Talk:Cloud Gate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Cloud Gate is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Cloud Gate is part of the Millennium Park series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2010.


I have removed the following categories:

  • [[Category:Parks in Chicago]]
  • [[Category:British sculptors|Kapoor, Anish]]
  • [[Category:Contemporary sculptors|Kapoor, Anish]]
  • [[Category:Installation artists|Kapoor, Anish]]

This is a sculpture, not the sculptor who made it, nor the park it's in. The relevant categories only contain the parks (not the things in the park) and sculptors (not their sculptures). If there were categories Category:Anish Kapoor or Category:Millennium Park then Cloud Gate could be in those categories. jnestorius(talk) 09:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous! This is more about you wanting to police what a "category" includes or excludes. Since when are "sculptures" independent of their creators? Categories are always related to other ones. So all we can do is move from more general ones (like sculptures in the US) to more specific or descriptive ones (or vice versa). And this selection is always subjective. (unsigned comment added by User:
I think you misunderstand what Categories are for. Click on Category:British sculptors. Look at all the articles in the category. All of them are British sculptors; none of them are sculptures. If you took each article describing a sculpture by one of those sculptors, and added it to the category, the category would become a mishmash of two different things, much less useful as a navigation aid for readers. So, yes, I want to "police" what the category includes.
I agree that sculptures are not independent of their creators (or their locations), but there are already links to Anish Kapoor and Millennium Park in the very first paragraph of Cloud Gate. If someone wants to see other things relating to Anish Kapoor, they will click on the Anish Kapoor article and can then click on the categories (or other links) there, such as Category:British sculptors. It is not true that "all we can do is move from more general [categories] to more specific ones (or vice versa)": readers can click from an article to a category to an article to a category; information should be organised to make this as intuitive as possible. jnestorius(talk) 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The only reason your logic works is that YOU have decided that the category in this case is "sculpture". Others may may conceive of the category as "sculpture in Chicago" or "sculpture by Kapoor" or "works by British artists" or indeed "installation art". I agree that the point is to organize information, but it is also to open it up in as many ways as possible. And the "categories" are another way of linking one piece of information to other pieces. Restricting categories in the way you want to in fact limits information, rather than opening it up. Note that my edits include your categories, while yours exclude mine and others'!
I have to agree with Joestynes's inclination, this article should be removed from the aforementioned categories. This is obvious when you look at the other articles in these categories, which is how I found this article (it's out of place and taints the categories). I think that "sculpture in Chicago", "sculpture by Kapoor", "works by British artists", and "installation art" are all good ideas for categories which this article should be a part of and would make nice additions to Wikipedia. Nolodie 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional photographs[edit]

I have some additional photographs of the sculpture on my userpage. The colors are a bit brighter, but there are a lot of people in the picture. Spikebrennan 02:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add them to The Commons if you are willing to license them freely. Thanks, Cacophony 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't add any pictures of this sculpture to the commons—as derivative works of a copyrighted sculpture they will be deleted as non-free images. --JeremyA 13:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a link that explains the policy for taking and displaying photographs of the sculture. Thanks, Cacophony 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not a policy issue—it's U.S. copyright law! However, the commons does have a good page explaining derivative works at Commons:Derivative works. Basically, the commons only hosts free images—photographs of copyrighted works are not free unless the copyright holder releases their work under a free licence. U.S. copyright law extends to sculptures, and whilst there is a special exclusion for photographs of buildings (buildings constructed after 1990 are also subject to copyright), no such exclusion is made for photographs of sculptures. —JeremyA 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The licensing page at does not prohibit people from taking photographs. It only mentions that a permit is required for commericial use. As Wikipedia is a non-commercial site, I don't really think it applies. There is also an extensive gallery at Flickr, which is a commercial website. How does that differ from a not-for profit website like Wikipedia? Google Image also contains 4,000+ images in its gallery. The issue is very murky at best. GM owns the copyright for the Corvette, but that dosen't mean that nobody can display a photograph of it Cacophony 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Whilst Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, all content on Wikipedia must be available for reuse under the terms of the GFDL—which does not exclude commercial use. Jimbo Wales (the Wikipedia founder) has directed that Wikipedia will not accept images that have non-commercial restrictions [1], and, as a result the use of the noncommercial template, {{noncommercial}}, on an image flags that image for deletion. The Wikimedia Commons has stricter rules than Wikipedia, because it does not host fair use images.

The City of Chicago's rules on photography in Millenium Park have nothing to do with copyright. Being able to take a photograph of something, and being able to publish the resulting photograph are two different things. The right to say who can and who cannot publish photos of a copyrighted object belong to the copyright holder—in this case Anish Kapoor. That other websites choose to allow violations of this copyright is irrelevant. Photographs of cars are an entirely different issue as cars are subject to patents not copyright. The images of Cloud Gate that are currently in this article should really be tagged as fair use, and any images uploaded to the commons are likely to get deleted. —JeremyA 00:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So really all the images on this page should be removed. The same goes for Fremont Troll and Portlandia. At what point do those copyrights expire? Cacophony 04:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyrights expire 70 years after the death of the artist. However, maybe surprisingly, I'm not suggesting removing the two images of Cloud Gate in this article. I do think however that they should be retagged as fair use, possibly using the {{statue}} tag. My main objection was to the suggestion that more images of the bean be uploaded to the Commons, as they are likely to be deleted there. Likewise with the other sculptures you mention—one or two images to illustrate the article are good candidates for fair use, but keeping a more extensive gallery on the Commons would be a problem. JeremyA 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair Use#Policy give the following guidance:
  • #3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
  • #8 The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.
  • #9. Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum.
There are also guidelines dealing with how the copyright attribution should be notated on the image description page. Cacophony 21:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just curious. Has anyone actually verified who presently owns the copyright? There would have been a contract covering the sale of the artwork to the city, and it's likely that the copyright issue was addressed in the contract. I wouldn't take the artist's word for it that the copyright is still his.

No one here has. But the Chicagoist talked to a Representative of the Chicago City Communications Department before publishing this article. So it seems that the city believes that Anish Kapoor is the copyright holder. —JeremyA 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As a citizen who has had extensive dealings with Chicago municipal bureaucrats, I can assure you that all they ever do is pass on hearsay and rarely have a handle of the facts.

I looked up, within Wikipedia, 'the Chicago Picasso', another large public sculpture in the city that dates from the late 1960's. Apparently, there was a lawsuit over the Picassos copyrights. It's thoroughly described at and is known as "The Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago 320 F. Supp. 1303 (1970)". It's no wonder this has become a touchy subject. Not surprisingly, the city of Chicago was wrong in that case. The judge ruled that photos of the sculpture were in the public domain. Someone should look up the actual sales contract for Cloudgate.

Please note, If you read the 'Letter Edged in Black' case you will see that the circumstances of the case are very particular to the Picasso sculpture and would be difficult to generalise to other sculptures. Also, the ruling is mostly based on the requirement for the display of a copyright notice--this requirement was removed from US copyright law in 1983. —Jeremy (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

photography banned?[edit]

I remember hearing that guards(?) were not allowing people to photograph the Cloud Gate. According to the ban has been lifted, but it probably deserves mentioniong in the article. Cacophony 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the "controversy" section.

The Break-Up[edit]

So Cloud Gate was featured in the movie The Break-Up? I didn't see either the movie or the sculpture. But I have a question: How can a sculpture that was dedicated on May 15, 2006 be featured in a movie released on June 2, about half a month later? Was it really that quick, or has the sculpture been around a long time, just not officially dedicated, or is the date wrong? --QQQ (9-15-06)

SBC in filename of featured image[edit]

I'm curious if the use of the letters SBC in the image filename (Image:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg) that is being used are some kind of connection with SBC the telecomm corporation. Does anyone know anything about this? The file was uploaded back in November of 2004 so I'm wondering if it was originally to be called the SBC Sculpture? -- Suso 13:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


"The artist has transformed the sculpture's two-dimensional physical structure into three-dimensional space."

What does this mean? I've never heard of a 2-D sculpture.

Technically speaking a mirror is a 2D surface because it is a flat plane--even if it is bent into a curve. The image we see behind the mirror is in 3D. I think this fact (tension between perceived surface and image) is actually important to the way we respond to Cloud Gate. Burressd (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Praise and Controversy needs to be rewritten[edit]

The first paragraph of "Praise and Controversy" and possibly the entire section needs some citations to back up its claims. Otherwise (and possibly still) it's just a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions. In particular, the controversy over the cost was far more prominent in its history than the photography issue. And both of those are more encyclopedia-worthy than the statement about photos of it appearing on many websites.

Additionally, there references to copyright law are incorrect. For one thing, copyright law does not grant the artist protection from all images of the work. Rathe, the artist may only claim a reproduction of the work. This means that the artist can prevent others from producting a replication of the sculputure. The artist may also prevent some photos of the art work, but those representations must have been taken or designed by the artist; however, the artist is unable to prevent all photos (see Rock and Roll hall of fame case for case law citation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate tone?[edit]

There are quite a few wording issues in this article, for example: "From a distance it could be mistaken for a huge drop of mercury".. right, except I doubt anyone expects to see huge drops of mercury in Chicago. Why is this relevant?

