Talk:Grenfell Centre

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2016

Please redirect "Mighty Black Stump" to this page, as it is also known by that name sometimes. Hugeturnip (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Grenfell Centre. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

Nmarsceill (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. KarlPoppery (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Second or third highest

So far we have one source, that looks plausibly reliable, saying it is the third highest and none at all saying it is the second. If anybody who disputes this wants to bring alternative references then they can but they will need to be at least as good as the one we already have to stand a chance of trumping it. The unreferenced changing from third to second is disruptive and unhelpful. I would advise people to discuss here before changing it again and to bring references that support their position. People who change it contrary to the existing reference, without discussion, and without offering at least one plausibly valid alternative reference, are likely to be assumed to be engaged in deliberate vandalism and can expect increasingly strong warnings accordingly if they persist in this. So we can discuss this sensibly or we can go down the path of warnings, page protections and general drama. I'd rather the first option so, please, can we discuss this sensibly? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually that source now has it second highest! I get the impression it's not a very reliable source, though it might be the only one. Adpete (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This site seems more reliable (and places GC third) [1] Adpete (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Internet mention

Unless something is done, this page is just going to keep getting a "mighty" attributed to it every time it comes up again in "Hello Internet", so I've added an "In Popular Culture" section to mitigate this. Anyone coming here from the podcast can see the "mighty" reprensented in some trivial way, and in direct defiance of anyone suggesting the Hello Internet pocast is "too trivial"; I insist on pointing out the time it takes to revert changes every time somebody vandalises the page due to how many tens of thousands of listeners there are.

It's clearly non-trivial, this has been reasonably established. I have provided citations, and I have provided valid information regarding the building that changes its value based on the experience of a large group of people. Unless one's argument is "it was a smaller article and so it should be kept smaller", I fail to understand one's position against just adding an "In Popular Culture" section. Please feel free to contact me and discuss any legitimate reasons why it should not be maintained as I have left it, as I strongly feel this is a better example of the page.

Kaolincash (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

(I hope you didn't mind me moving this to the bottom of the page. Normally new discussion goes at the bottom and I had already added my own section before I saw that you had added one. I also removed your reference to "vandalism" in the section title.)

I think we should either remove or vastly trim the mention of the Hello Internet podcast.

Hello Internet is a fairly popular podcast but we are not talking about millions of listeners here. It is a general interest podcast, in which they talk about whatever they want to, and the topics range widely. It is not a podcast specifically about Australian architecture or even about architecture. Despite this, we are giving its opinions coverage on a par with the building being featured in a major publication about architecture or, say, as a location in a popular movie. This is disproportionate and merely serves to promote Hello Internet (although maybe not deliberately) rather than say anything about the building itself. There is no way that this deserves a whole section. I don't even think it should be mentioned at all but I'm not going to moan about a single sentence if somebody can find a WP:RS reference for it. Personally I don't expect that such an RS reference exists, as it is too deep into fan trivia for any RS to have covered it, but I could be wrong and if anybody finds one then that will be fair enough. For avoidance of doubt, references to HI or its presenters own pages, do not count as RS. We can't use them to show notability.

Until then, this has precisely zero RS references, so I am removing it again. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that somebody has trimmed it down. Thanks for that.

I'll leave it like that for now instead of removing it again. It still needs an RS reference though. I'd be amazed if there are any. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with everything that both of you are saying. In particular, that we're never likely to find a Reliable Source, and that if we keep removing all mentions of "mighty", new IP editors will keep adding it back in. In my "solution" I've tried to address the conflicting requirements. If anyone has a better solution, go for it, but please also provide a justification for how the solution will reduce or eliminate the ongoing nuisance edits. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course this material should not be included without so much as an independent reliable source. I've removed it again. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not even what the "popular" podcast calls it but just what Brady called it, and Grey jokes along with (only in a few of the episodes), and the 'Tims' think is 'fun' to add. It's not encyclopedic, and should not be added unless a reliable source shows the name is more than than a infrequent mention on a podcast. The same goes for all the other things they have encouraged to be changed here (or in some cases Brady alone on his own channels). To anyone who is not a listener this is meaningless trivia that adds nothing to the subject. I'm sure there are more than enough serious editors who are also listeners/viewers of HI/Brady that come to check articles that are mentioned for such edits to keep thing in check. KylieTastic (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with all that and I'd just like to add that none of this reflects well on them. In the long term it can only damage the reputation of people who are otherwise doing good work. I really wish they would realise this and pack it in. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And what does your mutual admiration society plan to do to prevent the ongoing addition of "mighty" to the article? Pdfpdf (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's adequate to use semi-protection, reverts, and blocks as needed—the same ways we usually deal with similar disruption across the project. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)