Talk:Export House

Notabillity[edit]

I'm not convinced this article is notable enough to stand, but it's worth giving it a chance. However, it defintiely needs references. None of the stated facts are cited, and without those cites there is no evidence of notabillity. I suspect that unless there is a good improvement job done it will end up being proposed for deletion. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding in the ref for the height, citations are important for all articles. Note that inline cite's can be added using the ref and /ref tags, you don't need to do the numbering by hand (which would quickly become a headache to maintain). I've converted the ref you added to an inline cite, so you can see how to add the them in the future. I also put in a reflist section.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article some, taking out the triva section and adding in a cite which supports several of the other facts listed. I think you should add in some more refs to back up the history section, and a section on the construction would be worthwhile if you can find cites to quote (which is going to be tough for something built in the seventies, not likely to be much online). Overall I'm still not hugely convinced this is notable, but as the 'tallest in Woking' claim is now cited I think it deserves the benefit of the doubt. Other editors may disagree though.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to see what more could be added to this article, and frankly what notable facts there are here are already included in Woking#Buildings anyway, so I can't see how this article needs to remain. But, given the accusations of wikistalking that have been thrown my way by the article creators elsewhere, I'm going to leave it for someone else to prod.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting very tired of trying to knock this into a decent quality article on behalf of you two, when it's barely notable in the first place. Right now I'm tempted to just throw it at AfD and be done with it. The only reason I haven't already done so was to have an uncontrovercial example to work with in an attempt to show you how to write an article properly, but you clearly aren't listening. The subject is not really notable anyway, by consistently editing to make the article read unencyclopeadic and unreferenced you just make it look more like a candidate for deletion. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

I would like to ask if someone owns a photo of export please can they put it on Wiki Commons so I could add it to article.

WILLROCKS10 (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine there will be many free use pictures kicking about, with all due respect it's hardly the most photogenic building in the world! As you live in Woking, the simplest thing might be to take one yourself, which has the added advantage that you will be the copyright holder so you can release it for free use in commons.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know i live in Woking !!!???

WILLROCKS10 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, but it's a reasonable inferrence from the articles you have edited. However, I do know user:Pbl1998 lives in Woking (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APbl1998&action=historysubmit&diff=406853107&oldid=406542924) and also that you go to the same school as him (and Jargonia for that matter) since the SPI checkuser result traced you both back to the same Surrey education IP address range. So it would appear likely you live in the area. Don't worry, I'm not stalking you.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thats fine then and yes i live in woking

WILLROCKS10 (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've never been that good with adding photo's caan you tell me how!

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Copying links here for future ref) Here are some links to pictures of Export House:

http://www.rhbpartnership.co.uk/imageuploads/Export2_330x330.jpg -This is a picture of the entrance to Export House.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46830000/jpg/_46830059_woking.jpg -Far away view of Export House, Zoomed in though, presumably tooken from the Hog's Back because it's one of only high spots near Woking.

Both of these pictures look like they are copyright to the respective websites, so you aren't going to be able to use them. Have you any pictures of your own? If so, you can publish it to wikimedia commons and as the copyright holder release it for free use. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked at the other two pics you briefly included (one from flickr and one from photobucket), both look to be copyright so they aren't going to be usable. You need to find a free use image, or create on yourself--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put one on by me

WILLROCKS10 (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when putting comments on talk pages, try to put them in chronological order from top to bottom, so the ongoing conversation is clearer and makes more sense. Also, when replying to something, put one or more colons : in front of the sentance, so that it will do stepped indentation, as again that makes it much easier to read. I can often only find your comments by looking at the page history, as they appear unindented in the middle of an existing passage.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.T/bat[edit]

This ongoing edit war between you two about this is silly, its not that import a fact! Plus I don't think the current text scans very well, in part thanks to the back and forth reverts you've been doing. Can I suggest a third way?

The reference which demonstrates that the name is a local nickname (http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2011587_highflying_residents_in_penthouse_roost) uses the form BAT, so capitalised but no punctuation. This strikes me as a reasonable compromise between the two versions, and has the added value of being referenced.

