Talk:Marble Arch Mound

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marble Arch Mound article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Marble Arch Mound appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 August 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Marble Arch Mound (pictured) in central London looks like the hill in Teletubbies?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marble Arch Mound.

London: Public art Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Public art task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Arch damage[edit]

While reference 5 is accurately stated, it seems misleading. The mortar would likely be damaged not by lack of sunlight (as would a plant) but by the resulting moisture that would accumulate because of that constant darkness. Perhaps just saying that the experts feared the arch would be damaged would be better? Unknowntouncertain (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making it less specific risks sounding even more misleading, as if they were worried that the arch might be physically damaged by the scaffolding or the weight of visitors!

The source we're citing uses pretty much the same words ("Conservation experts advised that shrouding the almost 200-year-old stone structure in total darkness for six months could risk weakening the mortar joints, leading to potential collapse."). Unless we can find other sources that go into more detail, I think are choices are echoing some version of that, or just ending the sentence at "rejected by conservation experts" to avoid any risk of confusion at all.

The current "rejected by conservation experts who were concerned that six months of darkness may weaken the mortar joints" seems okay to me, though. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

The mound in July 2021

... that the Marble Arch Mound is a 25-metre high artificial hill that has been built in central London in 2021? Source: [1]
- ALT1:... that the Marble Arch Mound in central London has been compared to the hill from Teletubbies? Source: [2]
- ALT2:... that the Marble Arch Mound opened in central London in July 2021, but immediately closed after complaints from visitors? Source: [3]

Reviewed: ~~QPQ to come~~ Template:Did you know nominations/SS Alpena (1942)
Comment: Started by Edwardx on 24 June, expanded by Lord Belbury and others a few days later. I've also expanded it significantly today. The main hook is written neutrally; ALT1 is rather more positive than ALT2, but most news stories right now seem to be about the closure.

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Lord Belbury (talk). Nominated by Mike Peel (talk) at 18:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

GTG, New, long & neutral enough. Well-written & interesting. All hooks check out. ALT2 is perhaps best. Earwig just piks up the quotes. The pic is ok to use (I'm sure it would be ok on Commons, Andrew). Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I visited yesterday and took some photos. A selection have been added as a gallery and so we should consider which will work best on the main page for the DYK. I'd have gone up it to take a picture from the summit but it's not open for booking until 9th August now. The chap at the gate told me that some people got tickets early and they were being allowed in. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: You seem to have uploaded them to Wikipedia rather than to commons:Category:Marble Arch Mound - could you move them over please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expect such picture to be threatened with deletion on Commons as this is a temporary installation – they may be safer here. In any case, I always load my pictures here first and a bot or gnome usually then copies them. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the temporary installation. If that is a problem, then it would be a problem here as well as on Commons. Please upload them to Commons, as otherwise they can't be used on other wikis. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the links for Commons upload and, after a few jumps, ended up at a page Upload your own work. This is limited to "Photographs or videos you have created of: natural landscapes, animals, and plants; people that are either public figures or are taken at public events; useful or non-artistic objects (tools, dinner plates, etc.)..." but these photos are not of a natural landscape, nor public figures, nor a useful object. It appears that I would not even be able to upload pictures of my back garden to Commons as its pond is man-made, rather than natural. So I'm still inclined to stick to what works. In any case, the next volunteer task on my to-do list is to upload some Parkrun photos to Flickr and I expect this to be comparatively trouble free. See the path of least resistance... Andrew🐉(talk) 21:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that page, I do not see the words 'limited to' anywhere - I see a non-exhaustive list of some examples. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson and Mike Peel: I believe what you are concerned about is the freedom of panorama; you can read about it on Commons, but the short of it is that this mound probably qualifies as 3D artwork and that's ok to photograph in the UK (as is everything publicly accessible). Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article got 12,453 views – well done Edward and the others. As it happens, I had booked tickets for that day and so got to go up to the top and take pictures. I've added a few more and have lots more offline too. Note that entry did not actually require a ticket -- they are just letting people go up as they please. The gatekeeper, who had a traffic clicker, said that they are getting about 500/hour during the weekends and 300/hour during weekdays. It was reasonably busy without being unpleasantly crowded so it's worth stopping by if you're in the area. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

Hi Andrew Davidson. I noticed you've uploaded photos of the Mound to enwiki rather than Commons. While you're fine to do that if you really want, there are many advantages to uploading to Commons, the main being it can be found easily in the future, categorisation and usage on other projects. The wording in the upload wizard you mentioned above is there as a catch+ -all; different countries have different copyright laws. In the case of the UK, basically any public structure (including interiors) is fine under freedom of panorama laws, and if anything it offers more use that after the mound is removed images will still exist, for future use. If you really want to keep the photos on enwiki you can, but there are a fair few advantages in uploading them to Commons. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be sticking to my current practise which has the following advantages:

It avoids going to a separate project with its separate staff, policies and processes
The same process is used for all images -- whether they are my own, fair use, historical or whatever
The images go on my watchlist here which is the one that I watch

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]