Talk:Cloud Gate/Archive 1

Categories
I have removed the following categories: This is a sculpture, not the sculptor who made it, nor the park it's in. The relevant categories only contain the parks (not the things in the park) and sculptors (not their sculptures). If there were categories Category:Anish Kapoor or Category:Millennium Park then Cloud Gate could be in those categories. jnestorius(talk) 09:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous! This is more about you wanting to police what a "category" includes or excludes. Since when are "sculptures" independent of their creators? Categories are always related to other ones. So all we can do is move from more general ones (like sculptures in the US) to more specific or descriptive ones (or vice versa). And this selection is always subjective. (unsigned comment added by User:70.28.8.136)


 * I think you misunderstand what Categories are for. Click on Category:British sculptors. Look at all the articles in the category.  All of them are British sculptors; none of them are sculptures.  If you took each article describing a sculpture by one of those sculptors, and added it to the category, the category would become a mishmash of two different things, much less useful as a navigation aid for readers.  So, yes, I want to "police" what the category includes.
 * I agree that sculptures are not independent of their creators (or their locations), but there are already links to Anish Kapoor and Millennium Park in the very first paragraph of Cloud Gate. If someone wants to see other things relating to Anish Kapoor, they will click on the Anish Kapoor article and can then click on the categories (or other links) there, such as Category:British sculptors.  It is not true that "all we can do is move from more general [categories] to more specific ones (or vice versa)": readers can click from an article to a category to an article to a category; information should be organised to make this as intuitive as possible. jnestorius(talk) 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reason your logic works is that YOU have decided that the category in this case is "sculpture". Others may may conceive of the category as "sculpture in Chicago" or "sculpture by Kapoor" or "works by British artists" or indeed "installation art". I agree that the point is to organize information, but it is also to open it up in as many ways as possible. And the "categories" are another way of linking one piece of information to other pieces. Restricting categories in the way you want to in fact limits information, rather than opening it up. Note that my edits include your categories, while yours exclude mine and others'!


 * I have to agree with Joestynes's inclination, this article should be removed from the aforementioned categories. This is obvious when you look at the other articles in these categories, which is how I found this article (it's out of place and taints the categories).  I think that "sculpture in Chicago", "sculpture by Kapoor", "works by British artists", and "installation art" are all good ideas for categories which this article should be a part of and would make nice additions to Wikipedia. Nolodie 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional photographs
I have some additional photographs of the sculpture on my userpage. The colors are a bit brighter, but there are a lot of people in the picture. Spikebrennan 02:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add them to The Commons if you are willing to license them freely. Thanks, Cacophony 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't add any pictures of this sculpture to the commons—as derivative works of a copyrighted sculpture they will be deleted as non-free images. --JeremyA 13:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link that explains the policy for taking and displaying photographs of the sculture. Thanks, Cacophony 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a policy issue—it's U.S. copyright law! However, the commons does have a good page explaining derivative works at Commons:Derivative works. Basically, the commons only hosts free images—photographs of copyrighted works are not free unless the copyright holder releases their work under a free licence. U.S. copyright law extends to sculptures, and whilst there is a special exclusion for photographs of buildings (buildings constructed after 1990 are also subject to copyright), no such exclusion is made for photographs of sculptures. —JeremyA 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The licensing page at MilleniumPark.org does not prohibit people from taking photographs. It only mentions that a permit is required for commericial use.  As Wikipedia is a non-commercial site, I don't really think it applies.  There is also an extensive gallery at Flickr, which is a commercial website.  How does that differ from a not-for profit website like Wikipedia?  Google Image also contains 4,000+ images in its gallery.  The issue is very murky at best.  GM owns the copyright for the Corvette, but that dosen't mean that nobody can display a photograph of it  Cacophony 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Whilst Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, all content on Wikipedia must be available for reuse under the terms of the GFDL—which does not exclude commercial use. Jimbo Wales (the Wikipedia founder) has directed that Wikipedia will not accept images that have non-commercial restrictions, and, as a result the use of the noncommercial template, , on an image flags that image for deletion. The Wikimedia Commons has stricter rules than Wikipedia, because it does not host fair use images.

The City of Chicago's rules on photography in Millenium Park have nothing to do with copyright. Being able to take a photograph of something, and being able to publish the resulting photograph are two different things. The right to say who can and who cannot publish photos of a copyrighted object belong to the copyright holder—in this case Anish Kapoor. That other websites choose to allow violations of this copyright is irrelevant. Photographs of cars are an entirely different issue as cars are subject to patents not copyright. The images of Cloud Gate that are currently in this article should really be tagged as fair use, and any images uploaded to the commons are likely to get deleted. —JeremyA 00:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. So really all the images on this page should be removed. The same goes for Fremont Troll and Portlandia.  At what point do those copyrights expire? Cacophony 04:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Copyrights expire 70 years after the death of the artist. However, maybe surprisingly, I'm not suggesting removing the two images of Cloud Gate in this article. I do think however that they should be retagged as fair use, possibly using the tag. My main objection was to the suggestion that more images of the bean be uploaded to the Commons, as they are likely to be deleted there. Likewise with the other sculptures you mention—one or two images to illustrate the article are good candidates for fair use, but keeping a more extensive gallery on the Commons would be a problem. JeremyA 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. The guidelines at Fair Use give the following guidance:
 * #3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
 * #8 The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.
 * #9. Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum.
 * There are also guidelines dealing with how the copyright attribution should be notated on the image description page. Cacophony 21:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just curious. Has anyone actually verified who presently owns the copyright? There would have been a contract covering the sale of the artwork to the city, and it's likely that the copyright issue was addressed in the contract. I wouldn't take the artist's word for it that the copyright is still his.


 * No one here has. But the Chicagoist talked to a Representative of the Chicago City Communications Department before publishing this article. So it seems that the city believes that Anish Kapoor is the copyright holder. —JeremyA 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As a citizen who has had extensive dealings with Chicago municipal bureaucrats, I can assure you that all they ever do is pass on hearsay and rarely have a handle of the facts.

I looked up, within Wikipedia, 'the Chicago Picasso', another large public sculpture in the city that dates from the late 1960's. Apparently, there was a lawsuit over the Picassos copyrights. It's thoroughly described at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_Edged_in_Black_Press%2C_Inc._v._Public_Building_Commission_of_Chicago    and is known as "The Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago 320 F. Supp. 1303 (1970)". It's no wonder this has become a touchy subject. Not surprisingly, the city of Chicago was wrong in that case. The judge ruled that photos of the sculpture were in the public domain. Someone should look up the actual sales contract for Cloudgate.


 * Please note, If you read the 'Letter Edged in Black' case you will see that the circumstances of the case are very particular to the Picasso sculpture and would be difficult to generalise to other sculptures. Also, the ruling is mostly based on the requirement for the display of a copyright notice--this requirement was removed from US copyright law in 1983. —Jeremy (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

photography banned?
I remember hearing that guards(?) were not allowing people to photograph the Cloud Gate. According to photo.net the ban has been lifted, but it probably deserves mentioniong in the article. Cacophony 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned in the "controversy" section.

