Talk:Eiffel Tower/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Style of the tower

In what style is the famous tower built? No mention of it in the article, think it is relevant information?Sourcerery (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Its sui generis. I would not call it Art Nouveau, Style Liberty, Arts and CRafts, Classical Revival and its tool early for Art Deco or PoMo. None of the articles on gussie's bridges mention a style; I am reminded of those people who argue abou whether a band are deathcore or hip-hop. Its NOT RELEVANT.TheLongTone (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's very relevant, that is one worlds most famous assholes. We need sources that describe its style whatever it may be, your opinion is not something we can put in the article.Sourcerery (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not read anything that calls it any style. And I have read a lot about the subject; I am a major contributor to the page and also to the biog of Gus. And your opinion that it needs a label is NOT RELEVANT.TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Caricature of Gustave Eiffel comparing the Eiffel tower to the Pyramids

...and I think the style of the thing is covered in the article in the bit about the Artist's Protest. Oh, its not Beaux Arts, Barocque, Rococco or vernacular either. What style are the Pyramids at Giza, btw?TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well maybe you should read more, it's architectural structure and it needs it, every relevant and iconic structure has that mentioned, usually in the lead for example Statue of Liberty. I'm not into archeology and I don't care about pyramids, this is about tower. Artists protests covers exactly what it title says, not style.Sourcerery (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Instead of rudely demanding that other volunteers "read more", I suggest that you find the answer and a reliable source yourself, since it's so important to you. Asking a question is fine, demanding an answer that suits you is not. If you're not happy being told it has its own unique 'style', find a reliable source that says otherwise and edit the article. Sorry to be harsh but your attitude stinks. -- Begoon 15:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

So you are gonna deliberately ignore his condescending attitude and rudeness and flat out dismissal of question with all caps NOT RELEVANT? Of course I'm gonna push back on that kind of behaviour, your double standards are dreadful.Sourcerery (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I call it as I see it. Anyway, you can berate me for not giving you the answer you want now if you like - my skin is thick. Good luck with your quest for knowledge - but here's a tip - honey catches more flies than vinegar... ttfn. -- Begoon 15:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I doubt your objectivity, not catching anything asking simple question and getting condescending attitude and underhanded insults.Sourcerery (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

We need sources that describe its style Go and find one then. Firebrace (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(pssssst: Elvis has left the building ; ) TP ✎ ✓ 05:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic, I've always suspected that it's no coincidence that "Elvis" is an anagram of "Lives"... -- Begoon 05:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's funny: I was thinking 'viles'. TP ✎ ✓ 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

...probably because of the same quirk that led me to sell my soul to Santa. TP ✎ ✓ 14:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hope some serious and knowledgeable editor will join this discussion that does not want to dismiss question out of hand and resort to thinly veiled insults.Sourcerery (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm a serious and knowledgable editor, and I say that there is no mention in any of the sources I have read (which go beyond beermats, I assure you) of the thing belonging to any architectural style. To reiterate, its form is dictated by engineering necessiry and I don't think anyony ha objected to no stylistic laberl being used for the Garabit viaduct or the Forth Bridge.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, the assignation of a style to the Statue of Liberty refers to its style as a work of sculpture, so its a false comparison.TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the style could be accurately called recentbridgetestedmetallatticeworktechnologytestedverticallyforthefirsttime-ism. TP ✎ ✓ 13:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I like it. It's kind of snappy.TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Could we have a sub-genre for Blackpool Tower, metallatticeworktechnologytestedverticallyinparisandcopiedshamelessly-esque or something? Or am I not being serious enough? -- Begoon 13:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And hey, with that and the Tokyo Tower, there would be two articles in that category. TP ✎ ✓ 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I love it when a plan comes together - and all it took was for you to join the discussion... I do notice that someone already seems to have had a similar idea, but I think things like this might be pushing the envelope a little? -- Begoon 23:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ooooo, the bastards! But whence the evidence that <wiksophism> those 'reproductions' are in fact reproductions (and not reproductions of reproductions (of Eiffel-inspired works))?</wikisophism>

