Talk:Nelson's Pillar

24 April 2016

I've been leaving notes around asking whether anyone would be interested in getting an appropriate article ready as a possible WP:TFA for the above date, the centenary of the start of the Easter Rising. I've not had much response, so I'm looking myself at likely articles. Now, this is not the most obvious candidate; but I think there would be grave difficulties in getting any of the main Rising articles through the various review hurdles in time for the anniversary. This is shorter, less contentious, and developed enough to be doable as a featured article in the time available. It's also an interesting, even poignant story. I'm willing to give it a go, and have plenty of good sources (including Kennedy's book) but if possible I like first to hear from any other interested editors. Brianboulton (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out where I can (though that won't be much). I did add links to Nelson's Column and Monuments and memorials to Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson in the 'see also' section. That is really a suggestion that links be incorporated into the body of the text somehow. What I'm trying to suggest is that the context of other memorials erected at the same time be included, i.e. to expand a bit on the sentence in the lead: "among the first and grandest monuments". Where did it stand in terms of size and expense and fame when compared to the other major memorials? Carcharoth (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

A rather esoteric source here: Monumental Space in the Post-Imperial Novel: An Interdisciplinary Study (2011) by Rita Sakr. Chapter 2 is the relevant one: '"broken pillars": Counter-Monumental Tactics in James Joyce's Ulysses'. The pillar appears a couple of times in Ulysses (novel). Carcharoth (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't tackled the lead at all at this point, and the wording as it appears now will likely be wholly replaced. The point about other equivalent monuments is a good one; the obvious comparison is with the Wellington Monument, which ought to get a mention somewhere. I will devise an appropriate sentence. As to Ulysses, this is one of several mentions that will be covered in a properly-organised section yet to be drafted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just reading through this (looks a good source) which says: "One proposal was to move it to the Phoenix Park as a companion piece to the Wellington monument. But that idea was dismissed: the Pillar would be dwarfed by the obelisk; 134 feet to the tip of the statue compared to 205 feet to the tip of the much bulkier obelisk.". I suspect the Fallon book probably covers this already, but maybe that 1998 article was one of the earlier sources. I hear the Fallon book has lots and lots of pictures. :-) (I was slightly puzzled by the [unexplained] references to 'Gogarty' along with Yeats and Joyce as being among those for whom the monument was 'much loved', presumably Oliver St. John Gogarty?). Carcharoth (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Images of Nelson's Pillar and related subjects

"Between the 1860s and 1911, Nelson was joined by monuments to Daniel O'Connell, William Smith O'Brien and Charles Stuart Parnell, as well as Sir John Gray and the temperance campaigner Father Matthew."

I went and looked up pictures of these statues to maybe use as additional images in this article (though that is a bit of a stretch - a artwork of the Blakeney statue would have been ideal, but that may not exist). I am not sure where they exist in relation to where the Pillar was, but I found one artwork of the O'Connell statue with the Pillar in the background and added that to the gallery below with a modern photo with the Spire in the background - a nice contrast. Two other galleries as well, with images for consideration (though not as a gallery, as images in the article if appropriate - I am presenting them as galleries here for ease of viewing).

• 
  1891 artwork of O'Connell statue, with Pillar in background
• 
  2005 photo of O'Connell statue, with Spire in background

• 
  O'Brien statue
• 
  Parnell statue
• 
  Mathew statue
• 
  Gray statue

• 
  View in 1964 from the Pillar looking south along O'Connell Street to the O'Connell monument
• 
  1921 view looking down from the Pillar to people at its base

• Entrance - no date and provenance
  Entrance - no date and provenance
• Children on viewing platform - no date and provenance
  Children on viewing platform - no date and provenance
• Viewing platform - poor quality and - no date and provenance
  Viewing platform - poor quality and - no date and provenance

Would be nice to have images of the entrance and viewing platform, but see commons:User talk:Foxhunter22 (the uploader of those three images) and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#File:No18.jpg. Might be worth contacting that user to see what the source of these photos is. Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

None of the Foxhunter images is safe to use, including those presently in the article gallery which will be removed. While it would be nice to use the entrance and viewing platform images, they are not so essential, in my view, as to warrant the time required to hunt down their sources, particularly as neither is old enough (1950s, probably) to establish PD with certainty. Note: there are excellent images of the entrance in the external link "Old Dublin Town". On the other monument images listed above, they are mostly not within this article's scope. If someobody wishes to create O'Connell Street monuments, then they will be useful and pertinent; here they are tangential at best. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Understood. This was why I didn't put them in the article without discussing first. The only one that I did put in the article, was removed (as discussed elsewhere). I have now finished a more thorough sweep through Commons to pick up on pictures that include the Pillar, mostly only incidental. I am hopeful I may have found a couple more that are directly of the pillar, which haven't been proposed here before. I will make a gallery of those here and at Commons. That will enable those who follow the link to Commons to see a proper gallery over there. Carcharoth (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• The gallery at Commons is at Nelson's Pillar, Dublin. That page doesn't include File:Sackville St Dublin 1842.jpg because some bot hasn't moved it yet (it has been tagged for being moved for more than three years). That 1842 artwork looks a bit strange, because the GPO should be this side of the column. I guess artworks weren't always completely accurate. I will remove the gallery of images of unknown provenance and sort out the deletion requests on Commons. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Some additional (old postcard) images spotted here. Maybe worth following up. I did notice this factoid: "In 1900, it was the 4th highest monument in the world." Can that be reliably sourced? Am currently trying to work out how G. P. Baxter (the designer of the 1894 entrance) was... Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

One puzzle solved - it was George Palmer Beater (not Baxter). Many sources out there are repeating this error. Hopefully this correction will start the slow process of reversing that spread of misinformation (where-ever it originated from). Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the text referring to 'G. P. Baxter' was added 18 June 2004 and persisted until being removed on 27 August 2015. The correct G. P. Beater was added on 13 March 2016. This is only one example of many errors and corrections made over the course of the history of most articles in Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that this error also exists outside Wikipedia. Whether the online sources that currently refer to G.P. Baxter were misled by Wikipedia is not clear, but that may have happened as printed sources don't as far as I can tell make this error. Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair use images

Among the images I recently removed, there was one fair use image (File:Nelsons Pillar Dublin2.jpg). The source information is not good enough there, IMO, and as we have the National Library of Ireland image of the bombed column, there probably isn't enough justification to have any fair use images in this article, but adding this section in case it is worth discussing. Carcharoth (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

National Library of Ireland images

The National Library of Ireland catalogue can be searched for images. Some examples I found (others may want to look for more) are:

• Order of the procession, on laying the first stone (1808)
• Sackville Street, Dublin (1860-1880)
• Nelson's Pillar (this one is already uploaded from the British Library here)
• View of the Post Office & Nelson's Pillar (Brocas engraving)
• George IV visit to Dublin in 1821 (flag on Pillar)
• The G.P.O. and Nelson's Pillar, O'Connell Street, Dublin, a nice inter-war image, but unlikely to be freely licensed

Some of these may be better than existing images. Depends on whether there is the time to work on this aspect of the article or not, or whether the existing images suffice. Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Cultural references

As well as the mention in Ulysses (novel) by James Joyce, the Pillar is mentioned in a poem (Dublin) by Louis MacNeice. Both quoted here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

There was an earlier sentence in this version of the article before the recent changes: "Oliver St John Gogarty described it as "the grandest thing we have in Dublin" in As I Was Going Down Sackville Street." Leaving this note here as a reminder for when this section gets re-worked. Carcharoth (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

And from the Dublin City Public Libraries photostream on Flickr: O'Connell Monument, Nelson's Pillar, O'Connell Street, June 1962, with a quotation from Strumpet City (1969) by James Plunkett. There will be many such throwaway references, but collecting them here in case they are of use. Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I have the cultural refs you mention, and a few others... In redrafting this section, selection is important; "throwaway" references in books such as Plunkett's are ten a penny, and the section could easily become a dumping ground for each and every time the Pillar is mentioned in any novel with an Irish background. Acknowleged literature (e.g. Yeats, Gogarty, Joyce, Austin Clarke and MacNeice} is a different matter. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely avoid the section becoming a dumping ground for throwaway references. Any quotes or mentions in cultural works need to be backed up by serious discussion in secondary literature. Having said that, I have a small collection I put together today, which I'll put here for consideration. Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Some examples of this monument in poetry and other cultural works:

• Good discussion of some cultural themes here.
• Yeats wrote a poem called 'The Three Monuments' (written 1925, published 1927 - [1]). This is a reference to Nelson's Pillar and two other monuments either side (Parnell and O'Connell) - see here. (This makes Plunkett's contrasting of the three monuments in Strumpet City positively Yeatsian!)
• Austin Clarke (poet) wrote 'Nelson's Pillar, Dublin' (1960)
• Richard Murphy (poet) in the 1980s wrote 'Nelson's Pillar' in The Price of Stone & Earlier Poems (it appeared in Part 6: The Price of Stone 1981-1984), the opening stanza being:

  "My duty done, I rose as a Doric column
  Far from at home, planted to reach the sky;
  A huge stake in the crossed heart of a glum
  Garrison city overlooked by my blind eye."

• Mairéad Byrne wrote 'The Pillar' (published in a 2003 collection). See here, here, here and here. Not sure if there is much more to say there (i.e. I am not sure if there is commentary on that work in secondary literature).
• Not relevant for this article, but I might see if it is worth using in a more relevant article, the poet George Croly published a collection of poems in 1820 called The Angel of the World, one of which was a poem called 'Nelson's Pillar'. It can be read here and here (split over two pages). Nice poem. Not this Pillar, but about the Britannia Monument, which was also mentioned in a song. Seems that writing poetry and singing about Nelson monuments doesn't just happen in Dublin.

That's probably enough examples. Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've not used all of these, or the section would be disproportionate, but a fair sample are there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Architectural sources

These entries here may be of use (from the Irish Architectural Archive's Dictionary of Irish Architects). Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

A footnote here states that there was a stone sarcophagus placed over the Trafalgar panel and that the sarcophagus had been removed by 1866. This sarcophagus is visible in this artwork. A crop of this artwork would show both the sarcophagus and an example of the inscriptions. There were renovations and repairs that took place in 1868 (the architect was Sandham Symes), so maybe that is related in some way. Carcharoth (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This looks to be a useful source with much on Nelson's Pillar (they call it the Nelson Monument) and also comparing it with the Wellington Monument: 'Deification in the early century', which is chapter 1 of Nineteenth-century Irish Sculpture (2010) by Paula Murphy. Has an artwork of the laying of the foundation stone. Carcharoth (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I took the time to look up the other architects who submitted designs to the competition, according to the Dictionary of Irish Architects (though some care should be taken when using this source). The ones we have articles on are: Henry A. Baker, Sir Richard Morrison and the rather more famous Joseph Gwilt (though this was early on in his career). Carcharoth (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Art history

George Petrie (artist) should probably get a mention because: (a) this artwork is one of his; and (b) because other people have highlighted his work, such as here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sarcophagus and original entrance location

I found a source that said where the original entrance location was - it was on the west side of the monument according to Whelan in Reinventing Modern Dublin: Streetscape, Iconography and the Politics of Identity (2003): "The entrance was positioned to the west side of the monument, approached by a flight of steps which brought the visitor beneath the street level under the pillar to where the spiral stairs of 168 steps commenced."

I also found an additional source, a 72-page work called A Monument in the City: Nelson's Pillar and Its Aftermath (1998) by John O'Regan. I presume later sources used this, but it might have more details to add. It was where I found more details of the sarcophagus (not a real sarcophagus of course, just an architectural/sculptural feature): "In the collection of architectural drawings in the National Library there are four Francis Johnston drawings of Nelson's Pillar. [...] The second sheet is a sketch of the Pillar as it was executed [...] This is an important drawing as it shows the sarcophagus which has since been removed." I think O'Regan is quoting from Henchy's 1948 article in the Dublin Historical Record, so maybe those with full access to that could add a sentence about this?

Henchy's article mentions that the sarcophagus was on the south side and was removed before 1866. He also gives details of the old entrance on the west side. I have added a sentence to the article confirming the location of the original entrance. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly of interest is SACKVILLE STREET/O'CONNELL STREET by Maura Shaffrey and published in the Irish Arts Review in 1988. It opens with a nice artwork of Sackville Street from the 1760s before the Pillar was erected (plus a nice view of the Pillar on page 146). Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Irish and British parliamentary debates

A couple of points about the British and Irish legislatures and the bills relating to the Pillar:

• This edit replaced the 'Nelson Pillar Act, 1969' source I had created a citation template for. It would be good to see this brought back, IMO, because: (a) the page itself actually shows the full text of the bill (the link can be changed to the full text if needed) and could be of interest to readers of the article. It is also a better source for factual details of the bill, as opposed to the source to a debate in the Irish Senate.

• OK, I've restored the Bill source (I think it was removed in error when I revised the section. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• I read that debate in the Irish Senate in full [2]. Some rather funny (in one sort of way) moments there. I was reminded of this when I came across another parliamentary debate that took place in London in 1891. Second Reading of the Nelson's Pillar (Dublin) Bill (Like the other debate, this is worth reading in full). Might it be worth working that into the article somehow?

• On balance I believe this would be excesssive detail. Sheehy-Skeffington's point is a useful one, but in the main it's the cosequences of these acts, not the detailed debates, which are our concern. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't found any other parliamentary debates specifically relating to the Pillar, but it would be good to find them if they exist. Carcharoth (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comparison with other monuments

Starting a section to discuss the potential material relating to other monuments. The ones that should be mentioned, IMO, are:

• Nelson's Column - seems obvious to compare cost, height and timing. I did read somewhere that some criticised the Pillar in Dublin because of a lack of proper carvings. That might have been expanded on somewhere in the histories and commentaries. But maybe not - have struggled to find much here.
• Wellington Monument, Dublin - several sources compare the Pillar and this monument, raised in Dublin to another British hero of the Napoleonic Wars, but which didn't suffer the fate of the Pillar.
• Britannia Monument - very similar in design (same panels), and by William Wilkins, so the connection is obvious there.

