Jump to content

Talk:Eiffel Tower/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Edit request on 11 December 2011

In the section 'Attempted Relocation', it is incorrectly stated that secret negotiations took place with President Charles DeGaulle in the 1980's. President DeGaulle died in 1970'

KBMason (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It says that the interviews were given, by someone else, in the 1980s not that the discussions happened then. Also the event they were discussing moving it for was Expo 67 with was in 1967 so the talks must have happened before that. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2011

Eiffel Tower from Paris is built with steel made in Resita, Romania. On every piece of metal that made up the Eiffel tower he said “Made in Resita – Romania.”

78.96.116.210 (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2011

Few people know that the symbol of Paris, the famous Eiffel Tower was made by a technology invented by engineer George Panculescu from Romania.

After he graduated from Polytechnic in Zurich, the engineer started to work at a company for Eiffel, to the recommendation of the great writer Alecsandri. In 1878, he went back to Romania to build the Bucharest-Predeal railway. At that time, the engineer has invented a system of joint of the railway sleepers, which would revolutionize the metal construction.

So, due to self-assembly method on railway sleepers outside the space of railways, the engineer managed to finish the work in less than a year, although the delivery term was almost of 5 years.

Panculescu hosted Gustave Eiffel who was impressed by the novel, and has moved to meet the Panculescu, who was to become general inspector of the Romanian Railways. Eiffel wanted to see this technology used for fitting the railway.

Eiffel Tower from Paris is built with steel made in Resita, Romania. On every piece of metal that made up the Eiffel tower he said “Made in Resita – Romania.”

The famous Tower was also designed as a famous monument, reinforcing the Statue of Liberty in New York, a gift from France to the United States.

Digging the foundation began on January 26 1887. For almost 5 months, dozens of people were digging only and only with shovels, earth evacuating vegonete out using horse-drawn vehicles or of steam. Foundations were filled with masonry , to secure each of the four pillars of the tower legs. After the foundations have been finished, the tower began to ascend seeing with the eye.

Besides the other Paris hotels , near the Eiffel Tower, there is a hotel with the most beautiful view to it, the Pullman Paris Tour Eiffel. It offers magnificant sights, modern facilities and free Wi-Fi.

Guests rooms from the Pullman Paris have air conditioning, satellite television and a mini-bar. Most of the rooms have a balcony with view to the Eiffel Tower, Sena river or the Champs de Mars Gardens.


78.96.116.210 (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Blatant copyright violation. — Bility (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please add info about nearest subway/Metro

It's suprise - for at least me that nearest Metro station of line 1 is Charles de Gaulle or Roosevelt(similar distance). Also as You known it is not so near there, even the Metro was built on the same exposition, like Tower.it is more like a dippy , than a triangle.

Still the nearest station is M6/M9 Trocadero, and You have to cross the river for it.

No, the nearest Metro station is Bir Hakeim on line M6, and you don't have to cross the Seine or go up a hill. It is about 600 meters away from the tower (as the crow flies) along the Quai Branly, while the Trocadéro station is across the Seine more tham 700 meters away. Even closer on the same side of the river is the underground station named Champ de Mars - Tour Eiffel. However it is not on the Metro, it is on the Réseau Express Régional, RER, which is a rapid transit network of five railway gauge lines serving Paris and its suburbs.--Tvbanfield (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


(Something unbelievable still today, probably hard to imagine - for e.g. Would You imagine Big Ben without Westminster underground station? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.70.254 (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. St Stephen's Clock Tower (Big Ben is actually a bell, not the tower itself) existed for a number of years without Westminster station. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 December 2011


In the "Timeline of Events" section of History of the Eiffel Tower wiki states that in the 1980s "A restaurant and its supporting iron scaffolding midway up the tower was dismantled; it was purchased and reconstructed on St. Charles Avenue and Josephine Street in the Garden District of New Orleans, Louisiana, by entrepreneurs John Onorio and Daniel Bonnot, originally as the Tour Eiffel Restaurant, later as the Red Room and now as the Cricket Club (owned by the New Orleans Culinary Institute). The restaurant was re-assembled from 11,000 pieces that crossed the Atlantic in a 40-foot (12 m) cargo container."

The restaurant in the Eiffel Tower that was dismantled and shipped to America (I've heard sometime in the 40s) was called the "Red Room." After sitting in storage in NY for decades the dismantled iron structure was shipped to New Orleans for the 1984 Worlds Fair, which took place in November. Later the structre on St. Charles Ave. housed an establishment dubbed "The Red Room" after the restaurant that the structure originally housed in France midway up the Eiffel tower. Originally the Red Room was opened as a club by night and restaurant by day. The Red Room closed in 2002 and then the "Eiffel building" (as it is known to locals) was reopened as The Cricket Club, a restaurant and lounge owned by NOCI. The Cricket Club has been closed since 2009, siting financial troubles in the wake of Hurricane Katrina http:[1]. In 2010, five years after Katrina the building was restored and reopened as a museum, restaurant, and night club called "The Eiffel Society." The Eiffel Society remains there today as a popular nightclub and concert venue. Here's a link to their website: [2]

Johnicekatz (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sources given do not support bulk of request. - DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Eiffel tower fireworks on July 14th Bastille Day.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Eiffel tower fireworks on July 14th Bastille Day.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh no: not again!. This is the third deletion nomination. AFAIIA, there has been no change in French copyright law since the last (rejected) nomination. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 February 2012

the number of visitors since the origin should be updated according to the official website (more than 250,000,000). kind regards.

93.62.205.10 (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The {{edit semi-protected}} template requires a specific request with a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. Also, relaible sources are required for any factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2012

since someone did marry the Eiffel Tower, i think it would be respectful if we gave a "spouse" column. The column should state Erika Eiffel as the wife

Lili36272 (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done:

  • The {{edit semi-protected}} template requires a specific request with a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail.
  • The silly woman is already mentioned in the article, more than enough.
  • It is not on record as to whether the Tower gave its consent: myself, I doubt it
  • And the infobox for structures unsurprisingly does not have a "spouse" parameterTheLongTone (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

General concerns

I came to this article because I have been working on the Gustave Eiffel aricle. I intend to cover the history, design & construction of the tower to a certain extent (there was little, & is now a bit more) but obviously do not want to overburden a biography with stuff that should be in th main article on the subject.

The problem is that there is almost nothing on the design of the tower in this article, other than a very lengthy section on the elevators. (I suspect anglocentrism here: the elevators are the only subject that seem to have been covered in depth byThe Engineer). In short, I intend to expand the article somewhat: but I am concerned about the structure of the article, which imo needs serious rearrangement. For instance, most of the stuff about the lifts should be included in te section on the design. I also think that the headind 'timeline' is misleading: I'd call it subsequent history or similar.

I'm also puzzled by the term puddle iron. Every reference I have calls it simply wrought iron, and puddle iron is certainly not a term I recall having come across. (I would not describe myself as an expert by any means, but I have been interested in C19 engineering for a long time and have read a fair bit on the subject). I am familiar with the pudddling process itself: it simply that 'puddle iron' isn't a term I've come across. Is it common in American English? A google search seems to only throw up thing that look as though they are simple cut & pastes from the wp article.

