Talk:Centre for Window and Cladding Technology
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Centre for Window and Cladding Technology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Some proposed changes
[edit] | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello. I have contributed to this page in order to correct the information that was initially published. It has been suggested that there is a conflict of interest as I work for the organisation concerned. I do not consider this the case - I simply want the information to be accurate.
The inaccuracies in the original include where we are based (we are not at the University of Bath), the information on fire performance is taken out of context and makes statements that are not attributable to us, and finally the list of publications is incomplete and a seemingly random selection of our publications.
The changes I made previously were factual and I would like them reinstated please. David.metcalfe1980 (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Reply 29-APR-2018
[edit]I've looked at the version you wish to implement, and I can say you'd be hard pressed to find any editors willing to implement your version as opposed to the one existing now. Both versions have problems, but the version as it stands now has one thing going for it that your version doesn't: it has references. No matter that all four of them aren't that great, they still outnumber your version's references by 4-0. What your version requires are better references. I've placed a header at the top of this talk page to assist you in locating them. This would be the try-to-keep-everything-and-gradually-change-it-with-better-references option. At the other end of the spectrum is another choice. Just recently, newer requirements for articles about organizations took effect. You might be successful in an articles for deletion process arguing that this article does not meet the newer requirement's primary criteria for notability, in which case the entire article might be deleted. This would be the nuclear option. Those are two possibilities, let's see if the community has any additional input they can offer. SPINTENDO 10:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Changes made 29-APR-2018
[edit]I've added an infobox and specified that the group is located in Bath and not the University. You mentioned that the information on fire performance is taken out of context. If you could provide that context, as well as indicate which specific statements are not attributable to the organization, then we can proceed with your edit request. When you're ready to provide the information, please change the edit request template's answer parameter to read from ans=yes to ans=no. Thank you! SPINTENDO 16:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)