Talk:Grenfell Tower fire

Emergency number

Met Police an emergency number for anyone concerned about friends or family: 0800 0961 233 (overseas: +44 207 158 0197). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I've unhatted this for now in accordance with WP:IAR. There is no harm in having this here for the next 24 hours or so, as people may come here for info. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

In that case put it at the top of the page in red font. No point having an emergency number that's halfway down an ever-lengthening page, and does not, in fact, stand out at all, as would be expected for that purpose. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk)

I wonder if it would make sense to have an infobox item for developing events, which contains the relevant emergency number?--Roland 14:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

A {{Hatnote}} template would be better; but I fear there would be too much opposition to any such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, this can now be hatted. Cheers! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 19:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Leave it until tomorrow morning. Hatting needs to be done in such a way that the header remains visible. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath?

Can we call it that if it's still on going? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Council housing

Quick question: Is Grenfell Tower - or was it built as - council housing? I think it'd be worth mentioning in the opening paragraph as a description of the tenancy of the building, or at least in the background section. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It was built a part of the Lancaster West Estate. Not sure whether it counts as a WP:RS for facts, but this image on Geograph states that it was designed by Terry Farrell and Nicholas Grimshaw. This info should be sourceable by those with and interest in architects. I'll take a look at The Times archives and see what I can find. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It clearly was council housing when it was built. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It remains council housing. AusLondonder (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Only at arms-length. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The Times proved fruitless. Will ask an architect friend if he can come up with some sources. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The original architects were Clifford Weardon and Associates. Source: Baumeister (magazine), 1970, no. 12, p. 1452-1454. This blog is apparently not RS, but many more details are given there: http://www.grasart.com/blog/lancaster-west-estate-an-ideal-for-living (Farrell and Grimshaw probably not involved) Ghughesarch (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The architects for the recent refurbishment was Studio E Architects. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/grenfell-tower-residents-had-predicted-massive-fire/10020757.article Ghughesarch (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Storeys, The Time fire started ?

The Telegraph writes the fire started at different time and they say, that building has 27 storeys. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/everything-know-grenfell-tower-blaze/ (195.14.165.61 (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)) Here they say the tower has 24 floors. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/14/grenfell-tower-fire-massive-blaze-engulfs-block-flats-near-white1/ (195.14.165.61 (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC))

This link seems to indicate that the lobby/bottom floor took up about 3 stories worth of area, so it's possible the discrepency comes from whether this area is counted as one or three floors. The very top floor also appears to not be inhabited, so if these floors are all counted the count would be 27, but if they weren't it'd be 24. http://www.studioe.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1279-01.jpg

Firefighting aircraft dispatched?

as pictured is able to deliver waterfall of tons of water every few minutes. There are known open waters near London only downing on street and tower.current — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not something that is done in the UK. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

They are not used for such types of fire and are impractical in such situations DerElektriker (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Certainly are used and designed for surface fires. Look on YT. Fire started on elevation surface . Maybe they used it and was invisible. There are now only credible but blog sources. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Firefighting helicopter was not dispatched? The ladders are too short. --Cheol (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Some editors seems to have very strange ideas about the equipment available to British firefighters.... Nick Cooper (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't they have a bucket, Helicopter bucket? --Cheol (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Who do you think "they" are? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe useful as a source: London fire: How are fires fought in high-rise blocks? 2001:44B8:184:AC01:E005:ED12:BB92:45FD (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Which, of course, says absolutely nothing about aircraft. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Some cities (Los Angeles) are supposed to have the ability for heli-evac for highrises. Other cities with tall highrises have specialized ladder trucks and crane hoselines to reach upper storeys (Hong Kong). Brush fire bucket helicopters have also been used to fight urban fires before. And agricultural spray planes to lay down water mists. Does Britain have major forest fires? (And thus aerial firefighting equipment) -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Exploding refrigerator?

Not asking for original research here, but how would a refrigerator "explode" and cause a fire? I'm not clear on this point in the article. Could we clarify that? Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The same Telegraph front page (cited above) have suggestion "N Korea hackers". Perhaps to smoke Rodman visit there today. 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably an electrical fire in a faulty compressor motor; fridges have the additional disadvantage of being highly flammable. See e.g. [1] for advice. Prioryman (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Fridges may well be highly inflammable, but do they explode?125.236.202.112 (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The electrical motors in the fridge can "explode" (any motor can explode), a faulty motor could experience a rapid unscheduled violent dissassembly that could ignite the fridge, and through chunks of compressor around the room -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

See also section

Ronan Point? It was not a fire, although it was a tower block disaster with fatalities in London. Can see that it is includeable should there be a major inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire, which is probably going to happen. Whilst we're on the subject, can we agree that The Towering Inferno is NOT to be added to this section? Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. A terrible tragedy has occured. Adding a photo of Steve McQueen would compound the tragedy. ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible candidate for inclusion MS Scandinavian Star, a ship fire where plastics played a major role. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"Plastic" is too generic to justify a link. In the ship it is stated to have been melamine panelling (which, perhaps surprisingly, is described as fire-resistant), and in this tragedy reported below as polyethylene.Davidships (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

is it true? emergency communication

There is now perhaps error: qoute if they are able to reach them via phone or social media—to tell them they must try to self-evacuate. If someone was sleeping ... do it mean the city office decided to not use of sirens and loudspeakers for emergency communication ? 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

and this is perhaps a sourced lie :firefighters were still battling the fire and trying to spray areas where people were seen trapped inside lie since in all the videos is clear visible the water cant reach over the top of building; so spraying by water were perhaps only possible where the water can reach. Do we discount direct video evidence and need to push what was put in MSM ? 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC) the water at max was sprayed up to 1/2 height of the building.

• I wrote this. The first one is what the police said. The video is around of that moment. They said "if you're in touch with them via phone or Twitter or whatever" bc some people who were trapped were tweeting. I don't understand the second one. That is what they were doing and it was discussed by the journalists. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to all contributing editors who have created a fine article in a very short time. --Ef80 (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks to all the other contributors. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I only wish it hadn't been necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Cladding

Just a note that the Daily Telegraph claims it is "zinc rainscreen cladding".[2] But this seems wrong as the installer says it is "ACM cassette rainscreen".[3] which I think is short for "Aluminium Composite Material". FYI one brand of ACM Installation Note states "fire resistance ratings vary depending on the type of composite material selected. It is important to determine the proper class of material required for your project."[4] Rwendland (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

ko:우신골든스위트 화재 사고 is also a fire which cladding was an issue. --Cheol (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ryuch: Unfortunately, there is no equivalent English language article. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe someone (Cheol?) could translate it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wooshin Golden Suite Fire is created by me. --Cheol (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"zinc rainscreen cladding" is from the planning application [5]:

4.10 External Appearance and Public Realm

The scheme proposes the re-clad of the building with zinc over-cladding with a new window system. For the new window system and heating to work efficiently the whole building is required to be over clad. The zinc panels proposed to the

majority of the building are a light grey/silver colour.

The spec was changed at some point, & what was fitted is this; http://www.kingspanbenchmark.com/Products/Engineered-Facade-Systems/Facade-Options/Metallic-Facades/ACM https://www.alucobondusa.com/products.html

It has a polyethylene core

--EdgeRichard (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@EdgeRichard: - we need to wait for a RS to report that, otherwise we are straying into the realms of WP:OR. Mjroots (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking at photos, it appears that they have attached insulation board (something like Kingspan) to the walls, then covered that with the cladding panels. Photo here. Danrok (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The plastic [was] bubbling and "exploding" [6] --87.159.126.112 (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Some more information on the cladding here: London fire: Grenfell Tower cladding 'linked to other fires' The article suggests that the cladding used was Reynobond with a polyethylene core, rather than the alternative cladding with a mineral core. Danrok (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell Tower

Pinging some people - @Canuck85, Mjroots, and Pigsonthewing:; What do you think about restoring the page Grenfell Tower? It was a stub in progress and someone just created redirect to this page. However, I think Grenfell Tower section is getting too big, and it will keep growing as we get more details about all the things that went on over the years. Thoughts? —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Undecided at the moment. Was a redirect when I nominated this article at ITNC. May be better for now to keep things confined to this article, which has lots of eyes upon it. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable apart from this event. Let's wait and see what the section contains once the immediate emergency is over. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you please create Lancaster West Estate and add a subsection about the tower? The estate should have an article anyway, unless Wikipedians are snobs. I added a red link but it was removed. I would create it if I wasn't at work. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That iwas a great idea! Thanks Zigzig20s (talk · contribs)! I think there will be a lot of things that come out in terms of the building that aren't necessarily about the fire, but about stuff that happened before, and I'm sure that will include problems with other structures managed by the same people. I think the Glenfell Tower section has been trimmed down so I will try to restore the content at the new article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary correction

