Jump to content

Talk:London Eye

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.85.116.31 (talk) at 06:05, 14 February 2013 (→Pop Culture). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Official name

The official name for the London Eye is The British Airways London Eye. --Robert Brook

Photos

The photographs are a great addition. Thank you to whoever added them. I've been playing with the format (basically making the stations and external links appear below the photos) This should look ok on low and medium resolution screens at least. Can anyone say if it looks ok on high-res screens/other displays used to look at wiki? Pete 10:18 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Pete, I am happy to read that you like my images :-) On my high resolution screen the new format does not look really good, there are some centimetres of empty space before the text goes on... I think there should be a better way, you can also put the images on another place in the article, if you want. I have just thrown them in there, you con reposition them as much as you like. Fantasy 11:07 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Houses of Parliament

Re: "Opposite Houses of Parliament" being removed.

Yes of course in the strictest sense it is not opposite the HoP. In the sense of trying to make a helpful article though, it is basically opposite, especially on the scale of the River Thames, which flows for twenty miles through central London. If a reader is sufficiently clueless about London not to know where the London Eye is, then a reference to County Hall is hardly likely to be helpful, though one about the Houses of Parliament might be. Thus I made a partial revert.
Oh and finally, the river runs north-south at that point, not east-west as suggested in the summary comment :). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Does nobody have a nice daylight photo of the whole wheel for the lead image? On a related note, this page is getting a little overburdened with images, so it will soon be time to move some into a gallery section. -- Solipsist 18:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done! - Adrian Pingstone 19:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it would be useful if I summarised where I've put my own London Eye pics (from a short holiday in London two weeks ago):
Views of the wheel - London Eye, South Bank and Observation wheel.
Views from the wheel -Hungerford Bridge, Lambeth Bridge, Waterloo Bridge, Westminster Bridge, Palace of Westminster, River Thames and St. Margaret's, Westminster - Adrian Pingstone 19:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's great (and quick) - thanks. I've now rearranged the photos and moved some to a subpage so that they don't outweight the text. I hope you approve. -- Solipsist 21:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fine by me. Thanks for setting up the new page - Adrian Pingstone 22:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there's still too many images. Nine is too many, especially for the relative length of the text. I'm going to take a few out and add them to the gallery, if its ok. --jeffthejiff(talk) 18:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ferris wheel or not

I've recently noticed changes in a couple of places as to whether the London Eye should be classed as a Ferris wheel or not. I'm fairly sure I've seen Marks & Barfield being interviewed and saying it is not a Ferris wheel. As I understand it, it is not correct to describe all observation wheels as Ferris wheels. The crucial distinction is that a Ferris wheel has suspended cars, whereas on the London Eye the cars (gondolas) counter-rotate on the rim of the wheel. -- Solipsist 3 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)

AFAIK a ferris wheel is suspended from two sides. The Millenium wheel (or rather: its axle) is only suspended from one side and therefore it is called something other than ferris wheel, but I am unsure about what it is really called. --Soylentyellow 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ferris wheel/observation wheel distinction seems decidedly artificial to me, and Ferris wheel seems to agree. FWIW, the Star of Nanchang (see [1]) has gondolas on the outside (observation wheel-y) but two support towers (ferris wheel-y), so which one is it? Jpatokal 11:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The official website for the London Eye argues it is not a Ferris wheel for three reasons, firstly that its capsules are enclosed, secondly that they are positioned on the outside of the wheel and thirdly that the whole structure is supported by an A-Frame from one side only. There are many changes that need to be done to this page because it is NOT a Ferris Wheel. Here is the website so you can review my claim. London Eye. "It will randomly work out" (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a Ferris wheel - see Ferris wheel#Observation wheels. The London Eye website is making a (very poorly-argued) marketing claim, not stating a generally accepted fact. Their definition simply doesn't hold water.
Observation wheels are a type of Ferris wheel. The only workable distinction is externally-mounted capsules. The "enclosed capsules" argument is just plain stupid - see Ferris Wheel!! The "cantilever" argument is also clearly nonsense - if only cantilevered wheels qualify as observation wheels, the London Eye is the world's only observation wheel with enclosed capsules. Even the London Eye website contradicts itself, claiming that being supported by an A-frame from one side only is a determining factor, but also that it is the "world's tallest cantilevered observation wheel", implying that being supported by an A-frame from one side only is NOT a determining factor! See also http://www.londoneye.com/NewsAndEvents/News/CommemorativeStamps/Default.aspx - "Europe's tallest Ferris wheel".  :-)
It's just spin & hype. Observation wheels are themselves Ferris wheels - which, ultimately, is why Observation wheel and Ferris wheel were merged. 92.40.103.141 (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BA share sold.

