Talk:List of works similar to the 2020 Utah monolith/Archive 1

Monolith
Monolith is consented with any organizations Uff jsjsjbb (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Speculative Geographical Properties
Monolith Message has speculated -
 * Adelaide Monolith Coordinates Point in a Straight Line, the coordinates given in the Adelaide monolith line up.
 * Do the 2020 Monoliths spell out U.S.A?, placement of the monoliths may graphically read "U.S.A"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywalker8 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Article name
This is not a move request and not a vote. So, 2020 is almost over and 2021 will see more. My sense is the article is attempting to express a list of monoliths that were inspired by the Utah monolith. That is impossible to prove ("inspired by") in most cases, but clearly they are all part of a trend that started with the Utah monolith. Perhaps List of similar Utah monoliths would be more descriptive of what the list is trying to achieve. The word "similar" is the list criteria and is determined by editorial consensus, like every other list on Wikipedia that have subjective inclusion criteria. -- Green  C  18:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was previously named Listing of Similar Utah monoliths, but the name was changed by the reviewer who first reviewed the article after I created it under that name. I personally think the current title is a better choice than the previous title, and the title name you propose is virtually identical to the original name which was rejected by other editors. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, after considering your point, I tend to agree that "2020" in the name makes no sense at this point. The article does need a more generic name not tied to a particular date. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You had it right the first time. The user who renamed it was wrong. This is a very specific list, mononliths related to or similar to the Utah monolith. -- Green  C  21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"This whole thing is misnamed and should be deleted; "Mono-" meaning "one-piece" and "Lith" meaning "made of stone". These metal columns are just that: Metal columns, not monoliths. it has also been revealed to have been a faux-mystery hoax by a youtuber, so doesn't really qualify as "notable" either, in my opinion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-pKKM6CXr0 2600:1700:C5E1:64B0:5444:35EB:8261:557 (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Graphic commentary
Um, so someone will say this would be original research, or synthesized, or something, but... As I boggled at the number of copycats and peeked at same of the entries, it occurred to me that while covering *all* the instances of unoriginality is one form of commentary on the state of humanity, another simpler list is missing. Count the number of new or newly noted occurrences by date - such as 8 for Dec 8th - and format a simple graph of count by date. It will soon be apparent how unimaginative people are, since after the first duplications, and the duplications of the duplications, people were still duplicating the duplicated duplicates.

Oh my... Noooo... I wonder how many pages on Ebay are offering 'monolith' Christmas tree top ornaments? Shenme (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Baby Yoda has cornered that particular market for 2020 . Cnbrb (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shenme Plotting the number of monoliths by date is a good idea, only hard part is making sure you have the original news reports not later ones. and just needs to made clear this is a plot of when theyre discovered not when they were erected. Skywalker8 (talk) 12.25pm, 17 December 2020 (EST)

Sourcing issue
Sputnik News is said to be an unreliable source, however, this is the only source available. It shows photos and videos of a monolith similar to all the others. Of course, it could be faked, but so could be many of the others reported on this page. So the relevance in this case that the source is unreliable is not sufficient to remove it from the page, as video and image is shown on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywalker8 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The alleged monolith in Tula Oblast, Russia has been removed from this page.
 * If your edits were removed it's because they were not cited. As per WP:V and WP:CITE you need to provide a valid reference for your content or it will be tagged then removed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It was cited. See the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_2020_monoliths&oldid=993726653#Russia The issue was that it was removed due to Sputnik being an unreliable source. But as i said, its the only source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywalker8 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that. Another editor removed it apparently for the reason you mentioned.  Try to find another source then reinstate it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I looked up this monolith using a alternative database under debate mentioned elsewhere on the talk page and there's some more sources, however I am unsure if they will suffice. * https://rg.ru/ * RussaToday * and Sputnik News that was removed

Quinwound (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible Commercial Advertising
I removed the following from the article. This appears to be a commercial website (Monolith Tracker) using Wikipedia for advertising. Comments? Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Monolith Tracking efforts outside of wikipedia

 * Monolith Tracker, with 55 monoliths.
 * Monolith Message, tracking 45 monoliths
 * monolithmapper.ml, tracking 25 monoliths
 * Google Document tracking 17 monoliths
 * Map of seven monoliths

I help contribute to monolithtracker, and been editing wikipedia since 2004. I would like to clear up that Monolith Tracker is not a commercial website, and is a community project started on reddit. It's under a creative commons BY 4.0 license, and it's content is community contributed, and moderated. Theres no financial component to this website, no ads, no sponsored link in footers, and it's not associated with any company. My personal feeling is that these two communities could work closer together as both are trying to create a list of these monoliths under a Creative Commons licenses, with accurate sources. Quinwound (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for advertising to promote links to your off wiki website. Content from your website is considered a self-published source, and most of it's content is WP:OR.  If we were talking about a biography, then it could be referenced as a source if it were published by the subject of the bio, but this article is not a biography.  As it stands, your website and its content appears to not conform to WP:RS.  We can certainly discuss it here on this page with other editors and see what the view is as to whether it meets wikipedia content standards. Your website is essentially a blog and we don't consider blogs to be reliable sources unless the article is about the blog.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland but what about sharing primary news sources and since the site is CC sharing monolith descriptions. The site of topic is not a primary source so it couldn't be used as a source link. However we do collect primary sources. Are you saying there is no way to collaborate? Right now I do not feel invited to edit the page, as a single one of edits were reverted, and I've no intention of pushing the revert rule. Quinwound (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally like your website and think it would add a lot to the article. Also, I totally appreciate your approach to reviewing this content and not reinstating it until we come to an agreement.  Given the fact you are not hosting ads, at this point I support posting a link in the article to the monolith tracker in the "external links" section.  I support reinstating the link but I don't think we can mention it in the body of the article.  If any other editors object to it, then they can remove it.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Count of monoliths

 * a count of the monoliths can be placed in the property box. i count 67 on this page so far. the count could be automated maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywalker8 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible sighting in Ørland. No further confirmation found. TGCP (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Adelaide Monolith into List of 2020 monoliths
Doesn't seem any more or less significant than the other monoliths around the world, many of which received press coverage. This one was only in place for a couple of days, and nothing seems to have happened since its removal on the 12th. Lord Belbury (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support merge into this article as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support merge into this article as per above. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support merge into this article as per above. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

List of 2020 monoliths → List of similar Utah monoliths – Having the year "2020" in the article title is ambiguous since it will soon be 2021, and by all accounts, more copycat monoliths will undoubtedly continue to appear across the world. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

To the RM closer, please refer to the table below for proposed and discussed titles for the article, along with consensus for each proposed title. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Support or something similar to indicate the list's connection with the Utah monolith. For example List of monoliths similar to the 2020 Utah monolith. -- Green  C  22:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose poorly structured title and has the same problem, as these things aren't just popping up in Utah. blindlynx (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What title would you propose for this article? Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Considering that the the wp:COMMONNAME is just 'monoliths' any qualification runs into the same problem that you pointed out in the move request. But maybe something like 'list of monoliths (2020 phenomena)' or ' list of utah like monoliths'??? blindlynx (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposed title does not indicated it is a list of Utah monoliths. -- Green  C  14:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposed title indicated that it is a list of monuments that are simmilar to each other in utah. blindlynx (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose one solution if more come in 2021, is just to make another page for 2021. theres no certainty that we get more in 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywalker8 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok so we also include monoliths in 2021 that look nothing like the Utah monolith, have no connection to it, were not inspired by it, do not look similar to it.. The problem is the title is too generic it includes all monoliths. -- Green  C  14:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Qualified support - yes to dropping the year from the title, but the suggested title is poorly worded. Maybe place it in the decade - call it the 2020s Monoliths Phenomenon? Or the Monoliths fad? Cnbrb (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdraw support Reflecting on the discussion here, I've decided all the suggestions are awful, sorry. It's simpler to start another list for 2021, then leave it a few months and revisit it when everything seems clearer. Cnbrb (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the support for a better name. Your suggestions indicate two conceptual approaches: a list of copycats of the Utah monolith ("similar Utah monoliths"); or a phenomenon onto itself ("Monoliths phenomenon"). Everyone recognizes this in relation to the "Utah monolith", any title without those two words will be ambiguous, assuming prior knowledge. In 5 or 10 years will the title have meaning to those who forgot or were too young to remember? Another idea is to be literal as possible: List of monoliths similar to the 2020 Utah monolith  --  Green  C  15:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Could work. However, thinking about it a bit more, I feel it's difficult to define a title for the monolith phenomenon/craze, as it hasn't been given a proper name as yet. We can't really invent a title or we'll stray into WP:NEO. Maybe the year should stay in the title for now. Perhaps temporarily it could move to List of 2020-2021 monoliths for a few months, until the fad settles down, or goes out of fashion, or is properly identified.Cnbrb (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No--"List of similar Utah monoliths" is a bad title. What monolith? What similarity? Drmies (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 's alternative, namely List of monoliths similar to the 2020 Utah monolith. I do not support the proposal for List of similar Utah monoliths, because that phrase is very hard to parse. Any new title is going to be a bit ungainly. Perhaps the most accurate would be List of monoliths that appeared in late 2020, but if they keep appearing in 2021 then we'd have to change again. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. The list concerns the Utah monolith copycats so a title without the words "Utah monolith" doesn't accurately describe the list, rather describes all monoliths. -- Green  C  22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support 's alternative, namely List of monoliths similar to the 2020 Utah monolith. Ultimately, this is what the article is about.  If it expanded to any monolith (i.e. not a copy of the Utah version), then the list would become too indiscriminate and unwieldy. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Prefer List of works similar to the 2020 Utah monolith, and therefore reject this now as inferior. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also Support the List of works similar to the 2020 Utah monolith as another option. 109.255.90.188 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. We certainly have no examples of, nor any announced reliable plans for, monoliths in 2021; indeed, 2021 isn't even here yet. If we do see additional monoliths next year, at some point they'll likely stop being individually listworthy.  C Thomas3   (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed title per blindlynx. I don't see much of a problem with changing the existing title's "2000" to "2020–2021" (etc.) if the phenomenon continues beyond this year. Weak support for List of monoliths similar to the 2020 Utah monolith, but as the repetition of "monolith" is unfortunate I would suggest List of works similar to the 2020 Utah monolith instead. Ham II (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed hyphens to dashes (per MOS:DATERANGE) in the table below, and added my support to List of 2020–2021 monoliths, per my comment above. I'm considering withdrawing my weak support for List of monoliths similar to the 2020 Utah monolith to give List of works similar to the 2020 Utah monolith a better chance. I've also added another proposal: List of mystery monoliths, as "mystery monolith" has 289,000 Google results. Ham II (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Titles
Please feel free to edit this table and add your choices or suggest other titles. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I reject any that do not have the words "Utah monolith"; without those words it does not accurately describe the page topic, it assumes prior knowledge and/or looks like it could be for any monolith. -- Green  C  03:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Just like in the Category:Unexplained_phenomena category there are different pages eg. based on year for 1468 and 1808 mystery eruptions. these pages should go in that category.so i vote for the seperate pages. -Skywalker8

Some of these make no grammatical sense. What does "similar Utah monoliths" mean? Monoliths in Utah that are similar to each other? Clearly not the case. "Utah-like monoliths"? That means monoliths that resemble the state of Utah. Until the phenomenon acquires a collective title in the media, we're lumbered with a long and clumsy title such as no. 1 - but it actually makes sense. Cnbrb (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * None of these titles are good. The monoliths aren't Utah-like. I think the best is List of 2020-2021 monoliths but really... not great. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 16:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like we're going to end up with something wp:overprecise like 'List of Monoliths related to the 2020 Utah monolith phenomenon' or 'List of Utah-monument-like monuments' soon. blindlynx (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Titles don't have to be that precise when there's no other subject they could be easily confused with. Would suggest "silver monoliths" or "silver monolith sculptures" as a recognisable and neutral description of the artworks; some sources certainly just refer to them as "silver monoliths". A similar article like List of hillside letters seems okay with setting out its term-of-art definition in the lead, and excluding certain items that would technically fall under the title but aren't listed.
 * The suggested List of monoliths similar to the 2020 Utah monolith would be better if it didn't repeat the word "monolith". --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , What's your proposed title? Also, please vote for one of them above if you agree with it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I put List of silver monolith sculptures on there yesterday, I don't think anything else quite works. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the "2020" necessary in List of works similar to the 2020 Utah monolith? The sculpture itself dates from 2016, and the article about it is just called Utah monolith. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion, added to table. Octoberwoodland (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Bold title move
We are now at the point where large amounts of content are being deleted from the list because the monoliths are not from 2020 (ie. from 2021). Based on the above conversations I am bold moving the page to List of works similar to the 2020 Utah monolith to encompass regardless of year. -- Green  C  22:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus to split the list into multiple articles. -- Green  C  22:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I support this move.  We need to have an RM closer close the rename discussion. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was using common sense. The article title was "List of 2020 monoliths", so why would we allow 2021 monoliths in the list? I was being bold, like you when you moved the page. It also wasn’t large amounts, it was five examples out of a list of about 100. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 23:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Metal, wood and plastic
Some monoliths are described as sheet metal over a wooden frame. Was that a common enough construction method that we should be describing the monoliths as a whole as "metal and wood" rather than "metal"? Were any of these replicas solid metal?

We also know that the Isle of Wight monolith used mirrored plastic sheeting rather than metal. Do we know if that's a single outlier case, or were a lot of them made on the cheap like that? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)