"transforms... into a wonderfully warped new vista".. "wonderfully warped new vista"? Sounds like unencyclopedic tone, needs to be reworded. Coviti (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops! You are quite right in stating that my edits are too subjective(at least I think that's what you're doing). When I made my edits, I didn't even consider that a neutral tone was what was required for an encyclopedia, I was merely trying to rephrase what I considered poor writing. Inox-art (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Millenium Park imag[edit]

I think you removed Image:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg. Do we want this out of all articles about the various features. I have been including it in many for perspective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it is very important in this article. It may have more relevance in the articles dealing with large areas of the park (Jay Pritzker Pavilion for example). Torsodog (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
See the section above regarding image additions. Cacophony (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune Archive[edit]

I just stumbled upon We should probably run through these articles and make sure we have not missed anything about the bean.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good source of info. I'll comb through as many as I can to make sure I didn't miss anything important. Torsodog (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Take your time. You may not need it at WP:GAC. Just make sure you go through everything before WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Objection to instructive images[edit]

This sculpture is interesting for several reasons. Images that are currently included are illustrative. If some of them are at too high a resolution or need to be moved to WP those should be enumerated. However, the information that they convey should be WP:PRESERVEd. I am willing to write up FURs for any image that you may think needs one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Image:The Bean and McCormick Tribune Plaza.jpg was not necessary. The sculpture is not the focal point of the image and the image is instructive to the reader about what AT&T plaza is and the location of the Bean. Some other images will need FURs and I will get to those tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am both getting lazy and feeling unsure that the last two images require FURs. I think the subject of one is more the reflection of the Historic Michigan Boulevard District than the sculpture and in the other I feel that the emphasis on the winter weather again shifts the emphasis of the focal point of the image away from the sculpture. I will add FURs to either as requested however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cloud Gate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I have passed the article because I believe it meets the GA criteria. However, I have a few minor suggestions:

  • Remove links from bold text or remove the bold, in the lead, per WP:BOLDTITLE.

Gary King (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Imperial gallons[edit]

Says the article ...

Cloud Gate is wiped down twice a day by hand and is completely cleaned twice a year with 40 imperial gallons (181.8 l) of liquid detergent.

(emphasis added links removed) The sculpture is in America, right? Are we sure they're measuring the soap by the imperial gallon? Also, the nearest decilitre is a little precise. JIMp talk·cont 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC) ... I've just changed it to 180 l. JIMp talk·cont 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The source [2], which is WGN TV in Chicago, uses "gallons", which of course is U.S. gallons. So I've switched it, but left a conversion to imperial gallons for our friends in Canada and the U.K. —MJCdetroit (yak) 03:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Arch height[edit]

I think the problem with the differing arch heights stems from the idea that there is the principle arch that is visible from outside the bean and then there is the "omphalos" that can be seen from underneath that extends up even farther. I found some numbers for it all, but I will have to find them again later when I'm not at work. --TorsodogTalk 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


TTT asked me to have a look. I'll get to this as soon as I'm done with Everglades. Feel free to revert any changes and ignore any suggestions I make; all I'm trying to do is improve your chances of getting through FAC. The "price" I charge for my copyediting is that editors do something more than sit there like a bump on a log. Either tell me I'm wrong and why, or tell me I'm right and use the information to be a better writer, or if I change something to bring it in line with our style guidelines and you don't like it, argue your position on the style talk page. The price for my copyediting is that you guys need to do your part to make the FAC process work better. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Btw, I don't do images or endsections, although I at least look at the captions.
  • We like for the lead to be just a little longer than that. WP:LEAD says 2 to 4 paragraphs, with the kind of comprehensive articles that show up at FAC being on the 3-4 paragraph end of that recommendation. Add a few sentences and don't worry about the style, just enough so that I know what you think is most important about the sculpture. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: guys, I'm sorry, I'm on a wikibreak. You might want to post your request at WT:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits by IPS[edit]

Recently, two IP editors have been dramatically editing this article, and for the most part I think it has a negative impact. If you want to copy edit, then that is fine. What you two have been doing also removes a lot of relevant information that the article benefits from having. If you disagree with how the information is written, the restate it, don't delete it. --TorsodogTalk 00:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the information in the article should be WP:PRESERVED.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Some anonymous IP just deleted TTT's comments, so I apologies if that was actually TTT massaging his own comments. I'll get to work on the copyedit soon. IP guys, I encourage you to get usernames. It's not required, of course, but it's hard to have a conversation with a number, so you'll be more effective with usernames. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Editing is not just about better writing (which, by the way, neither TTT nor TD do well); it is also about removing useless information, which makes the article clunky, long and boring. There s such a thing as "over-information", and sorry to say that you two appear to be too much into yoursleves to recognize it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
One of the two problematic IPs has been blocked for 24 hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Page is now semi-protected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Slippery slope to censorship ... But go ahead, protect mediocrity and tediousness! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Administrator Mafia and Censorship[edit]

Reviewing the history pages carefully, there appears to be a systematic attempt by TonyTheTiger and Torsodog to monopolize the writing of this wiki entry and "undo" most entries by others. Compare the entries on July 5 00:30 and 17:56; July 17 16:56; 23:20; 23:58; and July 18 18:19. IP and others did a fine job of editing the article (mostly very poor writing and repetition by TTT and TD) but these were almost immediately undone. No wonder the IP users (including me) got frustrated. TTT then got his wiki adminstrator buddies (Kafziel and Rudget) to "block" and "protect" this page. The wiki adminstrators have acted irresponsibly and in violation of wiki procedures; they have not carefully reviewed the history of this page and the activities of TTT and TD. This IS censorship!