In case no-one notices, BBC has announced today that BA has sold its share in the Eye. Hard to revise because the buyer is undisclosed. It's just worth bearing in mind for when we know more. Tarquin Binary 15:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone actually going to London

If anyone is actually going to London this may be helpful. The eye is rather expensive (I think about US$40 per person) and not particularly worth it. Right below the eye however is a wonderful arcade with bumper cars and the like. It is almost like an indoor amusement park. It is pretty cool. Not something you would go to London for but wonderful if you have kids going with you or are going with a group that wants to do the eye.

At the moment (9/4/6) the cost, if booked online, is :Adult £11.70, Child (5-15) £5.85, Under 5 free, Senior (60+)£9.00. Markb 08:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about putting THOSE prices on the main page? Will give the reader an idea of how much it costs to ride the Eye.


£11.70=US$40? Boy! Are you getting screwed on the exchange rate! ;=)

Interesting how you describe what I assume to be Namco (which is a little walk along but essentially under the eye) as cheap in relation to the eye. As a local 20-year old I have spent several hours at Namco and I can honestly say that the London Eye is money better spent. It's essentially a games arcade where each game costs 50-200p. Dodgems themself are 2 quid so that's just 6 rides until the cost of the London Eye is covered and I'm sure i could fit more rides in that 30 minute session than that!

masons?

the amazing london eye looks a lot like the free mason's symbol eh?

No, not really. http://www.summum.us/images/gif/FreemasonrySymbol.gif It looks like a large Ferris Wheel OperationOverlord (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory

  • "The British Airways London Eye... is the first-built and largest observation wheel in the world..."
  • "The wheel is not the first of its kind"

Kaldari 22:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Order

I've changed the photo order. I put the featured picture first in the article. I thought that considering it's such a nice photo, it should be at the top. Is this OK?Xtrememachineuk 17:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there's a photograph I added was blown away from the page. I personally think it's too crowdy. I suggest having one main photo and a gallery for the rest of the photos at the bottom. What do you guys think? Omernos 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently anonymous editors, using a range of IPs, have been reinserting external links to two unofficial web sites, the-london-eye.com and the-london-eye.co.uk. They are often also deleting the link to the official web site at www.londoneye.com. I can see absolutely no value in offering links to the unofficial web sites - they are poorly designed, give no additional information and since they are also commercial they also fall foul of Wikipedia:spam.

We also don't need any links to sites offering photographs of the LondonEye - we've got plenty of photographs, many of them rather good, already on Wikipedia.

Apart from the official web site, the only other external links that I can imagine being useful would be something like news articles concerning the future of the wheel or information from the architects on engineering plans or the like. -- Solipsist 14:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is me who keeps putting the links back - I think it must just be that my IP is changing. Surely people have the right to decide themselves if the official site is all they need? I am aiming to increase the content of my site so that it will also be helpful to visitors. Is it you that is continually deleting my links? Can you not see that I want to keep them there? If I did not have to check wikipedia many times each day, maybe I would be able to improve my site so that you would think it was worthy of having a link.
If you actually had a look at the links, you would see that both link to the same page - it is a shame that you do not investigate something before just going ahead with your "great" idea. Have you tried telling Google that they should only have one, official, site do do with each subject? Maybe we should only have one "official" editor to edit topics. Freedom of choice...leave it up to the individual to decide where they want to go, please do not decide for them.
May I add that the only reason why I began to delete the official link (I did not do it to begin with) was because I could not see why my link should be deleted everytime - I was just re-adding my link to the list. So, in the end I decided to delete the official link when I had to put mine back on...time and time again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Igloo01 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 August 2006. 20:30, 2 August 2006
Well thank you for discussing it now. I've tried leaving messages on the various IP user pages you have been using, but you may have missed them if your IP address kept changing - that's one of the advantages of using a named login account.
Now can I ask you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on adding external links — Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:spam are a good starting point. Unfortunately you will see that you shouldn't be adding links to your own web site; that in general we don't support links to commercial sites, except where the article is directly about that site (for example there is a link to sainsbury.co.uk on the J Sainsbury page, but nowhere else); and also Wikipedia is not a link farm - we are not aiming to provide convenient links for people, we are aiming to write an encyclopedia.
You should also note, that Wikipedia is written by concensus. Our guidelines and policies are written by concensus. I'm not the only one who has been reverting your edits, other editors also agree that the links to your website should be reverted. I'm sorry to say, I cannot envisage any set of future circumstances in which the links to your website would be acceptable here. -- Solipsist 22:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I do not think I could be classed under Wikipedia:spam. However, after carefully reading about External Links, I can now see what I was doing was going against that - I apologise. I must emphasise though that I was not adding my link for commercial gain. I did, and still do, feel that people should have a choice of sites they can look at about the subject. I believe that it is one of the joys of having an online encyclopedia - the ease with which you can travel around using links which are constantly updated.
I hope you will not object if I put forward my link for addition to the page some time in the future - maybe after I have updated the content some more. I hope you will not hold this little blip on my behalf against me. --Igloo01 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should of replied sooner, but the answer is - I doubt it. As long as the site seeks to sell tickets or carries advertising it will be deemed commercial. You also shouldn't be adding links to a web site that you are involved with. If the site is significant, someone else will add it. If you were to expand the site with new material, we would really rather you added the material here, under a GFDL license, so that inaccuracies can be corrected. On the whole, Wikipedia really does not want many links to external sites. -- Solipsist 11:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The London Eye in film and television