Thoughts, anybody?TheLongTone (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll see from the edit history there has been some reverting with puddle/pig/wrought iron; I have no view. I'd go ahead. It might also be worth scanning the history in case such material once existed & go removed. Johnbod (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


I'll have a snoop around. Its certainly not pig iron, and puddling is merely a way of producing wrought iron with a controlled carbon content.TheLongTone (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Wrought iron substituted for "puddle iron", which originally appears with no cite: replaced with wrought iron, & edit reverted with the (wrong) assertion that there is an article on puddle iron. There isn't: there is an article on iron puddling. Nor is puddle iron in the complete OED. I've a reputable source, a book published under the imprimateur of the London Science Museum.
[[1]] is an EU report on old iron bridges. pp15-16 use wrought iron & puddle interchangably: also there is a setion where terms are given in Engish, French & German: "Wrought (puddle) iron/Fer puddle/Schweißeisen". Which explains why a French source-(the French company operating the tower that was cited) calls it puddle iron. Another victim of sloppy translation of technical stuff.TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
If you go to the French language version of the Eiffel Tower Wiki article, the opening sentence is : “La tour Eiffel est une tour de fer puddlé…”

Fer is the French word for iron, so the precise translation would be “puddle iron.” In the English article, “fer puddlé” got translated into “wrought iron.” If you look in the Wiki article for “wrought iron,” you will see that wrought iron has been made over the years by several different processes in several different countries. One of the processes is called “puddling,”

Main article: Puddling (metallurgy)

In the official French site for the Eiffel Tower (www.tour-eiffel.fr) they state that the tower is made of “fer puddlé” and give the definition as follows:

A fibrous iron quality obtained by swirling during the liquid phase. This technique prevents the carbon and the impurities in the metal from associating in the crystallographic structure.

Based on all the above, it is correct to say that the tower is made of puddle iron, it is also correct to say it is made of wrought iron, but it would be more complete to say it is made of puddle iron, a form of wrought iron made by the puddling process.--Tvbanfield (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No it is not correct. The article is in English: the English term for the stuff is wrought iron. Puddle iron is not in th OED and in forty years of reading about technological matters I do not recall having come across the term. Puddled iron, yes: but the usual term is wrought iron. Which at the time was all made by puddling. It's not a special form of wrought iron at all. Pre Bessemer, it was the only way to control the carbon content. TheLongTone (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Whether it is called puddel iron or puddled iron, if all wrought iron was made by puddling, why is it that the article on Wrought iron describes several proceses to make wrought iron, e.g.: Blomery, Osmond, Finery,Potting & stamping, and Lancashire, in addition to puddling?--Tvbanfield (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
because I was making an unjustified sweeping genealisation. But it was the usual way of refinining pig-iron: the essential point is to distinguish te material from cast iron.TheLongTone (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Good, it seems you have resolved your concern about the use of the word "puddle." You have shown that experts have used puddle and puddled interchangably. But since puddle is not in the OED, one should use "puddled iron" if needed to be more precise as to the process than by using "wrought iron". Appreciate your efforts in improving the article.--Tvbanfield (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is more precise: it's simply an obscure term rather thn a commonly used one. The cite in the previous section is not a good argument for using the term in English since 1) the author is not english and 2) because it makes no distinction between wrought iron and puddle(ed) iron. Infuriatingly, the two good technical sources I have on the tower, including the Taschen reprint of Eiffel's 1890 La Tour de Trois Cents Mètres, make no explicit reference (as far as I can see) to the material used other than it being iron (as opposed to steel).TheLongTone (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

'Reaturants'

Please forgive a total newbie - I wonder whether someone with edit acceess would be so kind as to correct the spelling of 'restaurants' in the 'Accommodation' sub-section? It is currently miss-spelled as 'retaurants'. Many thanks. 203.212.134.217 (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

DoneTheLongTone (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Illustrations

There appears to be current fetish for rearranging the illustrations in the article. Whilst I accept that the article is not short on illustrations, different editors seem to have different views on how or where they are presented. At the present time many illustrations appear out of context with the section in which they have been inserted. I would rearrange themself, but I feel that would be compounding the problem.

In view of the size of the article, and the number of illustration, some sort of concensus is required on how the illustrations are best presented to support the text that the illustrate. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Many of the pictures are just there to ddd visual intert and don't really add to to the article. And there are some good unused images in commnons, such as pictures taken during construction (including a good animated sequence),a drawing of the initial design by Koechlin & (I think) more than one good caricaturs of Eiffel and the tower.TheLongTone (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The link to reference 54 ("Eiffel Tower: Repossessed". Blog.fastcompany.com. 2 February 2005. Retrieved 24 May 2010.) is broken, the corect one is http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/eiffel-tower-repossessed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabalin (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Nazi Germany on the Eiffel Tower?

I heard a quite different story from the official website of the City of Paris about Nazi flag on the Eiffel Tower. According to them, the flag was raised by "a young employee of the fire department of Paris", instead of German soldiers.

Here's the quote:

"Eiffel had raised the tricolor flag triumphantly on March 31, 1889 and it was displayed proudly until that tragic day on June 13, 1940 when a young employee of the fire department of Paris was ordered by the Gestapo to lower the banner and replace it with the swastika.
It was the same monsieur Sarniguet who four years later, raced two patriots up the 1750 steps to place his tricolor flag for all to see. It was war time and in occupied France, French flags were not in production so; he had fashioned the blue, white an red flag from army sheets, but the effect was the same for the newly liberated city.
Source"

Also, I'm not so sure about the rift on the Eiffel Tower. Hitler didn't climb the Eiffel Tower because of his acrophobia, not because he had to climb many steps. Someone else already put a citation template, so hopefully we fix this one soon.

-- chulk90/discuss/contributions 05:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Tower construction material.

Some helpful editor(s) keeps changing the tower constructional material from puddle iron to wrought iron. According to the Societe de l'exploitation de la tour eiffel (i.e. the owners, so they ought to know!)), the material specified and used by Gustave Eiffel was puddle iron. Puddle iron was still a relatively new inovation at the time Eiffel was designing his tower but had been around sufficiently long to have been used in other structures. The confusion may arrise from the similarities between wrought and puddle iron. Technically, puddle iron could be regarded as a form of wrought iron but is in fact a development from wrought iron. The difference lies in the manner in which they are made. Wrought iron contains a relatively large quantity of 'slag' in its makeup. The process of puddling produces a purer form of iron with less slag than the wrought iron process. The difference is that puddle iron is both purer and stronger. It is very easy to tell wrought iron and puddle iron apart. When struck with a hammer, wrought iron emits a distinctive if subdued 'clang'. Puddle iron on the other hand just gives a dull 'thud'. Puddle iron had a relatively short life as a constructional material being supperseeded by the much purer and even stronger steel from the Bessemer process. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll accept puddle iron if you can produce one decent cite for the term which is not a dodgy translation forom French. The puddling process had been in use for secades when the tower was built: see above, it was the main way of purifying pig iron. I'm sure it could be well -puddled or less well puddled, but the fact remains that it is not a term in general use.TheLongTone (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The Société d'exploitation de la tour eiffel claim it is puddle iron. I got this originally from a (good) English translation of information published by the SETE which I cited in the article. This may have disappeared because the info is no longer on the 'net. However, a quick google turned up this([2]), which tells us it's built from puddling iron (just another name). The official website ([3]) doesn't mention the material, but I reckon the average visitor doesn't care.
Wrought iron dates from the 17th century (in one form or another, though the quality improved with the passing years). Puddle iron, was only introduced somewhere around the middle of the 19th century, so would only have existed for less than 40 years before Eiffel dusted off his drawing board. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Just gone back and found the original citation. It has indeed disappeared and been replaced by the current version in French. It has a lot less detail than the original. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
All I get when I click on any of the links to the official site of the tower is the homepage, not very satisfactory. My essential point is that the generally used term in English is wrought iron. This is the term used to eg describe Eiffel's earlier constructions such as the Garabit viaduct. Certainly its 'Fer Puddle' in French but I have never ever ever come across the term in anything written in English, and it is also not used in a very detailed history of technology originally published in French. It seems stupid to use an obscure and hardly used term when there is a well-understood word: the London Science museum describe the tower as being of wrought iron, and most of the google hits I get for the term are cut'n'pastes from wp. The only reliable (i.e. written by a n engineeer) mention I got can be found in the section above: here the term is used interchangeably and the writer is not a native english speaker. I really do think the term essentially comes from poor translation.TheLongTone (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
[4] is informative. They are specialist ironworkers, and are using the term to distinguish two forms of wrought iron, but what they call puddling iron is nevertheless (as stated in the page) what is ordinarily called wrought iron.TheLongTone (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that the problem really does arise from the fact that puddle (or puddling) iron is a development of wrought iron. It is produced by a different process (namely a puddling furnace) and it has far less slag in it than traditional wrought iron. It is apparently true that Eiffel used (true) wrought iron in some of his earlier constructional projects but most likely because the new puddle iron was too new (and most likely more expensive!).
The original puddling process was a British invention and was patented in 1784. However, it was crude by modern standards and only worked with certain types of cast iron which were not common. A big improvement was made by adding 'iron scale' to the molten iron. Iron scale is a posh sounding term for rust. The chemical reaction that ensued produced good iron. The best puddle iron came from a German variation of the process in 1850. The process output is a passable replacement for modern day mild steel (which traditional wrought iron could never claim). The process was adopted in England in 1851 and in France in 1855 and was widely used as an alternative to wrought iron, largely because of its greater strength which derived from its lower slag content. Eiffel's tower was leading edge stuff at the time of its construction and Eiffel would no doubt have wanted to use the strongest material available to him.
Wrought iron is in reality, iron that is capable of being wrought (or worked). It's traditionally high slag content gave it a grain in its structure that gave it an inherent weakness. Wrought iron (in one form or another) is as old as the hills. Even the Romans had to wrought their broadswords from workable iron. The best and strongest known examples of wrought iron work are Damascene swords produced somewhere around the 7th century. The method of manufacture of the iron has long been lost and no one today knows how iron with such purity and fine grain structure was made. It was much purer than puddle iron. Wrought iron is not produced commercially today. Anything sold today as 'wrought iron work' is in fact made from mild steel.
'Traditional' (i.e. not puddle) iron has strength, but only in compression. The coarse grain structure made it weak when placed in tension. Puddle iron, by contrast has strength in both compression and tension. Pre mid 19th century iron bridges were usually designed such that their iron componenets were always in compression. Leter bridges were designed with parts in tension. Oddly, they are often described today as being made from wrought iron (but I wonder if this is because your average 'man in the street' has never heard of puddle iron, the term not being in common usage today. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I know about the properties of different kinds of iron, thank you, and have read a considerable amount about C19 enginering. A clear distinction is indeed made between cast iron and wrought iron, but as I have said many many times I have never come across the term 'puddle iron' in an English work. It is always called wrought iron. The fact that it has been purified by puddling is neither here nor there. There are in fact a large number of terms used within the trade fo different grades of refined iron, which vary regionally wthin England: tey do not include the term 'puddle iron'. The OED des not containe term and I am talking about the full twelv-volumOED which comprehensively covers compound nouns and archaims. 'Puddle Iron' is simply a term generated by lazy translating. Both now at the time it was referred to as wrought iron, as a quick flip through C19 issues of The Engineer will confirm TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Problem here is that your statement above that 'puddle iron' is a mistranslation is presented as though it is your opinion. The Eiffel Tower's operators, the SNETE claim puddle iron in the English version of the literature handed out to visitors. The correctness of the English suggests that the translation was carried out by a native English speaker (and there are plenty of translators that specialise in technical material - I have a friend who does it for the EU). I, and Wikipedia, has to accept the SNETE's authoritiveness over an opinion. Now if you can come up with supporting evidence, then I suspect this discussion is far from over... DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The term in English would be puddled iron (for which extensive citations can be found, eg http://www.ironbridge.org.uk/uploadedfiles/2004%20Extra%20Special%20Best%20Best.pdf ), not puddle iron. However, although "puddled iron" and "wrought iron" seem to be (non-technically) used interchangably to mean the same thing, puddled iron is one specific form of wrought iron, purified by the puddling process patented in 1784, rather than being produced by earlier methods. The process continued in use to recent times, and so the Eiffel Tower's iron was, in all probability, produced by the puddling process, but the French term "fer puddle" translates into general-use English as "wrought iron". Ghughesarch (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
It's my opinion that 'puddle iron' is used by the eiffel tower people because of poor translation: it is an (unverifible) fact that I have never come across the term, andI have read fair bit. As said, it's not in the OED: nor is there a single referenceto the term in the index to The Engineer. I have no problem with the probability that the iron had ben refined by puddling: but (as per previous post) the product of this process is called wrought iron in English. The introduction to the reprint of Eiffel's book on the tower merely calls it iron, which would suggest than the material while undoubtedly high-grade, was not made by any particularly remarkable process, and (as previously mentioned), a book I hav published by the London Science Museum specifically uses the term wrought iron.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't argue with your claim that you have not heard of the term 'puddle iron' or 'puddled iron'. I am an engineer myself and I have heard of both puddle and puddled iron in contexts other than the constructional material for the Eiffel Tower. But then I have spent a good deal of time around material scientists and engineers. Although I have heard both terms, my own opinion here is that 'puddled iron' is the more gramatically correct term. The big problem with translation is that 'puddle' is not the French word for 'puddle' (it is flaque). It has to be assumed that the reference to 'fer puddle' in the French is the adoption of a technical description of the precise iron type, which in this case, the French have unusually adopted an English word (one wonders how that got passed the Académie Français). Thus it would seem that it cannot be a mis-translation because no translation has taken place. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we are agreed that this is a lingustic rather than a technical issue. I'd agree (strongly) that 'puddled iron' is mo correct than 'puddle iron', my problem with 'puddled iron' bing that it isn't a term in common use, certainly in English English non-specialist contexts. My Eng-French dictionary translates 'fer puddle' as wrought iron'.TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
My rather compendious French dictionary doesn't list 'fer puddle' at all (which doesn't surprise me because 'puddle' isn't a French word). For wrought iron, you have to look up the correct French term of 'fer forgé'. I still maintain that 'puddle iron' or 'puddled iron' is a legitimate material description having encountered it in my professional capacity on more than one occasion. Personally: I don't like 'puddle' as an adjective, but I don't have the power to change these things. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I can live with puddled iron, although I do think that it is using an obscure-ish term that need an explanation rather than the term that is in general use. And after all there mut be dozens of articles that use the word "steel" which is a term so vague as to be almost meaningless. And I do think that if the tower material was that special Loyrette' book on Eiffel would say something about it, rater than merely saying he decided to use iron after rejecting steel as being too flexible. The reprint of Eiffels book on the towr, which has little text, mentions the firm which produced the iron but again does not say anything about it. I know its a weak arguement, but I do think that if the material was that remarkable some mention would hve been made.TheLongTone (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I have changed it to puddled iron. Fortunately, it is a wiki link so any one curious as to what puddled iron is can click the link and find out. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

'Copyrighted' picture in article?

I was reading the article for the first time today and noticed that the French authorities deem any illuminated picture of the tower is copyrighted and thus (quoted from article) "As a result, it is no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in France and some other countries." I then noticed just above, a picture of a firework show using the tower as a stage (thus illuminating it) taken at night. The image info says it was taken after the ruling was imposed. I figured a potentially copyrighted picture might have been discussed in the talk pages, so checked them, and the archives, before asking about it here.

Archive 2 of the talk pages DOES imply that deletion requests have been rejected. Archive 1 however, contains a interesting discussion here that ends with the statement that "If it is true that US copyright law doesn't respect that kind of copyright, as Ian says, then pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night should be fine, here, as Wikipedia is hosted in the US and adheres to US copyright law." As I understand it, the images hosted on Wiki should also be free and unrestricted (or licensed from) the copyright holder. And since the image info page does not attribute permission from the owner of the tower or the French authorities, and since there are most certainly genuinely unrestricted (since daytime pictures are allowed under French law) it cannot even be claimed as "fair use" under US law. Is that a true understanding?

I guess what I am after is really clarification on whether a copyright holder needs to give permission for a work to be published here, and if so, is that under US or international law, or just US? Are non US copyright holders abroad considered not eligible to assert copyright here? Or is the image info page just incorrect and permission HAS been granted and the above editor was incorrect in saying that US law takes precedence over other peoples copyright material. Thoughts? MrZoolook (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

“highest in Europe” claim outdated

Source: http://www.tvtower.ru/52_SmotrovyaPl/eng/ , click “excursions”. Its observation deck at 337 meters is indeed open to the public. Zeus Scrofa (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"Platform of Ostankino tower remains closed"

> The third level observatory's upper platform is at 279.11 m (915.7 ft) the highest accessible to public in the European Union and the highest in Europe as long as the platform of the Ostankino Tower, at 360 m (1,180 ft), remains closed as a result of the fire of August 2000.

It's not closed anymore. I've been there last autumn, and I think it's been open for a while now. Here's their website: http://www.tvtower.ru/52_SmotrovyaPl/ I would edit this myself but the article is locked -- 176.109.79.241 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


I removed the outdated bit about the platform of the Ostankino Tower. Ormewood (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 May 2013

Section Attempted Relocation change 1980s to 1960s. 68.39.20.241 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm guessing that 1980s is correct. If it was a secret agreement, he's unlikely to have mentioned it in an interview. Rivertorch (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Then again, I found another source from 1980 that discusses the scheme, so it's pretty unclear. For the moment, I have removed any mention of year entirely. Rivertorch (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wind effects on the tower…

…but did you know that it's actually the sun that makes it move the most? Just a little factoid that that perhaps would be interesting for the article. I'll find a reference for that before adding anything, but perhaps someone else is better prepared than I. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 21:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eiffel Tower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 09:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to fail this one. There is a lot of work to be done on the referencing before it is up to GA standard, and I can't see happening quickly. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

  • Some issues, but solvable with a good copyedit.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

  • "Subsequent events" section lapses into one sentence paragraphs; it really needs to be formed up as proper prose.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

  • Some problems - what is Loyrette's work, for example? Or Harvie's? Origins of some of the material are missing, etc.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

  • Large sections are unreferenced, including: Design of the tower; Passenger lifts; Economics; Reproductions; Communications; Image copyright claims; Taller structures

(c) it contains no original research.

  • Hard to tell, as the referencing is missing from many sections.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

  • The later history of the tower seems limited.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

  • The weighting towards the section on passenger lifts seems high.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

  • Broadly, although the copyright section feels a little biased.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

  • Appears so.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

  • File:Eiffel tower at Exposition Universelle, Paris, 1889.jpg needs an anonymous EU tag, rather than a life + 70 one, as the author is unknown and the image could theoretically still be in copyright
  • File:WWII, Europe, France, "American soldiers watch as the Tricolor flies from the Eiffel Tower again" - NARA - 196289.jpg needs a French tag to cover French copyright law
  • File:Jeton souvenir de l'ascension automatique de la Tour Eiffel.jpg needs a tag to cover the copyright of the coin, as well as the photograph

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

  • File:Eiffel.jpg has been deleted
  • The Gallery section does not seem to follow the MOS guidance on Galleries.
  • The number of images creates a "wall of images" on the right hand side of the screen on my machine - the number does seem a bit high.

Comment

I've added a fair bit to this article, & generally agree with the above:

  • in my opinion the structure of the article is a bit of a mess.
  • Agree wholeheartedly that the section on the lifts is far too long and lacks references. Anybody who cares with access to a decent library will be able to find them fully covered in The Engineer. My library has recently chucked out all their copies of this journal, so can't help.
  • The references using the official site are useless, they only land you on the site homepage.
  • As noted, probably overburdened with pictures.
  • IMO the bulleted list works well for the later history, which is more a string of events rather than a narrative.TheLongTone (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

re: GA review

...see above

The article's structural problem is in fact largely my doing. I came to this article because I was doing a substantial rewrite of Gustave Eiffel: I wanted to avoid unecessary overlap. I was very shocked to see that there was absolutely nothing in this article on the origins & construction of the Tower, so I wrote the sections, putting them as part of history. Of course it is impossible to do the construction without a fair amount on the design of the tower: howere a fair amount of the material now under design dooes not have a place in the history section.