Moreover, there is nothing wrong with contributing to articles with just IP addresses; these are no more anonymous than TTT or TD, or indeed "Kafziel" or "Rudget". If you are all so concerned about user identitifation and blocking anonymous IP users, then why do you not all register with your real names instead of hiding behind pseudonyms! Who are the real hypocrits and violators here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have said many, many times before, I am not opposed to you copy editing my "poor" writing. Where I do have a problem, however, is you deleting relevant and sourced information. That is pretty much where I'm going to end this because unfortunately this entire ordeal has spiraled out of control. My advice to you is that you should act a bit more maturely when handling these situations and discuss your problems instead of quickly resorting to childish vandalism. Maybe then your grievances could be heard and resolved a bit quicker. --TorsodogTalk 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the Most Popular Sculptures in the US?[edit]

I looked at the reference given for the claim of "one of the most popular sculptures in the US" and I am not sure the Time magazine article actually grants this superlative on Cloud Gate. The Time author says it is "a destination" and an "essential photo-op," but does not compare its popularity to other sculptures. Am I not reading the Time article right? I am one to question a superlative in Wikipedia and beleive they need a very strong reference. I have found too many longest, biggest, or such to be wrong. I do not consider that placing "one of the..." in front of the superlative removes the requirement for a reference. BTW, thanks for pointing me to WP:Lead when you undid my first citation request. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the reference given for this popularity claim again and still don't see how that article says Cloud Gate is "one of the most popular sculptures in the country". Can you explain how the reference backs this statement? I am think aboout entering a citation request in the article again. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Since there have not been any responses, I am going to tag the article. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the proper citation from among the non-Chicago periodicals in the footnotes. this Chicago source backs up the statement, but for an international resource I will withdraw the statement unless I can find something outside of Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The mp3 file is a valid source for a superlative if the critic is identified. I.e., "Chicago art critic Edward Lifson considers Cloud Gate to be among the greatest pieces of public art in the world." Or something like that. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cloud Gate Individual GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Cloud Gate/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Notified: WP:WPVA, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:CHICAGO, TonyTheTiger, Torsodog

