Talk:ArcelorMittal Orbit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject London (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Public Art / London  (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Public Art, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of public art on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the London task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Update[edit]

The article says that it was due to be finished in December 2011. How's it doing ? The tallest buildings in London article says it has been topped out - but I can't see any comment about that in the source to which links. -- Beardo (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've updated some information, now the sculpture has been officially completed, but there are two sections in particular that need a major rewrite/update which I don't have time to tackle right now. I've marked them accordingly. The recent article in The Independent (which I've added as a source) may be able to help with some of this, but it's quite 'quote-heavy' and there are a variety of other news articles readily available that may be better suited. Sionk (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism Lookout[edit]

I'd appreciate it if someone could watch over this article, as I see it's been subject of quite a lot of vandalism recently. Any help would be appreciated.

--94.175.78.47 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Article says: "though like many projects on the Olympic Park that date has been pushed back". What is the source for this statement? It is my understanding that most projects were completed either on or ahead of schedule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.73.226 (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And does "pushed back" actually mean pushed forward in time, toward the future? Something less ambiguous could be used than using "back" to mean "forward". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not, I swear, being deliberately awkward here, but I can't see or hear the ambiguity. Maybe it is just a usage thing but if I say "it was meant to start in December but was pushed back" then it seems to me to be very obvious that it implies that it was pushed back, that is away from the viewer's position, so pushed back away from them and into the future. Similarly if I was "intended December but brought forward" (never happens in the UK, but never mind) I would think it very clear that it has become earlier. And, oddly, I think it works just the same if you are talking about something in the past, because your apparent viewpoint for this usage is always before the event, not after it. With the best will in the world I cannot see any way in which the text you mention could possibly be suggesting that it was made earlier. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
PS I am now officially under EU law editing too much in this Talk page and will give it a bit of a break henceforth. Having said that, I don't think "pushed back" is necessarily the best writing I've ever seen: it's maybe a bit colloquial/chatty/journalese, none of which are hugely encyclopaedic. So I won't start a fist fight if you want to change it to something more elegant ... I just don't agree that incomprehensibility would be a good reason for doing do: style, yes. As long as it ends up better, rather than merely different for its own sake, I can't see a problem. And that's me done for now! :) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Dates[edit]

Sorry about the hideous template but reading through this otherwise good article I do see a few places where things were going to have happened (or were planned to have happened, etc) by dates that are now in the past so tenses are wrong, dates may be, and so on. It's difficult to sort this out if you don't know the topic well as you don't know what did or didn't hit its date: I certainly don't feel competent to do this. Is there someone familiar with this who could please try to give this article a bit of a birthday, as it deserves? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I updated the sections on Construction and Use. Khuft (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
That's great - thanks very much DBaK (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Metric or Imperial>[edit]

The article should display measurements in Metric units--metres--followed by Imperial units--feet--in parentheses. Or, it could show feet, followed by metres in parentheses. Or simply metres alone. But it should stick to one style or another, and be consistent within the article. All the dimensions should be given in the same format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Yes it should be consistent, and there should clearly be a unit and its conversion. Is there any consensus on whether m or ft should come first? Or rules, or common practice, or something? DBaK (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The UK lives in a limbo-land between European and US measurements. But most of the cited news stories measure in feet, which suggests we should put the metre conversion in parentheses. Sionk (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. (I must disagree with the apparent implication that feet are US measurements, with apologies if I misread that! <g> To me it feels more like we're in limbo between what we used to do and what we might do in future ... and what we do for some purposes and not others!) DBaK (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Is there something a bit broken about the infobox? It refers to the overall height to an "antenna spire" which in our case (it appears) we have not got. Surely there's some other way of saying "total height of this quite big thing"? Also, is the use of "elevator" rather than "lift" inevitable? It does seem a little grating especially when you see it in the code a couple of inches (5.08 cm) below the "use BrE" thingy! :) DBaK (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "Floor count" and "Elevators" meaningfully help to describe anything. Maybe they should simply be removed? After all the Orbit is a tower/building/sculpture thingy, ostensibly a work of art. Sionk (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Yup fair point. I suppose inclusionists might argue that since the information is available it might as well be in ... and is there perhaps also a very mild usefulness argument about access for wheelchair users ... hmmm, or maybe not, since the simple existence of a lift doesn't really prove anything fundamental about disability access anyway. I think I am inclining towards removing it, too - as you say it's not really a building in some senses so maybe the infobox isn't quite right and doesn't have to be populated to too complete a degree. Any other views please? DBaK (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

disputed[edit]

cn or [citation needed] marks a spot in the article where a citation is needed. disputed puts a big box which I don't intend. Any little in-line label?

There are other things that is art that is larger. London Eye, for example. Certain buildings are artsy and bigger.

I know original research is not permitted but wrong information shouldn't be out there. We could say that some sources claim this orbit is the largest art. Auchansa (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Names[edit]

Has been called:- "Eyeful Tower"; "Meccano on crack"; "Catastrophic collision between two cranes". "The Times" Tuesday july 31 2012 p.11. However is this a suitable addition to the wilipedia article?90.211.58.223 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Mirrors[edit]

The article should say something about the special mirrors in the top viewing platform, which are truly amazing. Ben Finn (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)