I'm also having a go at the references, particularly removing all the entirely useless citations of the French SETE site which only dump you on the homepage, and where possible inserting a citation to the appropriate page of the English langage page of the same site.TheLongTone (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The section on the lifts is a mess, mixing the history of their fitting and subsequent replacement with a very unclear and incomplete technical description. It is also entirely unreferenced. Is there a case for splitting this section off into a separate article?TheLongTone (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)typos

Initial controversy

As the article states, due to its architectural style and stature the Tower was criticised by some of France's leading intellectuals at the time. Is this significant enough to be briefly mentioned in the lead? The Almightey Drill (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say so, especially since many of them changed their minds once it was built, & it contrasts with the present iconic status of the structure.TheLongTone (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've inserted it, feel free to copyedit The Almightey Drill (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014

"On third level the was a post office" It should say "On third level there was a post office" just a slight mistake, but always wanted to be an editor

Lena lea (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that not what I said? Maybe it shouldn't be on that page. 180.191.1.86 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Lifts in the tower

Some recent overhauling of the article has left some serious questions over the information as presented.

The article claims that the hydraulic reservoirs that powered the Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape lifts in the East and West legs were removed when those lifts were replaced in 1900. According to SETE (Societe d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel - the outfit that runs the tower today), the lifts were actually replaced in 1897 for the West leg and 1899 for the East leg. The reservoirs could not have been removed because they also powered the Otis lifts in the North and South legs which were still operational at this time. Because both Otis lifts had inferior performance to the new Fives-Lille lifts, the Otis lift in the North leg was removed in 1900. The Otis lift in the South leg was retained and (unsuccessful) attempts were made to improve it. It was eventually removed in 1913 at which point it would have been possible to remove the reservoirs.

According to the timeline, 3 lifts have been installed in the South leg; one in 1913; one in 1983 and one in 1984. Any visual observation of the tower will quickly reveal that the south leg only has two lifts. According to SETE, the North and South legs were without lifts until 1965. There are various claims around that a lift was installed in the South leg (though few agree as to in which year) to permit visitors to access the tower in winter when the hydraulic lifts were out of service due to their water being frozen. None of the references mentions its removal. According to SETE, there was no such lift as the obvious idea of adding anti-freeze to the water had been thought of by this time which also allowed access to the third floor. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

"The tower is 324 metres (1,063 ft) tall,[2] about the same height as an 81-storey building." storey should be changed to "Story". Tybpa (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done As it says at the top of this page, this article is in British English, so storey is correct. - Arjayay (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

it is not a 81 story building but a 3 story building — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.237.181 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Pedantically: it is a 8 storey building in that it has 8 floors. The 'premier étage' is actually 2 floors as indeed are the 'deuxième étage' and the 'troisième étage'. There is also an single intermediate floor half way between the 'second' and 'third' (not accessible by the public) which allows maintenance staff to take the upper lift half-way. Plus we must remember the street level floor (though divided between the four legs). The tower has the approximate height of a conventional 81 storey building. Even this is impossibly precise because the height of a storey will vary from building to building with (generally) newer buildings having more storeys per unit height than older ones. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2014

Sub sequent events

1940 to 1944 

In August 1944, when the Allies were nearing Paris, Hitler ordered General Dietrich von Choltitz, the military governor of Paris, to demolish the tower along with the rest of the city. Von Choltitz disobeyed the order.[citation needed]

Citation should be Eisenhower: a soldiers life. by Carlo D'Este page 574.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RCeteK7LEiYC&pg=PA574&lpg=PA574&dq=choltitz+eiffel+tower&source=bl&ots=an03zexM0Y&sig=HLc18BCvKJBaG_OFx5p0v8GmweQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V4CFU-LCBtPioASdy4KIDg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=choltitz%20eiffel%20tower&f=false

Thank you.


98.127.179.187 (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Where would you like this information to be added/moved/changed? --JustBerry (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Why not right after the claim in the article reproduced above in the quote box? Provided, of course, that the reference does indeed support the claim - I have not got a copy so cannot verify it myself. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Now  Done. References should always be added if offered, especially if it is clear what they are supporting. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests 24 May 2014

In the Tourism / Transport artiicle, the nearest RER station is not Pont de l'Alma. The nearest RER station is Champ de Mars-Tour Eiffel.http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/preparing-your-visit/getting-to-the-eiffel-tower.html Retrieved 18 June,2014--Tvbanfield (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

In the Subsequent Events, year 1999, the citation requested for when the special sparkling lighting and beacons were in place is: http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/en/everything-about-the-tower/the-major-events.html Retrieved 24 May 2014Tvbanfield (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. The effect for the presidency of the EU was to change the lighting to blue and didn't affect the twinkling lights. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Artists Protest" section

The name of the section Eiffel Tower#The "Artists Protest" was changed to "Criticism and praise" and I have changed it back again. First, the section is about a particular controversy during the development of the tower, not about praise and criticism in general. Second, the article List of the 72 names on the Eiffel Tower has a wikilink to that section. Renaming the section breaks the link. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You done good. Actually the article needs a section on later artistic reacion to the Tower, which is where Appollinaire's calligramme belongs. There are the huge number of pictures by Robert Delauy, for instance.TheLongTone (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2014

a small typo under subsequent events where under the heading 19 October 1901 it reads "airshipwon" instead of the correct "airship won"

143.66.50.2 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

The panorama below "Aesthetic considerations"

Replace

"Panorama of the 16th arrondissement of Paris and western suburbs from the Eiffel Tower"

by

"Panorama of Paris from the Eiffel tower".

(The picture shows the whole Paris, and is centered on the Grand palais, which is in the 8th not the 16th).

