Talk:Marble Arch Mound

Arch damage
While reference 5 is accurately stated, it seems misleading. The mortar would likely be damaged not by lack of sunlight (as would a plant) but by the resulting moisture that would accumulate because of that constant darkness. Perhaps just saying that the experts feared the arch would be damaged would be better? Unknowntouncertain (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Making it less specific risks sounding even more misleading, as if they were worried that the arch might be physically damaged by the scaffolding or the weight of visitors!
 * The source we're citing uses pretty much the same words ("Conservation experts advised that shrouding the almost 200-year-old stone structure in total darkness for six months could risk weakening the mortar joints, leading to potential collapse."). Unless we can find other sources that go into more detail, I think are choices are echoing some version of that, or just ending the sentence at "rejected by conservation experts" to avoid any risk of confusion at all.
 * The current "rejected by conservation experts who were concerned that six months of darkness may weaken the mortar joints" seems okay to me, though. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK
The article got 12,453 views – well done Edward and the others. As it happens, I had booked tickets for that day and so got to go up to the top and take pictures. I've added a few more and have lots more offline too. Note that entry did not actually require a ticket -- they are just letting people go up as they please. The gatekeeper, who had a traffic clicker, said that they are getting about 500/hour during the weekends and 300/hour during weekdays. It was reasonably busy without being unpleasantly crowded so it's worth stopping by if you're in the area. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Photos
Hi. I noticed you've uploaded photos of the Mound to enwiki rather than Commons. While you're fine to do that if you really want, there are many advantages to uploading to Commons, the main being it can be found easily in the future, categorisation and usage on other projects. The wording in the upload wizard you mentioned above is there as a catch+ -all; different countries have different copyright laws. In the case of the UK, basically any public structure (including interiors) is fine under freedom of panorama laws, and if anything it offers more use that after the mound is removed images will still exist, for future use. If you really want to keep the photos on enwiki you can, but there are a fair few advantages in uploading them to Commons. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 12:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I shall be sticking to my current practise which has the following advantages:


 * It avoids going to a separate project with its separate staff, policies and processes
 * The same process is used for all images -- whether they are my own, fair use, historical or whatever
 * The images go on my watchlist here which is the one that I watch


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)