Talk:Cloud Gate

Huh?

"The artist has transformed the sculpture's two-dimensional physical structure into three-dimensional space."

What does this mean? I've never heard of a 2-D sculpture.

Technically speaking a mirror is a 2D surface because it is a flat plane--even if it is bent into a curve. The image we see behind the mirror is in 3D. I think this fact (tension between perceived surface and image) is actually important to the way we respond to Cloud Gate. Burressd (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune Archive

I just stumbled upon http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/arts-culture/sculpture/cloud-gate-PLTRA0000109.topic. We should probably run through these articles and make sure we have not missed anything about the bean.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good source of info. I'll comb through as many as I can to make sure I didn't miss anything important. Torsodog (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Take your time. You may not need it at WP:GAC. Just make sure you go through everything before WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Arch height

I think the problem with the differing arch heights stems from the idea that there is the principle arch that is visible from outside the bean and then there is the "omphalos" that can be seen from underneath that extends up even farther. I found some numbers for it all, but I will have to find them again later when I'm not at work. --Torsodog^Talk 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

TTT asked me to have a look. I'll get to this as soon as I'm done with Everglades. Feel free to revert any changes and ignore any suggestions I make; all I'm trying to do is improve your chances of getting through FAC. The "price" I charge for my copyediting is that editors do something more than sit there like a bump on a log. Either tell me I'm wrong and why, or tell me I'm right and use the information to be a better writer, or if I change something to bring it in line with our style guidelines and you don't like it, argue your position on the style talk page. The price for my copyediting is that you guys need to do your part to make the FAC process work better. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Btw, I don't do images or endsections, although I at least look at the captions.
• We like for the lead to be just a little longer than that. WP:LEAD says 2 to 4 paragraphs, with the kind of comprehensive articles that show up at FAC being on the 3-4 paragraph end of that recommendation. Add a few sentences and don't worry about the style, just enough so that I know what you think is most important about the sculpture. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: guys, I'm sorry, I'm on a wikibreak. You might want to post your request at WT:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the Most Popular Sculptures in the US?

I looked at the reference given for the claim of "one of the most popular sculptures in the US" and I am not sure the Time magazine article actually grants this superlative on Cloud Gate. The Time author says it is "a destination" and an "essential photo-op," but does not compare its popularity to other sculptures. Am I not reading the Time article right? I am one to question a superlative in Wikipedia and beleive they need a very strong reference. I have found too many longest, biggest, or such to be wrong. I do not consider that placing "one of the..." in front of the superlative removes the requirement for a reference. BTW, thanks for pointing me to WP:Lead when you undid my first citation request. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the reference given for this popularity claim again and still don't see how that article says Cloud Gate is "one of the most popular sculptures in the country". Can you explain how the reference backs this statement? I am think aboout entering a citation request in the article again. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there have not been any responses, I am going to tag the article. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the proper citation from among the non-Chicago periodicals in the footnotes. this Chicago source backs up the statement, but for an international resource I will withdraw the statement unless I can find something outside of Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The mp3 file is a valid source for a superlative if the critic is identified. I.e., "Chicago art critic Edward Lifson considers Cloud Gate to be among the greatest pieces of public art in the world." Or something like that. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bolded redirect names in lead

There were too many bolded items in the lead for the article. It just looked funny and it was hard to understand why the plaza names were bolded unles you arrived there by these redirects.

Understanding that bold is used for the subject of the article and discouraged by the Manual of Style for most other uses and the guideline on principle of least astonishment for redirects says to make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place, there is not enough information in this article about the plaza to justify bolding these. The Bean is a different name for the subject of this article, and is appropriate to be bolded. Why were AT&T Plaza and SBC Plaza bolded? The article is not about the plaza. There seemed to be little reason why these were bolded and redirected here. (And Why was Ameritech Plaza bolded? This was not even a redirect.)

There seems to be several options to handle this. The milleniumpark.org site calls the sculpture Cloud Gate on the AT&T Plaza. (1) The written out title in the lead could be changed to this. This would then explain to readers why older plaza names are bolded. (2) Get away from discussing the plaza here (focus on the true subject of the sculpture) and instead put a discussion about the plaza in the section of the Millenium Park article that presents Cloud Gate. Change the redirects to point directly to the section. (I have started this option.) - PennySpender1983 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The redirects of AT&T Plaza and SBC Plaza both point to Millennium Park#AT&T Plaza and Cloud Gate where actual information about why these names exist has been added. Since this article is about Cloud Gate and does not give information about the plaza, why do you want to bold these plaza names? If you look at the example given in principle of least astonishment for redirects you will see that the secondary names bolded in James Tiptree, Jr all have text telling you that the bolded names are all actually the same person. Are you trying to say SBC Plaza is Cloud Gate? If this article is to move up in rating, it should try to stay true to the subject. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Those redirects are going to the wrong place. AT&T Plaza should redirect to Cloud Gate or have its own article. Each name that someone could be looking for is suppose to be bolded. See WP:BOLDTITLE, all variations of the subject title are suppose to be in bold. The example given there is:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of mainland Europe.

The subject of this article is Cloud Gate on the AT&T Plaza. Unless AT&T Plaza has its own article it is part of the subject here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. For the example you quote, the entire article is about United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain. According to your response, the article needs to be moved to Cloud Gate on the AT&T Plaza. Since you already agree with this, I will do so in the next few days. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is really where the article is moving, then before it's title is changed at all, first let me better incorporate the plaza into the article. I will better explain what the plaza is, where it is and how it is related to Cloud Gate. Then we can move from there. --Torsodog^Talk 00:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that information about the plaza wouldn't be better suited for the Millenium Park article? That is what I tried to do. The park article could discuss corporate sponsorship, type of brick pavers, or even how many benches are available. This would leave the Cloud Gate article to present information on the sculpture. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Millennium Park article should only summarize facts from the articles on each feature when discussing them. All information in the park article should be in the more detailed feature articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you seem to prove my point. The only detailed information about the plaza itself in this article is contained in the caption for the picture of the engraved SBC plaza tiles. And that only says the name changed. (No explanation of why it changed. No explanation of why it has a corporate sponsor. No description of the size of the plaza. No description of the type of stone paver used. NO DETAIL AT ALL ABOUT THE PLAZA ITSELF!!!) So the bolding of AT&T Plaza, SBC Plaza and Ameritech Plaza in the lead clearly does not meet the principle of least astonishment for redirects. This is because there is not information in the article about the plaza, only information about the sculpture.

If you are saying that this article should have detail about the plaza, then answer at least some of the questions I noted by adding them to text of the article. This will satisfy my concerns aboput the bolding of the plaza names.

Please realize if you want to reach featured status with this article, I would say that you need to focus on the subject of the sculture. Mixing info about the plaza into the article will probably get comments about relevance during a review process. So it is a trade off, bold the plaza titles and you need to have info about the plaza. Or focus on the awesome piece of art that the article is about and get a better article overall. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have info about the paving of the plaza, we could work that into the Cloud Gate article or fork off a separate Plaza article. Just provide sources. It would probably be sufficient to start a separate article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) I have created a separate page for AT&T Plaza, which reduces the number of bold names and redirects.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian or British?

Recently an IP has been changing the Anish Kapoor descriptor of "British" to "Indian". Obviously, the fact that he was born in India and lives in Britian is causing the problems here. Refs typically refer to him as "British", such as ref 19, but others say "Indian-born". What do people think about this? --Torsodog^Talk 20:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we have it both ways? Something like "is an Indian-born British artist"? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I am the IP address who was changing this; I think it would be appropriate to say 'Indian born British.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.197.190 (talk • contribs) 20:12, August 2, 2009

I will make the change next, thanks - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Omphalos

Is it possible to have a cross-sectional drawing of the sculpture? I'm trying to picture the omphalos - the text says it's a concave chamber so I assume it doesn't go all the way through the sculpture making it like a doughnut; one of the photos shows some of it and it looks quite deep. What are its dimensions and how far into the sculpture does it go? How does it terminate (ie in what form - conical, rounded etc?)? 86.159.39.99 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen a cross-section drawing on which something like this could be based. The article says the sculpture is 33 feet (10 m) tall, and that the apex of the omphalos is 27 feet (8.2 m) above the ground. The maximum height of the arch where people can walk under / through the sculpture is not given, but looking at the photo, I'd estimate it as maybe 11 to 12 feet (3.4 to 3.7 m). So the distance inside the sculpture between the top of the omphalos and the top of the sculpture is 6 feet (1.8 m), and walking under and looking up, the rounded top of the omphalos is about 15 to 16 feet (4.6 to 4.9 m) above the "ceiling" you walked in under. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This article uses the word "omphalos" as if an "omphalos" is some sort of shape or architectural design. But the link (and the Wiktionary page) explain it to be a specific artifact remaining from Creation. And the pictures on that page seem to be not at all similar to anything which I can imagine might be part of this sculpture. Therefore: Can someone add something to this article which would explain what's going on? Or find a new name for the underbelly of the bean? --Keeves (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, it is only called the omphalos because the world omphalos means "navel". It is explained in the article as "a concave chamber that warps and multiplies reflections". Maybe the word should be delinked and put in quotes so the reader knows that it is simply a term the artist uses to refer to the concave underbelly of the sculpture? --Torsodog^Talk 01:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In clssical useage an omphalos is usually an inverted navel or "outie," also the axis mundi or center of the world. Interestingly the Cloud Gate omphalos is not inverted.Burressd (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

But what do real critics say?

What do people say who aren't overwhelmed by the piece? Sorry, I may be just a philistine hack writer, but there has to be someone besides me who thinks that this thing is just a giant soap bubble or a squashed Zeppelin and doesn't really belong in in a public place. I'm reminded of that glass pyramid between the Louvre and and the Hotel Crillon in Paris. Or the Disney theater in downtown LA. People think it's great art because people who are paid to say that it's great art, say it's great art. I think it's the world's most expensive shaving mirror. I'm sure that there must be someone in the art world who agrees with me.68.111.71.197 (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We can only quote reviews in relaible sources - if you know of negative reviews that are from reliable sources, please post links to them (or citations for them if print only) here so they can be included. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but think that 68.111.71.197 hasn't seen it in person. Derekbd (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Engineering

The structural engineer for the project was Atelier One; the article incorrectly credits Aerotrope, a company which was not founded until after the design work was completed. One of the engineers who worked on the project for Atelier One (Chris Hornzee-Jones) went on to found Aerotrope while the project was under construction, and has since claimed the project. Unfortunately, this is a commonly repeated error. (Although I can't figure out how to link to the section of their website, Atelier One shows their claim to the work under their "projects" section - http://www.atelierone.com).

The work, and multiple drawings for the project are also featured in the book "Liquid Threshold," referenced in the wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.219.13 (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the information. Interesting story. One day I'll try to get my hands on a copy of "Liquid Threshold" to verify and see if there is any more useful information about Cloud Gate in the book. I'll revert back to your edit. Thanks for clarifying. --Torsodog^Talk 14:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cultural reference

Okay, I understand that SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) does not like trivia and pop culture material in articles. And removing unsourced lists like this and most of this would be fairly within accepted practice these days. However I am not thrilled with removal of material discussed in a significant way in a secondary source and prepared to edit war over it and write a misleading edit summary. So rather than arm-wrestle, am opening this for discussion here. I am (obviously) for a keep segment. Can folks offer a "keep" or "leave removed" below for consensus. My reason for keeping is it is discussed in detail (about a third of the interview and including the title of the piece) in a secondary source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am in favor of keeping the pop culture paragraph in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• I don't really like the addition of that section. It's only two sentences and only talks about one cultural reference. Can't this just be shortened a bit and merged into the bit where Source Code is mentioned in the Reception area? --Torsodog^Talk 02:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Mmmyeah, I think that can work. It does segue ok from the bottom of that section.Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It is based on a reliable source and should be in the article somewhere - I am also fine with it being combined with the Reception section and tightened. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As a Chicagoan who greatly appreaciates this fine piece of artwork, I am quite surprised to see the nickname "the bean" referenced only to the sculpture's general shape. This is simply not true. Ask any shopper walking down Michigan Avenue, and they will tell you it was constructed during the height of popularity for a particular Tiffany signature jewelery line which is named "The Bean" (http://www.tiffany.com/Shopping/Item.aspx?sku=GRP02235). The nickname for the Cloud Gate sculpture is NOT due to its shape, but is directly because it is the exact shape of the Tiffany Bean Necklace / Bracelet charm. This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.153.149 (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Tiffany Bean -- That the "bean" name is in reference to the Tiffany Bean is pretty obvious to anyone familiar with Tiffany jewelry. Not only is the Cloud Gate bean shaped, but it's also silver colored like the jewelry piece. I believe Tiffany's bean, which is one of their best known pieces, was designed in the 1970s or 1980s. It has always been very popular. Question: Do I have to have seen this published somewhere so I can include a citation even though I'm 99.9% certain it's true? Put another way, do we need a citation to say the sky is blue? narwagner — Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cloud Gate. 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/20091003165049/http://www.wttw.com:80/main.taf?p=28,3,1,1&Date=05%2F15%2F2006&et=%20-%20Week%20Of%20May%2015%2C%202006 to http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=28,3,1,1&Date=05%2F15%2F2006&et=%20-%20Week%20Of%20May%2015%2C%202006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Dimensions

