Talk:Sciences Library (Brown University)

message: :What I have removed is either in violation of WP:POV or is text quoted directly from a book in the REFERENCES section, when a simple mention of the book will do. ~ Oni Lukos ct 00:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple mention of the book does not convey the book's architectural commentary, which is notable.  The purpose of the full block quote in references is the provide the context from which quotes are taken that are used in the article.  It is not necessary, but the commentary in the article itself is.  It is not a violating of WP:POV since 
"Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:
    * Who advocates the point of view
    * What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)
"
is satisfied.  The bias of the author is clearly established and presented.  It should be included as notable commentary on the subject in question.--Loodog 02:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only quote I saw was in the references section, and the opinion about the architecture was presented in the text in a way that made it not clear whose opinion it was. It is reasonable to put the commentary in if it is clearly marked and cited. ~ Oni Lukos ct 02:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It said, "Architectural historian McKenzie Woodward condemns the building as "overwhelm[ing] everything around it", even comparing it to a Soviet-era Panelák when viewed from its "all-too-many distant viewing perspectives"."  The man whose opinion is being offered is at the very start of the sentence with clearly delineated quotes.--Loodog 04:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, I guess I didn't finish reading the paragraph because the beginning was so non-NPOV, I just ended up skimming the whole thing. The word "violently" at the beginning really set off some red flag in my head. I kinda still feel like the first half of the paragraph would need to be rewritten if we wanted to put it back (which I can tell you do), seeing as it really shouldn't set off a red flag for an editor who reads it. ~ Oni Lukos ct 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I moved this page to Sciences Library (Brown University) to reflect the actual name of the building (see , , , and ).  - AWeenieMan (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make sure you get all the links that were going to Brown University Science Library.  I caught two: one at List of tallest buildings in Providence and the template at the bottom of this page Template: Providence skyscrapers.  There are possibly many more.--Loodog (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I updated Brown University Science Library to redirect to the new naming. Most of the links to it were from a couple of templates transcluded in many pages (namely Template: Providence skyscrapers and Template:Brown University). - AWeenieMan (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but ideally those links should all be going here directly now, not through a redirect.--Loodog (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I made the changes on all the articles (I was just saying that most of What links here was from 2 templates). The only files pointing to a redirect are either in User space or in WP 1.0 logs.  - AWeenieMan (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Sciences Library (Brown University)

message: I have deleted the unsourced claim in the article that the Sciences Library is "the first high-rise library in the world."  The Cambridge University Library's 157ft tower (only 23ft shorter than this one) predated it by nearly 40 years. Dricherby (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  First high-rise library