Talk:Wessex Lane Halls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Photographs

I will try and take a picture of montefiore 3 and connaught, althogh be warned I'm not photographer! :-) Supposed 02:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! Could you also try and get a good shot of the nice bit of Stoneham at the same time please? All my old photos seem to have half-naked drunk people lounging around outside the bar. Quite what that tells you I'm not sure... Pyrope 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry this has taken so long, I haven't had a camera. I will take some in the next few weeks Supposed 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ta da lol

Taken on an n95. Images are a little noisey but seem ok. I missed out monte one because the image was poor. It includes a skip! Will try and get a good pic another time. Supposed 11:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work. The new Stoneham picture is particularly good - well done. Waggers 11:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, nice one. Pyrope 12:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

hehe cheers. I'm a little worried about the Glen Eyre Halls entry. It's currently being redirected to University of Southampton because someone decided to speedily delete it arguing "it's not notable whatsoever". [1].Supposed 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notability guidelines are weird and somewhat self-contradictory. They say that notability is not the same thing as popularity, but then define notability as being something that's been written about a fair bit - in other words, something that's popular! The things to do are: (1) add any relevant information from the Glen Eyre article to the University of Southampton article for the time being, as a WP:merge, since that's in keeping with the redirect; (2) Add references to the article wherever possible - I'm sure Glen Eyre must be the subject of "significant coverage" in some of the University of Southampton history books and/or some local history books; (3) remember that WP:N is a guideline/convention, not hard, set-in-stone policy. Waggers 09:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's quite confusing. I'd go sofar to say that any building which has been written about in several independent sources is notable. The main problem I have with notability guidelines is that notably tends to reflect bias in the media. This is evident when you're a company and have a good PR engine. WIkipedia should decide what's notable based on the merits of the content rather than how much money someone is paid to spread the word. I had to leap through hoops to get this site included. It was notable because of what it represented in a notable industry. In the end it got included only because of a biased review against it by a friend of another company. Supposed 22:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)