Turns out, that the Plasco Building was built in 1962, so I deemed the year of construction to be within a similar period. -Mardus /talk 11:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• And Grenfell Tower was designed in 1967. -Mardus /talk

Grenfell namesake

The tower is presumably called after Grenfell Road. (I guess Grenfell Walk was originally part of Grenfell Road but pedestrianised when the estate was developed.) Grenfell Road was called St Clement's Road until some time between 1900 and 1912. Dunno which of the Grenfell family it was named after. jnestorius^(talk) 13:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

First one I thought of was Sir Wilfred Grenfell - he was properly famous at the time for his medical missionary work in Labrador. However the fact that it leads into Sirdar Rd makes me think it's about Francis Grenfell, 1st Baron Grenfell who was Sirdar of the Egyptian Army and who retired in 1908.Le Deluge (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Feel free to revert, but I think listing sources can be done further down the page (not needed at top). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

NPoV

"Warnings ignored at all levels" fails the NPoV test, and is not suitable for use as a heading. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

yes, and the "Greenfell action group" cited under "causes" is not a reliable source either.104.163.153.14 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a WP:PRIMARY source, and as such can be 'used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source,' i.e. their website, for what they espoused. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Why does "Warnings ignored at all levels" fail the NPoV test?? Warnings were demonstrably made at company, local authority, London-wide, and national level; they were demonstrably not acted upon. All this is sourced. I originally entered this heading; what is my "POV" assumed to be (over and above simple statement of the facts)? Putting all these disparate failures in a section headed "Grenfell Action Group warnings" is totally misleading. As it happens, I've broken the section into headed subsections, and that seems to have stayed; but otherwise what heading would be appropriate for a single merged section? Pol098 (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Everything in the section headed "Grenfell Action Group warnings" is about warnings issued by the Grenfell Action Group. You list four levels; that is not all levels. We don't know everyone who saw those warnings, let alone who did not ignore them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

What levels are there in addition to company, local authority, London, and national? You could give a pedantic answer, but "all levels" isn't misleading given this range. The section headed "Grenfell Action Group warnings" originally contained non-GAG London and national levels (until I worked on it), it's untrue that it was only about warnings issued by the group (I listed the others in my previous comment). This is the article at the time.

"We don't know everyone who saw those warnings, let alone who did not ignore them." So what? The warnings were issued, and no action was taken (i.e., ignored). Ihe fire safety review was recommended (a warning) but not acted on. Finally, how is "Warnings ignored at all levels" POV? Pol098 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The article at present seems POV and unencyclopedic. An activist group has their pronouncements treated as gospel truth, and the management are portrayed as mustache-twirling villains out of a 19th century melodrama. At this point the article should be quoting reliable secondary sources rather than acting as a soapbox for the tenant group. When inquiries have determined the origin, reviewed the progress of the fire and the quality of fire-fighting, and contributary causes, then an objective account can be presented, Edison (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Demolition

Re:

An application to demolish the building was lodged with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea's Building Control department on 22 May 2014.

I doubt this is true; it was more likely an application to demolish a small part of the building, as pert of the refurbishment. Accordingly, I've marked it as "{{Dubious}}". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be an application for demolition work connected with the refurbishment, not one to demolish the tower block itself. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see this thread, but removed the text. It appears to be OR using a primary source which may, or may not, be relevant in any way.Pincrete (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Text has been reinstated and added to. I contend that AS PHRASED, it is still both OR and extremely unclear (most readers are not going to understand 'proper procedures' with regard to UK planning regs). The addition (criticism) should perhaps be the basis of the para, not the primary sources, which prove little and are incomprehensible to most of us. Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree re primary sources (the first one, in any case, doesn't refer to cladding). The Telegraph article seems relevant though needs clearer presentation; presumably the explanatory sentence about the building regulations notice is also sourced from the Telegraph article (behind a pay wall), if not it needs a cite. Davidships (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Witt Group

Another organisation connected with the refurbishment that has taken down its web page (Internet Archive copy). Witt Group were involved in the ventilation system installed to remove smoke in case of a fire. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Twitter and Facebook

I added a section on fake news being circulated on Twitter, sourced by a newspaper article. It was deleted with a comment to the effect that Twitter isn't a reliable source. I've reinstated it (with additions and another source), but am making this pre-emptive comment in case it's deleted again: Twitter isn't the source for the information in the new section (although it would be a reliable source for a statement such as "a tweet claiming firefighters took 2 hours to arrive was circulated"). It's sourced from newspaper articles, which themselves cite several tweets. It's relevant, notable, and sourced that this fake news was around. Also, for people who might have seen such tweets and checked Wikipedia as less unreliable (hopefully!), it's useful as well as informative, for example if you've seen a tweet perhaps asking for donations, and are looking to respond. Pol098 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I've found both to be useful for finding sources to expand the article with. Forums can also be useful for finding reliable sources, although they themselves are not useable as a source. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

References

For the fourth time today, I've restored a reference that was removed in a previous edit. When removing references, please be careful to check that the reference isn't used elsewhere in the article as such removal causes reference errors. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Brexit

I added the Brexit category to the article, which was later removed.

