Talk:Monument

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

comment[edit]

"A monument is a structure built for commemorative or symbolic reasons rather than for any functional use."

I must differ with what appears to be an incomplete and somewhat misleading definition.

1. "A commemorative or symbolic reason" is a functional use. Monuments often provide overt written, graphic and/or three-dimensional historical information, useful to reinforce the primacy of contemporary political power(the column of Trajan). They also educate the populace in more benign ways. 2. The "function" of munuments can include protection, as in city gates, or orientation as in town "Welcome" signs. 3. The "function" of monuments in Urban Design can include separation of public spaces into different uses. A larger scale example is, in fact, the Washington Monument, whose location (and vertical geometry, though not physical detail) was conceived to help organize public space in the Capital City before it was ever connected with George Washington. 4. Obelisks were originally built by the ancient Egyptians in pairs, to demark a sequence in public space. 5. Finally, a "monument" is also a surveying marker that denotes a property corner, a milestone in a road or an agreed-upon vertical datum used to measure the relative elevation of land.

Thanks for listening. Your website is great. John jrca@aol.com

Buildings[edit]

I'm not sure about the two pictures on this article (Taj Mahal and Eiffel Tower). Those are buildings, not really monuments. --JW1805 02:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read the 1st sentence of the article: Monuments are usually created for the dual function of commemorating an important event or person while also creating an artistic object that will improve the appearance of a city or location. The Eiffel Tower and the Taj Mahal do fill that criteria. I think you should have discussed the matter before actually replacing the images. --Deepak|वार्ता 03:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I was Being Bold. It's just that usually, in everyday speech, when you hear "monument", you don't really think of buildings. For example, I'm not sure that the Empire State Building is a "monument", even though the article says so. I would agree that the Taj Mahal is a monument, since it does commemorate a person. But, I'm not sure what the Eiffel Tower is a monument to. --JW1805 05:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A monument is structure which commemorates a person or an important event. As far as I know, The Eiffel Tower commemorates the French revolution, an important event in French history. Also its an artistic object and 'the' landmark in Paris. But yeah, I think Eiffel Tower is regarded more of a landmark than a monument. The same cant be said about Arc de Triomphe though. --Deepak|वार्ता 16:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Eiffel Tower is a monument. Ask any French person(I did and got nothing but "Yes, it is a monument.")--Mac Simms 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC) it was just a monument that was historical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.56.82 (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somnath Temple : Monument of Caste based system in Indian subcontinent.[edit]

Somnath Temple in India was distroyed for several times and constructed by Democratic and Republic country India. Founding fathers of Constitution of India (1950) was in blind faith that India will be Democratic and Republic within ten years. In India after 55 years entire press and media is discussing about reservation policy for backword class and caste system is prevailing and there is no change in caste system for last 3000 years. All most all the Prime Ministes and Constituion Head The President of India visit this monument and greets the citizen on evey occasion of religion day (yearly more than 24 such days). I have put Somnath temple as the monument of caste system on Article Monument. vkvora 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery?[edit]

There are a lot of pictures of towers in this article (I admit it, I just added another one myself) and I think that there are more pictures that deserve to be placed in the article. Maybe we could create a 6- or 9- image gallery at the bottom of the page? I've never done it, but if no one has any objections, I'll learn and do it myself. Just a thought, zappa.jake (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My preference in these cases is to create a link to a gallery at Commons, rather than to have one in the article itself. There are millions of monuments out there, and thousands of very notable ones, and a gallery could quickly overwhelm this article. - SimonP 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Patrollers removing Related Links[edit]

I would like to canvas views on whether or not editors feel it appropriate to have links to the ARCHI database of more than 110,000 UK sites on monuments on the Archaeology UK website ARCHI Database. One of the patrollers insists that this counts as link spam and has removed the link. However, the database allows users to locate UK Archaelogical Sites and Monuments within the UK. Chris Kutler 13:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tried numerous times to explain wikipedia policy in great detail to you. It is not about canvassing views, it is simply about wikipedia policy. You added something like 18 links to your own website over a very short period of time. I have explained now in great detail why all your edits were reverted (and as I also keep pointing out to you, it was not only me who reverted your edits), yet you have twice now used the talk pages of articles to continue this. It is not about your adding one link to one article, it is because as I have already explained in great detail to you, simply adding external links is not consistent with wikipedia policy. I have suggested that rather than merely adding links to another site, that you add sourced content to each article. Please see WP:ADS. I should also point out that two other users reverted your edits at the same time I reverted your edits, so it is not a matter of one user only doing so.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mosque removal[edit]

Removed ", the Tunisian Great Mosque of Kairouan (an important monument of Islamic North African architecture)" the fact that one must justify by adding the parenthesis is a sign. The Kaaba would be a better monument to add. 80.169.233.244 (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to remove Great Mosque of Kairouan per WP:NOTE, Jerusalem's Dome of the Rock is a better example.Gunkarta (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this part of the caption[edit]

from the lede picture, ", a monument commemorating the French Revolution]]" because i am not sure that it is true. Et tu? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling[edit]

with our first TYPE

  • Buildings designed as iconic landmarks – such as the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest structure as the landmark of Dubai

Can a building be designed to be an icon? Is not iconship something that history or posterity bestows on something? I am inclined to remove that type, think about it and perhaps add an "Iconic" monument section (if there is not already one) but it won't include the above example. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not just a mere buildings, but building designed to have superior or extraordinary quality, for example the largest or tallest, intended to become the landmark of the city. For example the Petronas Towers' or Burj Khalifa's function are just common office building, it was their height that made them somewhat "a monument". maybe we should add more explanation on this "building" section.Gunkarta (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy reply. In our article Cultural icon there is the following section:

Media overuse
Some writers say that the terms "icon" and "iconic" have been overused. A writer in Liverpool Daily Post calls "iconic" "a word that makes my flesh creep," a word "pressed into service to describe almost anything."[21] The Christian Examiner nominates "iconic" in its list of overused words, finding over 18,000 "iconic" references in news stories alone, with another 30,000 for "icon", including its use for SpongeBob SquarePants.[22]

I believe that this is what we are doing here, we are using the word “icon” in its most meaningless form. I have no problem mentioning this structure as a significant monument, but let us not cheapen the word any more by calling it an icon. Not for a building less than a decade old. Carptrash (talk)

I've removed "icon" and elaborate the buildings criteria as landmark with said exceptional architectural feature. Feel free to check and edit it.Gunkarta (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this part of a picture[edit]

"The planned US capital Washington D.C. is built around monuments commemorating founding fathers of the United States"
from the lede picture (if that is the correct term) because really only the Washington Monument is dedicated to the Founding Fathers. Certainly Abraham Lincoln was not a founding father. I understand what the caption was trying to say and there probably is language that says it, but this ain't it. Carptrash (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


We added some text translated from the German Wikipedia article Denkmal where we considered it useful[edit]

OIAM (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd para is unreferenced, and the whole frankly rather waffly. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redundant?[edit]

Recently this was added, " . .... usually three-dimensional - structure ..." Is not a "structure" always three-dimensional? Carptrash (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monument. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Единственный нормальный "монумент" - Иосифу Кобзону.[edit]

Без искуфст. Ни с вздёрнутой рукой. Ни с задраной ногой ..

176.59.206.251 (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monument&oldid=1194313387"