Millenium Park imag
I think you removed Image:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg. Do we want this out of all articles about the various features. I have been including it in many for perspective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think it is very important in this article. It may have more relevance in the articles dealing with large areas of the park (Jay Pritzker Pavilion for example). Torsodog (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See the section above regarding image additions. Cacophony (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits by IPS
Recently, two IP editors have been dramatically editing this article, and for the most part I think it has a negative impact. If you want to copy edit, then that is fine. What you two have been doing also removes a lot of relevant information that the article benefits from having. If you disagree with how the information is written, the restate it, don't delete it. --TorsodogTalk 00:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the information in the article should be WP:PRESERVED.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some anonymous IP just deleted TTT's comments, so I restored...my apologies if that was actually TTT massaging his own comments. I'll get to work on the copyedit soon.  IP guys, I encourage you to get usernames.  It's not required, of course, but it's hard to have a conversation with a number, so you'll be more effective with usernames. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Editing is not just about better writing (which, by the way, neither TTT nor TD do well); it is also about removing useless information, which makes the article clunky, long and boring. There s such a thing as "over-information", and sorry to say that you two appear to be too much into yoursleves to recognize it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.251.232 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the two problematic IPs has been blocked for 24 hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Page is now semi-protected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Slippery slope to censorship ... But go ahead, protect mediocrity and tediousness! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.71.85 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Caught a glimpse of a news story two days ago mentioning "the bean" had been vandalized. Was hoping to locate more info on wikipedia. Oh well, maybe I'll move on to news.google.com 207.229.187.136 (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I was going to this bit of info in the article the day it happened, but I decided to wait until more info was released. I guess I should have added it, huh? --TorsodogTalk 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Stupid alternative texts deleted
I removed all the alternative texts, mostly facetious and in all cases unnecessary. This seems to be an unfortunate trend (facetiousness, not removing it) and doesn't get reverted as vandalism... ProfDEH (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your deletions. This is a FA and will soon be on the Main Page. Alt text does no harm to anyone and helps those with visual impairments. It is also required for Featured Articles. Please see WP:ALT. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I suggest you look at what the text says, and edit it to say something relevant. It doesn't add to the article in any way except maybe to raise a snigger. "Headshot of an Indian man with gray hair and black shirt" - what use is that? It certainly isn't useful additional information. They are all in th same vein more or less. I'm surprised nobody removed this nonsense sooner.ProfDEH (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Alternative text for images before making any more edits to alt text. Thanks. -- T orsodo g Talk 20:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OK I've read it. I had no idea this wasn't someone's idea of a joke. ProfDEH (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading it. Alt text is one of the newer hoops articles have to jump through on the way to FAC. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Juxtaposition
"The sculpture builds upon many of Kapoor's artistic themes, although many tourists simply view the sculpture and its unique reflective properties as a photo-taking opportunity."

Although I'm sure it was unintentional, this sentence comes off as disparaging of these "many tourists." The bit about Kapoor's artistic themes is relevant to the paragraph, but the adjunct is unnecessary and essentially calls most tourists philistines for taking pictures of the sculpture without appreciating the artistic vision behind it. I'm wary about changing something in a featured article, but I think this should be changed.

Pasta Salad (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I definitely see what you are saying. I think what the sentence is trying to convey though is that the piece is MUCH more popular simply for its reflective surface rather than the somewhat complex underlying themes. Is there a way we can change the sentence to convey that better? -- T orsodo g Talk 01:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the offender here is the concessive "although", which implies that what follows in the sentence runs counter to what came before. The sculpture's popularity as a fun photo-op is worth mentioning in the lead though, I agree.

We could go with simple coordination:

"The sculpture builds on many of Kapoor's artistic themes, and is popular with tourists as a photo-taking opportunity for its unique reflective properties."

Or it could be rearranged as an appostive phrase:

"Popular with tourists as a photo-taking opportunity due to its reflective surface, the sculpture builds on many of Kapoor's artistic themes." (It might do to list a few of these themes here as well.)

Or really anything that doesn't accidentally come off dismissive of non-academic enjoyment of the piece. I don't want to make it too unwieldy, but some rearrangement or rewording would be nice. Pasta Salad (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this? While the sculpture builds upon many of Kapoor's artistic themes, many tourists simply view the sculpture and its unique reflective properties as a photo-taking opportunity. I can edit the Mian Page blurb, but want to make a change that has consensus here first. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On second thought I like the simple coordination above (and as connector). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pasta's first suggestion seems like a suitable solution. By the way, the more I read the original sentence, the more I realize it needs to be changed. So, good catch! -- T orsodo g Talk 14:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I made the edit on the Main Page and in the article, thanks. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Administrator Mafia and Censorship
Reviewing the history pages carefully, there appears to be a systematic attempt by TonyTheTiger and Torsodog to monopolize the writing of this wiki entry and "undo" most entries by others. Compare the entries on July 5 00:30 and 17:56; July 17 16:56; 23:20; 23:58; and July 18 18:19. IP 99.253.251.232 and others did a fine job of editing the article (mostly very poor writing and repetition by TTT and TD) but these were almost immediately undone. No wonder the IP users (including me) got frustrated. TTT then got his wiki adminstrator buddies (Kafziel and Rudget) to "block" and "protect" this page. The wiki adminstrators have acted irresponsibly and in violation of wiki procedures; they have not carefully reviewed the history of this page and the activities of TTT and TD. This IS censorship!

Moreover, there is nothing wrong with contributing to articles with just IP addresses; these are no more anonymous than TTT or TD, or indeed "Kafziel" or "Rudget". If you are all so concerned about user identitifation and blocking anonymous IP users, then why do you not all register with your real names instead of hiding behind pseudonyms! Who are the real hypocrits and violators here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.71.85 (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have said many, many times before, I am not opposed to you copy editing my "poor" writing. Where I do have a problem, however, is you deleting relevant and sourced information. That is pretty much where I'm going to end this because unfortunately this entire ordeal has spiraled out of control. My advice to you is that you should act a bit more maturely when handling these situations and discuss your problems instead of quickly resorting to childish vandalism. Maybe then your grievances could be heard and resolved a bit quicker. --TorsodogTalk 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Main page image
I have emailed Anish Kapoor's studio, asking if he would release an image of Cloud Gate under a free license so that it can appear on the Main Page. If not, the picture of the kid and his reflection seems like the best bet. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No reply whatsoever from Anish Kapoor. Oh well, at least I tried. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

First picture
First picture is wrong?--Palapa (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a picture of the sculpture. Not sure what you mean, sorry. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo
File:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg Can this photo from the Anish Kapoor page be added? It gives a good sense of a) the sculpture in its environs and b) the omphalos. 81.129.133.186 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sculpture is copyrighted, so any photo of it is a WP:FAIR USE image. Per WP:NFCC, we to minimize the number of fair use images, so if a new image is added, a current one would have to be taken aways. I made the image a link above, as it cannot be on a talk page and be fair use. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, thanks for explaining. 81.129.133.186 (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats
Another fine article in the Millennium Park series by Tonythetiger, congrats on making it to the front page. Keep it up. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  21:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed image
I have removed File:Cloudgatelookingup.jpg just now as the sculpture is copyrighted work of art and so photographs of it are not free. Please see previous discussions on this talk page and Featured article candidates/Cloud Gate/archive4 for examples of this. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns - seriously?
"concerns arose that it might retain and conduct heat in a way that [...] one's tongue might stick to it during the winter"

Do Chicagoans traditionally lick public sculpture, or is "tongue" an error here? 173.196.56.2 (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone anywhere traditionally licks anything public, but every city has people looking to make a quick buck. I'm sure they were just trying to avoid a lawsuit. -- T orsodo g Talk 00:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The view of Cloud Gate from under.jpg

subjective, unclear, and masturbatory: this article needs serious revision
I did what I could, but someone really needs to fix this page. It reads like a press release written for Kapoor rather than an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:4101:A910:C945:F305:4F1B:5AE3 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

SBC in filename of featured image
I'm curious if the use of the letters SBC in the image filename (Image:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg) that is being used are some kind of connection with SBC the telecomm corporation. Does anyone know anything about this? The file was uploaded back in November of 2004 so I'm wondering if it was originally to be called the SBC Sculpture? -- Suso 13:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons photos
The photos in this article that are stored in the Wikimedia Commons are likely to be deleted soon as copyright violations (the sculpture is subject to copyright and freedom of panorama law in the US does not cover sculptures). Any of the photos that can be used as fair use should be re-uploaded to Wikipedia. —Jeremy (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya, we recently had this problem for the Crown Fountain article. I will work on this tonight. --TorsodogTalk 17:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved the three commons articles to WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this necessary?
"The unconventional gateway leads to a spiritual consciousness." -- I fail to understand the relevance of this subjective opinion. If this is a direct quote perhaps it should be enclosed within quotation marks. I was tempted to delete it outright but perhaps someone has a sufficient explanation for this statement? -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to track down the original source next time I am at the Chicago Public Library.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My issue is that the statement is, in my opinion, unencyclopedic. It is fine if this is a direct quote from the designer of this exhibit. Otherwise, it sounds a little new ageish, to put it bluntly, and not exactly the kind of thing I would expect to find in an encyclopedia. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  20:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed it just now as an unreferenced, uncited, subjective opinion. If someone finds that it's a quote, then it is of course fine in the article if the quote is attributed and if it's decided that it's sufficiently notable.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

