Talk:Kings County Savings Bank
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editThis page has quite a few repetitions, especially "by the wealth for the wealth." It can be pared down. Hypeer 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
We have discussion of the bank and of its building. Shouldn't these be seperate? Alba 22:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so, especially if the building is still known as the old bank building. Unless there's a lot more content for either just the bank or just the building, might as well leave them in one article. --Kerowyn 09:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the article is fine the way it is. There's no evidence in the article that the (no longer functioning) bank is independent-article-worthy, while the building, as a landmark, most probably is. It would probably make sense, though, to make the timeline more building-specific, instead of merely bank name changes. I removed the split tag. Cpastern 09:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
question
editarent the dates in the wrogn order?--Applegigs (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Better before?
editSo, I removed some of the WP:Puffery about the not-very-notable Williamsburg Art & Historical Center, introduced here by a small group of COI editors including Immunonuclear, Terrance Lindall and Williamsburg Resident (see WP:COIN#Suite of COI articles for the discussion of the COI history going back to 2004), and including a lengthy and quite unnecessary quote from "the official Brooklyn Historian, John Manbeck" (sez who, exactly? that certainly isn't in the source cited). Beyond My Ken reverted because it was "better before". I don't think it was. Any thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- "COI editors" you say - have you evidence for that? "Not very notable" you say, but it was the subject of an article in the Brooklyn Eagle, and pulls 205,000 Ghits. John B, Manbeck was Brooklyn Borough Historian, appointed by Borough President Howard Golden, from 1993-2002 [1], [2]. The reason given for removal was WP:WEIGHT, but the section is less than a sixth of the article, and contains information about the ownership of the building. I see no legitimate justification for removing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Separate issues are being conflated here:
- Do some of the contributors to the WAH section have a COI? - It seems probable
- Has the section been skewed by their editing - No
- Is the organization notable? - Yes
- Are there copyvios in the section - I haven't found any yet
- Does the inclusion of the section violate WP:WEIGHT? - No.
- Should the section be removed - No
- Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Separate issues are being conflated here: