Talk:One & Other

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Public art task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

List of Plinthers[edit]

Is it really such a good idea to have a Plinthers table? There are 2,400 of them!

Perhaps we should restrict it to notable plinthers (i.e. those generating several media column inches) - even then, as the exhibition progresses we may need to eventually split them off into a separate page... Mittfh (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I can no longer resist the urge to remove the empty spaces... Rothorpe (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only notable plinthers should be included, and I can't see many being notable, other than the first and last. I did wonder whether it might be more appropriate for this article to be about the fourth plinth, rather than just this project. Pontificake (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the list seems to be creeping out into "my friend was on it at 4pm on Tuesday" or "I was on it, here's a link to my website". Cutting it back to the few that were notable enough to get specific press coverage seems like a good idea. --McGeddon (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the current list mainly references each featured Plinther's archive on the main site. The two naked males have generated significant national media coverage, but the rest have barely warranted a mention (unless you count local newspapers, which surprisingly enough will feature the occasional Plinther who lives in their circulation area!). Perhaps once the project's ended there might be more comprehensive reviews which could pad out the article. Mittfh (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rothorpe (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the first 'plinther' up, and potentially the last one (on October 14, 8-9 am local time), none of the plinthers are really notable by WP standards - perhaps the list could be trimmed down / removed? Declaration of potential conflict of interest, I am a Plinther, although I hope not to let this colour my judgement. --RedHillian | Talk 01:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final one was Emma Burns. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, time to trim this down now that the project is over. The Guardian's "top ten best of the plinthers" is probably a good starting point, I'll make the edits now. --McGeddon (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Plinther"[edit]

Is "plinther" an official word used by the project? I've assumed not and have renamed them "volunteers". --McGeddon (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plinthers seems to be the official term; see links at top-right of the web page: http://www.oneandother.co.uk/ --hooverbag (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I suppose the term just needs introducing, or scare quotes, in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Padding out the article[edit]

The article is currently little more than a stub - over the weekend I'll trawl through the press coverage and see if I can find anything useful to pad out the article with. I suspect the article will remain fairly sketchy until the project's over and (hopefully!) various media outlets write reviews of the project as a whole.

Until then, the project's blog carries some interesting discussion and feedback on the project as a whole (e.g. the debate over nudity, the reaction given by followers on Twitter, the jargon associated with it (Plinther, Pliche, Tweckler etc.)), but I'd be reluctant to add any mention of it to the article unless other media outlets also covered the same topic(s), as gathering references primarily from a single source could violate WP:NPOV. Mittfh (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the copy at the UK Web Archive[edit]

The videos, originally looked after by the British Library's web archive function, have been lost, possibly deleted[12].

The videos have not been deleted, but are currently inaccessible as they rely on obsolete technologies for playback. We are working on this, but progress is slow. When playback is restored, I will update this page accordingly. If you have any questions feel free to get in touch. AndyJ 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]