Joke I may, but categories are indeed 'claims without sources'... and can be abused as such. But I digress. TP ✎ ✓ 06:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: The Star Tower is a great example of what shouldn't be in that category (where's the source saying that it should be?). TP ✎ ✓ 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It isn't. And yes, categories are exactly that. Great tools for sneaky defamation, as well. The category system is also utterly unfit for use and should long ago have been replaced with a system of queryable attributes or tags - otherwise one ends up with crazy things like Category:Extinct blue moths from socialist Asian republics where each word except 'from' should just be a queryable attribute set on some item (although that doesn't solve the sourcing issue). But don't get me started on that... I generally just avoid anything to do with categories. -- Begoon 07:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, from that category, enjoy Eiffel Tower replicas and derivatives, and here, I quote: "Most are not exact replicas, though there are many like it." I think File:MonteAmiataVettaCroce.JPG is my favourite... -- Begoon 07:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Owch for so many reasons. And yes, Wikipedia seems to be obstinately blind to its shortcomings (like categories) that allow it to be WP:GAMEd (while the WP:GAMErs cry: 'but there's no rule against it!')... if you want to bring this up somewhere (let's stick to categories for now, perhaps), I'm game. TP ✎ ✓ 07:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@ThePromenader:I've never really understood categories, and sometimes get yelled at for not including them. But I've always thought this was my shortcoming. What do you see as the shortcomings of categories? Unschool 12:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A link to a youtube video would be quite inappropriate here, but the song's called "Little Boxes".

Categories are fine when it comes to anything peer-reviewed (where there's a demonstrable (and source-able) consensus about that categorisation; now that I think of it, categories are great for making WP:FRINGE concepts seem 'authoritative', and they're often used that way), but their usefulness tends to wane outside of that, especially where it comes to bestest-mostest-(etc.) vanity-labelling. TP ✎ ✓ 13:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Unschool 00:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention the points I made above about sneaky defamation and the functional ones about not being fit for purpose and the advantages of queryable attributes... I mean, you could at least have mentioned them, it wouldn't have been so hard, sniff, and I was rather proud of them... Anyway - ticky-tacky - they're all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same. (My mum used to sing that when I was a nipper) -- Begoon 13:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Unschool 00:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, I think that horse may have bolted. Early on there was Semantic Wiki which tried to address some of these issues but Jimbo didn't like (understand?) that, so Mediawiki never went that way. The category system is so ingrained now, and replacing it would involve so many fundamental changes that I'm convinced you'd never get any changes off the ground with the WMF, who are the ones who would have to fix it. We've been trying to get them to thumbnail photographic png files the same way they do jpegs for years, so that png thumbnails aren't 'blurry', but I'm afraid inertia is king - and when it isn't you get WP:FLOW - so I'm pessimistic... -- Begoon 07:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I see you - but even getting a precedent-able documentation of someone (from the 'wiki-powers that (would-)be') acknowledging the problem would be a start.

Personally I see fault in a bound-to-fail 'grouping because word' concept (synonyms? language, even? Data should be organised around fact-event-concept/time/place instead), but that's yet another problem.TP ✎ ✓ 09:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

There is a picture in the article, dated 2013, which appears to be in contradiction of the French Court's copyright declaration regarding night time illuminated images of the Tower. Does this image need to be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.83.141 (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No; the tower is out of focus and therefore incidental to the subject, which is someone holding a phone, and the picture on their phone occupies only a small area (less than 10% by my reckoning) of the work. Firebrace (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong picture ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2013_Fireworks_on_Eiffel_Tower_11.jpg 92.20.190.227 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The tower is not illuminated. Spotlights are shining away from the tower. Firebrace (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If the tower wasn't illuminated, it would be far darker than it is in the picture. 92.20.190.227 (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Raise it at Wikimedia Commons; I'm sure they will appreciate the monumental waste of their time. Firebrace (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2019

