Talk:Eiffel Tower

Style of the tower

In what style is the famous tower built? No mention of it in the article, think it is relevant information?Sourcerery (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Its sui generis. I would not call it Art Nouveau, Style Liberty, Arts and CRafts, Classical Revival and its tool early for Art Deco or PoMo. None of the articles on gussie's bridges mention a style; I am reminded of those people who argue abou whether a band are deathcore or hip-hop. Its NOT RELEVANT.TheLongTone (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's very relevant, that is one worlds most famous structures. We need sources that describe its style whatever it may be, your opinion is not something we can put in the article.Sourcerery (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not read anything that calls it any style. And I have read a lot about the subject; I am a major contributor to the page and also to the biog of Gus. And your opinion that it needs a label is NOT RELEVANT.TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Caricature of Gustave Eiffel comparing the Eiffel tower to the Pyramids

...and I think the style of the thing is covered in the article in the bit about the Artist's Protest. Oh, its not Beaux Arts, Barocque, Rococco or vernacular either. What style are the Pyramids at Giza, btw?TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well maybe you should read more, it's architectural structure and it needs it, every relevant and iconic structure has that mentioned, usually in the lead for example Statue of Liberty. I'm not into archeology and I don't care about pyramids, this is about tower. Artists protests covers exactly what it title says, not style.Sourcerery (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Instead of rudely demanding that other volunteers "read more", I suggest that you find the answer and a reliable source yourself, since it's so important to you. Asking a question is fine, demanding an answer that suits you is not. If you're not happy being told it has its own unique 'style', find a reliable source that says otherwise and edit the article. Sorry to be harsh but your attitude stinks. -- Begoon 15:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

So you are gonna deliberately ignore his condescending attitude and rudeness and flat out dismissal of question with all caps NOT RELEVANT? Of course I'm gonna push back on that kind of behaviour, your double standards are dreadful.Sourcerery (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I call it as I see it. Anyway, you can berate me for not giving you the answer you want now if you like - my skin is thick. Good luck with your quest for knowledge - but here's a tip - honey catches more flies than vinegar... ttfn. -- Begoon 15:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I doubt your objectivity, not catching anything asking simple question and getting condescending attitude and underhanded insults.Sourcerery (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

We need sources that describe its style Go and find one then. Firebrace (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(pssssst: Elvis has left the building ; ) TP ✎ ✓ 05:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic, I've always suspected that it's no coincidence that "Elvis" is an anagram of "Lives"... -- Begoon 05:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's funny: I was thinking 'viles'. TP ✎ ✓ 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

...probably because of the same quirk that led me to sell my soul to Santa. TP ✎ ✓ 14:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hope some serious and knowledgeable editor will join this discussion that does not want to dismiss question out of hand and resort to thinly veiled insults.Sourcerery (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm a serious and knowledgable editor, and I say that there is no mention in any of the sources I have read (which go beyond beermats, I assure you) of the thing belonging to any architectural style. To reiterate, its form is dictated by engineering necessiry and I don't think anyony ha objected to no stylistic laberl being used for the Garabit viaduct or the Forth Bridge.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, the assignation of a style to the Statue of Liberty refers to its style as a work of sculpture, so its a false comparison.TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the style could be accurately called recentbridgetestedmetallatticeworktechnologytestedverticallyforthefirsttime-ism. TP ✎ ✓ 13:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I like it. It's kind of snappy.TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Could we have a sub-genre for Blackpool Tower, metallatticeworktechnologytestedverticallyinparisandcopiedshamelessly-esque or something? Or am I not being serious enough? -- Begoon 13:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And hey, with that and the Tokyo Tower, there would be two articles in that category. TP ✎ ✓ 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I love it when a plan comes together - and all it took was for you to join the discussion... I do notice that someone already seems to have had a similar idea, but I think things like this might be pushing the envelope a little? -- Begoon 23:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ooooo, the bastards! But whence the evidence that <wiksophism> those 'reproductions' are in fact reproductions (and not reproductions of reproductions (of Eiffel-inspired works))?</wikisophism>