I'm going to reword the article to reflect this and geneally scan better. Have a look then comment back here with your thoughts.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm going to change it to 'and the Bat Building once and for all'-including 'The B.A.T Building'.

Thanks, pbl1998--94.193.19.84 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)13:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I mean seriously who cares about how it is spelt? All this is doing is cluttering up the article with an irrelevent spelling debate. The ref calls it BAT, so why not just go with that? Remember the purpose of the article is to be useful to readers, how is this serving that?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about that?

pbl1998--94.193.19.84 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that's me!!

pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you must have both versions, that looks better as it's shorter. This really isn't important enough to make a big deal over. Are you happy with this version? How about you Willrocks?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

There that looks good-Do you agree?

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for God's sake this is ridiculous. Not only does "It is known locally as the Bat or B.A.T building due to it's former tenant's British American Tobacco" look stupid, it's got two glaring grammar mistakes. The its is not short for "it is" so shouldn't have an apostrophe, and neither should "tenant's".

I think it should say "It is known locally as the BAT building". I've only ever heard it pronounced "bat", not B.A.T (B then A then T separately), but even if there are varying pronunciations then "BAT" covers both. Having "Bat or B.A.T" is daft, as I'd pronounce them exactly the same. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 14:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I 100% agree with you. I hardly ever here it called the B.A.T Building-That's Willrocks. I've seen to what you said. Look now.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PBL, the version I put up was perfectly acceptable, and you agreed you were happy with it. Why have you now hacked about to introduce grammar mistakes and taken us to the absurdity of three versions? Just leave it alone. Also, a lot of the other edits you've put in this afternoon are totally inappropriate. I'm going to revert a lot of them, but I'll do it later when I'm on my laptop rather than the iPhone so I can put in proper commentary to explain why I'm reverting them. I'll also look at the pictures and help you put one in if appropriate.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through these one at a time.

1. 'Wikilinks section' not needed, if you look in the left hand menu (under tools) there is a 'what links here' tool which does this job automatically.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. You don't need a new refernces section as this is already dealt with in the 'Notes' section which has the reflist object. This automatically collates inline cites from the articles. References need to put put in as inline cites, using the ref tags, next to the facts they support. In this case the ref was to do with Telewest taking over the building so it belongs there, in fact it expands slightly on what was already written, so I fleshed that part out more. One ref can support many facts, in this case you give the ref a name and just re-use it, as I've done with the first ref in this article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Pictures section, just not apropriate for an encyclopedia. Pictures are a good thing to have, but lets find a free use image and put it in properly. My takeway just arrived though so I'll look at that tomorrow.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I hope you pronounce this Bat not B then A then T.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wonderful thing about writting is that it has no pronounciation. I think it could be read either way, thereby making it a perfect compromise solution. It's also cited, which is the best answer to a dispute like this, just go with the citations.

With regards your other edits last night.

Firstly, you re-named a ref from 'getwokingham' to 'getwoking'. The reason it was called get wokingham is that that is the name of the website it was linking to. Note that the ref name is not visible on the article, its only used for internal linking. Which is why you then got error messages on the page, as 'getwokingham' was refering to a citation I created further up the article, by renaming it you broke the connection and caused the error. When your edits cause an error on the page, unless you are certain you know what you did wrong, revert your own edit and then use preview mode to test what the problem is. Just cutting out the part causing the error is not helpful, in this instance you removed a reference from the article which directly supported the previous line.

Secondly, the edits you made to the history were not very well written and you basically duplicated the facts about BAT and the two year difference in times. I've re-edited the whole section to read better, changing some previous stuff as well such as a couple of wikilinks that aren't needed (or moving them for clarrity).

Lastly, the 'go to the Library' bit is just not how things are written. If you were reading a printed encyclopeadia, would you expect an article to have at the bottom 'if you live in Woking go to the library to read more!'?