 Done Blaue Max (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Man-made

Is there a good reason to have the lead say "tallest man-made structure" rather than MOS:GNL-compliant "artificial structure" or "freestanding structure" or "human-made structure" (or any other gender-neutral expression) ? “WarKosign” 12:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Man-made" means made by the species man, not by the male of the species. As a result, so-called gender neutrality is irrelevant here. Unfortunately there are far too many people around who don't realise the difference between man the species and man the gender. 86.29.152.189 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You are not answering my question. Please accept that some editors, including those who wrote WP:GNL consider "man-made" to be a non gender-neutral expression, and that the manual of style instructs us to "use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision".
Is there anything unclear or imprecise in writing "... tallest human-made structure ..." ? “WarKosign” 07:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes: It's not a phrase anyone uses. See below. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Nobody uses the phrase 'human-made'. 'Man-made' is universally understood to mean made by man the species and can (and these days usually does) include the female of the species (though to be pedantic, no women were involved in the construction of the Eiffel Tower - Eiffel was a chauvanist through and through (as were many of his day) to the extent that he would not even allow the names of female engineers and scientists to feature among the 72 such names engraved on the tower). Thus: 'man-made' is perfectly clear and gender neutral.
The term 'artificial' implies a structure manufactured from non-naturally ocurring material or a structure (of whatever material) intended to replicate a naturally ocurring structure. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are correct, man-made is correct (but not gender neutral). It would be nice to include a note that explains this point. Do you have a reliable source on Eiffel's chaivinism and intentional exclusion of women ? Article on the names mentions that there are no women listed, but provides no explanation. “WarKosign” 14:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
'Man-made' is gender neutral for the reasons that I gave. I do not have any references that meet Wikipedia's standards, only the usual hearsay (but their is plenty of it). Chauvanism was extremely common at the turn of the 20th century. Virtually every male job going was not considered suitable for women. This certainly included engineering, but only slightly less so for scientists (Hence: Marie Currie). If I had acceptable references, I would have added it to the article by now. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a meaningless debate, as the words "human" and "woman" come etymologically from the word "man"... Blaue Max (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The words are etymologically related, but they do not have the same meaning/subtext/connotation. Even when "man" is meant to represent a generic humans being, it remains more gender-specific than "human". "Half of men are female" is a good example. “WarKosign” 12:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Etymology has nothing to do with it. Accepted usage of words and phrases is the key here. As stated already, the phrase 'man-made' exactly covers the intended meaning that something was made by (the species of) man. Even a quick look in a few dictionaries gives:
man-made: adj. made by humans rather than occurring in nature
man-made: adj. produced, formed, or made by humans; not resulting from natural processes.
The standard reference work of (British) English, the Oxford English dictionary gives:
man-made: adj, made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made naturally)
And even if your first language is American (though the article is in British English), Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives:
man-made: manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings. (Presumably Americans don't need to know that it's an adjectival phrase)
Attempting to resurrect an argument that is already dead over at the Village Pump is not going to get anywhere. That should end the matter. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Georgia guy went to the Village Pump after his edit here was reverted without a discussion. Perhaps he should have opened a discussion here before going there; I tried to understand here what's the objection.
Of course man-made doesn't mean "made exclusively by males", but it is gender-specific because it mentions a specific gender. "Human-made" has the same meaning and is not gender specific, but is arguably less elegant and less used. My interpretation of the manual of style is that we should prefer human-made since it says clearly and precisely that an artifact was made by human beings, same as man-made does, without mentioning any gender. Clearly I'm in minority here, so there is no point discussing it further. “WarKosign” 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Already addressed. (Why do I have to repeat myself? Is it that you don't actually actually understand the language that you are trying to misuse?) To reiterate: 'Human-made' is not a term that any normal English speaking person would use. Indeed, attempting to Google 'Dictionary human-made' largely links back to dictionary entries for 'man-made'. The term is as gender inspecific as it needs to be. You are just being far too pedantic. I would respectfully suggest that you let this one go. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Which part of "Clearly I'm in minority here, so there is no point discussing it further" is not letting it go ?
Every gender neutrality manual of style calls "man-made" non-neutral, and I suspect the authors know English, probably beter than you. “WarKosign” 19:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is written in British English so what an American organisation has to say on the subject is completely irrelevant. The University of Leicester piece is clearly just the usual leftie political correctness crap that they (and apparently you) are attempting to force on everyone else. I have already provided ample references above that 'man-made' is the correct (British) English term for made by human beings. The University of Leicester does not trump the University of Oxford who publish the Oxford English dictionary which is universally recognised as the authority on English words and expressions. 'Man-made' is in volume 15 of the 26 volume set. 'Human-made' does not appear. Also Volume 1 gives 'artificial' as 'A man-made copy of something occuring naturally'. That means: that the proposed 'artificial' would be incorrect as there is no naturally occuring Eiffel Tower for man to copy. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the "man" in "man-made" is not "male human", but is actually "manus", the Latin for "hand". "Man-made" literally means "hand-made", not "made by male humans" Bluap (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that 'man' is derived from the latin 'manus' meaning 'hand' (the latin for man is actually 'homo'). At the time the word was adopted, it was believed that homo sapiens was the only species that featured hands (know known to be incorrect - many other primates do). Also before around 1000 A.D. the word 'man' was specifically applied to the species and applied equally to the male and female . At this time the word 'man' was taken as meaning, 'to have a cognitive mind' which applies equally to the female of the species (probably obtained from the latin 'homo sapiens' meaning 'wise man'). Indeed, even by the begining of the 19th century, the word man was still taken as applying equally to the species and the male of the species. To get around this problem the convention was adopted at that time that, in literary works at least, 'man' should be capitalised when refering to the species.
However: I can find no references that gives the origin of the phrase, 'man-made' as 'hand-made'. All that I can find (and I reproduced a few above) give the meaning as made by humans, but none go into the etymology. It is likely that the etymology of 'man' and 'maid' are separately derived and the phrase has become compounded (the hyphen is often the clue here).
The origin of 'woman' is more obscure but most sources state that it is a derivation from the word, 'wifman' (in use between about 1000 and 1300 A.D.) and simply meant 'wife man' but the word was specifically a married woman. Contrast 'female' which appears to be 'male' with a prefix similarly derived from some other word, but in reality they have entirely separate etymologies. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR. This article is written in British English. The British English term for "made by human beings" is "man-made". Every dictionary says so. There is no point in pursuing what is clearly trying to push a WP:POINT. 85.255.235.162 (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2015

hi let me edit please because I have some useful info 86.184.44.187 (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Volume of metal

The sentence: "As a demonstration of the economy of design, if the 7,300 tonnes of the metal structure were melted down it would fill the 125-metre-square base to a depth of only 6.25 cm (2.5 in), assuming the density of the metal to be 7.8 tonnes per cubic metre." appears to have mathematical errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.254.17 (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think what has happened is that the correct answers have been rounded to convenient sizes in both metric and imperial - given that one does not equal the other. I'm willing to bet that the mass of the metal is not exactly 7300 tonnes and has been rounded to a convenient hundred. Also, the assumption of the density of the metal is exactly that - an assumption. The rounded depths in both systems are probably as good an approximation as anything anyone else may come up with but IMHO adequately illustrate the essential point being made. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If it's 7,300 tonnes of metal, and the metal is 7.8 tonnes per cubic metre, then there would be (7,300 / 7.8) cubic meters, which equals ~936 cubic metres. 936 cubic metres would fill a 125-metre-square to a depth of ~7.5 metres, not the 6.25 cm as stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.254.17 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
125 metre square, not 125 square metres.TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I make that 5.98 cm. I'd imagine this has been rounded up to 2.5 inches.TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Spelling

In the first sentence of the second paragraph at the top of the article the word "story" is mispelled. It is spelled "storey" there but it should be "story". Please take this edit into consideration.

