|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Last modified on 7 December 2011, at 02:49↑Jump back a section
Encyclopaedic comment and photo?
OK, to avoid an edit war over this, does anyone else have any views on whether this photograph and caption, together with the text I removed in this edit, have any place in this encyclopaedia? BencherliteTalk 23:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's a fun fact about the bridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- If this light pattern had been covered by a reliable source for some reason, and if the article were large and developed enough for the removed "fun fact" not to be given undue weight merely by its inclusion, I might have advocated its retention (although with no particular fervour; it is, admittedly, rather tasteless). As things stand, I believe that the curiosity in question has no place in the article—or, to answer Bencherlite's question, in this encyclopaedia.
- Besides, captions are not supposed to be italicised. Waltham, The Duke of 06:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely no grounds to include this. Any trefoil window or object will cast a shadow of this shape when the sun's at a particular angle, and the trefoil is a very common motif in Gothic and Gothic Revival monumental and religious architecture. There are thousands of structures to which this fact replies, and no source has ever singled out Westminster Bridge as a particularly significant case. – iridescent 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)