Joke I may, but categories are indeed 'claims without sources'... and can be abused as such. But I digress. TP ✎ ✓ 06:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: The Star Tower is a great example of what shouldn't be in that category (where's the source saying that it should be?). TP ✎ ✓ 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It isn't. And yes, categories are exactly that. Great tools for sneaky defamation, as well. The category system is also utterly unfit for use and should long ago have been replaced with a system of queryable attributes or tags - otherwise one ends up with crazy things like Category:Extinct blue moths from socialist Asian republics where each word except 'from' should just be a queryable attribute set on some item (although that doesn't solve the sourcing issue). But don't get me started on that... I generally just avoid anything to do with categories. -- Begoon 07:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, from that category, enjoy Eiffel Tower replicas and derivatives, and here, I quote: "Most are not exact replicas, though there are many like it." I think File:MonteAmiataVettaCroce.JPG is my favourite... -- Begoon 07:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Owch for so many reasons. And yes, Wikipedia seems to be obstinately blind to its shortcomings (like categories) that allow it to be WP:GAMEd (while the WP:GAMErs cry: 'but there's no rule against it!')... if you want to bring this up somewhere (let's stick to categories for now, perhaps), I'm game. TP ✎ ✓ 07:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@ThePromenader:I've never really understood categories, and sometimes get yelled at for not including them. But I've always thought this was my shortcoming. What do you see as the shortcomings of categories? Unschool 12:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A link to a youtube video would be quite inappropriate here, but the song's called "Little Boxes".

Categories are fine when it comes to anything peer-reviewed (where there's a demonstrable (and source-able) consensus about that categorisation; now that I think of it, categories are great for making WP:FRINGE concepts seem 'authoritative', and they're often used that way), but their usefulness tends to wane outside of that, especially where it comes to bestest-mostest-(etc.) vanity-labelling. TP ✎ ✓ 13:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Unschool 00:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention the points I made above about sneaky defamation and the functional ones about not being fit for purpose and the advantages of queryable attributes... I mean, you could at least have mentioned them, it wouldn't have been so hard, sniff, and I was rather proud of them... Anyway - ticky-tacky - they're all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same. (My mum used to sing that when I was a nipper) -- Begoon 13:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Unschool 00:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, I think that horse may have bolted. Early on there was Semantic Wiki which tried to address some of these issues but Jimbo didn't like (understand?) that, so Mediawiki never went that way. The category system is so ingrained now, and replacing it would involve so many fundamental changes that I'm convinced you'd never get any changes off the ground with the WMF, who are the ones who would have to fix it. We've been trying to get them to thumbnail photographic png files the same way they do jpegs for years, so that png thumbnails aren't 'blurry', but I'm afraid inertia is king - and when it isn't you get WP:FLOW - so I'm pessimistic... -- Begoon 07:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I see you - but even getting a precedent-able documentation of someone (from the 'wiki-powers that (would-)be') acknowledging the problem would be a start.

Personally I see fault in a bound-to-fail 'grouping because word' concept (synonyms? language, even? Data should be organised around fact-event-concept/time/place instead), but that's yet another problem.TP ✎ ✓ 09:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

There is a picture in the article, dated 2013, which appears to be in contradiction of the French Court's copyright declaration regarding night time illuminated images of the Tower. Does this image need to be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.83.141 (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No; the tower is out of focus and therefore incidental to the subject, which is someone holding a phone, and the picture on their phone occupies only a small area (less than 10% by my reckoning) of the work. Firebrace (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong picture ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2013_Fireworks_on_Eiffel_Tower_11.jpg 92.20.190.227 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The tower is not illuminated. Spotlights are shining away from the tower. Firebrace (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If the tower wasn't illuminated, it would be far darker than it is in the picture. 92.20.190.227 (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Raise it at Wikimedia Commons; I'm sure they will appreciate the monumental waste of their time. Firebrace (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2019

On the right column with specific information: Design and Construction: Architect should Not Be Listed As The Designer. Gustave Eiffel Designed This Tower, hence his namesake, the Eiffel Tower. Gustav Eiffel was a Civil Engineer. Stephen Sauvestre had nearly Nothing to do with the design and the aesthetic of this structure as the aesthetic is a direct structural function of engineering intelligence and engineering art. How Stephen Sauvestre gets credit for being the architect of the Eiffel Tower is beyond blind intelligence. The Designer of the Eiffel Tower was Gustav Eiffel. Maurice Koechlin and Émile Nouguier were his structural engineers and should be kept. Eiffel came up with the vision and thus was the obvious designer. 137.175.234.245 (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

uuuuuu the eiffel tower was made swedien it vas pantad in the pantig maskin in coop bjorksakatan