A fact from La Princesse appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 24,700 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that La Princesse (pictured), a giant mechanical spider, roamed the streets of Liverpool, England as part of the 2008 European City of Culture celebrations?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/September.

Wikipedia

Merseyside Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spiders Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Correct spelling of the name

Please note the correct spelling is La Princesse, with an e, as on the La Machine website. It's their spider, after all, so they should know. It has been mis-spelled as La Princess in many news reports, including by the BBC and the Times online, the shame. Roisterdoister (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph

I can't add images as you need to have been registerd for 5 days before they'll allow you. Any chance someone could add an image to the article please? I found a suitable one (I think - creative commons attribution licence) here [1] but it'll need rotating and Haversack will need crediting somewhere. Thanks in anticipation. Roisterdoister (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks User:Jza84! Looks great now. Roisterdoister (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More photographs

I still can't upload photos - can anyone help out please? Haversack has uploaded some more pics of the spider on the move. I particularly like [2] because you get a sense of its scale and how it moves, and[3] because of the colours and you can see the puppeteers well. Any chance someone could oblige? Thanks Roisterdoister (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC) All done. Thanks to everyone for their help. Roisterdoister (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

François Delarozière engineering genius

An editor took 'engineering genius' out, even though it was in inverted commas, as he/she said it was 'just one person's viewpoint'. Actually, lots of people reckon he's a genius: Artichoke [4]; The Observer [5], The Times [6], the Liverpool City of Culture official website [7], The Paul Hamlyn Fopundation [8] and so on. It might be a non-neutral point of view, but opinions are allowed if they are quoted, surely? Find something bad about him and add it, by all means. I'm putting it back in. Roisterdoister (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current useage of engineering genius is inappropriate, and it is not excused by either inverted commas or a given quotation. The article should read as an encyclopedia, and currently it does not. Compare the different way in which the criticism about the cost is described: the TaxPayers' Alliance has called the artwork an outrageous waste of taxpayers' money. It is not the artwork is an outrageous waste of taxpayers [reference] The current useage with genius is not making it clear this is an opinion, rather it reads as fact. Additionally: references should be from authoritative sources, and personally I think the PH Foundation is border line at best, and does such grandstanding really benefit the article? The article is about La Princesses rather than F.Delarozière. Articles should be proverable facts not referenced opinions. I believe it should be "The spider was designed by François Delarozière, who also ..." These are facts.

But it is a fact that he has been described as an engineering genius. How about "The spider was designed by François Delarozière, the man behind the Sultan's Elephant who has been described by ***** as an 'enginenering genius'" or somesuch?

"Additionally: "references should be from authoritative sources" So since when has either The Times or The Observer not been an authoritative source? Roisterdoister (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is, I suppose, an improvment but I still challenge any use of 'genius' as it is unnecessarily grandstanding, and in an article in which he is not the subject. Also, the reference used in the article is from RH Foundation and not The Times or The Observer.

I haven't been able to find out enough about him to start his own article. When I do, I will happily move it, but until then I feel it ought to stay in this article, which after all is closely related: he designed the spider - without him, no spider. It's like not mentioning da Vinci in an article about the Mona Lisa. The reaction of those who saw it (and the Sultan's Elephant) has been one of amazement. I think it is perfectly valid to leave it in as he is clearly an exceptional man. I'll change it and the ref and hopefully we can (grudgingly) agree? Roisterdoister (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also, where does it say in the WP rules that "Articles should be proverable facts not referenced opinions"? My understanding was that you could put opinions in, as long as they were referenced and not too one sided, so that balance was maintained. As I have yet to read anything negative about him in the small amount I have found on him, it's hard to do that. If people who work with him (Artichoke and the Liverpool City of Culture organisation people) and people who have seen his work and interviewed him (the Times and the Observer journalists) all call him a genius, why shouldn't we use that in the article? I don't see it as uneccessary grandstanding, I see it as celebrating success, giving credit where credit is due. Roisterdoister (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The aim of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia: it often fails. This aim means it is not the place for celebrating success, which may have its place but not in an encyclopedia. The following page is a of direct relevance as it cautions about the use of terminology described as "peacock terms", this includes the use of the word genius.[[9]] Actually the article is in need of editting as some is written in non-encycopedic fashion. Although tags have their use initial discussion can be more constructive. For this reason I am holding off adding such tags as follows, though they are all argueable appropriate - {Fansite}, {cleanup}, {Essay-entry}, {Inappropriate tone}.

Oh dear, I really can't be bothered with this. Do what you want with the bloody thing. By the way, User:125.239.235.106, why don't you sign your posts and why do you remove the autosign feature? Roisterdoister (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes I can. The very page you referenced on peacock terms says this (my italics):

In some contexts, the fame or reputation of a subject may be an objective and relevant question, better supported by a direct source than by drawing inferences indirectly based on other facts (which would constitute original research or synthesis). A sourced statement that the subject is "famous", "well known", "important", "influential", or the like may be appropriate, particularly to establish a subject's notability in an introductory sentence or paragraph.

Roisterdoister (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use expletives which are both rude and unnecessary. It can also lead to you being suspended or even banned from Wikipedia. I have been trying to be helpful, and this is why I started a discussion and why I did not promptly remove "genius" once you immediately replaced it. Should you not wish for people to edit your work or challenge content on discussion pages there are alternatives you may prefer, such as starting a blog. As I am trying to be helpful I am will not be hasty with editting, however I note it is needed, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.235.106 (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is an engineering genius, i also think that having a gigantic spider roaming the streets of lliverpool is so original.

(shaun k7) 12:28, 12 september (UTC)

It appears this has been resolved and the language removed by Roisterdoister.--IvoShandor (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

I went ahead and broke the article into sections, now they can be reordered if the editors so desire. This just seemed to lend itself to these sections pretty easily so that what I went with, hopefully this is satisfactory. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

between 3-7 September

In the atricle text you can read the following: between 3-7 September. Is that even a correct English? Shouldn't it be between 3rd and 7th September or something? --White rotten rabbit (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to Kumo

During La Machine's performance during the Ottawa 2017 celebrations in late July 2017, the act included Long Ma, a totally different character, as well as a spider which seems identical to La Princesse -- with the exception of its name, Kumo.

This is unlikely to be a regionally-inspired renaming, since people around the Capital Region are largely fluent enough in French to understand "La Princesse;" can anyone more familiar with La Machine confirm whether or not Kumo and La Princesse are the same character?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on La Princesse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]