Talk:Hicks Building

Coordinates
I recently moved the coordinates to the infobox, and changed to using coord. This was reverted, with the edit summary explanation of "please do not duplicate coordinates. We achieved concensus (sic) elsewhere)". I do not believe that any such consesnsus has been reached. I also reduced the precision, per WP:GEO. This was also reverted, with the comment " the precision seems necessary". It is not, so I've restored my changes, albeit with an extra decimal place, giving a precision of ~10m, which is appropriate for a building of such size. Andy Mabbett 09:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My edit to the coordinates was reverted, with the summary: ""no such concensus (sic)" is fictitious. Please leave editing of building's article o (sic) those wjo (sic) use the building.)". Please provide a link to the supposed consensus, and note that WP:OWN mandates that the people who currently use the building have no more rights over this article than any other editor. Andy Mabbett 18:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And your rights to not trump mine. Kindly disist.   L.J.Skinner wot 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlike you, I've never claimed that they do. Andy Mabbett 12:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that the coordinates template has been reverted, again. I repeat my request: '''Please provide a link to the supposed consensus, and note that WP:OWN mandates that the people who currently use the building have no more rights over this article than any other editor. '''. Andy Mabbett 09:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk:Tinsley_Viaduct/coordinates - VinceBowdren, Captain scarlet, myself and Caniago all stated that we have concerns with the superfluous use of coodinates. Please stop all this pointless arguing Pigsonthewing - I joined wiki to edit articles as I see fit and create a better encyclopedia.  I did not come here to be drawn into arguements and fights with other users.   L.J.Skinner wot 14:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion on Talk:Tinsley_Viaduct/coordinates (which in any case did not preclude the use of coord) has no bearing here.


 * "I did not come here to be drawn into arguements (sic) and fights with other users." - It's entirely up to behave accordingly, then.


 * My name remains, Andy Mabbett 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Smaller section
My recollection is that the smaller building houses (or did in the mid-90s) the Computer Centre (CiC?). -- roundhouse 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability
I'm not sure that this building is all that notable on its own, although it used to be notably ugly before its re-cladding. Might it not be usefully merged into a 'Buildings of the University of Sheffield' article, perhaps with others, and broken out if any more material emerges? (Eg who was Hicks, etc.) -- roundhouse 18:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Coord
For the record, on this talk page, I object to the replacement of coor title d with coord until the position re Google is demonstrably resolved. (I have no other problem re coord. I don't object to its introduction on a page that previously had no coords.)

I also object to duplication - the appearance of the coordinates both in the title and the infobox. I will withdraw this objection on condition that there is an option to display either or both (and I would usually opt for title only, but under some circumstances might prefer box only; I might even use both on occasion). If no such option is possible then title only would be my preference. -- roundhouse 12:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding your first parenthetical comment; the application of coord to this article occurred just 20 minutes after the first addition of coordinates to the article. To suggest that the first such use has precedence sounds like advocating ownership. Andy Mabbett 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Touché. -- roundhouse 13:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps you'll revert your most recent edits? Andy Mabbett 13:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I might well ask whether there is consensus for this, given a satisfactory resolution to my remaining objection. There are also other objections, made by others in the comments above, for whom I cannot speak. (Exercising straw men is a good one, BTW.) -- roundhouse 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OR, not a citation
This edit constitutes OTR and, which it added, is not a valid citation; and should be reverted. Andy Mabbett 08:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If looking for a webpage to prove my point is OR, then so is any and all referencing. This also a link to a map - effectively the same output as coord, coor title dms etc.  What would you like pigsonthewing?  A photo showing how the building still dominates from some views?  I picture from Brookhill showing before and after the Information Commons?   L.J.Skinner wot 12:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could point out where, on that page, wording to the effect that the building "has dominated the site to the south of Western Bank ... until the completion of the shorter, copper-clad Information Commons, adjacent to Upper Hanover Street."? What I would like is a reference which satisfies the requirements of Verifiabilityl or for you to retsore the link and replace the "fact" tag; or to remove the unsourced opinion. My name remains, Andy Mabbett 12:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As a matter of interest why is not a valid citation? (It is a very effective citation, showing the Hicks building dwarfing the surrounding buildings, as it does.) I'm not saying it is valid ... are there guidelines anywhere? It would be helpful, LJS, if there was a source for the 40m as then one could tie it in the tallest buildings in Sheffield list which went below 40m, unless this would be OR. -- roundhouse 13:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK Pigsonthewing, here is a photo I took today at around 4pm from Young Street, around ¾ of a mile away. The building to the right is the 20-storey 78 metre Arts Tower, to the centre-left (with all the antennae) is the Hicks Building.  Surely this shows the massing?   L.J.Skinner wot 19:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's all original research. Please provide a citation; restore the request for a citation, or remove the unsourced statement. Andy Mabbett 19:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I do not consider a link to an aerial photo to be a credible source for the statement in question and I see it more as a poor attempt to try and satisfy the concerns set out in the AfD. I still believe that there is no evidence that the building is notable and would suggest that if an aerial photo is the best source we have then it probably suggests that the nomination that this article be deleted was indeed justified. What this article needs are good secondary sources about the subject as opposed to primary sources; photographs etc. (See No_original_research for more information).


 * Lewis, on a slightly different issue, you may wish to upload any future images released under free licences to Wikimedia Commons where they will be available to all other Wikimedia projects and where they can be better organised. Regards. Adambro 19:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why?  L.J.Skinner wot 20:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Wikipedia policy prohibits original research. Andy Mabbett 20:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I think part of the summary of the No original research policy is particularly relevant; "Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis". It is my opinion that suggesting a building dominates an area based on photographs is in violation of this as it is based on analysis of the source. Adambro 21:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)