Talk:London Eye/Archive 2

Please add my edit of Cheap imitations
Some cheap Indian has reverted to previous edit. Whatever I added was 100% constructive and informative. People of London need to know that what cheap imitations exist of their original piece. Please bring it back. Why this Indian is behaving like an autocrat? Is this a free and open encyclopedia or a forum to intimidate other editors from editing? I want some senior admin to please interfere and check the autocracy of this Indian. (anonymous)


 * Don't worry; no such thing will happen. Far as I see, the removal is entirely reasonable; your material being more abusive than informative.  If you want a comprehensive list of imitators including Singapore Flyer they can go into WP:SEE ALSO.  If you propose a general comparison of pricing and construction cost, it will require careful writing with proper regard to considerations such as WP:UNDUE and WP:POV but if you want to make the effort, go right ahead.  Before inserting your proposed improvements you might want to present them here in the Talk Page for discussion and polishing.  Jim.henderson (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Previous name
Shouldn't it at least be mentioned somewhere that it was known as the Millennium Wheel at the time of its opening? Or are people so embarrassed by the connection to the Millennium Dome that you want to pretent it wasn't? /81.170.148.21 (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Check out the third paragraph. 2.26.139.130 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See also this revision - from 7 March 2003! 2.26.139.130 (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Motorised capsules in the London Eye
In another article in the section Observation_wheel there is mention of "motorised capsules" in the London Eye. Can someone explain the "motorised" part of the capsules and what these motors do within the design of the London Eye, please. It is not made clear but does it mean that the rotation of the London Eye is due to the individual motors of the 32 capsules and the wheel itself does not have a motor to rotate it? --VanBurenen (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To remain upright, the capsules must rotate in the opposite direction to the wheel. Each capsule has its own motors, which rotate that capsule alone, independent of the motors that rotate the wheel itself. 92.40.86.79 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The capsules would also remain upright due to gravity if they are hanging freely from their hanging points. In that case only the wheel would have to have a motor to rotate it. On the other hand, if every capsule has a motor (32 of them) then why would the large wheel need a motor? (In either case, the hangingmechanism of the capsule has to have a gear system in addition to the motor to make it work.)   --VanBurenen (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The capsules are not "hanging", there are no "hanging points" or "hangingmechanism". Look at the photographs, the principle of the design is clear when you observe how the capsules are attached to the wheel. 92.40.86.79 (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Pop Culture
Pop Culture should be removed or expanded. It MUST say something more than "As a prominent London landmark, the London Eye often appears in popular culture." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.116.31 (talk • contribs)
 * ✅. The London Eye in popular culture link moved to lead and section removed. 27.55.140.134 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

EDF Energy London Eye logo - WP:NOTADVERTISING
Does anyone else think that that "EDF Energy London Eye logo" featuring promonently at the top might fall foul of WP:NOTADVERTISING? NickCT (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed Corporate branding of page as per WP:NOTADVERTISING, should it reoccur WP:BEBOLD and remove it. Hobofixer (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My edit was rapidly reverted by User:AxG. Let's not start an edit war please, discuss it here. I propose a corporate logo branding the page does not constitute 'objective and unbiased' as you suggest. Hobofixer (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We may get away with a little about the corporate ownership in the lead section. For the image, if we apply WP:NOTADVERTISING here, then surely, we would have to also apply it other pages that contain copyrighted logos, with specific branding, such as many football articles, e.g. Scottish Premier League, Football League One etc? --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 23:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it's necessary to suggest a Slippery slope regarding the logo; that's a Fallacy of false equivalency. A Football league (in your example) does not equal an internationally well known Landmark. Whoever paid for the most recent corporate branding is of far less importance to the majority of readers as the Landmark itself. Placing a corporate brand logo above the photo of the landmark itself OR inside the Infobox at all AND mention about its sponsorship in the first paragraph is NOT 'objective and unbiased'. It goes against WP:NOTADVERTISING in both wording and spirit.


 * It is, however, not unreasonable to have the names the London Eye has been given over the years featured somewhere in the article. But it is far less notewothy than the Landmark itself. Indeed mention of who currently sponsors it in conjunction with a the list of other names presented in an unbiased and objective manner further down the article would allow readers to view that information without giving it the ridiculous weight and importance it had been given at the top of the page. Hobofixer (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
Is there any criticism to the London Eye? As pretty as it is, has anyone voiced his/her criticism against it? Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section
The criticism section does not seem to contain any criticism...?

Should the title be changed?

Lukes123 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Maximum speed possible?
Has the maximum speed the London Eye could possibly be run even been published? In a normal run, the speed is only 0.26 m/s. But is that really the fastest speed the machine could possibly go? Or can it be run at a faster speed without breaking?Inkan1969 (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Rotation rate
This is given as a linear velocity resulting in a full rotation every 30 minutes. I find this undesirable because in a rotational context, it is much better to instead use angular velocity. Even if the one revolution per 30 minutes implies pi radians per hour, firstly I'd prefer this in radians per second, and secondly the linear velocity should be given at a certain radius. Even then, I don't necessarily find that desirable. I took a trip on the Eye earlier today and since one's radius is (in my opinion) significantly affected by one's position in the cabin, a pure angular velocity would be much simpler. By the way, the figures are unsourced and not consistent with the 20 minute period I was told about and experienced, including stops for disabled passengers to get on.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "SLOWLY BUT SURELY -- Each rotation takes about 30 minutes, meaning a capsule travels at a stately 26cm per second, or 0.9km (0.6 miles) per hour - twice as fast as a tortoise sprinting; allowing passengers to step on and off without the wheel having to stop" 86.166.185.252 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's all we have, so be it. But it would seem like the given angular velocity does take into account stops for disabled people, since it is equivalent to a linear velocity of about 21 cm/s. The 26 cm/s figure is more consistent with what I experienced, but of course my experience is not a reliable source.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved.  Calidum Talk To Me 02:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JaJaWa (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 August 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:THE. Is not consistently referred to as The London Eye in running text on the http://londoneye.com website. 86.166.185.252 (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment what's the reasoning for this request? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 86.166.185.252. I can't see why we'd want to be in too much hurry to get "the" into article titles, and as 252 points out the official web site says "by combining your London Eye experience with" and "See London from a different perspective with a London Eye River Cruise" rather than "by combining your The London Eye experience with" and "See London from a different perspective with a The London Eye River Cruise" etc etc. With all due respect I strongly feel that this is an inadvisable move. DBaK (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to see people's opinions on this as the Wikipedia page was originally titled The London Eye and the attraction has now reverted to this name.  JaJaWa &#124; talk  22:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (And the Shard's page is called The Shard)  JaJaWa &#124; talk  22:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mainly per above. Not consistent with what I saw at the gift shops either.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment  sigh,  Gregkaye (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It seems it is and it isn't called THE London Eye, Even it's own website seems to have no idea, I for one have no idea but I say to save everyone getting confused and reverting back and fourth to the preferred name we should just leave it as it is. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  05:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coca-Cola?
I heard the London Eye is going to be sponsored by Coca-Cola. Is that true, and shouldn't it be mentioned on the page? VenomousConcept (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Costs
How much did it cost to build and how much does it cost to ride? 202.130.86.84 (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Cost to build is in the infobox at the top of the article. For ticket prices, follow the 'official website' link in the 'External links' section at the bottom of the article. 202.44.224.184 (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)