Are there any other monuments that this one has been compared and contrasted with? Maybe Nelson's Column, Montreal as an example of another early column? Carcharoth (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Definitely the Trafalgar Square column needs a mention - some of the comparative details might be footnoted. Wellington's obelisk in Phoenix Park is also worthy of comment. If you've seen it you'll realise why it couldn't be disposed of à la Nelson: it's absolutely massive at the base and would take several tons of dynamite to shift. See here Also it doesn't involve a statue or a likeness so it's less personal. And Wellington, unlike Nelson, was an Irishman (albeit of the Ascendancy) which probably counted in his favour. I'll incorporate some text on these two, but I don't think the Britannia and the Montreal warrrant inclusion. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Noting here that a comment at the featured article candidate discussion led to a footnote being added regarding the Montreal column. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"located" and "until 1924 Sackville Street"

This is a great article and it is good to see it as our featured article of the day! However, there are a couple of issues in the lede that I think should be discussed. At present, the opening sentence reads "Nelson's Pillar (also known as the Nelson Pillar or simply The Pillar) was a large granite column capped by a statue of Horatio Nelson, in the centre of O'Connell Street (until 1924 Sackville Street) in Dublin, Ireland." Personally I think that there are two prose issues here that we could do something about. First, I would recommend adding "located" at the juncture between "Horatio Nelson," and "in the centre"; I made that change myself but it was then reverted. I nevertheless think it to be a good addition and would like to see if I can get some support for its reintroduction. The second issue lies with "(until 1924 Sackville Street)" which I think has the capacity to confuse some readers, particularly those in the United States. For instance, the sentence could be misread as referring to a location that was in the juxtaposition of two separate roads, O'Connell Street and Sackville Street. In such a scenario, "1924" might be mistaken for an address rather than a year, which is something I think that we should be trying to avoid; we could perhaps go with something more precise like ""known as Sackville Street prior to 1924)" instead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ya know us yanks don't really get confused as much as you folk think. Juan Riley (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I should probably have qualified why I made reference to our American readers! It's because in U.S. urban centres like New York City one can find locations with names like "1235 West Street" and such; very high numbers appended to street names. These are far less common in Europe, or at least the British Isles. My original comment was most certainly not meant as a slur on the intelligence of Americans! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I misinterpreted you. Got it now. Have a good day. Juan Riley (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Midnightblueowl, thank you for doing the decent thing and coming to the talk page to discuss. It's a shame that juanriley doesn't seem to have the good manners or grace to follow your example, and has decided to edit war the point, despite being asked to follow both WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Some people are so tiresome in their efforts to get their own way. It's especially sad to see that, despite edit warring to insert the word once again, they can't remain honest in what they are doing, claiming "no edit war", even though they are... edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Having followed this article through peer review and FAC, I know a little bit about how the phrasing here changed. The lead as it currently stands was first drafted here: "situated in the middle of O'Connell Street (originally Sackville Street)". The word 'originally' was then changed to previously as the street was once a lane called Drogheda Street (as the article itself states). This is one reason why the current wording of 'known as Sackville Street prior to 1924' is not ideal. The wording changed again with this edit to "in the center of O'Connell Street (then Sackville Street)" (with 'centre' later changed to 'centre'). The wording that appeared on the main page was established in its final form here, with 'then' becoming 'until'. Then the word 'located' was added, edit warred over, and finally the current version of the text was formulated here: "located in the centre of O'Connell Street (known as Sackville Street prior to 1924)". I have tried a different phrasing, turning things round a bit, emphasising the location name when it was built and immediately referring the reader to the modern name to avoid confusion ("built in the centre of what was then Sackville Street (later O'Connell Street)"). I left out the date when the street name changed, as that is too detailed for the lead section. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

That looks good, Carcharoth. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Joe Pilkington

The late actor Joe Pilkington (who in the 1960's and 1970's played a settled traveller-turned farm labourer called Eamon Maher in the seminal RTE soap, The Riordans, itself a progenitor of the later Emmerdale Farm) is on record as claiming direct involvement in the planting of the bomb. No reference to this is made in the piece, though I distinctly recall an interview with the Pilkington (late 1970's?, Late Late Show?) in which he made that claim, which at the time seemed authentic. To any interested parties, it might be worth backtracking to investigate this. If deemed true by reputable sources, it's probably worth a mention. Mike Galvin (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Further information - cage on statue

I do not obviously now have the book to hand, but I recall reading in 1970 a book 'The Shell Guide to Ireland' which had obviously been published before the pillar's destruction, stated that the statue had been enclosed in an iron cage 'to deter suicides'. That is how it stands in my memory but as memory can play tricks, I would recommend a looking up of the book to check the detail. This aspect of the column is worth looking up, this would surely be an unusual addition to the structure. Were there reported suicidal falls from the statue when it was uncaged? Was this cage still on the monument when it was destroyed?Cloptonson (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

issues

• I have tagged '{ambigous}' [3], but actually the sentence is irrelevant either way. Third person opinion on a 2nd person.
• Height is not mentioned. Missing in infobox. (incidentally, it is referred to wrt the London column).
• In 9th paragraph, at last, we read (indirectly) that the column is hollow and can be visited & ascended. Expected in like lead, Construction, infobox paragraphs.

DePiep (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hi @SchroCat:. Yes, thanks for the advice to go to the talkpage [4]. Just asking: why didn't you do so yourself? -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Per BRD: You were Bold, I Reverted, it was up to you to Discuss not re-revert. We are here now, which is beneficial to all.
    I've removed the Height parameter from the IB because it's ambiguous at best and misleading at worst. Height when? In first building, post-explosion or now?
    The extraneous detail around demolition dates are not needed in the IB - just the headline range. The lead and body hold the detail. IBs work best when they summarise key information, not try to regurgitate ever tiny aspect. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

    Agree with SchroCat that if it can't be easily and succinctly summarised in the infobox, it's probably better to leave it out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

    HJ Mitchell, there was not even a try to summarise. "cannot" is ad hoc reasoning. Anyway, since "8–14 March" states a period which is wrong, I have already corrected. (ICYMI: there were two demolition incidents, quite distinct).

    I note that, while engaging with the dates, you do not comment on the height (-removal from IB). Here too, the "easy and succinctly" form was not even tried. Conspicious it the remark above by SC that the height is "misleading" (after they removed the source...) while mentioned in the article. If anything, I'd like to read on why yo0u think this removal is sound. DePiep (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

    The point is, and you missed it here again, that I DID set up the discussion. Way beforehand, 06:30 it says. Also, your editummaries are paternanalistic (for example, sending me to the talkpage while you are the one who had not even glanced it, obviously).

    Of course (and HJ Mitchell below obvioulsy does not agree either), your removal of height is degrading the article. Per WP:INFOBOX, and very sound encyclopaedically, the IB is to summarise the content. Your ad hoc reasoning re here (which contradicts sourced facts btw) is foregoing all this. If two heights are important, than put them both in. While talking about "you should discuss", you remove my point [5]. We are stil waiting to hear a stable motivation on why a height of the construction shall not be infoboxed at all—taken from the article, which somehow is not disputable? I also note that you first removed the source, and then complain about being dubious. The acceptable route for you or anyone is: pull out the best statement from the article.

    As for the two dates of demolition: again, you could have improved the entry (shortening I'd guess). Since the first explosion is main part of the article (rightly so), it is sloppy editing to confuse this the way it was. (note that I had to do research before I understood what that "week of demolition" actually meant). It must be split into two dates anyway, because it was not a period.

    I assume you don't need diffs of your own edits. And don't forget: WP:BRD is not a one-sided requirement. Evading the D is the problem, whoever's. DePiep (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

    • Oh dear. Yes, I removed the source: that is clearly OK, given it is in the body and therefore doesn't need to be repeated in the IB. The source has zero impact on whether the height is misleading or not. There are different heights depending on whether you're talking about the final version, the bombed version or the demolished version. Including a source doesn't clarify the point one iota.
      Yes, you did set the thread up, but that doesn't mean you get to edit war regardless. Such a straw man doesn't need to be gone into any further. And just to correct your dodgy guesswork, I had looked at the thread, but didn't have time to respond before you edit warred.
      The IB is already long (on my screen, with the new skin), it's already going into the Trafalgar section and pushing the image into the section below - it already sandwiches text between it and the image in the first section as it is. Adding yet more lines to push the box further down the page seems counterintuitive to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Edits

Please do not delete relevant and cited information on the page. If you feel you have knowledge or expertise in this area or about this structure then feel free to make good faith edits to the article if you feel they are relevant. Note the article is about Nelson's Pillar and not about Irish history or admiral Nelson more generally. It is also not an opinion piece.

If you take issue with any of the edits then feel free to detail them here however I have been doing this for a long time, I have edited most pages on Irish buildings, structures, statues and history at some page and likely have written over 1,000 pages. Some of the detail here appears to be using incorrect amateur terminology.Financefactz (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the edit warrior visits the talk page at last. Well done for finally realising you were duplicating fields in the IB, although why you decided to revert these is beyond anyone's guess. I have outlined the reason why I trimmed your edits in the edit summary, so please address those, as you didn't bother leaving an edit summary when you were edit warring. Your additions are still second rate and hopefully will be removed by a page watcher at some point. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no obligation to leave an edit summary, it is standard to fill out an infobox for a notable structure. You removed edits to the page before I had finished editing. There seems to be a mixup between the start date and the foundation stone was laid. There is no mention of the builder of the structure or the head stonemason at any stage which seems highly unusual. I would suggest you have a read of some of the pages I have written or edited.

There seems to be a lot of material on Nelson and plenty on general history, I imagine this will be moved to the article on Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson or the Battle of Trafalgar at some point.

If you delete information from this page, you will be reverted. This article has been through two community review processes and is an FA. You have no consensus to go against that of the two review processes. Given the poor additions to the IB and your instinct towards edit warring, I suspect this article is abut to be downgraded from one of the best that WP has, to one of the worst. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

LFolks, there have been a lot of comments about me and my account but there have been no comments or objections to any of the information added. Is there an issue with information on the material used in construction, the contractor (surely one of the most important points to have on the page?), the stonemason (also one of the most important people to have on the page given the structure is entirely built of stone, the height of the pillar (its most notable feature...). Is there a general objection to my account.

It seems to me that the objection is moreso to the fact that you feel upset rather than any issue with the information added to the page? Or if there is an issue with the information added then what is that issue? Financefactz (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

There are a few things here. Firstly, as I said in one of my edit summaries: when it comes to an IB, less is more (this is in line with the guidelines on use at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". This box already drops way down into the article, causing sandwiching issues for the early images. Details over the stonemason etc are fine for the article body, but less suited to the IB, given its length (and if they go into the body, the references go there, not in the IB, and they need to be consistently formatted with the other refs in the article). The height point was discussed in the thread above this one, as it's misleading. The pillar has had three heights: when it was completed, post-explosion and then post-demolition, so the lack of clarity is an issue for that particular field. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Financefactz, you have the burden of showing why any edit that you make is appropriate. Your edit warring was inexcusable. Obviously, you should have come to the talk page after you were reverted the first time. Even before that, you failed to explain your changes in edit summaries, which is rude at least, but also has created a situation where the other editors of the page were not able to divine your purpose. As SchroCat notes, this article is an FA which has been through multiple layers of review, so you should know that all of the information in it, and its presentation and formatting, was arrived at by consensus among a large group of experienced editors. That does not mean that it is perfect, but any changes to it must be clearly justified. So, I recommend that if you have any changes you wish to make to the article, you lay them out here, one at a time, with your reasons why you think each one is, in some way, superior to the content that is currently in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it not a bit harsh to hold the article against reviews done in 2016? The community changes, the opinions about what is good changes, more info comes available. The Banner talk 15:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it is harsh to edit war. Instead, people should use edit summaries and talk pages. Ah, I see that Financefactz has been blocked for edit warring. When they return, perhaps they will lay out what changes they think should be made to the article, together with reasons and any useful citations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that both sides then engage in productive and meaning full discussions. The Banner talk 16:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Both sides of what? There is no proposal on the table. Are you just here to justify edit warring and the lack of edit summaries, or do you have some proposal that you wish to make about the content of this article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

For an edit war, you need two sides. The Banner talk 17:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are clear about our editing process. A person who desires a change makes an edit (preferably with an edit summary that explains the purpose of the edit). If someone opposes that edit, the proponent has the burden to take their proposal to the talk page to try to persuade the other editors interested in the article of the merits of their proposed change(s) and work to reach a WP:CONSENSUS to make some or all of such changes. The proponent here did not do that, and their further edits without explanation or discussion were prohibited, which led to them being blocked. The Talk page is for discussions about improvements to the article. Do you have any to propose? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. No-one is holding it to that (although it should be noted that FA standards have been consistently high since that point), but edit warring without discussion and the above confrontational approach are not the best ways to come to a new consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing constructive this way lies - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I can not help to notice that same applies to your behaviour. The Banner talk 16:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Are you just here to have an argument? Because there is nothing constructive in your comment. I have left an explanation of the rationale above and should anyone wish to discuss the edits, rather than just make pointy comments, I will continue that discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Do not be so aggressive please. The Banner talk 17:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Nice to see that you promptly want to hide criticism on your own behaviour. The Banner talk 17:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The Banner, I'm scratching my head, because from your user page, you seem to be an experienced Wikipedian, and yet you have made no proposals here about the article itself. It appears that you have arrived out of the blue to scold a constructive editor of this page who merely resisted a bad edit by an aggressive edit warrior. Or do you have some other purpose here? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist. As far as I know that is allowed. And I noticed the tone of the "discussion" and commented on it. As far as I know that is also allowed. But I still have no answer as why the article version 2023 is held to a review out of 2016 as of nothing has changed in the mean time. The Banner talk 18:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You have already had an answer above (actually two answers: one from me, one from Ssilvers). There is a strong consensus from two review processes (the standards of the last of which have remained consistently high). If people's edits are challenged by removal, the talk page should be used to discuss. This is fairly standard for WP disagreements. Now, of far more importance, do you have anything to say about the proposed changes? - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, The Banner, since you are an experienced Wikipedian, you must know how to use the article history. There, one can see that, since the article was promoted to FA in 2016, there have been approximately 300 edits to it, by quite a few different editors, gradually improving the article since then. Some edits have been deemed useful and are still reflected on the page. Others have been considered and rejected in whole or in part. One can easily see that the article has not been "held" to any particular version. So, either you keep saying that, knowing it is untrue, or you just made it up without bothering to look. Either way, it is false to keep saying it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, challenging an addition by removal is also a good reason to start a discussion on the talk page of the article involved. I noticed that no content-related issues (addition or removal) related to the present discussion are discussed on this page. But if you want a proposal: I suggest to request permanent protection of this page, so that it will be frozen in time forever and ever (or after the next peer review). The Banner talk 19:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

