User talk:Brilliantine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brilliantine. |
Welcome to Brilliantine's talk page! If in doubt about what to do, take a look at the following points:
|
[edit] If I may...
Given that a simple search for the character in question turns up plenty of mentions relevant to the character not to mention franchise and cross-franchise appearances, a better tag given a lack of references would be one requesting they be added, not one for notability, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly, but I was more concerned about the previous tag for notablility being removed without further references being added. Change the tag if you wish (to a reference-related one), I don't really mind. Brilliantine (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] One Canada Square
I disagree that you have taken out the Canary Wharf Contractors and Canary Wharf Offices links, and the paragraph that mention contracting.
The links are important because:
1) The Canary Wharf Contractors website provides official information about One Canada Square. There are very few official sources and publications on One Canada Square. The site also contains very important information about the construction.
2) Canary Wharf Offices website contain information about One Canada Square (almost most of it is commerical, the website do contain important floor information), as well as pictures that are unique that cannot be found anywhere else on the internet.
3) The paragraph that mention the contracting may not flow fully with the article yet, but this article is currently being fully re-edited, and it is important that all of the information is still in this article, rather than bits taken out just because it does not flow yet.
I think your edit should be reverted back.
- It's not a big deal for me, the only one of those I feel at all strongly about is #2 - it doesn't seem too appropriate to me, as there is already plenty of floor information on the article. The others were based on gut feeling, put them back if you like or ask somebody else to take a look. I reckon the article could use some reorganisation though, as a section called 'miscellaneous' seems to be evidence of structureal problems to me. If you like, one of us could come up with some proposals for how to restructure the article and put them on the article's talk page.
- Thanks for taking the time to leave me a message here. Brilliantine (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There are definitely structural problems with the article as it does not flow well. So many people have written what they would like to see in the article, making it disjointed. The trouble is that when somebody deletes something, someone else gets offended. The balance is difficult, and therefore, structuring the article is difficult.
The article most certainly has not reached its full potential yet because it lacks detailed history. For example, there is no mention of the building designation.
The article previously contained lots of errors, though most of this is now corrected.
I need to give it some thought of what may be best.
87.114.146.11 (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