Copied from user talk:Xwejnusgozo
I added Category:Brexit because the fire is likely to lead to a delay in the Tory/DUP alliance being formed, and thus a delay in the opening of the Brexit negotiations. Please would you undo your edit? Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that it's enough to justify the addition of Category:Brexit. The article is about the fire, not its implications on Brexit. After the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, campaigning for the general election was suspended, but the page on the attack is not in Category:United Kingdom general election, 2017. However, if you feel that the Brexit category should still be added, go ahead and undo my edit and other users who are more familiar with the subject can decide whether or not to keep it. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I'm now opening a discussion as to whether or not the category Brexit should be added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Brexit. Categories are meant to be defining to the subject. No-one is looking at this article and thinking - "oh yes, Brexit". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No relation to Brexit other than this very tenuous one. — fox 20:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose the logic for it being related to Brexit is super tenuous. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, consensus against. I won't re-add it. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Campaigner Daffarn was rescued

Edward Daffarn, 55, is one of the campaigners from Grenfell Action Group, which published a series of blog posts warning of fire safety concerns with Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), the private business that has the contract with the local authority to run its social housing. --87.159.126.112 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Buzzfeed a reliable source? Would expect this to be picked up by major news outlets. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Architect

Is anyone able to find out who the architect was please?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussed above in Council housing section. Mjroots (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Social media photographs of partially uncovered body

A 43-year-old man from nearby posted photos of a bodybag in the lobby area of the block and then is said to have partially uncovered the body within and has posted photographs of this on social media (verified.) He has since been arrested by the Metropolitan Police and they have confirmed this to the media. Is this something worth adding? Gxrneyme (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No, just morbid sensationalism. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo with title "The burned plastic cladding is visible on the outside of the building."

It was apparently an aluminum/plastic composite. No doubt its exact composition will come out in the final report. At this point however, it is much more correct and neutral to say simply "the burned cladding".104.163.153.14 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed. WWGB (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the exterior cladding mostly fell off (or maybe burnt away). What you can see on the later pictures are the charred remains of the insulation material, which was fixed to the walls below the cladding. The cladding itself helped the fire by creating a chimney effect, and you can see the fire below it glow through the seams on some pictures. But it probably did not add enough flammable material to make much of a difference by that. According to this guardian article, a large number of UK high rises seem to use flammable exterior insulation. Apparently this is in accordance to regulations, which are severely out of date and in many parts completely ineffective with regards to fire protection. None of the documentation I've found mentions the material of the insulation actually installed (only that of the visible materials). On this picture from skyscrapercity.com, the insulation looks like polystyrene, which would indeed have been a disaster waiting to happen. --Latebird (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

About a redirect

I noticed that Grenfell Tower redirects to Grenfell Tower fire. I really think these should be separate pages, as the location is separate from the event. Highresheadphones (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Grenfell Tower a notable topic? I would not think so. Other than this fire, that is. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the tower is notable only for the fire. see WP:ONEEVENT MartinezMD (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand ... if there are other notable things about the building that can be properly sourced, no one should be dissuaded by this exchange from starting an entry. Might be more interesting than you anticipate. Lots of buildings - including 60s/70s style apartmeent blocks in western countries with long-standing housing shortages - get wiki entries for a wide range of reasons: most of them didn't burn down. There is no correlation between being of interest to you (or indeed to me) and notability. Success Charles01 (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

lol. you are correct. the fire appears to be the only notable thing about the building. No objections if there turns out to be other factors. MartinezMD (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It was not alisted building. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Quotefarm

Can we slim down the quotes please? And let's keep the article free of condolence quotes with little flags beside them. --John (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem with either. There is only one main quote directly presented in such a way to stand out. Not aware that there has been any WP:MOSFLAG violation either. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

We're at 21 quotes. I think two or three would be fine. --John (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the lack of an actual issue here your comment would seem rather POINTy to me, John. AusLondonder (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Your lack of clue and bad faith are noted. Thanks. --John (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)