Talk:Monumental sculpture

Something missing
How does an entry for Monumental sculpture not mention the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore, the Crazy Horse Memorial or Stone Mountain Georgia? ... or the Lion of Belfort in France, or the Tian Tan Buddha in Hong Kong? Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro ... or not a single one of these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.13.151 (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I just cut this out
or Sculptures in Stone in America.

It seems a lot like self-promotion. When Sculptures in Stone becomes a blue link, it might survive, or might not, but definitely not as a red link Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Namantar Shahid Smarak Nagpur.jpg
I moved this image which you added to the "Meaning in different contexts" to the gallery, as I could find no support for its relevance in that section of the article.

has expressed concern on my talk page that this image may not belong in this article at all. This talk page is the right place to have that discussion. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I know the issues here, but India is not presently represented otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem sections
I am not a big fan of citation needed tags, I'd rather discuss issues here and resolve them here. I am not happy about the "Disappearance of monumental sculpture" section - finding that it reads like sophomore essay, without references. For example, "the Protestant Reformation brought a halt to religious monumental sculpture in the regions concerned, and greatly reduced production of any monumental sculpture for several centuries." I'd like to see a reference for that claim. Then there is the "Contemporary work" section, which includes only one reference, which has, as far as I can see, no mention of "monumental" anything. There probably is a call for a contemporary work section, but (opinion) this ain't it. Your thoughts? Carptrash (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously???? Re the Reformation point. Perhaps you'd like to give an example of "religious monumental sculpture" from say the 250 years after the Reformation hit the Protestant country concerned. Try looking at Dutch Golden Age sculpture - oh, we don't have that. I wonder why not? Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Fine, so look up in Dutch Golden Age sculpture and find a nice reference. That shouldn't be problem for you. Carptrash (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no frigging Dutch Golden Age sculpture - not monumental and religious anyway. It's distinctly wierd you don't know when the Reformation was - especially as most of the world has been commemorating the 500th anniversary of its start this week! You probably want to read more sophomore essays. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So this is your way of saying that you don't have a reference? Carptrash (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, more can't be bothered to find the several references, probably country by country, that would ideally be needed for this 10 year-old article, which, you will note, has survived with very little change over that period. Especially on a sky-is-blue point like the Reformation one. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the morning .... It is always harder to reference things that don't exist.... Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My problem is not when the Reformation was but when the 15th Century was, something I have struggled with since my sophomore year in high school. Never mind the reference but your Sky is Blue thing is total BS, almost any reader can go out and check the sky color.  How many people in the street can tell you about the connection between the Reformation and ecclesiastic sculpture? But I do now remember why I don't edit here. Carptrash (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monumental sculpture. 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 tag to http://www.yalebooks.co.uk/yale/display.asp?K=9780300135411&bic=AFKB&sort=SORT_DATE%2Fd&ds=Sculpture&m=9&dc=44
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090101112536/http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/newfile30.htm to http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/newfile30.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780192804150

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) 06:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned
that two of the images in the gallery are more or less metal abstract works from the 1970s. One would be enough, or more than enough. But which one should go? How about both? Another guideline sometimes used in international articles such as this is only one example per country, the USA now has two. Carptrash (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

attempt at improving lead
The lead is a meandering mess. I tried to improve it with a series of edits but it was reverted in whole by an editor. Perhaps they can explain the reversion here? It is hard to list the number of problems. There's no opening definition of the topic. There's a very long digression into the meaning of "monumental" which is perhaps could go in the body. There's a one paragraph sentence- "A related idea is that of permanence..." with no context followed by a non-sequitur "However..." on the next paragraph. This isn't how a lead is written. It should be a self-contained summary of the topic and article. Volunteer1234 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no single definition, but overlapping concepts. Your version appeared to me to make things worse, by firstly claiming there was a single definition, then immediately going on to say there wasn't. I found it more confusing. I have tidied up by moving the "permanence" bit, which had been inserted in a bad place at some point. "Monumental sculpture is larger sculpture that may form whole or part of a monument." is not an accurate or adequate definition - small sculpted figures on a buuilding or me memorial can be described as "monumental". Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I added the definitions from the body so we now at least have a topic. The lead is supposed to reflect the body. The remaining lead is still a meandering essay on usage rather than about the topic. Volunteer1234 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think now we have a lead with a topic and summary of the body. It could be a bit longer, but the article itself is short. I moved the long discussion of definitions to its own section. Volunteer1234 (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not much good - the term is more used of older periods than of today. The article is not attempting to give a history of Monumental sculpture, or anything like that - that would be sculpture. The "meandering essay" is the main meat of the article. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Monumental art?
we have some red links to Monumental art. Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked Estopedist1 (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)