On the right column with specific information: Design and Construction: Architect should Not Be Listed As The Designer. Gustave Eiffel Designed This Tower, hence his namesake, the Eiffel Tower. Gustav Eiffel was a Civil Engineer. Stephen Sauvestre had nearly Nothing to do with the design and the aesthetic of this structure as the aesthetic is a direct structural function of engineering intelligence and engineering art. How Stephen Sauvestre gets credit for being the architect of the Eiffel Tower is beyond blind intelligence. The Designer of the Eiffel Tower was Gustav Eiffel. Maurice Koechlin and Émile Nouguier were his structural engineers and should be kept. Eiffel came up with the vision and thus was the obvious designer. 137.175.234.245 (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

uuuuuu the eiffel tower was made swedien it vas pantad in the pantig maskin in coop bjorksakatan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holmqvist14 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Eiffel was the entrepreneur responsinle for building the tower. The actual design is Maurice Koechlin's. Sauvestre was in charge or the architectural elements. Check you facts before sounding off.TheLongTone (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Franz Reichelt video plays at about 160% of the correct speed and is not correctly attributed

See my comment at Talk:Franz Reichelt#Video plays at about 160% of the correct speed and is not correctly attributed. Does anyone here know how to correct the speed and/or attribution? Enginear (talk) 01:43, 9 February 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:

• Wax figures at Eiffel tower 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2020

Change "storey" in the first paragraph to "story" Real Wiki99U (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Article uses british english, so storey spelling is correct. See WP:ENGVAR RudolfRed (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Help

Please add an addition. I have few edits on the English language version of Wikipedia to make changes to protected pages. Thanks.

5 francs coin, issued for the 100th anniversary of the Eiffel Tower (1989, silver).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Петров Эдуард (talk • contribs) 16:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Name in French

In French, the standard name for the tower is tour Eiffel (with a lowercase 't'). See the French Wikipedia page or the tower's official website.

There's also a nickname, la Dame de la Fer (the Iron Lady), but it's incorrect to say that's the definitive or usual translation of Eiffel Tower. Ministry (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

A minor correction, it is "de fer", as fer/iron is a masculine word. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That correction is right but not for the reason you give. There should be no determiner in this particular case, so dame du fer ("de le" → "du") would be incorrect too despite using the correct gender for "fer". The rule is similar to English in the (grammatically correct but non-idiomatic) construction "lady [made] out of iron"; one would not use "...out of the iron". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2021

49.206.127.105 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Gwfm85t in the file is required for video call and a ble in the file is required for video of the file is

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

I wish to add complements to the current bibliography Erasmuslancien (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. —Sirdog (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Non sequitir in fourth paragraph needs removal/rethinking

"This was a distinct improvement on the English project, although it still left room for criticism; and yet the Americans, in spite of their enterprising spirit, and the national enthusiasm excited by this conception, shrank from its execution. [5]"

The citation is interesting but the placement of this direct quote near the head of the article, with no context and no relation to the surrounding text, makes zero sense. Please revert or at minimum add the necessary context to allow the inclusion to make sense. Thanks. 208.59.42.116 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

nowhere on the source does it say that the Eiffel tower was meant to be the entrance for the 1189 world's fair

the source : https://web.archive.org/web/20160414130600/http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/everything-about-the-tower/the-eiffel-tower-at-a-glance.html

lists the Eiffel tower as:

The Eiffel Tower was built by Gustave Eiffel for the 1889 Exposition Universelle, which was to celebrate the 100th year anniversary of the French Revolution. Its construction in 2 years, 2 months and 5 days was a veritable technical and architectural achievement. "

it isn't mentioned as an entrance everywhere

I came know of this while arguing against a french dude on discord — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.198.98.194 (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I've changed it. It was the centerpiece of the fair as the article mentions, not the entrance. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

How many steps are there to reach till the tip of Eiffel tower from the ground ?

How many steps are there to reach till the tip of Eiffel tower from the ground ? 103.42.194.239 (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

[1] But these questions are commonly answered at the WP:Help desk. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Huilin826.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Ephiel tower" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ephiel tower and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 27#Ephiel tower until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Misspelling

It's not STOREY, it is Story 2601:2C1:8202:B1D0:F83C:E031:EC0:F8FD (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is written in British English - storey is correct. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Ideas

How did they get the idea to build this? 2405:201:1012:1048:35D8:E144:B4E9:7A40 (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Read the article Robynthehode (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)