Talk:Tribeca Belfast

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Northern Ireland

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Tribeca Belfast be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in Belfast may be able to help!

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

PeterClarke 13:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki page for a non-existent development?

Why does this page exist? It reads entirely like a promotional leaflet for the developers and development, and makes no mention of the ongoing disputes involved. I don't see much point in it being here, but if it is to stay, it should have all the advertising gumph removed and stripped back to the facts, and include some coverage of the campaign against the development, so that the bias is brought back to a neutral area. Fattonyni (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found an old edit that user UAHS had provided info about opposition to the project, but had been removed by a bot due to a technicality. Reinstated and copyedited. Fattonyni (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in answer to my own question, I've updated the article from the ground up, keeping all original content (while refining any advertising-speak to make more encyclopaedic), adding further information about the work done by groups campaigning against the development and the reasons for same, and also adding a full development history from various sources. Hope it makes for better reading now! Fattonyni (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]