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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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 |
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)
The result was: promoted by
Kingsif (
talk) 04:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Created by Edwardx ( talk) and Lord Belbury ( talk). Nominated by Mike Peel ( talk) at 18:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC).
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)
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)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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 |
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)
The result was: promoted by
Kingsif (
talk) 04:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Created by Edwardx ( talk) and Lord Belbury ( talk). Nominated by Mike Peel ( talk) at 18:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC).
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)
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)