Talk:Ramsay Hall

Tag
Given the outcome of the AfD and the comments from the closing admin, the tag requesting further sources to help show notability is certainly applicable here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The outcome of the AfD was no consensus, which does not justify immediately placing a notability tag on the article as soon as the discussion was closed. Consensus should be gained for the addition of this tag. It hasn't been as yet.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As of now we have two editors who want it added, and an AfD that closed as no consensus where there was a lot of doubt that the sources were notable enough.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a proper discussion on this Talk page about the addition of the tag. 2:1 is not a consensus in a situation like this, particularly when other editors have not yet had any time to participate. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the compromise.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I realized the tag I added was about a different issue that this article doesn't have.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction, was happy. Let me clear that in my view that notability tag is currently there against consensus. My not removing it again now should not in any way be seen as acceptance of the tag.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability tag should be replaced - the deletion page was closed with notability in doubt. Mtking (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Awards and prizes section of information box
Clearly the "Camden Building Excellence Award in 2009" is not a major award or prize and should not be in the information box. Rangoon11 did not get consensus when he added in the first place. Lets see if it exists now for it to be reinserted. Mtking (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a complete misinterpretation of basic policy. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think consensus exits to include such a minor award in such a prominent place Mtking (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have any preference for this one way or another, but the rating should not be included in this section (although it should [and is] included in the article) since it is not an award.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The category is "awards" there are no modifiers or minimal standard implied by the word "awards".

Third opinion request (declined)
(reflecting addition to WP:3 board by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ))

Halls of residence at the University College London
Given that it seems to content is duplicated there, shouldn't this and James Lighthill House be redirected to Halls of residence at the University College London?--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and Yes Mtking (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A comment on the tag
Alright, since there has been a lot of back and forth over the notability tag, I thought I should just bring it up again. The tag existing or not existing should not be a matter of winning or losing. Don't try to make it about continuing the AfD; at this point the main goal is to improve the article, not to argue about whether it does or does not squeak by in the basis of notability. The article survived the AfD as no consensus on the basis that most sources were not enough but some could maybe be potential sources of notability; the existence of the tag does not change that outcome. The tag does not make the article more likely to be deleted; on the contrary, it does quite the opposite, encouraging users to give more credence to an article that may lie just on the threshold. As for the other dispute over the award, an RFC or something may be in order, but I don't know, I don't think I want to get involved in that one yet. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated content
Although I asked about it earlier and there was no opposition, an editor does not want this page redirected to Halls_of_residence_at_University_College_London. Please note that this is not a deletion of any content; the information in this article is duplicated on that page. It is both redundant and ridiculous to have a subject on it's own separate page, and to then have the exact same sentences in another article. Is there any rational reason for it to remain this way, or can we redirect this page to a place where the reader will not only find the information but more on the subject as well?--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the same should probably be applied to James Lighthill House.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - more than enough content here to justify a standalone article. And this building is not solely, or even mainly, notable due to its being a hall of residence of UCL. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that this page about a building is a worthy addition to the Wiki and that it should remain as a separate page. The Wiki article "Halls of residence at UCL" is far from perfect and is not a complete list of all the UCL residences; see list. As far as I can see, the problem is not with the article "Ramsay Hall", but the problem is with the article "Halls of residence at UCL", which needs a lot of tidying up. Perhaps, "Halls of residence at UCL" could be moved to "Residences at UCL" or "List of residences at UCL" so that the smaller residences can be included. Snowman (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Persistent Socking
This page seems to have an issue with persistent socking from a banned editor. Please explain yourself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No it seems to have a problem with an editor repeatedly attempting to delete the page without discussion.2.101.7.44 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything being deleted, all I see is a banned editor trying to use sockpuppets to have a page of duplicate content.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)