User talk:Property2016

Centre Point
I have added the conversion to the body of the article simply by reiterating what was in the lede, which should address the majority of the required updating. That Times reference on the height is apparently paywalled, and thus I can only read the blurb on the Shell Building. Also, here's some of the issue with details: the Grade II listing on historicengland.org.uk says it's a 33-story building and that the fountains were removed in 2009 (which would imply demolishing the piazza they would have been in?). The dead targetfollow archive link and the paywall link claim it's 34 stories. So I've got a problem because the official Grade II material (which I can see) apparently is at odds with other third-party material I can't access, and I'm more inclined to follow the official documentation over a news report. In regards to height, is there a discrepancy where someone is counting a basement, perhaps, and someone else isn't? MSJapan (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much MSJapan I completly understand. I will speak to Historic England and ask them to update their page and get back in touch when we can use that as a reference.

many thanks for your help Property2016 (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to point out here that, in good faith or not, you've just shown exactly why having a COI is a problem. A source doesn't agree with what you say it should be, so without ascertaining why there might be a difference, you're simply going to contact the source (because you work for the developer), tell them they're wrong, and have them change it so it agrees with what you want it to say. Factual or not, good faith or not, that's what you're doing, and in the end you're making an alteration to the integrity of the source because you have an ability an uninvolved editor does not. By the way, what we usually do when reliable sources disagree (and there's a basis given for it, which there is not here) is put a note to that effect in the article; we don't call up one of the sources and tell them they're wrong. MSJapan (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi MSJapan i apologise, I didn't mean for that to appear that way. As Historic England's page hasn't been updated since 2013, I am only seeking for information on this page to be as accurate as possible and I am sure Historic England would welcome the update, if not they can obviously choose not to change their page on Centre Point. Camden City Council granted planning permission in 2014 for work on the 34-storey building. This is stated in a number of documents on Camden council's website including the Design & Access statement part 5. The document has to be downloaded but if you scroll down you will see the Design & Access statement which is part of the documents that the council granted planning permission on http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/webdrawer/webdrawer.dll/webdrawer/search/rec&sm_ncontents=2013/1957/P&template=reclistplanning&rows=1000. Does this help resolve the issue as this document is more recent than the the page on Historic England's website? Property2016 (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)