JA WP images
I was looking at the Japanese WP article at http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/クラウド・ゲート and noticed two images that may be possible for use in this article:
 * http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Kapoormirror2.jpg
 * http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Kapoortent.jpg

The both show the Bean under construction. I am not sure if an under construction image counts against uses under the artistic copyright.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Info box on the right
I know nothing about this sculpture or I might check and fix it. In the info box thing at the top right, it says "Year:2004-2006". I must say this is incessantly cryptic. Were those the years the artist spent making it? The length of time it was displayed? I think elaborating just a bit on what the significance of those years are would go quite a long way.Farsight001 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added "Built" before the years - the infobox is a summary and the third sentence of the article gave the years of construction, so hopefully this is clearer now. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Praise and Controversy needs to be rewritten
The first paragraph of "Praise and Controversy" and possibly the entire section needs some citations to back up its claims. Otherwise (and possibly still) it's just a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions. In particular, the controversy over the cost was far more prominent in its history than the photography issue. And both of those are more encyclopedia-worthy than the statement about photos of it appearing on many websites.

Additionally, there references to copyright law are incorrect. For one thing, copyright law does not grant the artist protection from all images of the work. Rathe, the artist may only claim a reproduction of the work. This means that the artist can prevent others from producting a replication of the sculputure. The artist may also prevent some photos of the art work, but those representations must have been taken or designed by the artist; however, the artist is unable to prevent all photos (see Rock and Roll hall of fame case for case law citation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.72.10 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate tone?
There are quite a few wording issues in this article, for example: "From a distance it could be mistaken for a huge drop of mercury".. right, except I doubt anyone expects to see huge drops of mercury in Chicago. Why is this relevant?

"transforms... into a wonderfully warped new vista".. "wonderfully warped new vista"? Sounds like unencyclopedic tone, needs to be reworded. Coviti (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops! You are quite right in stating that my edits are too subjective(at least I think that's what you're doing). When I made my edits, I didn't even consider that a neutral tone was what was required for an encyclopedia, I was merely trying to rephrase what I considered poor writing. Inox-art (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Imperial gallons
Says the article ...

"Cloud Gate is wiped down twice a day by hand and is completely cleaned twice a year with 40 imperial gallons (181.8 l) of liquid detergent."

(emphasis added links removed) The sculpture is in America, right? Are we sure they're measuring the soap by the imperial gallon? Also, the nearest decilitre is a little precise. J IM ptalk·cont 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC) ... I've just changed it to 180 l. J IM ptalk·cont 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The source, which is WGN TV in Chicago, uses "gallons", which of course is U.S. gallons. So I've switched it, but left a conversion to imperial gallons for our friends in Canada and the U.K. &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 03:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Objection to instructive images
This sculpture is interesting for several reasons. Images that are currently included are illustrative. If some of them are at too high a resolution or need to be moved to WP those should be enumerated. However, the information that they convey should be WP:PRESERVEd. I am willing to write up FURs for any image that you may think needs one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Image:The Bean and McCormick Tribune Plaza.jpg was not necessary. The sculpture is not the focal point of the image and the image is instructive to the reader about what AT&T plaza is and the location of the Bean. Some other images will need FURs and I will get to those tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am both getting lazy and feeling unsure that the last two images require FURs. I think the subject of one is more the reflection of the Historic Michigan Boulevard District than the sculpture and in the other I feel that the emphasis on the winter weather again shifts the emphasis of the focal point of the image away from the sculpture.  I will add FURs to either as requested however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Break-Up
So Cloud Gate was featured in the movie The Break-Up? I didn't see either the movie or the sculpture. But I have a question: How can a sculpture that was dedicated on May 15, 2006 be featured in a movie released on June 2, about half a month later? Was it really that quick, or has the sculpture been around a long time, just not officially dedicated, or is the date wrong? --QQQ (9-15-06)