If you truly think that no content-related issues are discussed on this page, then you have not looked at this thread at all: my comment at 15:13 rather clearly and obviously addresses the changes that were challenged. Again, as this thread seems to be going round in ever decreasing circles, do you have anything to say about the changes? - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Let's talk about something specific. I agree that the infobox should be kept as concise as possible for the reasons mentioned by SchroCat in the previous section. Are the alternative names even needed in the infobox? The first one is not very different from the article name, and "the Pillar" is just a nickname that also does not add a "key fact" to the infobox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. If dubious and/or non-core information is being put into the rather long box, something needs to come out, and these are superfluous names, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

As I queried below, is it possible to change the map to a squatter format so that it does not take up as much space in the IB? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Height in infobox

Only here as I was (somewhat oddly) pinged in an unblock request. But happy to talk about something specific RE the infobox params. I note that one of the main apparently contentious edits/reverts is this one. In which I read a point about duplicated groundbreaking/stone-laying dates (A point with which I fully agree - as I also see no value in having "15 February 1808" repeated in two separate/overlapping IB params). However, in this same edit/rv, I couldn't fathom why the "height" param would be an issue and also removed. Reviewing the above discussion thread(s), I see an argument (made repeatedly by one editor and seemingly no others) that including the height might be confusing. As it would be "[unclear whether it refers to] the final version, the bombed version or the demolished version"". Frankly I do not follow or agree with this argument at all. The pillar stood at 134 feet 3 inches (to the tip of the statue per the linked and seemingly reliable source) for nearly 150 years. Even if we assume that there is a reader who doesn't understand/expect that such a parameter would refer to the subject's height when it was built and still extant, and imagine that there's one reader who thinks it might refer to the pillar's height for a few days (post-explosion) in 1966, surely that could be addressed with a simple footnote or clarification(?) As we have in the Column of Leo and Pompey's Pillar infoboxes? Is the height of a monumental pillar not a fairly fundamental aspect of its character/purpose/intent/raison-d'être? Which is likely why height is included in the infoboxes for the Boyne Obelisk, Nelson's Column, Washington Monument, etc. While I understand the intent of keeping the infobox to "key facts" and the most important points, as noted by others, "height" seems an oddly conspicuous thing to be missing from the infobox for this type of subject. (Certainly to the extent of warring over).... Guliolopez (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The height is IMHO relevant. The architectural style could be relevant for the infobox, as it describes the exterior of the pillar quite short. The Banner talk 21:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We can add it as height = 0, given that’s what it’s been for the last 57 years. There are multiple fields we could include, but it’s already a distance down the page and causing SANDWICHing issues; this is in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose. - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Then a height of 40.8 meters makes more sense, as that was the height during most of its existence. Giving the height in its post-removal state is non-information. And at least on my PC, I do not see any sandwich-issues. The Banner talk 15:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. RE:

• "There are multiple fields we could include". We are not discussing other or notional fields. I specifically titled this section "height" and have not proposed to include other fields. As noted, as with other subjects of this type (like the Buddhas of Bamiyan or Awaji Kannon or whatever) the pillar was known for its height. And used as a viewing platform for that reason. I have not proposed to include other or trivial or unimportant parameters.
• "We can add it as height = 0, given that's what it’s been for the last 57 years". As noted, if there is any risk of confusion, then a very simply note or footnote could clarify. (To my mind, neither a height parameter nor a footnote would significantly extend the infobox.)

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no strawman, Guliolopez. Although you may only be talking about the height, Banner specifically referred to other factoids for inclusion.

It’s nice you don’t get sandwiching Banner, but others (including me), do get it, which is not ideal. Although this is partly because of the new skin, it is still an issue.

