Talk:London Eye/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about London Eye. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Not here to promote Coke

See also: Talk:London Eye/Archive 2#EDF Energy London Eye logo - WP:NOTADVERTISING

Just noticed this nonsense, and removed it. Seriously? Roxy the dog. bark 11:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am also tempted to de-link the previous names that are promotional in the first paragraph of the lead, for the same reason, but will wait a while for comment here. Roxy the dog. bark 11:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd support delinking them, They're all linked below at London_Eye#Ownership_and_branding so they don't need linking above. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If I had read the whole article, I may have noticed that. Thanks. Roxy the dog. bark 13:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup all seems good now thanks. DBaK (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Though actually there is maybe a more general point - which I hope has been discussed somewhere - about how we approach branding and sponsorship and all that shizzle. I'm thinking of the bit in the second paragraph where it says "Since mid-January 2015, it has been known as the Coca-Cola London Eye,", which makes me want to add {{to whom?}} ... I mean, sure I see what is meant, but actually the real usage of this term, I am tempted to guess, is very low. Does anyone really say/print that? And I know it varies from case to case (Emirates Stadium?) but I do wonder what we have in policy to make sense of this? DBaK (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea if we have a policy to deal with the specific issue, and I was thinking about the Emirates Stadium too, so I am going with WP:PROMO for now on a best fit basis. That bloody red logo was awful though. Roxy the dog. bark 17:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps removing it and changing the sentence;

"it has also been called by its owners the British Airways London Eye, then the Merlin Entertainments London Eye, then the EDF Energy London Eye" to

"it has also been called by its owners the British Airways London Eye, then the Merlin Entertainments London Eye, then the EDF Energy London Eye then the Coca Cola London Eye" might be better ?,

In all fairness us Brits and the tourists have never referred to it as any of those names and never will - It's called "London Eye" to everyone not related to Coca Cola so I wonder if that entire paragraph should be removed?. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

See St James' Park for how this issue was handled in an article. That one is geographically much closer to me, and was very controversial in local press. The BBC (I'm looking at you Gary Lineker and MOTD) also carry a lot of clout by actually using these paid for names in their programming. With regard to improving this article though, I'm inclined to agree that this particular issue need not be covered in the lead at all, as it isn't really important to the article how the owners grasp every penny of profit available Roxy the dog. bark 18:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

How about 'It is promoted as' or 'It is officially named'? Then it wouldn't invite the question "To whom?" [[User:WWDanskin| —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Bolding of sponsored name

Is there any particular reason why the sponsored name is not written in bold text? This seems to be inconsistent with other articles which mention sponsored names (e.g. Queen's Club Championships) where the sponsored name is in bold.

I will change the sponsored name to bold if there are no objections. pasta3049 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I object. We don't do advertising. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I have made a post at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section regarding the bolding of sponsored names. pasta3049 (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

By all means fire up an RFC but I too object - It is advertising plain and simple. –Davey2010^Talk 15:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on London Eye. 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) 12:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Architects?

The article currently contradicts itself following recent edits to the list of architects of the project. -Roxy the dog. barcus 08:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox help

I messed up the infobox.

Does anyone know how to fix this?

Thanks, JeffreyLoeber (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on London Eye. 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) 14:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)