 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
History
editThe history of the Royal is very brief and I propose to exxtend it, with particular reference to the official history. This cannot be done without replacing existing text and some of the secondary citations. Bebington (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi - It would be best to retain the existing citations. As you know, our guidelines state that notability depends on having significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Also, in principle, existing text which is properly sourced should not be removed. It can of course be expanded with properly sourced material. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hello
- Always a difficult editorial problem when trying to retain existing text within a much larger article. As for the sources, I had earler added two or three company history sources for the acqyisitions. Outside of that, most of the remeining citations are from articles on the Comoany's buildings and are very much secondary sources. I would rather give precedence to the official history, The Times and the accounts. I thought I might start by moving the bits on the buildings to their own heading and that will keep most of the citations without them looking lke a major source. I found this a difficult article to write but it desrves good citatiions.
- Regards
- Bebington (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't see why the material on the buildings cannot be moved to a separate heading. WP:PST gives good guidance on secondary versus primary sources. It says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would prefer to finish inserting the history text and then go back myself to check for inconsistencies. Thanks.Bebington (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have finished now. I will probably have another look tomorrow for style etc. but any comments appreciated.
- Regards
- Bebington (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- OK. No problem. Dormskirk (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Morning
- I have read through Royal aagain and made a few small tweaks. I am happy with it now if you have any thoughts.
- Regards
- Bebington (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- It looks good to me. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the Lancashire spelling correction. I am partially sighted and these things creep in. I normally draft in Word with large type and a spell checker but the ad hoc changes can catch me out.
- Regards
- Bebington (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- It looks good to me. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- OK. No problem. Dormskirk (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would prefer to finish inserting the history text and then go back myself to check for inconsistencies. Thanks.Bebington (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't see why the material on the buildings cannot be moved to a separate heading. WP:PST gives good guidance on secondary versus primary sources. It says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)