This article used to be good before all of the recent changes. It no more meets the "good article criteria", specifically: (a) Criterion 1: it is poorly written. The prose and grammar are weak in several sections. There are several places in which information is repeated. (b) Criterion 3: it is not broad in scope any more: the article used to focus mainly on Cloud Gate as a work of art, etc.. It has now got so bogged down in the details of the fabrication/transportation etc. of the piece, that the focus on the art tends to be lost (recent talk page entries appear to reflect some of these issues). Keithbacha 03:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how the article fails Criterion 3. How did adding information about its construction in addition to talking about its artistic value LESSEN the article's scope? --TorsodogTalk 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Crtierion 3 clearly states that the article should "stay[s] focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". This article includes many too many unnecessary details re construction, etc. and loses its focus on the art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Why must the article focus on the piece's "art"? It is a one-of-a-kind sculpture that has a very interesting and prominent construction history. And as a piece that has only been completed for ~3 years, its 1+ year of construction is certainly significant. --TorsodogTalk 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not that there is a discussion about the construction/maintenance, but that these sections are proportionately so dominant, going into a lot of "unncessary detail" (with a lot of repetition and poor writing, too), and taking away from the artistic dimensions of the piece. Cloud Gate is, after all, a work of public art, not some boring technical device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I just copy edited most of the History section, and I found very little repetition. And the repetition I did find, I corrected, obviously. As for poor writing, from what I've read, the writing seems pretty good to me. Obviously not up to FAC standards, but it easily meets GA requirements.
As for your argument about the article going too far into technical details because it is an art piece and not a technical device, I have to disagree with you. While it is an art piece, it is also a one-of-a-kind technical achievement for its time. Therefore, the lengthy discussion on this construction history is warranted in my opinion. One area I do think could be removed or tweaked is the table. I could try to make that into a smaller prose section comprised of a couple sentences if you think that would be better. Anyways, I will continue copy editing the rest of the article tomorrow. --TorsodogTalk 05:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This article does not delve into any unnecessary detail. There is plenty of room for more extensive critical response/review and artistic themes. However, all information in the article should be WP:PRESERVEd.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think the construction & maintenence sections can be called excessive - most of our art articles neglect technical aspects badly, and it is good to see something that redresses the balance. But these sections would probably be better after the (not ideally named) artistic themes & reception sections. But it seems to me to clearly meet GA standards in any configuration. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I think the construction details the maintanance and transportation details create necessary information that would otherwise leave an incomplete character to the article, the complete history of the object matters. As it is - it meets GA standards and should maintain that status; and those same issues are and would become important to achieve FA standard. Modernist (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep construction details. I consider the construction details to be an important part of the article. I think more people will ask "how did they do that?" than "what type of artistic theme is represented here?". I consider the length to be appropriate. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
TTT you appear to be pretty insecure and out of line, not only unilaterally "closing" the discussion here (this is a habit of yours, and the comments above re attempts at censorship are confirmed yet again), but also removing the wiki announcement of the GA reassessment at the top of the talk page (I am adding it again). First, you have no authority to do so and are going against wiki rules; and second, time needs to be given for a proper discussion to take place (it's only been a few weeks). I will make the decision re assessment at the appropropriate time. YOU certainly have no grounds or authority to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbacha (talkcontribs) 16:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
What discussion? The consensus here is that the details should be kept. The only person disagreeing is you, who seemingly abandoned the "discussion," thus making this page irrelevant. Then you reopened it by adding NO new arguments. This GA reassessment should be closed as the current version passed GA Review less than a month ago, and a general consensus has been reached in this re-review that the current version still passes GA requirements (which is unsurprising since this IS essentially the version that underwent a GA review). --TorsodogTalk 16:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
5 for and 3 against in no way constitutes a "consensus". And I note that between TTT and TD you have spoken 5 times in this short discussion; apparently, consensus for you two means shouting very loud, and if you still don't get your way, then use strong arm tactics and, yes, censorship! -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbacha (talkcontribs) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
And the only two people saying the article is not up to GA standards is the same 2 very vocal IP users (plus whoever is using the username Keithbacha, which was solely created to make this Reassessment and is most likely one of the two IP users). And please, stop throwing around the word censorship. It is getting kind of sad. No one is censoring you. YOU two are the ones wanting to take information OUT of the article, information that everyone else says is valuable. Also, as you haven't discussed the actual arguments made by any of the other 3 users who agreed with myself OR my last comment about the article which was an attempt to come to a compromise, this entire reassessment seems like it stems from a vendetta against TTT and I instead of actual concerns about the article itself. --TorsodogTalk 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bolded redirect names in lead[edit]

There were too many bolded items in the lead for the article. It just looked funny and it was hard to understand why the plaza names were bolded unles you arrived there by these redirects.

Understanding that bold is used for the subject of the article and discouraged by the Manual of Style for most other uses and the guideline on principle of least astonishment for redirects says to make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place, there is not enough information in this article about the plaza to justify bolding these. The Bean is a different name for the subject of this article, and is appropriate to be bolded. Why were AT&T Plaza and SBC Plaza bolded? The article is not about the plaza. There seemed to be little reason why these were bolded and redirected here. (And Why was Ameritech Plaza bolded? This was not even a redirect.)

There seems to be several options to handle this. The site calls the sculpture Cloud Gate on the AT&T Plaza. (1) The written out title in the lead could be changed to this. This would then explain to readers why older plaza names are bolded. (2) Get away from discussing the plaza here (focus on the true subject of the sculpture) and instead put a discussion about the plaza in the section of the Millenium Park article that presents Cloud Gate. Change the redirects to point directly to the section. (I have started this option.) - PennySpender1983 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The redirects of AT&T Plaza and SBC Plaza both point to Millennium Park#AT&T Plaza and Cloud Gate where actual information about why these names exist has been added. Since this article is about Cloud Gate and does not give information about the plaza, why do you want to bold these plaza names? If you look at the example given in principle of least astonishment for redirects you will see that the secondary names bolded in James Tiptree, Jr all have text telling you that the bolded names are all actually the same person. Are you trying to say SBC Plaza is Cloud Gate? If this article is to move up in rating, it should try to stay true to the subject. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Those redirects are going to the wrong place. AT&T Plaza should redirect to Cloud Gate or have its own article. Each name that someone could be looking for is suppose to be bolded. See WP:BOLDTITLE, all variations of the subject title are suppose to be in bold. The example given there is:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain,

is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of mainland Europe.

The subject of this article is Cloud Gate on the AT&T Plaza. Unless AT&T Plaza has its own article it is part of the subject here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. For the example you quote, the entire article is about United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain. According to your response, the article needs to be moved to Cloud Gate on the AT&T Plaza. Since you already agree with this, I will do so in the next few days. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If this is really where the article is moving, then before it's title is changed at all, first let me better incorporate the plaza into the article. I will better explain what the plaza is, where it is and how it is related to Cloud Gate. Then we can move from there. --TorsodogTalk 00:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure that information about the plaza wouldn't be better suited for the Millenium Park article? That is what I tried to do. The park article could discuss corporate sponsorship, type of brick pavers, or even how many benches are available. This would leave the Cloud Gate article to present information on the sculpture. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The Millennium Park article should only summarize facts from the articles on each feature when discussing them. All information in the park article should be in the more detailed feature articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, you seem to prove my point. The only detailed information about the plaza itself in this article is contained in the caption for the picture of the engraved SBC plaza tiles. And that only says the name changed. (No explanation of why it changed. No explanation of why it has a corporate sponsor. No description of the size of the plaza. No description of the type of stone paver used. NO DETAIL AT ALL ABOUT THE PLAZA ITSELF!!!) So the bolding of AT&T Plaza, SBC Plaza and Ameritech Plaza in the lead clearly does not meet the principle of least astonishment for redirects. This is because there is not information in the article about the plaza, only information about the sculpture.
If you are saying that this article should have detail about the plaza, then answer at least some of the questions I noted by adding them to text of the article. This will satisfy my concerns aboput the bolding of the plaza names.
Please realize if you want to reach featured status with this article, I would say that you need to focus on the subject of the sculture. Mixing info about the plaza into the article will probably get comments about relevance during a review process. So it is a trade off, bold the plaza titles and you need to have info about the plaza. Or focus on the awesome piece of art that the article is about and get a better article overall. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have info about the paving of the plaza, we could work that into the Cloud Gate article or fork off a separate Plaza article. Just provide sources. It would probably be sufficient to start a separate article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) I have created a separate page for AT&T Plaza, which reduces the number of bold names and redirects.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons photos[edit]

The photos in this article that are stored in the Wikimedia Commons are likely to be deleted soon as copyright violations (the sculpture is subject to copyright and freedom of panorama law in the US does not cover sculptures). Any of the photos that can be used as fair use should be re-uploaded to Wikipedia. —Jeremy (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya, we recently had this problem for the Crown Fountain article. I will work on this tonight. --TorsodogTalk 17:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I moved the three commons articles to WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Caught a glimpse of a news story two days ago mentioning "the bean" had been vandalized. Was hoping to locate more info on wikipedia. Oh well, maybe I'll move on to (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, I was going to this bit of info in the article the day it happened, but I decided to wait until more info was released. I guess I should have added it, huh? --TorsodogTalk 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indian or British?[edit]

Recently an IP has been changing the Anish Kapoor descriptor of "British" to "Indian". Obviously, the fact that he was born in India and lives in Britian is causing the problems here. Refs typically refer to him as "British", such as ref 19, but others say "Indian-born". What do people think about this? --TorsodogTalk 20:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we have it both ways? Something like "is an Indian-born British artist"? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I am the IP address who was changing this; I think it would be appropriate to say 'Indian born British.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:12, August 2, 2009
I will make the change next, thanks - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this necessary?[edit]

"The unconventional gateway leads to a spiritual consciousness." -- I fail to understand the relevance of this subjective opinion. If this is a direct quote perhaps it should be enclosed within quotation marks. I was tempted to delete it outright but perhaps someone has a sufficient explanation for this statement? --ErgoSumtalktrib 22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to track down the original source next time I am at the Chicago Public Library.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
My issue is that the statement is, in my opinion, unencyclopedic. It is fine if this is a direct quote from the designer of this exhibit. Otherwise, it sounds a little new ageish, to put it bluntly, and not exactly the kind of thing I would expect to find in an encyclopedia. --ErgoSumtalktrib 20:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed it just now as an unreferenced, uncited, subjective opinion. If someone finds that it's a quote, then it is of course fine in the article if the quote is attributed and if it's decided that it's sufficiently notable. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

JA WP images[edit]

I was looking at the Japanese WP article atクラウド・ゲート and noticed two images that may be possible for use in this article:

The both show the Bean under construction. I am not sure if an under construction image counts against uses under the artistic copyright.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Stupid alternative texts deleted[edit]

I removed all the alternative texts, mostly facetious and in all cases unnecessary. This seems to be an unfortunate trend (facetiousness, not removing it) and doesn't get reverted as vandalism... ProfDEH (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletions. This is a FA and will soon be on the Main Page. Alt text does no harm to anyone and helps those with visual impairments. It is also required for Featured Articles. Please see WP:ALT. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I suggest you look at what the text says, and edit it to say something relevant. It doesn't add to the article in any way except maybe to raise a snigger. "Headshot of an Indian man with gray hair and black shirt" - what use is that? It certainly isn't useful additional information. They are all in th same vein more or less. I'm surprised nobody removed this nonsense sooner.ProfDEH (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Alternative text for images before making any more edits to alt text. Thanks. --TorsodogTalk 20:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OK I've read it. I had no idea this wasn't someone's idea of a joke. ProfDEH (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reading it. Alt text is one of the newer hoops articles have to jump through on the way to FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Main page image[edit]

