Talk:Sciences Library (Brown University)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Rhode Island, a WikiProject related to the state of Rhode Island. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, which aims to create, expand, and maintain articles that relate to skyscrapers, high-rises and towers. To participate, visit the project page for more information. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
You have removed architectural commentary on the Brown University Science Library as "unnecesary". I beg to differ. Any article on any building in existence by necessity has mentioned in it anything notable about that building. The context of a 1970s 15-story Brutalist appearing in a mixed residential/commercial set of two-story colonials and shopfronts is absolutely notable, and most importantly, not original research because of the presence of scholarly published material.
—Loodog 00:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- What I have removed is either in violation of WP:POV or is text quoted directly from a book in the REFERENCES section, when a simple mention of the book will do. ~ Oni Lukos ct 00:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- A simple mention of the book does not convey the book's architectural commentary, which is notable. The purpose of the full block quote in references is the provide the context from which quotes are taken that are used in the article. It is not necessary, but the commentary in the article itself is. It is not a violating of WP:POV since
"Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:
* Who advocates the point of view * What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)
" is satisfied. The bias of the author is clearly established and presented. It should be included as notable commentary on the subject in question.--Loodog 02:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- The only quote I saw was in the references section, and the opinion about the architecture was presented in the text in a way that made it not clear whose opinion it was. It is reasonable to put the commentary in if it is clearly marked and cited. ~ Oni Lukos ct 02:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- It said, "Architectural historian McKenzie Woodward condemns the building as "overwhelm[ing] everything around it", even comparing it to a Soviet-era Panelák when viewed from its "all-too-many distant viewing perspectives"." The man whose opinion is being offered is at the very start of the sentence with clearly delineated quotes.--Loodog 04:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Huh, I guess I didn't finish reading the paragraph because the beginning was so non-NPOV, I just ended up skimming the whole thing. The word "violently" at the beginning really set off some red flag in my head. I kinda still feel like the first half of the paragraph would need to be rewritten if we wanted to put it back (which I can tell you do), seeing as it really shouldn't set off a red flag for an editor who reads it. ~ Oni Lukos ct 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- It said, "Architectural historian McKenzie Woodward condemns the building as "overwhelm[ing] everything around it", even comparing it to a Soviet-era Panelák when viewed from its "all-too-many distant viewing perspectives"." The man whose opinion is being offered is at the very start of the sentence with clearly delineated quotes.--Loodog 04:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The only quote I saw was in the references section, and the opinion about the architecture was presented in the text in a way that made it not clear whose opinion it was. It is reasonable to put the commentary in if it is clearly marked and cited. ~ Oni Lukos ct 02:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move to Sciences Library (Brown University)
I moved this page to Sciences Library (Brown University) to reflect the actual name of the building (see [1], [2], [3], and [4]). - AWeenieMan (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just make sure you get all the links that were going to Brown University Science Library. I caught two: one at List of tallest buildings in Providence and the template at the bottom of this page Template: Providence skyscrapers. There are possibly many more.--Loodog (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I updated Brown University Science Library to redirect to the new naming. Most of the links to it were from a couple of templates transcluded in many pages (namely Template: Providence skyscrapers and Template:Brown University). - AWeenieMan (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Right, but ideally those links should all be going here directly now, not through a redirect.--Loodog (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I made the changes on all the articles (I was just saying that most of What links here was from 2 templates). The only files pointing to a redirect are either in User space or in WP 1.0 logs. - AWeenieMan (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Right, but ideally those links should all be going here directly now, not through a redirect.--Loodog (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I updated Brown University Science Library to redirect to the new naming. Most of the links to it were from a couple of templates transcluded in many pages (namely Template: Providence skyscrapers and Template:Brown University). - AWeenieMan (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