Shouldn't the dimensions say what the width height length is instead of just "Dimensions 10 m × 13 m × 20 m (33 ft × 42 ft × 66 ft)". This page says it is 66-feet long by 33-feet high https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dca/supp_info/millennium_park_-artarchitecture.html Or this page http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Building/636/Cloud-Gate.php says they are Maximum Height: 33 feet / 10 meters Maximum Width: 42 feet Maximum Length: 66 feet— Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.142.250.170 (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cloud Gate. 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/20080602021642/http://www.lynnbecker.com/repeat/Gehry/kapoor.htm to http://www.lynnbecker.com/repeat/Gehry/kapoor.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612233519/http://millenniumpark.org/newsandmedia/documents/CloudGateUntenting.pdf to http://www.millenniumpark.org/newsandmedia/documents/CloudGateUntenting.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910135209/http://audio.wbez.org/848/2006/05/848_20060515b.mp3 to http://audio.wbez.org/848/2006/05/848_20060515b.mp3
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120719092231/http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/entertainment/virtusio/10781946-452/movies-the-vow-and-films-for-hopeless-romantics.html to http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/entertainment/virtusio/10781946-452/movies-the-vow-and-films-for-hopeless-romantics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cloud Gate. 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/20141006071018/http://voices.suntimes.com/arts-entertainment/the-daily-sizzle/grammer-stars-in-huge-weekend-hit/ to http://voices.suntimes.com/arts-entertainment/the-daily-sizzle/grammer-stars-in-huge-weekend-hit/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Low or high maintenance?

About this text:

After it was completed, it was quickly found that the sculpture does not need someone to upkeep and maintain it since, conveniently, it is located outside and the rain can do it itself. Snow can be wiped off the sculpture from the many tourists touching it, allowing them to still take warped selfies under its "omphalos."

Is there any source that makes this claim? I only find sources claiming that maintenance is difficult and that regular cleanings are needed by specialized staff. 2603:3024:1838:4800:987E:C75:E219:1D7C (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Cloud Gate → The Bean – WP:COMMONNAME. Already primary topic. Estar8806 (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Definitely not. --Torsodog^Talk 00:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, and revisit in a few years. Maybe The Bean will run a Statue of Liberty play and replace its original name (should be a Jeopardy! final question) locally, nationally, and internationally. And maybe it won't. But as of now the artist's name for this statue, and of this featured article, should remain. For Double Final Jeopardy! (have they ever used that gimmick?): The real name of another statue by the same artist nicknamed El Frijol? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support: we don't appear to have an artwork-specific naming convention at WP:TITLE, unless I'm missing something. Without that, we fall back on WP:COMMONNAME (where 'The Bean' clearly wins) and the criteria: recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency. In my view, 'The Bean' is more recognizable and more natural, while 'Cloud Gate' is more precise. They are equally concise and I'm not sure a case can be made re: consistency for either. Given that, I support the change. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  • • See MOS:ART, where there is plenty on naming. Johnbod (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Did you really just compare the Google results for an extremely common food with the search results for the name of a specific piece of art and then try to use that as evidence of WP:COMMONNAME? Just looking at the first few "the bean" results, food, coffee, and restaurant results pop up. Also, basically every article that mentions "the bean" in relation to the sculpture also specifies the actual name of the sculpture, "Cloud Gate". --Torsodog^Talk 18:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I certainly agree that search results for "The Bean" contain some results irrelevant to this sculpture, but I'm also seeing irrelevant results for "Cloud Gate" and the difference in scale of results is striking. It's also worth noting that local media refer to it as The Bean first, including in headlines, and sometimes don't even mention the name 'Cloud Gate', a strong WP:COMMONNAME indicator (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Even Anish Kapoor says he calls it The Bean! (ref) —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• The striking difference in results is only due to one term being a food eaten the world over. I'm actually having a hard time finding results for "Cloud Gate" that don't refer to the sculpture, so I'm not sure what you're seeing. And Kapoor also calls it Cloud Gate, considering he named it that. The name of the sculpture is actually also an important clue into the meaning of the work. To rename this article in favor of a colloquial nickname minimizes and almost eliminates that artistic intention. --Torsodog^Talk 20:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  "The bean" is not a food eaten the world over, "bean" and "beans" are foods eaten the world over. It seems like a small difference, but it matters for Google search results. "Bean" returns 393 million results, "beans" returns slightly fewer, while "The Bean" returns 14.8 million and "Cloud Gate" only 3.4 million. Clearly Google is capable of separating the food and the sculpture. The unrelated results for Cloud Gate mostly are about the Cloud Gate Dance Theater, founded in 1973.

  I think your point about the artist's intention is fair but not really relevant to Wikipedia conventions and guidelines. For instance, we don't call people by their formal or legal names when nicknames, stage names, or variants are better-known and widely used. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

There are in fact artwork-specific naming conventions for articles about specific works of art: MOS:VisArts/Titles 19h00s (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Good to know! The most directly useful guidance I can see there is "Where there are several variant titles, preference is usually given to the predominant one used by art historians writing in English." Does anyone know what art historians use to refer to the sculpture? Google Books has too many non-art-historian books to be useful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

An answer and a comment: professional art critics and art historians widely refer to it in publications as Cloud Gate, even if they include the nickname in discussion of the work's reception by the community. But, in response to the detail about Kapoor himself calling it The Bean in casual conversation, I would note that he certainly has not amended the title in his copyright filing, has not changed the work's title in subsequent new editions of his books that have included depictions or analysis of Cloud Gate, nor has he ever requested that the city of Chicago amend the signage identifying the work to include the nickname. I don't mean to be glib, but this is honestly a frustrating conversation - the sculpture has a name, the name hasn't changed, this is like trying to rename the article for Hahn/Cock because everyone in Washington and Minneapolis calls it The Blue Rooster. 19h00s (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I certainly understand that argument. From an artistic viewpoint, there's no question whatsoever that the sculpture is called 'Cloud Gate'. But Wikipedia doesn't run from an artistic perspective, it runs from a generalist one, and article titles should generally reflect regular usage. If the most common, most normal name for the sculpture is 'The Bean', does that override the artistic choice that Kapoor made, and the art world maintains? It's looking unlikely that consensus will develop to change the article's name, but I'm finding the discussion interesting and so wanted to engage. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I see your point and respect the perspective. But I do think an interesting counterexample would be public art in Ireland and Northern Ireland - it is a widely held practice in both countries to give nicknames to public art or sculptures, giving us a few examples to look to, including the formally titled Spirit of Belfast (2009), which has been nicknamed the Onion Rings, and RISE (2011), which has several nicknames. These articles are titled after the formal title for the works, despite the fact that many people in these communities have probably only ever referred to them by their nicknames. They include detailed conversation about the nicknames, but the formal titles are the de facto article title. 19h00s (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Cloud Gate is WP:COMMONNAME, and that's true even if bean is another common name, also the bean is not more natural, it is ambiguous, it is less precise, and it has nothing on concision nor consistency. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is about a contemporary work of art with a widely recognized formal title - it should be titled after the work. I can find no examples of articles about a contemporary work of art - especially one still under copyright - being titled differently than the formal title of the work, apart from works with excessively long titles. Even there, the titles are simply abbreviated or shortened. I would also posit that it's important to have the official title as the article title when the article features fair use images of the work. --19h00s (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per opposers, eg last two. Johnbod (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.