I have emailed Anish Kapoor's studio, asking if he would release an image of Cloud Gate under a free license so that it can appear on the Main Page. If not, the picture of the kid and his reflection seems like the best bet. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No reply whatsoever from Anish Kapoor. Oh well, at least I tried. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Is it possible to have a cross-sectional drawing of the sculpture? I'm trying to picture the omphalos - the text says it's a concave chamber so I assume it doesn't go all the way through the sculpture making it like a doughnut; one of the photos shows some of it and it looks quite deep. What are its dimensions and how far into the sculpture does it go? How does it terminate (ie in what form - conical, rounded etc?)? (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen a cross-section drawing on which something like this could be based. The article says the sculpture is 33 feet (10 m) tall, and that the apex of the omphalos is 27 feet (8.2 m) above the ground. The maximum height of the arch where people can walk under / through the sculpture is not given, but looking at the photo, I'd estimate it as maybe 11 to 12 feet (3.4 to 3.7 m). So the distance inside the sculpture between the top of the omphalos and the top of the sculpture is 6 feet (1.8 m), and walking under and looking up, the rounded top of the omphalos is about 15 to 16 feet (4.6 to 4.9 m) above the "ceiling" you walked in under. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This article uses the word "omphalos" as if an "omphalos" is some sort of shape or architectural design. But the link (and the Wiktionary page) explain it to be a specific artifact remaining from Creation. And the pictures on that page seem to be not at all similar to anything which I can imagine might be part of this sculpture. Therefore: Can someone add something to this article which would explain what's going on? Or find a new name for the underbelly of the bean? --Keeves (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, it is only called the omphalos because the world omphalos means "navel". It is explained in the article as "a concave chamber that warps and multiplies reflections". Maybe the word should be delinked and put in quotes so the reader knows that it is simply a term the artist uses to refer to the concave underbelly of the sculpture? --TorsodogTalk 01:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
In clssical useage an omphalos is usually an inverted navel or "outie," also the axis mundi or center of the world. Interestingly the Cloud Gate omphalos is not inverted.Burressd (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)



"The sculpture builds upon many of Kapoor's artistic themes, although many tourists simply view the sculpture and its unique reflective properties as a photo-taking opportunity."

Although I'm sure it was unintentional, this sentence comes off as disparaging of these "many tourists." The bit about Kapoor's artistic themes is relevant to the paragraph, but the adjunct is unnecessary and essentially calls most tourists philistines for taking pictures of the sculpture without appreciating the artistic vision behind it. I'm wary about changing something in a featured article, but I think this should be changed.

Pasta Salad (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I definitely see what you are saying. I think what the sentence is trying to convey though is that the piece is MUCH more popular simply for its reflective surface rather than the somewhat complex underlying themes. Is there a way we can change the sentence to convey that better? --TorsodogTalk 01:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the offender here is the concessive "although", which implies that what follows in the sentence runs counter to what came before. The sculpture's popularity as a fun photo-op is worth mentioning in the lead though, I agree.

We could go with simple coordination:

"The sculpture builds on many of Kapoor's artistic themes, and is popular with tourists as a photo-taking opportunity for its unique reflective properties."

Or it could be rearranged as an appostive phrase:

"Popular with tourists as a photo-taking opportunity due to its reflective surface, the sculpture builds on many of Kapoor's artistic themes." (It might do to list a few of these themes here as well.)

Or really anything that doesn't accidentally come off dismissive of non-academic enjoyment of the piece. I don't want to make it too unwieldy, but some rearrangement or rewording would be nice. Pasta Salad (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this? While the sculpture builds upon many of Kapoor's artistic themes, many tourists simply view the sculpture and its unique reflective properties as a photo-taking opportunity. I can edit the Mian Page blurb, but want to make a change that has consensus here first. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
On second thought I like the simple coordination above (and as connector). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Pasta's first suggestion seems like a suitable solution. By the way, the more I read the original sentence, the more I realize it needs to be changed. So, good catch! --TorsodogTalk 14:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I made the edit on the Main Page and in the article, thanks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

First picture[edit]

First picture is wrong?--Palapa (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a picture of the sculpture. Not sure what you mean, sorry. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Info box on the right[edit]

I know nothing about this sculpture or I might check and fix it. In the info box thing at the top right, it says "Year:2004-2006". I must say this is incessantly cryptic. Were those the years the artist spent making it? The length of time it was displayed? I think elaborating just a bit on what the significance of those years are would go quite a long way.Farsight001 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I added "Built" before the years - the infobox is a summary and the third sentence of the article gave the years of construction, so hopefully this is clearer now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


File:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg Can this photo from the Anish Kapoor page be added? It gives a good sense of a) the sculpture in its environs and b) the omphalos. (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The sculpture is copyrighted, so any photo of it is a WP:FAIR USE image. Per WP:NFCC, we to minimize the number of fair use images, so if a new image is added, a current one would have to be taken aways. I made the image a link above, as it cannot be on a talk page and be fair use. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, okay, thanks for explaining. (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Another fine article in the Millennium Park series by Tonythetiger, congrats on making it to the front page. Keep it up. --ErgoSumtalktrib 21:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But what do real critics say?[edit]

What do people say who aren't overwhelmed by the piece? Sorry, I may be just a philistine hack writer, but there has to be someone besides me who thinks that this thing is just a giant soap bubble or a squashed Zeppelin and doesn't really belong in in a public place. I'm reminded of that glass pyramid between the Louvre and and the Hotel Crillon in Paris. Or the Disney theater in downtown LA. People think it's great art because people who are paid to say that it's great art, say it's great art. I think it's the world's most expensive shaving mirror. I'm sure that there must be someone in the art world who agrees with me. (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We can only quote reviews in relaible sources - if you know of negative reviews that are from reliable sources, please post links to them (or citations for them if print only) here so they can be included. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't help but think that hasn't seen it in person. Derekbd (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


The structural engineer for the project was Atelier One; the article incorrectly credits Aerotrope, a company which was not founded until after the design work was completed. One of the engineers who worked on the project for Atelier One (Chris Hornzee-Jones) went on to found Aerotrope while the project was under construction, and has since claimed the project. Unfortunately, this is a commonly repeated error. (Although I can't figure out how to link to the section of their website, Atelier One shows their claim to the work under their "projects" section -

The work, and multiple drawings for the project are also featured in the book "Liquid Threshold," referenced in the wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the information. Interesting story. One day I'll try to get my hands on a copy of "Liquid Threshold" to verify and see if there is any more useful information about Cloud Gate in the book. I'll revert back to your edit. Thanks for clarifying. --TorsodogTalk 14:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed image[edit]

I have removed File:Cloudgatelookingup.jpg just now as the sculpture is copyrighted work of art and so photographs of it are not free. Please see previous discussions on this talk page and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cloud Gate/archive4 for examples of this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cultural reference[edit]

Okay, I understand that SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) does not like trivia and pop culture material in articles. And removing unsourced lists like this and most of this would be fairly within accepted practice these days. However I am not thrilled with removal of material discussed in a significant way in a secondary source and prepared to edit war over it and write a misleading edit summary. So rather than arm-wrestle, am opening this for discussion here. I am (obviously) for a keep segment. Can folks offer a "keep" or "leave removed" below for consensus. My reason for keeping is it is discussed in detail (about a third of the interview and including the title of the piece) in a secondary source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I am in favor of keeping the pop culture paragraph in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't really like the addition of that section. It's only two sentences and only talks about one cultural reference. Can't this just be shortened a bit and merged into the bit where Source Code is mentioned in the Reception area? --TorsodogTalk 02:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Mmmyeah, I think that can work. It does segue ok from the bottom of that section.Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It is based on a reliable source and should be in the article somewhere - I am also fine with it being combined with the Reception section and tightened. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As a Chicagoan who greatly appreaciates this fine piece of artwork, I am quite surprised to see the nickname "the bean" referenced only to the sculpture's general shape. This is simply not true. Ask any shopper walking down Michigan Avenue, and they will tell you it was constructed during the height of popularity for a particular Tiffany signature jewelery line which is named "The Bean" ( The nickname for the Cloud Gate sculpture is NOT due to its shape, but is directly because it is the exact shape of the Tiffany Bean Necklace / Bracelet charm. This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Tiffany Bean -- That the "bean" name is in reference to the Tiffany Bean is pretty obvious to anyone familiar with Tiffany jewelry. Not only is the Cloud Gate bean shaped, but it's also silver colored like the jewelry piece. I believe Tiffany's bean, which is one of their best known pieces, was designed in the 1970s or 1980s. It has always been very popular. Question: Do I have to have seen this published somewhere so I can include a citation even though I'm 99.9% certain it's true? Put another way, do we need a citation to say the sky is blue? narwagner — Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Concerns - seriously?[edit]

"concerns arose that it might retain and conduct heat in a way that [...] one's tongue might stick to it during the winter"

Do Chicagoans traditionally lick public sculpture, or is "tongue" an error here? (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone anywhere traditionally licks anything public, but every city has people looking to make a quick buck. I'm sure they were just trying to avoid a lawsuit. --TorsodogTalk 00:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)