former building, and about the museum, is reasonable. Klbrain (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]