Notes and footnotes got against the entire point of the IB, which is to allow “readers to identify key facts at a glance”: at a glance is utterly defeated by loading superfluous details or pointless footnotes. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to argue that an alternate name being "the pillar" would take precedent as a key fact over any of the above facts - the contractor or stonemason on the build, the height of the structure, the type of column it was... Financefactz (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Architectural style

The architectural style could be relevant for the infobox, as it describes the exterior of the pillar quite short. The Banner talk 17:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "it describes the exterior of the pillar quite short". What style do you mean? I was on the fence about the height parameter, but if people also want to add "architectural style" and more and more parameters, then I am firmly against adding anything. The IB in my screen view certainly does cause sandwiching of the text with the other (and better) image on the left. Can we reduce the map to a box that is squatter? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Editor FF added as architectural style simply "Doric" (or Doric style). The Banner talk 18:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What is your source that states that the actual construction was "Doric"? (I see the cite in the article that says that the original design of the pillar portion was Doric, but 1) was it executed as a Doric column, and 2) If only the column is Doric, is the monument a Doric monument? Nothing in the article says so, currently) And, even if the monument could be said to be Doric in style, why is that an essential "key fact" for the IB? Also, if it was Doric, it should be mentioned in the text together with a WP:RS. The fact that it was not discussed in the text indicates that it is not a "key fact" for the IB. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Among others, History Ireland - Nelson's Pillar, Dispelling the myths about the bombing of Nelson's Pillar, Archiseek - 1809 – Nelson's Pillar, O'Connell St., Dublin, Dublin delineated, Roman Architecture. It should be added to the article anyway. The Banner talk 20:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It's already in the body, although it could probably be given greater prominence or description than it has. I'm not sure it's worthwhile adding to the IB though. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Contractor

Does anyone have any objection to inputting the contractor or stonemason or details of where the stone was from? It does seem one of the most important and relevant points and strikes be as a bit of a strange one to be actively blocking it from being put into the article. For example it features in the infobox even for Nelson's Column and for most important or notable structures around the world the contractor or the general contractor are covered at some point, often at length. In the case of this article there seems to be lengthy discussion of the background to Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson rather than the actual topic of the article itself. Is it fair to say that maybe this is not as complete a page as people thought back in 2016 as it leaves out some of the key salient facts about the structure. Tristram Hunt I'm sure would be delighted to be getting a linked mention on the page taking precedent over the contractor. Financefactz (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

There is minimal information on the background of Nelson, except for how it led to the pillar. It's necessary background to explain why the pillar was built. The Nelson part has nothing to do with the additions you are proposing, so I'm not sure why you are conflating the two.

I think the details of the contractor, stonemason and origin of the stone could be added to the body (again, as long as the citations are in the same format as those currently in place), but not in the IB. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the two issues are related as it speaks to one of the core issues with the page which is the subject matter straying over into other areas of social history, Nelson, Acts of the Union, the general political context of the time etc. These are all particularly sensitive issues for obvious reasons in an Irish context but I would argue points on the actual subject of the article (Nelson's Pillar as a structure - lest we forget) are not really very sensitive at all!

Do I have permission to propose these additions or will you block them or would you like to add this information in yourself? A notable nearby structure which has a Wikipedia page, the Corn Exchange, even features the same contractors in the IB. A nice little page created by User:Dormskirk Financefactz (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Architecture like monuments do not exist in a vacuum. They are there for a reason and any good article needs to cover both the context and the structure itself. This isn't an "issue": it's what the article should do.

Feel free to add to the body yourself (with consistent citation formatting). The call to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to what goes into an IB is a straw man: information for inclusion is decided on a page by page basis, no matter how many of your friends you want to ping to back you up (you're already pushing the boundary of canvassing by flagging this to people you think will take your side in a discussion, so please stop.) - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't canvassed to anyone, It is a building and architectural set piece, for that reason it is better to have someone edit the page who has expertise in the area or has written on the subject. Please stop threatening me and focus on the discussion around the page instead. Financefactz (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If we leave out the key salient facts about Nelson's Pillar but have many facts about Irish and British History, the Acts of the Union, Admiral Nelson, the Battle of Trafalgar, my old friend Tristram Hunt etc. then the page is fundamentally not serving its purpose and there is something very fishy about it all in all. Financefactz (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No-one has threatened you - that is rather clear from all that has gone before.

I'm not sure you're taking on board what three people (myself, Ssilvers and The Banner) have said: go ahead and add the additional information about the stone, stonemason and contractor into the body of the article. I'm not sure what more is needed, given everyone seems to be happy with that step. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Including the contractor in the text is useful. But certainly not in the infobox. Adding the material used in the text is also useful. I am leaning slightly in favour of adding it to the infobox too but understand the objections of SchroCat. But where the stone is coming from is not relevant for the infobox. The Banner talk 10:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

There was a specific reason that Leinster granite was used on the facade (a sligtly cheaper Irish stone, not imported and no tariffs, more difficult to work however as it is harder) was used instead of Portland Stone (an English stone, imported and there would be tariffs but its easier to work and is softer). As a starting point I suggest you all go back and have a thorough read of the citations and references.Financefactz (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Well referenced, well written info about this can certainly be added to the body of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Tim riley any objections or threats to add seeing as it you who were particularly upset about the addition of the builder of the building.Financefactz (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, no-one has objected to the addition of this into the body of the article. Three people have agreed with you on this and no-one has dissented. - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)