Untitled edit

Here's another view from the archive: ~ BigrTex 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Um, okay. Thanks for sharing, but it doesn't add anything. Tpacw (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Suggest replacement for lead image edit

The lead image is very pretty but of fairly low resolution and it is hard to judge scale. The suggested replacement is newer, hi-res, good quality showing the entire monument in context and scale. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

 
Current Image in Article
 
Suggested Replacement
The current image isn't very bright, although great composition. If you are after something to judge the scale you'll have to get a photo from the Royal Mile area facing North.NotMiserable (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
By scale I meant having something to reference like the people walking by. Is it the replacement image you say is not very bright? Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree Saffron Blaze I think the replacement is better as the perspective is less distorted. I also think the second image on the page is awful - an interesting angle but useless for anyone not familiar with the building. A close up of the statue would be preferable, or detail of the stonework/statues on the upper levels. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
As soon as there´s good weather and few people around the monument, I´ll try to get better images.

In the meanwhile I have a closeup of the Scott statue inside the monument. --Stefan2901 (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Suggested image edit

 

I recently found the image File:David Octavius Hill and Robert Adamson - The Scott Monument, Edinburgh - Google Art Project.jpg (right) related to this article. Please feel free to use it if it's useful. Dcoetzee 04:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scott Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply