Talk:Fourth plinth

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

Name[edit]

I certainly prefer "in" to "at" - good move - but why not call it Fourth plinth, Trafalgar Square? I don't know the MoS off by heart but that looks more typical of a thing-in-a-place article name, and plays nice with the pipe trick. But what do you think? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty easy - I just went with the first name that came to mind (and struggled a bit with the preposition - is this "in, on, or at" - that solution fixes that nicely) Egg Centric (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Fourth plinth, Trafalgar Square sounds better and is simpler. but it's no big deal.TeapotgeorgeTalk 11:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly moved it and am now changing my name and going into hiding. DBaK (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capping in 2nd two words[edit]

Official site [1] and bbc [2], telegraph [3] amongst loads of other news orgs going for two caps.

The guardian seems to be [4] possibly going for "Fourth plinth". And as we all know t'ain't called the granuiad for nothing :)

This begs the question: do we move this article to Fourth Plinth, Trafalgar Square? I think not, that doesn't look right. But it could potentially be moved to Fourth Plinth. Thoughts? Egg Centric (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I expect to be busy at work tomorrow but if there's a lull I'm going to do quite a bit of editting to this article. Which reminds me - I need to be in the office in under 6 hours and it's an hour commute. STEP. AWAY. FROM. THE. COMPUTER :D

Interesting. I am quite swayed by the argument for Fourth Plinth, but I don't see what's wrong with Fourth Plinth, Trafalgar Square, which I feel may be more usefully descriptive and does play nice with the pipe trick. But of course Fourth Plinth, unqualified, would not be a disaster either when Trafalgar Square is always just a click away anyway. I don't have a very strong feeling about it - I think we are in roughly the right area and redirects will mop up any remaining problems. So I will probably not be getting into a fistfight with you about this. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, no fist fight intended. How about scissors paper stones? Egg Centric (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interpretive dance-off. Hang on a minute while I fetch my leotard and some pretty streamers ... DBaK (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tabulation[edit]

I'd like to tabulate all the known occupants. Not certain about what collums to use... for a start do we assume we want an artist collumn? As it'll be quite a lot of messy cutting and pasting to populate the table would like some opinions about which ones we want before I do so.

Assume photos won't be too much of a problem for anythign recent.

It would be something like this:

Dates Artist Piece Photo
Fourth Plint Project
1999 Example Example Example
2000 Example Example Example
2001 Example Example Example
2002 World Cup
2002 Example Example Example
Fourth Plinth Comission
2005 Example Example Example
2007 Example Example Example
2009 Example Example Example
2010 Example Example Example
2012 Example Example Example
2013 Example Example Example

Egg Centric (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like that idea at all. The trouble with tables (particularly with the way they're currently marked up on Wikipedia) is that they don't work well on small screens, particularly mobiles. And as folks have added, in the several years since you proposed this, lots of explanatory text about the works, this would be badly formatted (both cramped and wasting space) in a table. We essentially have a uniform format just using basic markup now, and that has the advantage that it reflows pleasantly on small screens. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timing for Haacke's horse[edit]

The BBC ref says Gift Horse will be unveiled "next year" (2015), and this says the thumb thing will be "early 2016". I've not seen more specifics about the date than that. Note that GLA's page http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/arts-culture/fourth-plinth/2014-2015-commissions/hans-haacke has "2014-2015" in the URL, but this seems to be when they're commissioning, not when they're installing. Note also that The Guardian ref says Gift Horse will replace the blue cockerel (there isn't some other work we've not accounted for), so it will stand there for about 18 months or so. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained edits[edit]

An editor with a conflict of interest User:FourthPlinth is making a large number of edits without edit summaries, in some cases these are helpful edits but it is difficult to tell, because despite a polite request they are refusing to fill in the edit summary box. Theroadislong (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worse yet, some of the new content is copy-paste from the Greater London Authority's Fourth Plinth webpages at https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/arts-culture/fourth-plinth. I've been cleaning up and I will do some more. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And from http://www.ultravie.co.uk/blog/2012/12/07/fourth-plinth-contemporary-monument-ica/. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be better to revert to this version [[5]] before the conflict of interest edits began? Theroadislong (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments have been noted. Any future edits will take your helpful pointers into account and be fully summarised.FourthPlinth (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any further changes or actions to be taken to move this article out of cleanup? FourthPlinth (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With your obvious conflict of interest, I suggest you agree not to edit the article but to post your suggested edits here for others to consider. Theroadislong (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, please remove the banner by reverting to the previous version or proceed with cleanup until it satisfies your content policy. FourthPlinth (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of above discussion, I've removed WP:COI banner. It seems to me FourthPlinth has not made further edits, and the overall tone of article seems to have WP:NPOV. Please comment if you disagree. Mick gold (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting them completely, can they be removed from Commons but retained on en.wikipedia as fair use? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 17:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmglee a fair use image here must comply with the requirements of WP:Non-free content. Perhaps only one fair use image (like that of the most recent temporary sculpture) may be OK, but not fair use images of all works that were exhibited on the Fourth Plinth. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about copyright law to comment on your recommendation, or about the fourth-plinth sculptures to state which is most relevant. Would anyone have any views on this? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 05:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmglee on the next thought, I think the current method of embedding external image links is enough (some entries show the de minimis images that are allowed on Commons). It appears fair use images are not allowed on list articles. Fair use images of copyrighted sculptures not covered by FoP are only OK for articles about the sculptures themselves (as long as those articles still exist). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Those are fair solutions. I think de minimis is best as it doesn't depend on external sites *and* shows the context of works. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British copyright law limitations on images of temporary sculptures[edit]

Aldaron, I've replace the image you added with a link to an external image. British copyright law does not allow for publishing images of temporary sculptures without the artist's permission, even if they are displayed outdoors in a public place. As you can see from the notices above many images have been removed from this article and from Commons. It is a shame, but that is what it is. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a photo of Trafalgar Square. Was the 4th Plinth in it? I didn't notice! — Aldaron • T/C 19:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fourth_plinth&oldid=1214184488"