In Johnny English, exactly which scene is set in one of the Eye's capsules? I don't remember any such scene. Torarin 11:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After watching the film again I am equally bemused by this claim, would it not be right to remove this bullet point to prevent confusion? 2 September 06

Please add reference to the new Doctor Who series (2005) as the eye was a key part of the pilot.

This will probably lead to a ridiculous France vs. UK war but the Eiffel Tower page claims that it is the most popular tourist attraction in the world. 6,428,441 people visited the tower in 2005 and more than 200,000,000 since it's construction. Perhaps it might be an idea to get exact numbers to back up the London Eye claim since the Emporis reference doesn't give any. --Mgill 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference, i'll add it. The Eiffel Tower is most popular in terms of total visitors, but the eye has more year on year. --w2ch00 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is the reference on the Emporis page, scroll down to the bottom and you'll find it under "Facts" (near the bottom of that section). W2ch00 18:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why 32 pods?

I have heard that the Eye contains 32 pods because there are 32 boroughs in London. I have no reference for this but wonder if anyone else does?

--Paulredfern1 11:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bride or Pride?

In the edit previous to the one I just did, the movie title "Bride and Prejudice" was "corrected" to "Pride and Prejudice". However, I'm wondering if this was a true correction or a proofreading error (such as the album sleeve-notes I once saw in which the properly-spelled "sine wave" was "corrected" to "sign wave"), because there is a Bollywood movie called "Bride and Prejudice" and I suspect that this, rather than a straightforward adaptation of the Jane Austen novel, may have been the one meant. Something for a more knowledgeable person to look into? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.122.47.170 (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've just looked at other Wikipedia pages, and it would seem that there was no 2004 "Pride and Prejudice" movie, although there was one in 2003 and another in 2005; but "Bride and Prejudice" was released in 2004. So it looks to me as if this edit was indeed a proofreading error, and "Bride" is the correct name. 193.122.47.170 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Wheels?

In the intro, "until the opening of The Star of Nanchang in May 2006 (the record will in turn be broken by the Singapore Flyer in early 2008 when it becomes operational). ", but in History - "Plans have been announced to build a 170 m wheel on the Las Vegas Strip and a 185 m wheel dubbed "Giant Wheel" planned to open in 2008 in Berlin." Which should we be going with? Paulbrock 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New owner

Tussauds has been bought out by Merlin Entertainment...article needs amending if anyone has time! See [2] Paulbrock 01:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Author!

Author! Please come back and proofread and correct your sloppy work. And if necessary go back to school so you can write more correctly. Thank you.

[Note: this may only apply to the first section. The rest of the article is fine. But the first section seems to have been sabotaged by an imbecile.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.217.211.6 (talk • contribs) May 2007.

I've amended it so it's at least grammatically correct, but it still needs tweaking I think...Paulbrock 00:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Goldmember deleted?

OK, so the Eye's appearance in that is brief — but not as brief as its appearance in Order of the Phoenix; and as Harry Potter fans know, the latter is an anachronism as the Eye appears in a sequence which is supposed to be taking place in 1995. 86.145.170.171 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star of Nanchang

This article says that the Star of Nanchang is a ferris wheel, not an observation wheel. The Observation wheel article says that it's an observation wheel. Who's right? Corvus cornix 23:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The London Eye in film and television

Is this section useful? Given the Eye's status as a landmark, given time this section will overwhelm the article. I'm not necessarily saying delete it but shouldn't it be restricted to something like "significant references"? Robertcornell68 08:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Wouldn't you agree that the replacement photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_London_Eye%2C_from_Westminster_Bridge.JPG) shows the detail of the eye in better focus (yes, the other is in focus, but it's spinning, due to long exposure, so you can't see anything of the pods), it's of a higher resolution (to show the wheel's detail better), it shows where it is, it shows the normal front view, and the sky isn't as distracting as the blue-lit trees in the original (now displayed as leading photo) which take up 2/3 of the shot? --Evans1551 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the proposed replacement's background is distracting. It's hard to tell what the subject of the photo is. The current photo is also regarded as special in other ways. — Aldaron • T/C 22:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current picture is wonderful as a photograph, but not great for a Wikipedia page. It is too "busy", with the trees even obscuring the wheel itself. Remember, its not about taking award-winning shots but having a fairly simple, demonstrative image for those that may not even know what the London Eye is. To some, looking at that picture, it could be something that involves lit-up trees or something. Let's get a standard image in. OperationOverlord (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

london eye

i loved the london eye i saw everythig when i went there with my clas 6m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.96.104 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC) your's sincerly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.71.81 (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC) who are you saying that sayingyou hate my image.[reply]

Repeated vandalism of the list of arcitects.

There seems to be occasional, but repeated, vandalism of the list of architects of the wheel. It seems that a few London school children like to add their own names to the list. Martin451 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but people are putting in Underground stations that aren't near the Eye - I've just removed a reference to Tower Hill station - the second time (at least) that it's been put in the article, and Southwark was recently added (and removed quickly as well). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Areas for expansion

Anyone got any info on:

Conception - whose idea was it? Why?

Mechanics - How does it work/turn? How is it powered?

BA - what is their history with the project - why did they pull out?

Thanks Paulbrock (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several attempts to put up the structure?

Is it true that the first attempt to raise the structure failed, and the second had to be conducted in two steps (first up to 60 degrees, and then up to 90)? It says so in the German wiki entry [3]. If there is a reference for it somewhere, I think it should be included. It's an interesting aspect of the engineering of the wheel. --Sternmusik (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is mentioned here: [4] Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Rename

London Eye → The Merlin Entertainments London Eye — Merlin Entertainments have recently rebranded the London Eye, giving it a new logo and renaming it The Merlin Entertainments London Eye. With this in mind, I feel this page should be moved over to the appropriate new name, but wanted to gauge people's opinion on the matter. If no one's replied within a day or so, I'll go ahead and move it, bearing in mind that it's easy to undo. TalkIslander 14:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page name should be left as it is, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name.
Merlin Entertainments London Eye and The Merlin Entertainments London Eye should redirect to London Eye.
I've listed this discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves - hope that's OK. 58.8.6.198 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's why I hesitated (normally I would be bold and just move an article, on the understanding that it's easy to undo). You're right, 'London Eye' is the most easily recognised name, but then 'Merlin Entertainments London Eye' is the correct name. Just as, for instance, the correct name for the UK's largest supermarket chain is Tesco, yet the most commonly used name is 'Tescos' - clearly that article should stay where it is, though, as 'Tesco' is the correct name. TalkIslander 16:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis that Wikipedia does not care about the official name of anything. A test on Google shows 1,570,000 hits for "london eye", compared with a miniscule 276 for "The Merlin Entertainments London Eye". Of course, the rebranded name might eventually become the much more used form, but we can change the article name if and when that happens. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I really don't understand why you've used a brand new and barely completed essay to illustrate your point (it does so very poorly) when WP:OFFICIALNAMES would have done much better... TalkIslander 22:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted

Thinking about it more carefully, it's not that long ago that the Eye was officially named the 'British Airways London Eye', and yet then we still had the page named 'London Eye'. With that in mind, makes sense not to move now. Sorry for any bother, TalkIslander 22:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added project team and some references

Since there seemed to be some confusion over who the architects were, I have replaced the list of names with the name of the firm. I have, however added in a list of the firms involved in the project, which can be found in a very informative article in Architecture Today. If anyone is planning to write more on the design, they will find this very helpful. Some additional structural information can be found in a paper by Pat Dallard on the Singapore Flyer - "The Singapore Flyer and design of Giant Observation Wheels", Brendon McNiven & Pat Dallard, IStructE Asia-Pacific Forum on Structural Engineering: Innovations in Structural Engineering, Singapore, 2 - 3 November 2007.

