Talk:Peachoid

message: The Peachoid has also been confused for a huge butt, leaving passing motorists confused at what the City of Gaffney meant by this enormous landmark. 
I think it is understood exactly what the Board of Public Works "meant" by erecting this monument, after all, South Carolina produces more peaches than any other state, except California.  As a matter of fact, at one time, one S.C. county alone could produce more peaches than the entire state of Georgia (The Peach State).
:Sure that's what they meant.  What's your point?  The article has to state it, really, though, since SC being the "real peach state except California which is cheating because it's so big" is not general knowledge.  Georgia, for its part, never set out to be the Peach State.  It set out to be Empire State of the South.  The whole peach thing is based on several misunderstandings.  "Peachtree Street" is the center of Atlanta, but it's really named for a pitch tree rather than a "peach" tree.  Hypercorrectives decided that old timers had been mispronouncing "peach."  It was a pitch tree because the city was Cherokee territory, and the treaties for the land were conducted at a pitch tree (one with sap exuding).  From Peachtree Street to Atlanta Peach to Georgia Peach to Peach State, all on a game of telephone. <shrug>  We still need a GFDL photo of the thing, though.  Surely someone is driving past it with a camera every day, and one will post a photo?  Geogre 23:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and as for the big butt, that's because peaches themselves have had that association for a long time.  See Eat a Peach.  Geogre 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbolism and pranks

message: For a long time, a really substandard photo sat in there that was shot through a car window with an Instamatic camera decades ago.  The reason for it, though, was to show all the development on the stretch of I-85 by the Peachoid (i.e. the effects of building a folly on the local economy).  I won't mourn losing the poor quality photo, but we need one from across I-85 N showing the context so that readers can understand how the Peachoid is visible to travelers.  Geogre 09:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. I was just going for a ground-level high-rez photo when I took that one yesterday. I made sure to get the telephone poles and power lines in front of it to give a sense of scale. I drive through that area at least once a month on business trips, so I'll try to get one that includes the interstate and some of the nearby businesses on my next pass. 'Card 13:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh.  Well, we may now have an embarrassment of riches.  Still, better to have too many than too few.  Geogre 10:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I doubt anyone will.  The feature of this feature is its folly, so visuals are more germane than any number of words.  The other thing, and this is something that the Gaffney folks could answer (and probably won't) is whether the Peachoid or Charlotte is responsible for the increase in commerce in the area.  It would be telling, really, to see whether the place is getting more residential or agricultural revenues, as that might hint at the answer.  Big weird features can make business...maybe.  Geogre 23:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Should this particular link to a deleted image be kept in the article or deleted?
:Don't you think that it's best to start by asking here without an RFC?  Has no one even thought of that.  Utgard Loki 19:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks bizarre?  How about a randomly chosen picture from the gallery that looks bizarre?  Could you suppose, even for a second, that someone like me might have a good reason?  No?  Not at all?  I mean, I did write the damned thing, so one might assume I have some interest in making it look good.  Just because you don't understand does not mean there is not a reason, and when you actually ask me I might even tell you what it is.  If you try this childishness and presumption, though, don't expect graciousness.  Ask Angr.  He's full of grace and politeness, and he has managed to get my highest estimation of his judgment, intelligence, and communication skills for it.  Geogre 20:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: I say no.
I will not tolerate anymore "debate by edit summary, either."  If you want to change the article, talk about it here....  Not by being imperious at my talk page, not by edit warring, not by being an ass in technicolor.
Would any of you churlish people even think about asking me why I revert?  No?  Then you are all but vandalizing an article.  Are any of you going to find out my reasons?  No?  Then you are edit warring.  If you cannot bother to discuss, then you cannot have your way.  Geogre 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should lazy people replace a meaningful image with a random one because they can't understand? 

message: For editors following my edit summary request to look at the talk page, my justification for using a non-free image in a gallery is the accompanying text with the gallery. For more on this, see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Galleries and the example of the mixed free and non-free gallery at Padmé Amidala#Costumes (with accompanying text). Also note that WP:NFC does not explicitly ban non-free images in galleries. It only says that galleries usually fail WP:NFCC#8. My NFCC#8 justification can be seen embedded in the article as HTML comments, and implicitly as the text accompanying the gallery. The HTML comment in full is:"The non-free image Peach2.gif is used in the gallery as part of a visual series on the history of the Peachoid. The accompanying text in the Architectural details section is used to justify the use of the non-free image. The gallery format is chosen to make the article more readable, and is not relevant to whether or not a non-free image should be used. WP:NFCC says: "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and if it fails this test such use is unacceptable." In this case, the use of the image in a series to show the changing appearance of the structure and the surrounding area meets the significance criterion."
Those editors who came here first before editing the article, thank-you. Those editors who removed the image first, please respond below to what I have written here. Thanks. Carcharoth 10:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free image in gallery 

message: I was an employee of Chicago Bridge & Iron Company at the time the Peachoid was under construction, and I think it would be good to clarify the role of The Artist in the painting of the Peachoid. In fact, the Artist didn't paint it. He painted a small-scale wood model (as I recall it was about 24" high or so), which was built for him by CB&I, and the CB&I paint crew did all the rest of the work.
That work included taking precise measurements of the color areas, mixing the paint to match the Artist's colors, laying out the color areas on the structure itself and applying the paint. The latter included figuring out how to get the gradations of color (from yellow to reddish-orange, e.g.)
I mention this because I know that at the time of the Peachoid's dedication, they had the Artist up on the stand, had him take the bows, and the poor, dirty workmen who'd done 98% of the work, didn't even get an acknowledgement.
At least Wikipedia could correct that small injustice by adding the above information.
B. Polhemus (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Artist 

message: See this discussion related to copyright of the Peachoid.  Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright discussion