Talk:Clock tower

message: Once again, continued reverts of each other, particularly with no discussion on the talk page, particularly when asked not to by other users editing the article will not be tolerated.  This article is now added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WGFinley (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Instantnood|Instantood]] and [[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] Ban

message: I note that User:HenryLi has recently made this edit , resulting in the claim that a tower in HK is "one of the three world famous" with the likes of the Big Ben, the Rajabai Tower and the Spasskaya Tower. How accurate is this asertion, for it looks to me to be introducing too much local bias?--Huaiwei 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Best-known?

message: "The Clock Tower in Leicester, England, is a major landmark in the city, owing somewhat to the fact that it is the de rigueur meeting point in the city."
Is this really neccecary? I'd say that many other cities around the world have some clock towers as major landmarks and known meeting points, so I don't see the point mentioning just the clock tower of Leicester, other than as an example that clock towers may also serve as a meeting points and are usually major landmarks. And I would say that the clock tower of Leicester is a known meeting point because it is a known landmark. Not that it is a major landmark because it is a known meeting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.198.249 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree with you so I've removed that entry - Adrian Pingstone 21:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Clock Tower in Leicester

message: Were the clocks added to it in 2000 or 2004?  Either this or the building's main entry is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PennaBoy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warsaw Palace of Culture

message: Surely, there must be a picture of Big Ben?   Tourskin 00:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Ben 

message: If mechanical clocks were invented some time between 1000AD and 1300AD, how are there Ancient Roman clock towers ? DCDuring 00:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Preposterous Anachronism

message: This one   should be mentioned as well. Shame that the english article  doesn't mention the clock tower. 201.19.151.15 (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central do Brasil 

message: According to the American Woolen Company article, the four sided chiming clocktower of the Ayer Mill is only slightly smaller than Big Ben, making it the largest four sided chiming clocktower in North America and second in the world to Big Ben.  As an area native, this fact has never been widely circulated, so I'm questioning its validity.  Anyone want to look into it?  If at all true, the clock, which I have closer shots of, should be in this article.  Thanks, CSZero (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayer Mill, Lawrence, Massachusetts 

message: NTT_Docomo_Yoyogi_Building is not in the list, suppose to be the tallest clock tower in the world..@Photnart. (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NTT_Docomo_Yoyogi_Building 

message: Added a clock tower in Tirana and also alphabetized the European countries clock towers. Hope nothing controversial. I suggest that the article split between the main body and the list of clock towers for clarity. --Sulmues (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit 

message: Needs its own article. Cj4258 (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the section, as it is totally incoherent machine translation of a single copyrighted source, and would require a complete rewrite to become an article.--CoJaBo (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

text: In fact, it has its own article already.--CoJaBo (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mecca Tower 

message: User IP 93.97.79.113 added a link to As Time Goes By Ltd's website under List of Tower Clock Makers section where there are only links to articles - shouldn't this link be under External Links or is it allowed at all? Cj4258 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  As Time Goes By Ltd Link 

message: Unless anyone objects I will be removing examples of clock towers that do not fit the definition of a clock tower that is stated at the start of this article. It is pointless to have a definition which is then ignored later in the article using erroneous examples. Robynthehode (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing examples of Clock Towers

message: I think there's already enough content here, and even more potential content, to warrant create a List of clock towers article. I will do this if there is no opposition. —Ynhockey (Talk) 03:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of clock towers is a good idea if the main article without the list is sufficient to represent 'clock towers' fairly. My previous post about removing examples still stands and has not had any comments. I will be removing all examples of supposed clock towers that fail to fulfil the definition of a 'clock tower' which is stated at the start of the article. This means removing all examples where clocks have been added to existing buildings. A clock tower by definition is a specific kind of building not merely a clock on a building.Robynthehode (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I split the list to List of clock towers per above. --ELEKHHT 08:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split suggestion 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_Tower,_Palace_of_Westminster claims to be the third tallest free-standing clock tower, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_tower#Landmarks appears to disagree. Free standing is not mentioned here which probably makes a difference 131.217.33.146 (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third biggest? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Clock tower. 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/20071225091836/http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/HistoryofSciences.htm to http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/HistoryofSciences.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've added İzmir Clock Tower to the landmarks section of the article but my edit was reverted. It is a notable clock tower and an important landmark for İzmir, a city with three million inhabitants. It is the most known structure of the city and even mentioned in the UNESCO tentative list submission of the city. In light of these facts, it should be included in the article.--BSRF (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking this to the talk page. In comparison to the other clock towers listed it is not notable. If Izmir was to become a UNESCO world heritage site then there may be an argument for inclusion then but being part of a tentative list is not sufficient. There is no need to list every clock tower in this article as there is a list article List of clock towers which you can add it to if its not already there. If you wanted to you could help improve the list article by helping me convert it to a table format. Unfortunately the Izmir clock tower does not fulfil the criteria for inclusion in either the List of largest clock faces nor a new article I am writing 'The tallest clock towers in the world'. As clock towers are important historical structures you might want to consider creating another clock tower list article based on other criteria - say the oldest ones. Although all new articles go through a notability process. Otherwise please leave it out of this article until consensus has been reached about its inclusion or not. Robynthehode (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence of the landmarks section is as follows: "Some clock towers have become famous landmarks." İzmir Clock Tower is the most famous structure in İzmir (serves as the symbol of the city), and probably the most famous clock tower in Turkey. A tower doesn't have to be the tallest or the oldest to become a landmark. I can't see any reason not to add it. You said "In comparison to the other clock towers listed it is not notable." What are your notability criteria and how can you impose such criteria? You cannot prevent users from editing articles by making such excuses. Per WP:N, İzmir Clock Tower is notable and has its own article since 2008. So it's not a new article as you've claimed.--BSRF (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The context of the the sentence meaning "Some clock towers have become famous landmarks" is famous across the world not famous in one city or even country. Again the list is long enough as the list is a concise list of notable clock towers. I don't know why you are referencing 'ownership of articles'. This is not a case of that but the normal process of discussing content in an article and trying to reach a consensus. Disagreement is part of Wikipedia editing and there are processes to follow. See WP:BRD. Again whether a subject has had a Wikipedia article and for how long does not confer notability or more precisely noteworthiness. Please read the whole of the notability article WP:N including WP:NNC and WP:ARTN. WP:DUE may come into play. The discussion here really revolves around whether this concise list should be expanded (at all) and which clock towers should be included if the answer to the first question is yes. Finally I think you have misinterpreted my post saying I have claimed either this article or the Izmir Clock Tower article is new. I have not. If my post was not clear then I shall clarify - I was only talking about new articles in reference to the possibility of creating a new article based on other criteria. I have suggested options to include Izmir Clock Tower elsewhere. Have you considered those? If you still object and want to include Izmir Clock Tower in this article then you are perfectly entitled to: discuss further so we can come to a consensus; follow WP:3O; follow WP:RFC. Always happy to be convinced otherwise re my position on content but all options are open. Robynthehode (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Philadelphia City Hall, which is contemporary with İzmir Clock Tower, famous across the whole world? I don't think so. It's not listed by the UNESCO as a World Heritage Site unlike Rajabai Clock Tower and Zytglogge but it is still included in the article. I'm adding a maintenance template to the section which clearly needs additional inline citations. WP:NNC, WP:ARTN and WP:DUE have nothing to do with this discussion. The problem here is not notability or neutrality. The problem is that you impose subjective criteria for inclusion and it makes me think that you are acting like you own the article.--BSRF (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right about Philadelphia City Hall it would depend on whether it is mentioned widely in reliable sources. But making that comment about this clock tower does not justify adding another without suitable widespread reliable sources that say it is noteworthy. This is exactly my point about Izmir Clock Tower and I asked you to supply reliable sources about your favoured clock tower but you have failed to do so as far as I can see. Our interpretation of WP:NNC, WP:ARTN and WP:DUE differ so we will have to leave it to others to correct either of us. Suggesting again that I am trying to own the article and impose my view on the content because you are not getting your own way is divisive and not a way to reach consensus. I have suggested options on how to resolve this and you don't seem to want to work with me in reaching consensus even though I have admitted I may be wrong and am willing to change my view. I will leave it with you to follow correct Wikipedia procedure as per my previous post and involve other editors in dispute resolution. Please do not change the article without doing this. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your approach confirms what I've said so far. All I asked from you was to show me objective criteria about inclusion but you've failed to do so. You don't let anyone add another article to the section but you don't remove a similar article which lacks reliable sources. Here are the reliable sources about my "favoured" clock tower. I didn't know that I had to copy all the sources to this article since the other articles in the section don't have inline citations but their respective articles do. I don't want to spend more time on this subject. Eventually, someone will see this discussion and express their views. You can have it all to yourself for now. But please do not remove the maintenance template without providing reliable sources. Thanks.--BSRF (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't failed to do anything. It is incumbent on the editor adding content (you) to provide reliable sources to justify whether said content is suitable and noteworthy. This I asked you to do and you failed to do this. The contention is about whether the Izmir Clock Tower is a landmark or not in the context of the landmarks section in this article and in comparison to the other entries already there. It is not about whether the Izmir Clock Tower should have an article, the references in that article or any other related points about this specific structure (although you could use sources from the Izmir Clock Tower article to support your case). I am sorry you can't see that the dispute is solely about the point of contention re landmark status. I am also sorry you haven't wanted to engage with the process by supplying the requested reliable sources or to engage with the dispute resolution process (where I offered links to make it easy to engage with that process). I offered options for a resolution. You have failed to offer any options except for your repeated insistence for the inclusion of Izmir Clock Tower in the landmarks section because you think it should be there. That is not how content addition or consensus is made. Maybe you should read up on WP:TRUTH, WP:V and WP:CONSENSUS. I am still open to you or others demonstrating my error/s (if I have made them) and would be happy if consensus goes against my view or for you to engage with dispute resolution WP:3O, WP:RFC, or WP:DRN. Thanks for your time. Robynthehode (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

text: The section still doesn't have inline citations. You shouldn't have removed the template before providing reliable sources supporting your findings. The issue has not yet been resolved. Readers don't have to read every individual article. We should provide sources for them in this article.--BSRF (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think inline citations for each entry of the prose list in that section will make it look messy. I think its pedantic to be honest but I am happy to do it if there is consensus to do so. I think I am going to ask for WP:3O or WP:RFC before doing this so that the decision is not just one made by us if at all possible and then maybe we can lay this issue to rest. Would that be agreeable? Robynthehode (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You reverted my edit when I added İzmir Clock Tower to the section without providing an inline citation. But now you say inline citations look messy. Isn't it a double standard? I don't know what to say. You leave me speechless.--BSRF (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misinterpreting things here. I reverted your edit because I thought it wasn't noteworthy enough. Not because it didn't have an inline citation. In the talk page discussion I asked for a reliable source/s to confer noteworthiness for this clock tower and you haven't provided a suitable one (or more). As you clearly stated early in our discussion Ismir clock tower has a Wikipedia article. Presumably you stated this to use that as evidence in comparing it to the other clock tower entries so I don't quite understand why inline citations are now part of the discussion. I believe the article links are sufficient and if Izmir clock tower was noteworthy enough to be included, it to could take its place with a blue link like the others and not require an inline citation. Maybe some of the disagreement has been based on this difference - a misunderstanding? The fact remains Izmir clock tower is not noteworthy enough I believe. I have already set up a third opinion request WP:3O. Shall we wait to see what transpires? Robynthehode (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I'm here from WP:3O.  Maybe so, but is it one of the most famous in the world? We can't decide what's famous on our own, that would be WP:OR. I see a cited statement that , but, as I'm sure you can appreciate, the most famous clock tower in a city doesn't belong on a prose list of the most famous clock tower landmarks worldwide. Among peers of UNESCO Heritage Sites and National Historic Landmarks there is no comparison. Additionally, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The place of every other clock tower in that list is certain, in my eyes. Recall that we are listing a selection of the most famous in the world; for example, the Abraj Al Bait, the largest in the world, isn't listed, because if you actually look through the article there are no sources indicating fame, recognition, heritage site status, etc. Also, I'm sure Robynthehode doesn't appreciate the WP:ASPERSIONS of suggesting that he's displaying WP:OWN behavior on this article. I don't think there's any grounds to level that. The discussion of inline sources is a bit of a red herring in my opinion: the sources don't necessarily need to be provided in this article, but they must exist on Wikipedia. As an example, we allow the lede paragraph of an article to skip citing sources, assuming any statement that's made will be supported by sources in the body. We commonly do the same regarding list entries, assuming that sources will be provided in the linked article. If this Ismir clock truly has worldwide fame, then WP:RS should be provided on its article, which could then support adding it to the list here on this article. Leijurv (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your contribution. I think you summarised my view on this dispute well including the issue of inline vs bluelink citations. Thanks and I await further responses so the discussion can conclude promptly. Robynthehode (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This section has a serious problem: there doesn't seem to be any clear definition of what makes a clock tower into a landmark. "Most famous clock tower landmarks worldwide" is indeed a criterion, but, absent any recognized market research on famousness of individual towers, it isn't easy to make practical use of it. Inevitably, original research is required, and there are excellent reasons to avoid original research on Wikipedia. To avoid ongoing trouble, may I suggest strongly that, if this article is to continue with such a section, it should state and use a definite external, international criterion or criteria for inclusion? Perhaps Clock towers that are part of UNESCO Heritage sites? But something that will avoid the necessity for OR. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your comments. That is what I have been arguing for (maybe in a slightly roundabout way initially). If you note my post above I checked all the entries in the list and all but the Philadelphia City Hall are UNESCO sites or part of a site. Philadelphia CH is on the National Landmark register in the USA and also the tallest clock tower in the world (using a strict definition as per my soon to be published tallest clock towers article) as well as being the tallest masonry building in the world. I think the combination of these three easily makes it a landmark. But I am happy to create a definition based on international / national criteria from recognised organisations and post here for consideration. Robynthehode (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: At this edit I have boldly renamed the section, and removed the Philadelphia tower which no longer fits the criterion. From here on I think I'll leave it to you, but I do hope that all editors feel that this is a useful step. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your edit but I reverted it as I said above I am looking into creating a definition for this section and will post here. But consensus on this issue has not be achieved so I think the article needs to be left as is for now. Your suggestion may be the solution but please do not revert until other contributions have been made. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I disagree and think it appropriate to remove the OR again, but I'll just take this page off my watchlist and leave you with my best wishes. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landmarks section 

message: I see that these terms have different definitions: the structure and the clock it contains. However, they seem better discussed together. To the best of my understanding, there are no turret clocks without clock towers and no clock towers without turret clocks. Thus, they have shared history, and where the clock begins and the structure which contains it ends seems debatable. Daask (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. A turret clock is a particular type of mechanical clock which is usually (but not always) located in a clock tower. A clock tower is a particular type of structure which usually houses a turret clock but may also house other types of clock. I agree that they are closely related and should include cross references, but they are distinct enough to justify separate articles. --Roly (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Turret clock]] into [[Clock tower]]