I hope it is OK that I made these changes without checking in with other editors, but I felt that since the request for references to the names of architects had stood for a little while, that therefore it would be helpful to do so. --Muchado (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 32 pods —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.53.42 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDF Energy London Eye logo - WP:NOTADVERTISING

Does anyone else think that that "EDF Energy London Eye logo" featuring promonently at the top might fall foul of WP:NOTADVERTISING? NickCT (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Corporate branding of page as per WP:NOTADVERTISING, should it reoccur WP:BEBOLD and remove it. Hobofixer (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was rapidly reverted by User:AxG. Let's not start an edit war please, discuss it here. I propose a corporate logo branding the page does not constitute 'objective and unbiased' as you suggest. Hobofixer (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We may get away with a little about the corporate ownership in the lead section. For the image, if we apply WP:NOTADVERTISING here, then surely, we would have to also apply it other pages that contain copyrighted logos, with specific branding, such as many football articles, e.g. Scottish Premier League, Football League One etc? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's necessary to suggest a Slippery slope regarding the logo; that's a Fallacy of false equivalency. A Football league (in your example) does not equal an internationally well known Landmark. Whoever paid for the most recent corporate branding is of far less importance to the majority of readers as the Landmark itself. Placing a corporate brand logo above the photo of the landmark itself OR inside the Infobox at all AND mention about its sponsorship in the first paragraph is NOT 'objective and unbiased'. It goes against WP:NOTADVERTISING in both wording and spirit.
It is, however, not unreasonable to have the names the London Eye has been given over the years featured somewhere in the article. But it is far less notewothy than the Landmark itself. Indeed mention of who currently sponsors it in conjunction with a the list of other names presented in an unbiased and objective manner further down the article would allow readers to view that information without giving it the ridiculous weight and importance it had been given at the top of the page. Hobofixer (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Is there any criticism to the London Eye? As pretty as it is, has anyone voiced his/her criticism against it? Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section

The criticism section does not seem to contain any criticism...?

Should the title be changed?

Lukes123 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add my edit of Cheap imitations

Some cheap Indian has reverted to previous edit. Whatever I added was 100% constructive and informative. People of London need to know that what cheap imitations exist of their original piece. Please bring it back. Why this Indian is behaving like an autocrat? Is this a free and open encyclopedia or a forum to intimidate other editors from editing? I want some senior admin to please interfere and check the autocracy of this Indian. (anonymous)

Don't worry; no such thing will happen. Far as I see, the removal is entirely reasonable; your material being more abusive than informative. If you want a comprehensive list of imitators including Singapore Flyer they can go into WP:SEE ALSO. If you propose a general comparison of pricing and construction cost, it will require careful writing with proper regard to considerations such as WP:UNDUE and WP:POV but if you want to make the effort, go right ahead. Before inserting your proposed improvements you might want to present them here in the Talk Page for discussion and polishing. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum speed possible?

Has the maximum speed the London Eye could possibly be run even been published? In a normal run, the speed is only 0.26 m/s. But is that really the fastest speed the machine could possibly go? Or can it be run at a faster speed without breaking?Inkan1969 (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous name

Shouldn't it at least be mentioned somewhere that it was known as the Millennium Wheel at the time of its opening? Or are people so embarrassed by the connection to the Millennium Dome that you want to pretent it wasn't? /81.170.148.21 (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the third paragraph. 2.26.139.130 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also this revision - from 7 March 2003! 2.26.139.130 (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motorised capsules in the London Eye

In another article in the section Observation_wheel#Observation_wheels there is mention of "motorised capsules" in the London Eye. Can someone explain the "motorised" part of the capsules and what these motors do within the design of the London Eye, please. It is not made clear but does it mean that the rotation of the London Eye is due to the individual motors of the 32 capsules and the wheel itself does not have a motor to rotate it? --VanBurenen (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To remain upright, the capsules must rotate in the opposite direction to the wheel. Each capsule has its own motors, which rotate that capsule alone, independent of the motors that rotate the wheel itself. 92.40.86.79 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The capsules would also remain upright due to gravity if they are hanging freely from their hanging points. In that case only the wheel would have to have a motor to rotate it. On the other hand, if every capsule has a motor (32 of them) then why would the large wheel need a motor? (In either case, the hangingmechanism of the capsule has to have a gear system in addition to the motor to make it work.) --VanBurenen (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The capsules are not "hanging", there are no "hanging points" or "hangingmechanism". Look at the photographs, the principle of the design is clear when you observe how the capsules are attached to the wheel. 92.40.86.79 (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture

Pop Culture should be removed or expanded. It MUST say something more than "As a prominent London landmark, the London Eye often appears in popular culture."

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Eye&oldid=538174915"