Painting Vs Church

This is mainly a questions for fellow contributors. I went to see a cool painting in a church. The church itself is quite ordinary. The only reason to visit it (other than religious), is to see the painting. Do I submit an entry for the church or for the painting?
The same can also apply for other places, of course (e.g. museums).

1 Like

I’d say it’s your personal choice. I’ve seen all sorts of cases where places get sort of “nested” from previous ones.

There’s an entry for all of the murals in Mexico City’s National Museum of Anthropology, and then another for one specific mural out of these:

It seems to me like AO would probably be ok either way. If you think that the mural is the only thing of interest in the church, maybe it makes more sense to do the entry on the whole church.


As a contributor of many church based obscurities, I tend to shape the entry around, and name it after, the object rather than the location (The painting in your case). Of course you can include additional details about the location, but seeing as the object/painting is the main focus it makes sense to me to let readers know this from the offset.
Museums and galleries are areas I have struggled before, I tend to stick to the same approach, highlighting the unusual piece or artefact amongst the wider, interesting but perhaps not obscure, rest of the gallery or museum.
I am happy to be corrected on this if needs be, seeing as the object or artefact is not necessarily a ‘Place’, in AO speak, but it is my personally preference as a reader and contributor.


Happy to offer an editor’s perspective on this question! In this case, I would focus the entry on the painting and use its name as the title.

We do this fairly often for artwork, objects, or entries that otherwise focus on a single part of a larger institution. You might notice some Places include the name of that institution appears below the title (for example, Galileo’s Middle Finger has the Galileo Museum, this entry about Encryption Lava Lamps has Cloudflare HQ, and the ‘Las Razas y La Cultura’ Mural entry that @linkogecko linked above has the name of the museum).

This is a feature that we added last year to make it clear when a Place entry is about a specific thing within a museum, library, cemetery, church, etc. Some of them are more clear-cut than others, but @AdOYo’s approach is almost exactly the way that I think about these kinds of entries.

Hope that’s helpful! Happy to talk more specifics if you want.


Thank you, all. All valid points, but you know, at times you’ve got that not-so-clear-cut item that could go either way . . . and the preference seems to go more towards the specific item over the actual place in these cases. It won’t be my next church coming up (that boat has sailed), but I’ll use this approach for a museum I’ve visited recently. Cheers


I tend to go for the object or feature of wonder
as a standalone within the church / cathedral rather than the building itself.

Though the building may have a fascinatingly rich story often the object / feature / artifact of wonder is bizarre or interesting enough to deserve it’s own entry.

If mentioned in an entry of the overall building then the feature sometimes doesn’t stand out enough or is too small and in the shadow of the architecture or grandeur of a place that it can go unnoticed and as such unappreciated by potential visitors.

Couple of examples from the Atlas that highlight this :

A couple of examples of entries where i’ve done this :

1 Like