Talk:Mole (architecture)

Photo
Check out: http://www.alamedainfo.com/Alameda_CA_Postcards_3.htm --evrik (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mole/Jetty Merge Proposal
(reiteration of comment in Jetty article discussion). I'm against such a merger. For a starter, I agree that a jetty is a small pier. By contrast, a mole is a massive structure. A mole is a specifically combined structure of causeway and pier, and has nothing to do with being a breakwater, extending a river channel, etc. It's sole purpose is to enable docking of large vessels in deep water where extensive marshlands or shallows intervene. The usage also appears to have been peculiarly common in the San Francisco Bay. The articles should stay distinct, and especially so until the Jetty article has been edited further to conform with the emerging consensus as to the definition of "jetty". Tmangray (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Odd, that I'd actually have to go into the talk section to find the actual reason that a mole would be built (as opposed to, say, a dock or a jetty). However, I had the moles at Gibraltar in mind when looking this up, and clearly, they have no marshlands there.Frunobulax (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Changing of title of the article
I think it is rational to change the title of this article (Mole (architecture)) to Mole (structure). We also have an article of Breakwater (structure)--Bioneer1 (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to leave it as it is. mole (architecture) gives a better disambiguation than mole (structure).  There are structures in many other fields: biology, chemistry, electronics and so on.  If I had created the article I might have chosen mole (civil engineering), but I see no pressing need to change anything.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  16:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Methinks this article's chronological references are scrambled and incomplete.
The Venice molo at the end should be first. There should be reference to the Renaissance mole at Genoa and other early-modern moles; then Dunkirk's, then the one(s) in Oakland-Alameda, etc. Dadofsam (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Image arrangement
I reverted the recent change to the image layout because I don't think it was particularly an improvemnet. Most of the images relate to moles discussed in the text and are better placed where they are referenced rather than a gallery at the end. Also, the Alameda Mole is not the best lede image as it does not show the essential features that define a mole. I do not even agree that the change solved the claimed problem of excessive white space on a wide screen. With 10pt text on a 1024px display there is minimal whitespace in either layout. On a 1920px display I measured 39 sq. in of whitespace on the old display and 38 sq. in on the new display. Hardly a major improvement. With a larger size font the old layout can actually have less whitespace than the new layout.  Spinning Spark  02:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The white space to which I referred is between the images and below the text (I'm viewing it at 1600 pixels width). To me a gallery alleviates what I perceive as an unnecessary large open space.  I don't have a particular opinion on the lead image.
 * Sorry, you can't rearrange articles just to suite your personal viewing preferences. My screen is 1920 pixels wide and your layout looks really ugly on that with lots of whitespace to the right of the gallery.  In fact I could display the page at 3940 pixels if I wanted as I have a dual monitor extended display (although I only rarely look at anything that full screen).  If there is some MoS justification for the change then that is a different matter, but I don't think there is.  The usual Wikipedia style is to embed images in the text to which they relate per WP:GALLERY.  We only go to galleries when all the images cannot be accomodated in the text or they do not relate to any particular section.  Even then, WP:GALLERY requires the gallery to have a theme more specific than just the article subject.  Spinning  Spark  15:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In any case, would you agree to an External links section for the Commons template?—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't bother me, but it would probably bother someone—it is explicitly contrary to WP:ELLAYOUT: "Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates", although you could use Commons-inline instead.  Spinning Spark  14:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mole (architecture). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070721005216/http://www.eblacenter.unito.it/WP/2005/6_WP_Ebla.pdf to http://www.eblacenter.unito.it/WP/2005/6_WP_Ebla.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216130340/http://www.authenticwonders.com/Alexandria/History/legacy.html to http://www.authenticwonders.com/Alexandria/History/legacy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)