Talk:Greenwich Pier

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Stub‑class

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

London Transport Mid‑importance

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:LRSMark.jpg

Image:LRSMark.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Today, [1], I again removed the sound of water gently lapping against the pier. JoBrodie, I see you are fairly new to wp, so I will post here to explain. We don't put random information on wp with no editorial merit that adds nothing to the article in question. The sound media you added contributes absolutely nothing to anyone's understanding of the pier. If it were the sound of the pier collapsing after a tidal surge, with people screeming, then that might be more meritorious, but it isn't. The justification links you gave are not relevant. WP policy and guidelines is what matters. Try NOT instead, or TRIVIA or any of many other wikipedia pages. I hope that helps. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here for 13 years (my first edit), four years after Wikipedia was created, so I'd hardly think of myself as new to wp. Your comment, in the reverted edit notes "pls see talk and do not revert again" seems a little high-handed, though looking through others' similar conversations with you I see that I probably shouldn't take it personally. This sound file has been presented as an in-page media player for six years without incident so I'm not sure why it is suddenly problematic. Granted that in itself is not a solid foundation for why it should be there (if it shouldn't have been there in the first place) but it was originally added by another Wikipedian, with much greater experience than me, who is quite keen that more sound information is added here. So for that reason I'm reverting, sorry to be so disobedient. Perhaps we will have to escalate this to some sort of mediation JoBrodie (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental - I'm also not convinced that your earlier editing comment "Is this some sort of bad joke or do you really think the sound of water on timber is encyclopedic material?" is likely to be much of an encouragement to someone you believe to be a new editor. JoBrodie (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I called you recent because a quick view showed you had about 360 edits, which usually means a new editor. I should have checked your joining date first, or used the term 'inexperienced'. My joke remark was not intended to upset in any way, but it is, in my view, pretty correct, if someone thinks it is in any way encyclopedic. I realise you did not first put it there, but you did reinstate it. Why? What possible purpose does it serve? As you have been a member for so many years, you no doubt know that when an edit is challenged like this the correct way to handle it is to discuss on the talk page, not simply re-revert without a reason. Being there unchallenged for several years does not make it necessarily worthy of being there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated it because I think it's an interesting sonic addition and relevant / encyclopaedic because it relates to a property of the subject at hand. It's not the prettiest of sounds but it really is what the pier sounds like. While you can certainly hear some water lapping most of what is heard is pier metal on pier metal (one part of the pier dragging on another), I don't think any timber's involved though. "The correct way to handle it is to discuss on the talk page" - was its initial removal discussed somewhere? JoBrodie (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]