Jump to content

Talk:Terry Farrell (architect)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stubification

[edit]

I have reduced this article to a stub as (a) the old article was mainly about the firm not the man, (b) the old article was a delightful advertisement but abysmally failed WP:NPOV and indeed WP:LINKFARM and (c) it was almost exclusively the work of conflicted editors. The article contained some useful information so is presently at Terry Farrell (architect)/Old. I think the obvious thing to do is to decide first whether this is supposed to be a biography ro a company article, and then for editors independent of the subject to rebuild the content in a way that is consistent with the five pillars. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: {{db-move}} is for uncontroversial moves. Moving an advertisement back to mainspace is controversial. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, sorry to have used |{{db-move}} inappropriately. But I ask you, again, to replace this article which you moved to Terry Farrell (architect)/Old. The correct way to reduce the article to a stub would be to edit out the sections you find unacceptable, leaving the article history, categories, etc intact. By moving the whole article and replacing it with a minimal stub you have removed the edit history and the work of multiple editors over a period of time. I see no policy which allows you to do this. Please reverse the operation, so that the article has its edit history. What you have done seems to be a unilateral decision to delete the article while allowing it to be re-created: the AfD process encourages input from other editors. This is not a case of libel or unreferenced BLP (there are references, including an article in a national newspaper, The Scotsman, so the "BLP unref" tag was not justified). I have no axe to grind, only came across this article while stub-sortin, but I do not think proper process has been followed in this case, and I ask JzG to replace the original article. PamD (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see nothing in the talk page to show that any problems with the page have previously been discussed, and nothing, beyond a shared surname of one editor, to support the assertion of WP:COI. Moving a page like this is an unfair substitute for WP:BRD, because your personal decision to move the page boldly cannot be reversed by another editor. PamD (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore the article and allow the community to collaborate in resolving the problems you have identified. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not need restoring as it has not been deleted. The community is perfectly able to collaborate on fixing the article by rewriting it in a policy-compliant way, which requires a fundamental ground-up rework for the reasons I noted above: WP:NPOV, WP:COI and failure to distinguish between two separate but related topics (we treat biographies differently from articles on other subjects, for specific and excellent reasons). Guy (Help!) 19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't delete the article? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved as part of a histmerge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Farrell (architect)/Old → Terry Farrell (architect) — This long-established article which had been worked on by various editors was moved to the present title by an editor who considered it to have various problems. He has been asked to restore it but has not done so. This does not appear to be the correct procedure: it avoids the cycle of WP:BRD because other editors cannot reverse his bold move of the page. The page move loses all the edit history of the article, and is the equivalent of a one-editor "delete and allow re-creation" decision, with no due process. The original article should be restored and can then be worked on by interested editors. There is no evidence of previous discussion of any issues on the article's talk page before this move was made. PamD (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This article should be moved back to main space not only on the principle of consensus enshrined in WP:BRD, but because - even by the admission of the deleting editor - it contained "useful information" that the new stub does not contain. A B-class article has been deleted without discussion. I would be happy to work with any editor to address Guy's concerns, but I think the community would be best served by starting with a collaboratively developed article of long-standing consensus rather than with a stub created by one editor working on his own.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Speedy rename per WP:BRD ; rename per WP:SUBPAGES ; it also seems to violate contribution history rules. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Guy seems to assume that every revision of the article is an advertisement. Is that actually true? Reverting to a previous version is now impossible. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I edited the old version of this page as I was using it as part of a dissertation project. I added references to help to verify the page as a biography of a living person. I do not understand why the whole page has been deleted/moved as a large portion of the content had links to other wikipedia pages and other verified references such as national newspapers. Some of the projects did link directly to the architects website, but surely the ones that were contentious can be removed and the one's that were acceptable can remain? I am new to wikipedia and do not fully understand the process used to update pages but surely a better way to update this page would have been to highlight the contentious areas of the page and leave it to other wikipedians to amend? Please can you explain what is the criteria for removing content and what part of this content was considered an advetisement? I have seen plenty of other architects biographys that have a similar layout and list projects in a similar way, although may not have links directly to the architects website, see: Richard Rogers and Zaha Hadid for examples. Surely the page would benefit if it was reoganised to match the examples given, that were deemed acceptable? (Woolf123 (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Awards

[edit]

The awards section was unbalancing the article, and included many awards of no obvious notability. I will paste it below, and I suggest that only awards which are the subject of Wikipedia articles (and I mean the award, not just the awarding body) should be replaced in the main article. PamD (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

====== Start of pasted list

==End of pasted list

Amended Life and Career and added references to selected awards

[edit]

Hi there, I have been working on this article as I am using it as a reference for a dissertation I am doing. I have amended some of the sections, please can an admin/somebody check over these and approve them if they are OK. Thanks Woolf123 (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Farrell_(architect)&oldid=1214222089"