Jump to content

Talk:Leaning Tower of Pisa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jnelson62 (talk | contribs) at 23:10, 8 May 2011 (→Geo coords are incorrect: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Bells

Does anyone know the pitches for the bells? What key they're in? — MusicMaker5376 17:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Reference for the apocryphal nature of the story of the experiment to show the nature of gravity is more properly cited as: Nature News (13 Jun 2005), doi: 10.1038/news050613-10 or some variant thereof. Can someone please change this? Sander roy (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

In the lead section: "This means that the top of the tower is 3.9 metres (12 ft 10 in) from where it would stand if the tower were perfectly vertical.[2]" - after reading the footnote [2], this looks like OR so should it be removed? 86.18.241.153 (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just added external link to website containing University of Ferrara 3D and HD data from Piazza del Duomo, including a fully manipulable laser scan of the Tower. Recently on Febuary 3, 2010, the Leaning tower of Pisa tipped over and fell. It killed over 2,000 people so far and many more are injured. There were many sightseers that also got injured. This was a very recent and even more tragic. It was a very historical place to visit, and now it's gone. Could not figure out how to link the Tower scan model directly, so I just put up the link to the parent area - if anyone wishes to locate the specific page address with the Tower data, that may be superior. --DuendeThumb (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange wording

Okay, am I the only one who finds these two paragraphs extremely contridicting?

"[...] the tower was reopened to the public on December 15, 2001, and has been declared stable for at least another 300 years.[10]

In May 2008, after the removal of another 70 metric tons (77 short tons) of earth, engineers announced that the Tower had been stabilized such that it had stopped moving for the first time in its history. They stated it would be stable for at least 200 years.[11]"

If my math serves me, 7 years =/= 100 years ;P. Obviously an issue with 2 misleading references, but couldn't we just change the wording around a little bit to sound a little less awkward? Perhaps just remove the latter part of the first paragraph altogether, just leave it as "the tower was reopened to the public on December 15, 2001."

Discuss. :B 206.126.170.20 (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both references are correct, the first one they did say it would be stable for 300 years. But they were wrong. When they went to check it again, it was 200 years. Perhaps when they check it again, that estimate will be wrong

63.26.214.24 (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)ERIC[reply]

It seems strange to me that the tower "currently" leans to the southwest. Why is that word in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.7.225 (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mussolini

Why doesn't the article mention Mussolini's 361 boreholes and 90 tons of cement? 70.20.153.165 (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bassic Information

The box needs to put say "Country : Italy" because it needs it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.130.55 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Ever since being unprotected, this page saw almost only vandalism: 30 edits in 2 weeks. I'm not sure of what is needed to qualify for semi-protection, but I think that would still be useful. --Andylong (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please remove the section named "Ending": it's pure vandalism. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.105.244.147 (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction Statistics Paragraph

The third paragraph of the article lists some stats as to the angle of the tower before and after restoration in the late 90s. It lists the final angle at 3.99 DEGREES, yet the source referenced says it's final slope is 3.99 METERS which equates to 3.92 degrees. Furthermore, the next sentence states that the tower is 3.9 meters from where it would stand if it were vertical contradicting the previous reference and math.

What is TRUE angle of the tower? What is the TRUE slope (meters away from vertical at the top) of the tower? Also, how many steps does the tower have? It says 296 or 294. Does that mean it has 590? This last half of the paragraph should be edited for clarification purposes and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMHoward (talk • contribs) 07:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saved by US Army?

In regrads to the quote: "During World War II, the Allies discovered that the Nazis were using it as an observation post. A U.S. Army sergeant was briefly entrusted with the fate of the tower and his decision not to call in an artillery strike saved the tower from destruction.[17]"

I think this is a bit silly. Would an article on the Empire State building include the phrase "During the War on Terrorism, al-Qaeda discovered that the Americans were using it as an office. An al-Qaeda sergeant was briefly entrusted with the fate of the tower and his decision not to call in a strike saved the tower from destruction." ? I think not. They are both basically equal statements. I think all the facts should remain, as the Nazi's using it as an observation post is interesting, but "saving" something by "not destroying it" is absurd. Dn832jd983d (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information in the lead

I have removed the following info/section from the lead, where it really does not belong (the lead should summarise the article). If it is necessary to have this paragraph at all, it should perhaps be inserted in the Technical information section, along with the names of the bells. I won't put it there myself, as i'm not convinced it's necessary. (Removed: Although it is widely known as The Tower of Pisa, Pisa is not the name of the Tower like, for example, the Eiffel Tower: Pisa is, of course, the name of the city. Usually belltowers have no proper name and are called by the name of the related church. So, if the leaning tower has a name, it is Campanile di Santa Maria (Italian: Belltower of St. Mary), being Santa Maria Assunta (St. Mary of the Assumption) the name of the Duomo di Pisa.[1] ) Cheers, LindsayHi 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

the Timeline seems to me a little bit... not really like a timeline -- Hartmann Schedel Prost 17:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on photography?

While humorous, many visitors take photographes of tower as if they're trying to support it. I think it should be mentioned. Shourisha (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The math does not work out.

The height of the tower is 55.86 m (183.27 ft) from the ground on the low side and 56.70 m (186.02 ft) on the high side. The width of the walls at the base is 4.09 m (13.42 ft) and at the top 2.48 m (8.14 ft). Its weight is estimated at 14,500 metric tons (16,000 short tons). The tower has 296 or 294 steps; the seventh floor has two fewer steps on the north-facing staircase. Prior to restoration work performed between 1990 and 2001, the tower leaned at an angle of 5.5 degrees,[1][2][3] but the tower now leans at about 3.99 degrees.[4] This means that the top of the tower stands 3.9 metres (12 ft 10 in) lower from where it would stand if the structure were perfectly vertical.[5]

3.99 degrees lean shortens the tower by about 6% of its height. Huh?

Consider triangle ABC with A being the base of the tower, B being the top of the tower leaning (51.96 (55.86m - 3.9m) above the ground), and C being the same height above the ground and directly above A. AC is 51.96m long. AB is 55.86m long.

1) cos 3.99 degrees is .9975, but according to the triangle created is 51.96/55.86 = .9302.

2) By the Pythagorean Theorem, AB is 20.51m long! sin 3.99 degrees is by this triangle supposedly .3672. The actual value is .0696.

Something is wrong with the article figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.25.30 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geo coords are incorrect

I'm not 100% sure how to correct them so I'll leave that to the experts.

Current coords: 43°43'23.98"N 10°23'39.00"E Correct coords: 43°43'22.61"N 10°23'47.81"E

The real effect of this change will be to put the Wiki article on the Tower itself (front of the Cathedral) on Google Earth rather than on the Baptistry (rear of Cathedral).

  1. ^ Capitular Archive of Pisa, parchment n. 248; Biagi (1172). "Note of 1172 where the fabric of the tower is referred as "Opera campanilis petrarum Sancte Marie" (Fabric of the stone belltower of Saint Mary)".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa&oldid=428156982"