Talk:List of works similar to the 2020 Utah monolith

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Buidhe in topic Requested move 10 January 2021

Requested move 10 January 2021 edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply



List of works similar to the 2020 Utah monolithList of works similar to the Utah monolith – There aren't multiple Utah monoliths by year — disambiguation in the title here is unnecessary and inconsistent. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose There is not enough context in "the Utah monolith" as it could be anything even a natural structure, for those who have never heard of it which will be the case as time goes by. The date provides additional context, it is a distinct phenomenon of 2020. -- GreenC 18:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Would that be an argument for renaming Utah monolith? I care more about the lack of consistency here than the particular name. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes I think we should rename that article.
So if we have an article called Utah monolith what is being referred to? -- GreenC 14:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support as proposed title is more concise and removes the year from the title. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per GreenC and last move discussion it needs to be qualified—blindlynx (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per WP:CONCISE and the fact that the main article is called Utah monolith. Policy is to "balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area", not to be entirely unambiguous even to people who have never heard of it. Compare List of hillside letters, which might not be quite what you think it is, but it should not have its article title expanded to differentiate it from everything else those words could mean. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Metal, wood and plastic edit

Some monoliths are described as sheet metal over a wooden frame. Was that a common enough construction method that we should be describing the monoliths as a whole as "metal and wood" rather than "metal"? Were any of these replicas solid metal?

We also know that the Isle of Wight monolith used mirrored plastic sheeting rather than metal. Do we know if that's a single outlier case, or were a lot of them made on the cheap like that? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply