Talk:Tribute in Light

First comment

Is it just me, or does this look awfully like the Nazi Party Rallys "Lichtdom" (See picture at http://www.museen.nuernberg.de/english/reichsparteitag_e/pages/gelaende_e.html ca. at the middle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.7.211 (talk • contribs)

No.

No, actually, it doesn't. The Nazis' lights are too far apart, and there are more of them, and they may not be pointing (or intended to point) straight up, although this last is me conjecturing from what I can see in the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.154.170 (talk • contribs)

trivia?

would anyone object to my adding a trivia section mentioning this installations presence in the x-box game of the Spider-Man 2 movie? I know that wikipedia is open for editing by anyone, but i thought i would ask as i know that this is a very sensitive issue WookMuff 07:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

uh, how much energy does it cost to put those lights up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.192.110 (talk • contribs)

Man, I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think of that. Isn't it a tad ironic for a WTC tribute to involve massive, high-powered searchlights, most likely powered by fossil fuels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.49.179 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you should learn what the work ironic means - I guess you are so focused on your little environmental issues that you see it being relevant in everything - even something so important as remembering 3,000 dead - perhaps you would like the eternal flame at Kennedy's gravesite put out too since that uses fossil fuel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.124.28 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, 3,000 dead people are totally more important than the entire planet and every person still living on it. I'm sure they all give a shit about a tribute, too, being dead and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.186.128 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, trivia sections are discouraged in Wikipedia. See WP:Trivia Petershank 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I should add that if the Spider-Man game drew particular media attention or was making a big statement by referencing the Tribute, then it would be would be noteworthy in the form of a section on the Spider-Man reference, or "in popular culture" if there was found to be more, but never trivia. As it is, the appearance generally reflects the game's aim to reflect the present-day Manhattan skyline, so is the kind of trivia to be avoided. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

implementary designers

just an fyi - the architectural lighting design company that implemented the project is Fisher Marantz Stone based in NYC.. not in vegas. the luminaires (or lights) are currently provided by an italian company, i believe named Leukos, though it very well might have been a different company before (as it was mentioned that these are not the original lights used)

I know this because I started an internship with them today and literally worked on the angles of the light beams tonight in preparation for thursday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.160.206 (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

type of light

the article should mention whether or not they are lasers. Are they lasers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.0.9 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the lights are not lasers. They are a type of high powered lamps. --66.30.193.254 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article should maybe state what sort of lamp, or, at least, how much power, is being used. Muad (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Roof of 1 World Trade Center

I removed:

The new design for the Freedom Tower would accommodate such a vision.

1 World Trade Center is the name of the building formerly known as the Freedom Tower, and none of the plans I have read for its roof include a permanent installation of the Tribute in Light. If it can be verified that TIL will be on the roof of 1 World Trade Center, please add it back. patsw (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

@Patsw: -- Yes, there is sources to prove that the One World Trade Center design. If you watch this video called "Freedom Tower time-lapse" on the WTC website of the One World Trade Center rendering at night (towards the end of the video, at 0:58 seconds), you can clearly see a beem of light representing the Tribute in Light, shining from the spire, which would have been a permenant installation of the Tribute in Light display. However, this never happened, due to the Durst Organization changing the spire design, which did not include the permenant Tribute in Light display atop the roof of the One World Trade Center. If you click here, you can also see an image rendering of the Tribute in Light display on top of the roof of the One World Trade Center. However like I said before, this permenant Tribute in Light atop the tower was never installed due to Durst changing the design of the spire. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Aesthetics of the images

I would prefer that the images be larger than thumbs to show more detail. This article is, of course, about something which is entirely visual. What do others think? patsw (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Question.

Since it is a piece of art/intellectual property if you will, shouldn't the title be italicized? | ^help_dןǝɥ | 16:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Is the last part of the article really needed? This part:

It is worth noting that there have been many past instances of the iconic use of spotlights to simulate or reinforce architectural designs. A famous example of this was Albert Speer's Cathedral of light designed for the Nazi Nuremberg Rallies of the 1930s, held at the Nazi party rally grounds in Nuremberg, Germany.

References

I think that this portion does not add anything to the article, and in fact, degenerates from the honor of this tribute. Is it just me, or is this comparison not needed? Gladitron (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The goal of Wikiepedia is not to make tributes; it is to spread information. This reference would be totally out of place on a 9/11 memorial, but it is informative and relevant in an encyclopedia article. Carychan (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Tribute in Light is an example of "the iconic use of spotlights" to simulate architectural designs. The Cathedral of Light is an example of "the iconic use of spotlights" to reinforce architectural designs. Those are two different things. If, in fact, there have been "many past instances" of spotlights being used to simulate architecture, then those instances are relevant and should be referenced--there should be a list of them, and probably a separate article. If, however, the only other famous instance that anyone can think of is the Cathedral of Light, which was not an example of spotlights simulating architecture, then this reference is irrelevant (reinforcing is not the same as simulating) and incorrect (there are not "many" instances). Sjhibdon (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for (finally) explaining the reason for the repeated deletions, instead of edit-warring without discussion. However, this reasoning is original research, factually dubious (the Cathedral of light did in fact not "reinforce" an existing cathedral) and irrelevant. Rather than such artificial distinctions, it seems that the main reason motivating the anonymous editors and single-purpose accounts who have deleted this before is the one expressed by Gladitron: "degenerates from [sic] the honor of this tribute". I don't think it does, but in any case the purpose of this Wikipedia article is not to maximize the effectiveness of a tribute or to advocate such a cause (however noble it may be), but to inform the reader about the article subject in an encyclopedic fashion. This includes context and historical precedents for the technique used, even if the same technique was to express an entirely different sentiment in the earlier example. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Plain and simple, this is an unreferenced opinion being slipped into an article. This is not an article on the use of lights to create architectural shapes throughout history, nor are there any references comparing the Tribute in Light to Albert Speer. Doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.226.246 (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The company who made the lights

The information about the company who made the lights were totally wrong and unsourced, naming an unclear "Las vegas company". Actually there aren't many sources about this, but the one linked there seems pretty relevant, here an excerpt: "Massimo Moratti, the lead technician for Space Cannon, the Italian search light company that fabricated the special lamps [...] Moratti has made the journey from Italy every year to oversee the “striking” of the lights." Also, i speak Italian too and the newspapers there have a lot of informations about this company work on the Tribute, i don't think i can link non english sources but i'm pretty sure this is the correct information even if there isn't a huge media coverage about this in the US.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.191.203 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Good catch. BTW, it would actually be OK to cite non-English sources if needed, although they should ideally be accompanied with a quote and translation of the relevant part. See WP:NONENG. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ghost in image?

why are there ghost or invisible people in the fourth image? (File:Tribute in Light, 2018 (10092).jpg file) ⚒𝒲𝒾𝓀𝒾𝓅ℯ𝒹𝒾𝒶𝓃🗣^💬 16:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)