Talk:Dolphin Square

Pix? or Maps?

Article could sorta use those, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.249.39 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

2006 and 2007 messages

The article stated that the Costain company was formed to build Dolphin Square, but the Costain website says the company was founded in 1865. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrys2 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

apparently prince william is moving in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.10.12 (talk) 09:27, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Dolphin Square Tenants' Association

This message was left on my talk page - I've copied it here:

Could you please explain why you interfered with the entry for Dolphin Square? The material you removed - and which I am putting back - is part of the story of the Square. Rather than swan around the net interfering with people's entries, why don't you check with those who know first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenmar (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several reasons why I removed the material about the Dolphin Square Tenants' Association from the article. Perhaps I should have left a more detailed edit summary to explain - sorry.

Wikipedia doesn't just include any available information about a subject, we're selective. Wikipedia's policy on non-notable content sums it up: "...because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability nonetheless affects article content. Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Attend to anything that may construe undue weight, including depth of detail...".

Information about the architecture, history and contents of Dolphin Square is notable - it's likely to be of interest to a reader of this encyclopedia. Information about the tenants' association and its monthly newsletter isn't interesting or of note to anyone who doesn't live in Dolphin Square.

As an aside, even if we did keep that text, we wouldn't keep the external links that are in it - have a look at wikipedia's external links guideline for more detail. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Hugh Charles Parker, you are not by your own admission an official editor ('I'm not an Admin' - 11 April 2008) or whatever they are called, so please stop interfering with this entry.

You state that there shouldn't be links. well, here is the official policy from Wikipedia's own rules: What should be linked Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

As for your remark about the inclusion of such material, you quote the following: "...because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability nonetheless affects article content. Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Attend to anything that may construe undue weight, including depth of detail...". That's a judgement call and a matter of opinion. This material is notable and relevant. SO LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenmar (talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll address your comments in order. You're right, I'm not an administrator, but neither are you, and neither are most people, and administrators don't have any more official status as editors than anyone else. There are no "official editors", and no-one owns any article.

You found the part of the external links policy that says that the official website of an organisation should be linked. That's right, but the websites you're linking to aren't the official websites of Dolphin Square, they're the websites of the tenants' newsletter.

You're right, the comparative notability of the resident's association is a matter of judgement. I'm confident, though, that any reasonable editor would agree with me that the activities of the residents association aren't relevant to an encyclopedia article.

In your last edit summary you threatened to "remove the entire entry and report [me] to whoever runs Wikipedia". Please don't delete or blank the page - that would be seen as vandalism. If you want to call in someone else to look at this dispute, though, or if you think I've misbehaved in some way, WP:Editor Assistance and WP:Third Opinion might be good places to start. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

1. So you're no more an admin or editor than I am. You just troll around Wikipedia changing other people's copy at will based on your own whim and interpretation of the rules. What knowledge do you have of the subjects with which you interfere?

2. I have removed the link to the newsletter website but I am reinstating the link to the official website of the tenants' association. That qualifiies under rule to be included.

3. Your response may explain why you removed the links but it doesn't explain why you removed all mention of the tenants' association. So I'm putting that back. If you knew anything about the history of Dolphin Square, you'd know that the tenants' (not residents') association is an integral part of its story.

4. If you mess with this again, I will call in Editor assistance.

5. I respectfully suggest that instead of darting about Wikipedia making your own subjective judgement calls about topics you know nothing about, you find a more constructive outlet for your talents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenmar (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. In order again:

1. Neither of us is more qualified to edit than the other. We are both, like all wikipedia editors, changing other people's copy according to our understanding of how wikipedia works. Whenever you edit a wikipedia page, it says at the bottom "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." My knowledge about the subjects I write about, like all wikipedia editors, comes from reliable third party sources. I think we should stop talking about who's qualified to do what, and instead talk about how the article should be, and why.

2&3. I did explain why I removed all mention of the tenants association. As the WP:Notability guideline says, we should "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Attend to anything that may construe undue weight, including depth of detail..." Information about the tenants association simply isn't useful in an article about the building. If the tenants' association is an integral part of the story of Dolphin Square then edit the article to explain how, using WP:Reliable sources to back up your assertions. I've removed the material again...

4. ...and I think it's a very good idea that you should call in WP:Editor Assistance. I think we've reached a stage with this discussion where we're both just restating our positions, and some help in resolving this would be useful. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I will call in Editor Assistance. And if that fails I'll go to the next level. Until then I suggest that you keep your hands off this entry pending a decision. The entry about Dolphin Square is not about a building - it's about a famous block of flats with famous residents past and present. (The present residents are left out of it for privacy reasons.)All that crap you write about "weight appropriate to its significance" is a judgmental call made by you.

You also say: "My knowledge about the subjects I write about, like all wikipedia editors, comes from reliable third party sources. I think we should stop talking about who's qualified to do what, and instead talk about how the article should be, and why." I am a reliable third party source as far as you are concerned on this topic. As to what the article should be: it should be as authorative as it can be with verifiable facts and that gives readers as much information as it can about the topic."

I am, not to put too fine a point on it, getting a little fed-up with your meddling. I have heard what you have said and amended the copy accordingly (i.e. dropped links). Now please leave something of which you know less about than me and go annoy other people about their entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenmar (talk • contribs) 02:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not a reliable third party source. The Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline explains what that means, and it means "credible published materials with a reliable publication process". Another editor has moved the section from a paragraph in the text to an external link, but I still don't think that goes far enough.

As I've said before, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere, we're just restating our positions. We keep talking about asking other editors to contribute to the discussion, but is hasn't happened yet. I've added a link to this discussion from WP:Third opinion. Let's leave the article as AndrewHowse left it until someone else has had a look. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Options

• Include a paragraph about the Tenants association, complete with links to their newsletter.

• Remove the paragraph but keep it as an external link.

1. Accept - I'm prepared to accept this option in the light of the third opinion. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remove it altogether.

1. Support (obviously), per WP:Notability and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) (but see above. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

Hi, I found your discussion via WP:3O. The fact that the association exists isn't inherently notable, so in my opinion, it would be WP:NNC & undue detail really to mention it in the article. The current version [1] looks like a great compromise to me. It places the link to the Association in the EL section which is fine. It helps the reader to find further relevant information that may not be suitable for this article: lists of activities, association rules, etc. I do not think links to the newsletter or to backissues of the newsletter should be added anywhere to the article or EL section per WP:EL, WP:LINKFARM, etc. (that information is available at the Association website anyway.) Playa Vista, another large living community (but but not nearly as cool!) has no mention of their HOA. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 07:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the time other editors are taking to contribute to this discussion. The point seems to hinge on people's own interpretation of "inherently notable". But isn't the point of a resource such as Wikipedia to give the reader as much relevant information as they might wish to have? Anyone wishing to move into Dolphin Square or looking to find other information from those who live there would find mention of the tenants' association useful. It's certainly a more relevant than the fact that the place has a swimming pool. I feel this issue has become an battle of wills between me and "Nosey" Parker, in which he has become obsessed with the rule book rather than using common sense. I maintain the short - and it is short - mention of the DSTA in the main part of the article is relevant and should stay. If I have to escalate this dispute the next level I will. At the stake is the issue of whether Wikipedia is to be a resource of reliability and record or a shop-window for every mistaken know-it-all on the planet.

Anyway, by agreeing that only a link be included Nosey has contradicted himself. In an earlier posting he said that external links should only be the the offical website and went on to say that the DSTA website did not qualify as such. Now he's saying the complete opposite. Doesn't that go against his precious rule-book? Brenmar (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Brenmar

You misrepresent what I said. I didn't say I supported keeping the external link, I said I'm prepared to accept it as a largely harmless compromise.

The point of wikipedia is not "to give the reader as much relevant information as they might wish to have". There are other websites for that, like Everything2. Read WP:What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:Notability#NCONTENT. I don't keep pointing you to those two pages because I'm "obsessed with the rule book", I keep pointing you to them because they're good descriptions of what Wikipedia is and how it works. Both of them, aside from being Wikipedia policy, are the expression of a long-standing consensus among the wikipedia community about what this project should be about and how it should work. You disagree with that consensus - fine, that's your prerogative. But for the moment, those are the policies which govern how wikipedia is edited, and we all have to abide by them. If you think that the consensus view is wrong, and needs to change, then you could raise the discussion on the talk pages of those policies - Wikipedia talk:Notability and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not.

Alternatively, if don't think that my, guyzero's and AndrewHowse's views are wrong, and don't represent a sufficient WP:Consensus, then the WP:Dispute resolution page suggests that your next course of action would be either to "ask at a subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProject talk page", which I suppose here would be WP:WikiProject England. The next step after that would be WP:Requests for comment.

If you think that I, or anyone else, has failed to conduct themselves as we should have in this discussion with you, you could raise it at the WP:Civility noticeboard. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

- Wikipedia is, according to Wikipedia itself, a "comprehensive written compendium that contains information on either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge". The reason people turn to encyclopedias is to find "as much relevant information as they might wish to have". - My main point of issue with you is that your arguments are based on your own subjective interpretation of the rules. - I don't disagree with the consensus on how Wikipedia works, I disagree with your interpretation of how Wikipedia works. As I said above, your intrepretation is a your subjective view. - Frankly unless whoever owns/runs this project puts some rules in place to stop the indiscriminate editing of entries by anyone who thinks they know better when they don't (and that includes me too) the project is eventually going lose any credibility and authority. 81.100.210.13 (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Brenmar

All of those acronyms linked in the above discussion are many of the wikipedia rules, policies, and guidelines that we use for article creation, content, style, etc. The real 'owners and people that run this project' are all of us. One of the great things about wikipedia - in addition to getting to work with thousands of folks in creating and sustaining these articles - is that we can contribute to how wikipedia itself "runs", and the rules and policies themselves are always being improved and discussed. Hughcharlesparker linked some places to go to get more clarification on the rules and how we're interpreting, or to escalate to the next step in dispute resolution, which you are welcome to do.

The link to the Association in the external links section is a good compromise. I've read the article and visited the website again and I'm glad that there is a wikipedia entry on it -- great history and beautiful buildings. Please let us know if you have a digital photo that you would like to upload for inclusion in the article (its helpful if it can be released using a free license.)

I understand you are frustrated -- apologies if it doesn't feel like this is recognized. We look after lots and lots of articles, some that change dozens of times per day (imagine the disputes and discussions behind the scenes at Sarah Palin!) so all the jargon and acronyms are meant to give fuller detail.

Nobody that has contributed to this discussion has had anything but consistent application of "the rules" in mind. Saying that we are "meddling" or "annoying" you or calling an editor "Nosey" or "mistaken know-it-alls" is not going to get any of your arguements far in this community. It is important that you read WP:CIV, -- it is non-optional policy. regards, --guyzero | talk 06:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the response Guyzero. The thing is this: as you say we all "own" Wikipedia. And therefore we are all equal. So how come one person's opinion outweighs another. This entry is, as you are kind enough to say, about a place with a great history and a beautiful building. So the interpretation about whether inclusion of the tenants' association, which has played a part in that history, should be left to the judgment of someone who knows about it. As luck would have it, I saw Jimmy Wales interviewed on TV today so now that I know who he is, I feel so strongly about this issue that I may take it to him. Wikipedia is a great idea and editing other people's copy is also good when it is done intelligently. God knows, there are enough people contributing to this who cannot spell, have no grammar, can't punctuate, don't know the correct usage of capital letters, or the difference between "that" and "which". Need I go on? But changing facts or deleting them without discussion with the original writer is not acceptable. It doesn't seem to dawn on anybody that maybe the original writer actually knew what he/she was talking about. 81.100.210.13 (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Brenmar

We now have a different problem here as well. Brenmar's initial edits consisted of content and links and now there remains an external link. This violates WP:External_Links and WP:SPAM. While unfortunate, it contravenes the principle that: "The number one rule for Project members is this code of honor: "I will never insert links to my own sites into Wikipedia's article space." Not only is Conflict of interest a guideline that is generally accepted among editors, but many of us who run websites are too committed to their success (however we define it) to judge impartially whether or not they belong in an article." [More detail here] I have not taken any action pending discussion. Nelson50 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the links when this was pointed out to me earlier. But I objected (and still do) to people removing material without knowing what they are talking about or consulting those who write it. All I want to see included - because it is very relevant - was a simple sentence saying that the place has a tenants' association - just as it has a swimming pool. The link was put back by a third party editor who saw its inclusion as a compromise between my point of view and hughcharlesparker's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenmar (talk • contribs) 12:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenmar: Whether or not editors know about Dolphin Square is not relevant at all: everyone involved in this discussion accepts that the tenants' association exists. The question is in what form, if at all, it's appropriate to mention it here. Wikipedia has no requirement for an editor to consult previous editors - no-one owns an article. That's why, whenever you edit a page, you'll see under the edit box the words "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it".

Nelson50: I agree with you that the external link doesn't belong here. I think it was originally moved there from the main text as an attempt at compromise. AndrewHowse and Guyzero (and anyone else, of course): any comments? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If User:Brenmar agrees, then it should go. I believe Brenmar was the only editor advocating for it; User:Hughcharlesparker was opposed, I believe, and the rest of us were just trying to find a compromise. (btw, the reason I specified "If Brenmar agrees ..." was because I haven't seen that Brenmar is conclusively linked to the external site. There could be evidence of that; I simply haven't seen it. Such evidence would support a claim of CoI and hence make it improper for Brenmar to advocate inclusion. Nothing new there; just clarifying my reasoning.) --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

good morning- I think the EL to the Dolphin Square Association should stay as a simple link in the EL section. Not just in the spirit compromise, but also that it appears that additional information about the article subject can be found at the Association website; information that does not belong in the article itself: [2] [3] [4].

Brenmar, please review this policy on conflict of interest contributions and this guideline for compliance while contributing. In a nutshell, it says that you should not edit the article directly (except to remove vandalism or to make non-controversial grammar/spelling changes), but instead should post what you would like to see changed here, on the talkpage. I have no feeling on how many folks have this page on their watchlist, so if you don't see any responses for a few days, then open a query at perhaps editor assistance. It goes a long way if you self-identify that you are trying to adhere to these guidelines. I'll keep this page on my watchlist, but cannot guarantee I won't be taking a wikibreak when your posting is made. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 17:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, Guyzero. If someone really wanted to know everything about Dolphin Square, the link to the BBC article might be worth finding. Let's leave it as it is, with the external link in there. Is everyone happy with that? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Having read everything written since my last contribution to this discussion, I have to say this. It appears to me that an obsession for the rules overrides accuracy. I realise there is no obligation to consult others when making an edit. But does it not occur to people when they make an edit that there may just be someone else on the planet that knows more about a topic then they do? All this argument has proved to me is that Wikipedia's accuracy is questionable and cannot be taken seriously as a source of reference. The snag is many people now turn to Wikipedia as a definitive source of information. And I speak here not just of the Dolphin Square entry but other entries where I have found factual errors. Brenmar (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Brenmar

Brenmar, it's been explained to you many times that knowledge about Dolphin Square is not the issue here. It's not about accuracy, it's about criteria for inclusion: the issue is whether the material you are trying to add is appropriate for wikipedia. I won't rehearse the arguments again here - you can read them above.

I also want to point out again that you have a clear conflict of interest: assuming that it's not too much of a stretch to say that Brenmar is an abbreviation for Brendan Martin, you are the chairman of the Dolphin Square Tenants Association.

Your brief biography on the DSTA website says that you are a professional journalist - surely you must understand that different publications have different remits. We have taken great pains to explain to you that your understanding of wikipedia's remit was incorrect, and you have ignored us.

The DSTA website has been redesigned in the last couple of weeks (and now looks fantastic), and I'm guessing there's been some effort to publicise it and the association, and I'm guessing that you thought that adding material to Wikipedia would be a useful part of that campaign. That's understandable, but you now need to accept that you had misunderstood what wikipedia is, and is for, and leave it alone. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I echo much of what HughCharles and others have said above. Personally, if I make an edit I am acutely aware that others know more, but that does not stop me making the edit if I can verifiably claim my information is correct. If another editor comes along and improves on my contribution, then I am delighted.

The point you make about veracity of information on Wikipedia is spot on. That is why academic institutions (a sector that I work in) argue that Wikipedia is not a definitive source. Students are encouraged to use Wikipedia but to always verify information against the original source - i.e. Wikipedia is not a source. Finally, you are again right that Wikipedia contains factual errors. Again, when I find them, I correct them. That's how the project works. Best regards Nelson50^T 15:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The link I provided was not self-interest. It is for an organisation of which I happen to be a member. The Association was in existence long before I came along. It was started in 1959. It will be there when I cease being a member. Under HughCharlesParker's logic, nobody who is a member of any organisation should contribute to an entry to that organisation. In other words, those who know the most should not contribute. The DSTA website has not been redesigned in the last couple of weeks. It has been like that for the past three or four years. It just seems odd to me that a bench bearing a plaque for a long dead comedian is considered more important than a body that plays a major part in the lives of those who live in Dolphin Square. And yet again, HughCharlesParker repeats his point about the rules. even saying: " It's not about accuracy, it's about criteria for inclusion". And I have said before I believe that HughCharlesParker interprets the rules to suit himself. That's not a criticism, it simply a statement that people interpret things differently.
• I think that Nelson50 seems to see the point even though he agrees with HughCharlesParker. Nelson50's point about students not using it as a source of reference is not totally true. I teach students who do see Wikipedia as a reliable source and no one at the university where I work seems to object to students using Wikipedia as a reliable source. It may be that now we have established that Wikipedia is "not about accuracy, it's about criteria for inclusion" university authorities may decide it is wrong to allow students do this. But an inaccurate information source such as Wikipedia is a pretty useless thing. How do we know what to trust? And what not to trust? Anyway, my final word on the topic is that if it makes such a big difference to HughCharlesParker then remove the link. I have given up caring. So you all continue on with your bad punctuation, mispelling, antiquated wordings, lack of house style and inaccurate facts. I've lost interest. But I can't help feeling that people who follow rules without questioning them or using common sense remind me of a group of people who 60 years ago hid behind the phrase: We were just following orders. Brenmar (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Brenmar

I'm leaving a civility warning for the above comments on Brenmar's talkpage. Looks like case closed here with the external link compromise, though an editor is free to remove it per WP:EL. Brenmar, you can continue to contribute (suggested content re-writes, new information, etc) within the bounds of WP:COI and WP:CIV. Four seperate editors have come here in good faith and provided a great many links and detailed explainations in the above discussion, you can discuss general policy issues on those seperate noticeboards, linked above. --guyzero | talk 23:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Investor history

There is some investor history about this building relating to Jack Dellal. See that article for the Dolphin Sq mention and link to the source. I don't know how to incorporate it in this article. There is the information in case anyone wants to use it. --ACRSM 18:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)