 Not done Per WP:ENGVAR: "Storey" is correct being the floors of a building. A "Story" is something parents read to their children at bedtime. And by the way - it's "spelt" not "spelled". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you show where in WP:ENGVAR this is stated? I believe both spellings are correct. Likewise, "spelled" is a perfectly acceptable alternative to "spelt" in both British and American English. Btriple7 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The spellings themselves are not in WP:ENGVAR. It is the spellings used by native users of British English (such as myself) and the Oxford English dictionary, which is regarded as the primary reference. The correct spelling for the floors of a building is 'storey'.[3] As stated: a 'story' is something parents read to their kids when trying to get them to sleep at night. Also words are either 'spelt' correctly or incorrectly.[4]
Unfortunately, the increasing presence of American television programmes pervading our airwaves means that our children are exposed to incorrect grammar and word usage on a regular basis. It is not helped because if our television companies wish to sell their programmes in the US, the American networks will not accept them if they don't use American words, spellings and grammar. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not a debatable issue. The article is written in British English (as the tag at the top of this page says). The word in British English is STOREY. End of discussion. The yanks around here are a continuing problem attempting to force their bastardised version of Emglish throughout Wikipedia. This comes under the heading of WP:DE and editors ave been blocked for it in the past. 86.144.68.13 (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ //www.wdsu.com/news/21254900/detail.html
  2. ^ http://eiffelsociety.com/.
  3. ^ http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/storey Note: that 'story' in this context is specifically identified as 'North American'
  4. ^ http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/spelt Note: that although the US link identifies 'spelt' or 'spelled' as correct in American, 'story' is not identified as an alternative British English spelling.
The explanation about the tag was sufficient. The remainder of the explanation is boorish behavior. There is room for both. So much for civility.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015


182.72.211.2 (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Millimeters to inches conversion error

In the second paragraph under "Construction", 0.1 millimeter (mm) is stated incorrectly to be equal to 0.04 inches. As 1 meter = 39.37 inches, 1/1000 meter = 1 mm = 0.03937 inches (or simplifying, 1 meter = 0.04 inch) Thus, the correct conversion is 0.1 mm = 0.004 inch. 131.107.200.72 (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Perry Pierce

Not the right way to request an edit request (see example above). But, you are quite correct, hence  Done. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2015

"The layout of both first and second levels was modified, with the space available for visitors on the second level." 

This appears to be an incomplete sentence or improper transition by using "with" which should possibly should be "using"...

64.134.70.254 (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not donePlease specify the edit that you want made in the form of, "Replace X with Y". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2015

Pleas replace 1,036 feet with 987 feet.[1] Tjcsbcmlcmgc (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Per [5], 1,036 feet includes the broadcast antennas at the top, so it is not incorrect. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 19:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=how+tall+is+the+eiffel+tower&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS604US604&oq=how+tall+is+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l4.2439j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Bungy/Bungee Jump

A.J. Hackett did a bungy from the second level in 1987, not the top of the tower. Yes, he was arrested briefly by the French police, but was released shortly thereafter as the French police were satisfied that he was leaving the country almost immediately and would cause them no more trouble

BCAB Lad22 (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Request to update and change current image of Eiffel Tower, s'il vous plaît

For this page, I am requesting approval of changing and updating the current image of the Eiffel Tower to a picture I took of it. My edits have been reverted because some users feel its unnecessary, but I feel the picture that I provided shows the tower better because of all the people in the photo; they give us a glimpse of all the tourists who visit it and local citizens too. It just all adds to the photo and the Wikipedia page.

Thank you for your understanding, MonsieurNapoléon (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Current picture [6], proposed picture [7].
no Disagree: I think the current picture is perfectly fine. The current picture is a featured picture while the proposed picture is not. Blaue Max (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
no Disagree:, also

Blaue Max What do you mean featured? Wikipedia uploaded this or did Wikipedia approved it? Aren't both photos great? I got opinions from several people and they said both are great. MonsieurNapoléon (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

To explain what featured picture means, click on File:Tour Eiffel Wikimedia Commons.jpg and scroll down. Then click on the links in the assessment block. -- GB fan 19:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
no Disagree, very strongly. The photo currently used is rightly a featured photo, the replacement not as good. For starters, the tower is irritatingly not quite vertical. And the sky is less punchy. It'sa OK photo but by no means great The photo in the article showing the queue for the tower is also a good photo & makes the (rather unnecessary) point that it is a major tourist attraction.TheLongTone (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Events on 31 December 1999

In this section it states "on 31 December 2000 the lights glittered blue for several nights to welcome the new millennium. The glittery lighting continued for 18 months until July 2001." The first date should be 1999 not 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.170 (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2015

Please insert the following subheading and text (which I have translated from the German-language Wikipedia page [1]) as a new subsection 1.1, thereby renumbering the subsequent subsections under the History heading:

Not done for now: The image size is too large to implement for now. Please reduce it to a thumbnail and double check your sources and content for any errors. When done, comment so, and I will re-evaluate. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 08:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Background

Drawing of the Centennial Tower in comparison to other constructions

With the technical possibilities of industrialisation, there arose the idea of building tall structures. Tower blocks reflected the Zeitgeist of the period.

As early as 1833, the English engineer Richard Trevithick had suggested a cast iron column, 1,000 feet (304.8 metres) high, supported by 1,000 trusses and having a diameter of 30 metres at the base and 3.6 metres at the summit. However, Trevithick died shortly after publishing his plans. The American engineers Thomas Curtis Clarke (1848–1901)[2] and David Reeves took up the idea and intended to construct such a column (Centennial Tower) for the Centennial Exhibition of 1876 in Philadelphia. The design was to incorporate at its core a cylindrical iron tube 90 ft (27.4 m) in diameter[3], anchored with stays of steel rope. The plan was not realised and, with hindsight, we now know that the construction would not have withstood the oscillations caused by wind.[4]

In 1881, the French engineer Sébillot returned from a visit to America with the idea of lighting the entire city of Paris with a beacon atop a “sun tower”. When, in May 1884, the French government announced its intention to stage a world exhibition in 1889, Sébillot worked up his plans for the “sun tower” in collaboration with Jules Bourdais, who was responsible for building the Palais du Trocadéro.[5] The richly decorated design, reminiscent of a romanticised reconstruction of the legendary Pharos of Alexandria, met with widespread reservations and was the subject of much public discussion until the official design competition was announced in May 1886.[6] Due to their technical infeasibility, neither the Philadelphia Centennial Tower nor the Parisian “sun tower” was ever built.

PACRalph (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Eiffelturm
  2. ^ Biographical outline on Thomas Carke (PDF; 615 kB), accessed on 1st March 2012.
  3. ^ The Centennial Tower of 1876 by Timothy Harrison in Lighthouse Digest, June 2005
  4. ^ Heinle, Leonhardt: Türme aller Zeiten – aller Kulturen, S. 214.
  5. ^ Musée d’Orsay: Projet de phare monumental pour Paris, élévation, accessed on 2nd February 2012.
  6. ^ Martin Trautz: Maurice Koechlin. Der eigentliche Erfinder des Eiffelturms In: Deutsche Bauzeitung, 04/2002 (Online).

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2015: Missing parenthesis

"

66.234.219.175 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC) "Eiffel used empirical and graphical methods accounting for the effects of wind rather than a specific mathematical formula. Careful examination of the tower shows a basically exponential shape (actually two different exponentials, the lower section overdesigned to ensure resistance to wind forces."

A closing parenthesis [)] is needed, but I'm not exactly sure where it should go, i.e., whether after "exponentials," or at the end of the sentence. Or does the parenthetical comment include some of the following sentences? 66.234.219.175 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Done I've added it based off of the location and continuity of the information in the source (at the end of the sentence). -- Orduin Discuss 20:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Text to be changed is located in Section 1.3.1, Paragraph 4, Sentence 2: 

     Motive power was provided by an inclined hydraulic ram, 12.67 m (36 ft) long 96.5 cm (38 in) diameter 10.83 m 35 ft 6 in stroke in the tower leg: this moved a carriage carrying six sheaves. Five fixed sheaves were mounted higher up the leg, producing an arrangement similar to a block and tackle but acting in reverse, multiplying the stroke of the piston rather than the force generated.

Please change to the following: 

     Motive power was provided by an inclined hydraulic ram in the tower leg with the following dimensions: 12.67 m (41 ft, 7 in) long, 96.5 cm (38 in) wide, 10.83 m (35 ft, 6 in) stroke. This moved a carriage carrying six sheaves. Five fixed sheaves were mounted higher up the leg, producing an arrangement similar to a block and tackle but acting in reverse, multiplying the stroke of the piston rather than the force generated.

Justification: 

     Assuming the metric units are correct, the conversion for the length of the ram is incorrect. Also, parentheses were omitted for the conversion of the diameter. Finally, the structure of the sentence has been adjusted slightly for clarity.

Hans Chopkins (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Good call.

How long will it last ?

From an engineering viewpoint I would like the article to discuss its future : when will it cease to be safe ? Iron structures have finite lives. When will it have to be demolished ? As a starter : http://www.yalescientific.org/2011/05/secrets-of-the-eiffel-tower/ which suggests : "The CETIM’s model suggests that the Eiffel Tower will last for at least two or three hundred more years". Rcbutcher (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This would be only be an opportunity for speculations to be added. I don't see why the Tower in particular should be so singled out. There is nothing on this topic in the articles on most structures.TheLongTone (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016

citation needed on height MLA Aaseng, Nathan. Construction: Building the Impossible. The Oliver Press, Inc., 2000. APA Aaseng, N. (2000). Construction: Building the Impossible. The Oliver Press, Inc.. Chicago Aaseng, Nathan. Construction: Building the Impossible. The Oliver Press, Inc., 2000. Harvard Aaseng, N., 2000. Construction: Building the Impossible. The Oliver Press, Inc.. Vancouver Aaseng N. Construction: Building the Impossible. The Oliver Press, Inc.; 2000. 2.49.136.22 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Need something a bit more reliable than a grade school book. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Design section is incorrect, base is not 125m^2

The article says: 

Its base is square, measuring 125 metres (410 ft) on each side.

so the base is 125m X 125m = 15625 m^2 (square meters)

However, in the design section it says:

As a demonstration of the economy of design, if the 7,300 tons of metal in the structure were melted down, it would fill the 125 m2 base to a depth of only 6.25 cm

Please change it to

it would fill the 15625 m2 base to a depth...

or to

it would fill the square base, 125m on each side, to a depth...

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.108.15.125 (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Firebrace (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding info about Fire at Eiffel Tower

Seems to be big news covered globally as the Eiffel Tower is engulfed in flames today in the hours following the Nice terrorist attacks. Should this be added? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems kind of inconsequential at this point. It was just fireworks accidentally catching on fire, and only attracted the attention of the news media because some people thought it might be a terrorist attack connected with the Nice incident. It will probably be forgotten very quickly. Ormewood (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2016

the eiffel tower is an lattice tower made out on iron engineer gustive eiffel built the tower with his bare hands

58.178.72.168 (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Information icon The first part is correct and in the article, the second part is incorrect - Arjayay (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

shubham chandela 196.207.111.7 (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Eiffel Tower. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Dead link not dead, just loads very slowly from both site and wayback machine. I removed the tag. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Eiffel Tower. 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) 11:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Omitted Facts

I have seen somewhere that Eiffel intended that the structure be dismantled after 30 years. The painting maintenance after that time would be prohibitive. The list of towers taller than the Eiffel is way off the factual mark. See the Wiki article List of tallest structures in the world. There is even an oil rig in the Gulf Of Mexico that is taller than the Eiffel. There are many taller radio towers. (Erecting such towers does not require much funding nor do they require any significant engineering skill.)220.245.43.121 (talk)

Hi, you did miss "-lattice- towers taller than the eiffel". The list is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.164.223 (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Pedantic Height

I just been to the tower, and on the top most floor they say it's anywhere between 279 and 281. There's a scale there along those numbers. I believe this figure of 273 on wikipedia means the floor right below it, which is covered by windows. Anyone knows what's the correct figure? Should we fix it? --Caue (T | C) 03:03, Thursday 2013-03-21 (UTC) yes we should!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This image of the Eiffel Tower is shown from the bottom of the tower looking up, showing how big it is at over 1000ft.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwagster (talk • contribs) 10:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eiffel_Tower&action=edit&section=1#

Citation for "only one person died thanks to Eiffel's stringent safety precautions"

As the article is semi-protected I can't edit that in myself, but "The Tallest Tower" by Joseph Harris on p. 82 (https://books.google.com/books?id=vv3dT-kyuu8C&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82) seems to corroborate the statement.

I cite: "Eiffel's execution had been marked by a deftness unique in the annals of great engineering projects. His clockwork precision had enabled him not only to meet his deadline, but to build the vertiginous structure with the loss of only one life, that of a worker who fell from the first platform while apparently showing off for his girlfriend after the bell had sounded ending the working day. Such a safety record was phenomenal compared with other contemporary monumental works." --InspectorRex (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

== 

==
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 Note: See above I also removed 2 duplicate blank requests as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

==

thumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.165.49 (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

Change the uppercase O in "For Other uses, see Eiffel Tower (disambiguation)" to a lowercase one. 185.19.249.90 (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Eric talk 14:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower reference

This article references my book, "The Eiffel Tower: Symbol of an Age" (ISBN 0 236 40036 3). That was the British edition published by Paul Elek (London) in 1976. I suggest that it would be more appropriate to reference the original edition, "The Tallest Tower: Eiffel and the Belle Epoque" (ISBN 0-395-20440-2), published by Houghton Mifflin Company (Boston) in 1975.Wordcobbler (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Wordcobbler

Maybe you could tell us why that's more appropriate... Firebrace (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I suggest citing the original edition of my book because there have been six editions in all of it. To avoid arbitrarily selecting one (in this case, the UK edition), it would seem preferable to cite the original edition. Does that make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcobbler (talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Unless the UK edition contains errors, there is no reason not to use it here. I find the suggestion bizarre. Firebrace (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Wordcobbler, the edition is not "arbitrarily selected". It is important that an editor cite the exact version of the book that they are reading and using as a source. Books are often revised between editions. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected by my peers.Wordcobbler (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Wordcobbler

Most visited

I wonder what the definition for "monument" is here. The forbidden city has 15 million visitors a year and you must pay to enter.

Richard Clegg (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"Opening"

Just checked, again (4-2-2019), the "Opening" date in the Infobox and found the years, inside the parentheses, to still be wrong.

Even on March 31, 2019, it should've been "(130 years ago)". But it's still showing "(129 years ago)".

Can this be corrected?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I altered the parameter to {{Time ago|31 March 1889}}, and it now says 130. Not sure if my change is what fixed it, or I just forced a cache update, but it reads correctly now. -- Begoon 14:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

300-metre tower listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 300-metre tower. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eiffel_Tower/Archive_2&oldid=1137178593"