Misplaced Pages

Talk:Waterman–Smith Building: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:35, 12 October 2019 editBigDwiki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,474 edits →Comments on October 2019 editing dispute: re← Previous edit Revision as of 20:03, 12 October 2019 edit undoOhnoitsjamie (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators261,339 edits cmtNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
* Regarding ; a stairwell fire that involved no injuries or serious damage is not notable, and doesn't merit inclusion in the article per ]; furthermore, the for the statement that the building contained "unreliable fire systems" prior to the fire actually describes ''remedies'' taken by the new building management upon taking ownership of the building in 2017; connecting it to the fire is a clear violation of ]. <b>] ]</b> 19:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC) * Regarding ; a stairwell fire that involved no injuries or serious damage is not notable, and doesn't merit inclusion in the article per ]; furthermore, the for the statement that the building contained "unreliable fire systems" prior to the fire actually describes ''remedies'' taken by the new building management upon taking ownership of the building in 2017; connecting it to the fire is a clear violation of ]. <b>] ]</b> 19:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
::I have re-added the material that complies with ] and ] without the fire material. I believe that a building evacuation (regardless of the fire status) which made local news is indeed credible and belonging in the article. ] (]) 19:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC) ::I have re-added the material that complies with ] and ] without the fire material. I believe that a building evacuation (regardless of the fire status) which made local news is indeed credible and belonging in the article. ] (]) 19:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
::: If the article is to take Star Services' statements regarding the buildings "challenges" at face value, it should do the same with that sources "solutions" and "results" section. Regarding ], this is a pretty clear case of that, though you're welcome to seek additional opinions on that. <b>] ]</b> 20:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:03, 12 October 2019

WikiProject iconSkyscrapers Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlabama Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Comments on October 2019 editing dispute

  • Regarding this edit; user review sites such as Travelocity do not meet reliable sources guidelines.
  • Regarding this edit; a stairwell fire that involved no injuries or serious damage is not notable, and doesn't merit inclusion in the article per WP:NEWS; furthermore, the reference used a source for the statement that the building contained "unreliable fire systems" prior to the fire actually describes remedies taken by the new building management upon taking ownership of the building in 2017; connecting it to the fire is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. OhNoitsJamie 19:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I have re-added the material that complies with WP:RS and WP:SYNTH without the fire material. I believe that a building evacuation (regardless of the fire status) which made local news is indeed credible and belonging in the article. BigDwiki (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
If the article is to take Star Services' statements regarding the buildings "challenges" at face value, it should do the same with that sources "solutions" and "results" section. Regarding WP:NOTNEWS, this is a pretty clear case of that, though you're welcome to seek additional opinions on that. OhNoitsJamie 20:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Categories: