Talk:Marble Arch

Untitled
Marble Arch is a landmark building at Hyde Park Corner

Is that really correct? There is such a place as Hyde Park Corner (with an Underground station so named), but that is not where the Marble Arch stands.

Sebastjan

Oh dear. I was wrong. It's at Speaker's Corner, not Hyde Park Corner. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Heron

pretty sure anyone can walk through the arch these days, which contradicts the beginning here of this article...

Reason for moving Marble Arch
It says here that the Arch was moved from Buckingham Palace as it was found to be too narrow for the state coach but the article on Buckingham Palace says that it was moved to make way for the new east wing that Queen Victoria wanted built.

User:Amitn 08:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Amitn

Police station?
The article says that the arch accomodated a three-room police station. The Wellington Arch article says something similar about that arch too. I suspect some confusion. Can anybody clarify? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ''Random London Fact Of The Week
 * Two of London’s triumphal arches, Marble Arch and Wellington Arch, have housed small police stations within the last century. Marble Arch’s police station, consisting of just three small rooms, was operational until 1950; whereas Wellington Arch (situated in the middle of Hyde Park Corner roundabout) housed a police station that was not closed until 1992.''
 * Not a particularly good source, sorry. There was also a truly tiny police office in Trafalgar Square - housed in a stone building not much larger than a phone box. Kbthompson (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The website for the official Marble Arch BID says it was not, and that this is an urban myth (with a kernel of truth) Ollie299792458 (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Genghis Khan statue, relevant at all?
Hi just came across this article on BBC about a Ghengis Khan statue to be located at the Marble Arch. Might this information be included in the article? Link hrere: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17703290 2.99.30.225 (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
I added Infobox monument to the article, but it was removed. Can we see it restored and fully filled in? MRSC (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we can't. It was misleading and confusing, info boxes are not really suitable for architectural pages as they oversimplify.  Giano   18:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll restore the infobox, omitting the fields that you highlighted as ambiguous in your edit summary. There are other useful features we can add, such as a location map which is more effective than prose. Thanks for pointing out where there was ambiguity. MRSC (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The map is hideous, it spoils the look of the article. 92.40.7.30 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no need at all for an infobox. The lead says all that need to be said.  Giano   19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your problem with adding an infobox. It is a standard feature of Wikipedia articles. You have also removed co-ordinates from the article twice, as well as reverting other unrelated edits. I'm really confused by these actions. MRSC (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am very confused that you think this is a standard feature. How have you arrived at this baffling conclusion because it's far from a standard or accepted feature? Please restore the co-ords, this can be a problem when info is concealed in an infox.   Giano   19:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the coordinates. MRSC, see WP:INFOBOXUSE. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I don't see anything about this article that should preclude having an infobox. It is the first thing on an article that some readers will look for to get a snapshot of information and Infobox monument is widely used. MRSC (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, its not widely used and its not mandatory.  Giano   07:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see how much useful information we can get in there. Dimensions would be a good addition.


 * Can you explain why this article should not have it? Other than "I don't like it". Or more constructively, suggest some changes/additions? MRSC (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The size of the infobox is ludicrous. All necessary info is easily found in the lead without his huge monstrosity dominating the page.  Giano  12:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The size can be adjusted (I've made that change with this edit 300 > 250). Readers get their information in various ways from articles. We should provide that in 3 ways. Firstly an infobox with the most pertinent data, secondly the introduction which should summarise the whole article and thirdly the main body for those that want to read more. Some readers will only look at the infobox or introduction. As this is the most viewed London-related article it is inevitable that some readers will want to get their information this way. Let's work together to get this right for them and look beyond issues of personal taste. MRSC (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Adjusting the size in that manner limits the size of the image, which I would argue for an article of this nature is more crucial than almost anything else, and of course increasing the size of the image would increase the width of the infobox. I could take or leave a map in the article - it's not much help to someone who doesn't know London's geography - and the coordinates can be provided without a box. Otherwise, I agree with Giano - much of the information is overly reductive, and as you've demonstrated above, it would tend to be a bloat magnet. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think infoboxes are relevant, since they give quick and brief information about the monument. The map is a nice added feature to show where it is located. Not everyone knows about clicking on the geographic coordinates that will take you to a map. The width could be reduced. Gryffindor (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already explained above why reducing the width would be undesirable, and why the map is not particularly helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're being bothered again with this Nikkimaria, I'm afraid that Gryffindor has just followed me here as he's on a trolling spree of pages which I have heavily edited. He wanders in off the street onto pages on which he's never been seen before and adds info boxes full of errors and mistakes - I'm actually wandering if he's not deliberately trying to add false and misleading information. He is the worst sort of Wikipedian and should be de-sysoped for his behavior. No doubt the little troll will be screaming WP-OWN at me in a moment - that's usually the last resort of this type of pesky troll.  Giano   16:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't be quite that harsh with my assessment, I agree that some of his recent actions seem concerning. Gryffindor, if you haven't already, I would suggest reviewing WP:INFOBOXUSE - the inclusion or exclusion of a box is determined by consensus on the talk page, and defaults to status quo (which in this case was no box). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's all here ; these worthless trolls wandering in off the street are the curse of the project.  Giano   18:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Size?
How big is it? I'm surprised this isn't mentioned... 2602:306:CFEA:170:59A9:8236:43F6:FD67 (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Added that detail. Paul W (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)