I think at this stage, unless you find some more citations that either support the existing material (some more on the history would be good) or present new information, I'd leave this alone now. It reads reasonably well and is about right for a not hugely notable subject--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, just leave this one alone now. Unless you find some more cites there's really nothing more to say. You seem to be adding stuff just for the sake of it. The challenge in wikipedia is to provide quality edits, not quantity. Most of the real work revolves around finding citations, not the actual editing, that's where you are really falling down on this and other articles.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just managed to break and remove the ref again, if you aren't sure what you are doing, please back out rather than removing refs. The sentence 'other developments are happening as well' has no relevence to this article, as it is not about barratt developments in Woking. Lastly, the bat/BAT issue has been discussed and the version up is the best version and supprted by a citation. If you want to put in the B.A.T version please find a ref showing that this is genuinely in use.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2011 (UT

Hi,

PBL is the only person i know who calls it bat.

WILLROCKS10 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief this is ludicrous. If you do a google search for 'B.A.T building woking' you will find that every single reference online calls it the BAT building. the only pages using the B.A.T form are mirrors of your wikipedia edits. So there is absolutely no evidence to support that B.A.T is used by anybody.

Here are some examples that use BAT

Furthermore, the British American Tobacco page uses BAT almost everywhere, and indeed the company themselves use BAT in most instances http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO52ADJ8?opendocument&SKN=1

There is no evidence at all that it is referred to as B.A.T, so this ludicrously trivial point is original research. Unless you can provide some citations otherwise?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above I've reverted to the referenced version, plus added two more cites to support this. I would strongly suggest that everyone leave it alone now as this is becoming increasingly lame. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'First' development[edit]

This needs some better definition and expansion. By what measure was this the first development? The History of Woking page discusses a first development of the town center in 1850, which predates this quite considerably. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public assess[edit]

The funny thing was that it was meant to be open on sept the 12th aswell. I went to export on that day and they did not open it in the end because of staff shortages! Anyway has anyone got photos from the top of export because they would be quite useful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This also rather suggests you live in the area.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Way development[edit]

What's the status of this? If it's only a proposal then per WP:CRYSTAL it should probably be taken out. In any event a citation would be useful.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Please do not add random citations to the bottom of the reflist, that is not the correct way to do it. (copied here)

10. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/news/a30250/telewests-woking-headquarters-to-close.html

Right, having read the cite, it adds new information to the article so it's good to have, you just aren't adding them the correct way.

Take a look at the history section, where I just added this in as an inline citation, next to some new text which uses this as a source. Note I don't do any numbering, the ref system does this for me. This actually ends up as ref number 6, and all the following refs are renumbered accordingly so the article still works, which wouldn't happen with manual numbering.

I've copied the code here so you can see what I did more clearly

However in 2006 they left the building after a merger with [[NTL]]<ref>Digitalspy article on Telewest move http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/news/a30250/telewests-woking-headquarters-to-close.html</ref>.

The first bit is just the text that I am adding to the article and is standard text (including a wikilink).

Next is the <ref> tag, this indicates I am starting an inline citation, everything after this will not be shown in the paragraph, but rather as a citation at the bottom, until I close the tag again.

I put in a free text description of the citation, to help explain it at the bottom of the article, then I put the hyperlink. For other types of citation you can use a template

Lastly, you put in the </ref> tag to close the citation, after this any further text is printed in the paragraph as normal.

Let me know if you need any more guidance on this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

Hi,

This is mainly for Willrocks10! I was looking through the history and saw you said there's no need for so many refs. Here's some reasons why there should be refs:

A. They might reference something on the page

and

B. We might not be able to include all the information the actual page

and

C. For further reading

and

D. And a few more reason I won't include for the simple reason of not boring you!

I'm glad you undid your edit on the Refs. Please take this into consideration. I'm happy to help!!!

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For an article as marginally notable as this, the last thing you want to do is remove references!--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

That's one of the points I was trying to get across! I agree (Maybe not about the notabillity thing though)!

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telewest Era[edit]

Hi,

The Telewest Era part is currently under construction, I have loads of information to. Please wait.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]