Talk:Columbia Wharf, Rotherhithe

This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

Inappropriate paid editing

I have returned the article to its original title and removed some of the irrelevant detail added by paid editor User:Valgetova, which I found really tendentious. I have left the single reference to the business they are paid to promote as this is all that is relevant.Leutha (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved(non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Wharf → DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel London - Docklands Riverside – As part of my job and as a long time "Wikipedia-er" is important to keep all the facts neutral and clear. I definitely do not intend to vandalize any article or information. In this article becomes clear that the building in question no longer exists and now is part of the hotel, which made me try to edit the title of the article. Searching around the web, results leads to information about the hotel: Search for Columbia Wharf However, the name of the building appears as a title, which is very confusing. As the information around the web presents the hotel instead of the building (because it was redeveloped to become a hotel), so it should be respected the most common name for the place. If any other ideas for improvements and clarification are more than helpful. Valgetova (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The name of a prominent Thames landmark should not be the victim of a corporate rebranding exercise -- such things are temporary anyway. Ttocserp 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. It's known for its use as a wharf and its history as a wharf, not for its recent use as a hotel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main idea is that this Thames landmark does not exist anymore and this is not a re-brand, but changing the function of the place and the building. I agree that nothing should became a victim (that's why searching for the best option), and all the information should be exposed in a sufficiently understandable way and not misleading. Creating of a new article about the "new building complex" would be inappropriate, as it will include the same information as the existing one. Any ideas are very welcomed, as there is no logic to connect this non-existing place with an existing one. Valgetova (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a Grade II-listed building which is still known as Columbia Wharf. Of course it still exists. Just because part of it has been incorporated into a hotel doesn't invalidate its existence. No need for a change. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find where the building is still listed as Canary Wharf, as the source is:This Here the name is collective: Canada Wharf and Columbia Wharf, Including Former Engine House and Boiler to South. Another fact is that on the bottom of the listing says: This text is from the original listing, and may not necessarily reflect the current setting of the building. Valgetova (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - You need to look at the official listing, which is amended when necessary. The website you cite is unofficial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. This is about the wharf, not the hotel. Please use WP:AFC if you want an article about the hotel. KMF (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is about the wharf; Wikipedia has many articles about things that no longer exist or that have changed functions. — AjaxSmack 02:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. The article is about the wharf; this is a notable element in the heritage of the Thames, which is why the article was created. Leutha (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

I propose that Columbia Wharf be merged into Canary Wharf. I think that the content in the Columbia Wharf article can easily be included in the context of Canary Wharf as mentioned in the official British Listed buildings papers, the historical buildings were formerly known as a complex, named Canada Wharf. So the Columbia Wharf's article could be included in the History paragraph of Canary Wharf article. Valgetova (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Wharf is not part of Canary Wharf and never has been. Give it a rest. Ttocserp 13:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

How true, Ttocserp. Leutha (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd map

Tha map actually displayed shows Kiev, Ukraine! It needs some kind of techno-fix. Ttocserp (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now it shows Ponders End! Yet the coordinates are correct. Must be some bug.Ttocserp (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

seeing that Ponders end is due north, I tried changing the co-ordinate abit, but to no effect, so yes, . . . a bug! Leutha (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something strange is going on here. Three editors have tried to fix this but it's worse then ever. Not only is the map wrong (and it used to show Kiev, Ukraine!) but so are the coordinates. They now denote a place in Bromley, Kent (even more remote than Ponders End).Ttocserp (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. I used the coordinates that Google maps provides. Strange--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've determined that the fault has nothing to do with the coord template. Even if you blank it out altogether – and get no coordinates at all – you still get the same spurious map. I suspect there's some kind of concealed vandalism going on. How, I have no idea.Ttocserp (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like maybe someone went into the underlying code the templates use and put in something that offsets whatever you input by some degrees or similar.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

I think it can't be a hidden offset, because the spurious map continues to display even after I've deleted the coordinates line altogether and saved. How can a map be displayed when there's no command to do so? (BTW, this goes back to the time there was a dispute about Hilton trying to rename the article.)Ttocserp (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page was weird as there was no geotag anywhere- not in the infobox or external links. But there was the map of Ponders end. The text on the page could not be pushing the false coords, and external program must be pulling them and serving them. Could it be that a little bit of Lua in the infobox - saw no coords, recognised there was a wikidata link so pulled them from an attribute there, and served them back to the page?

I had a look at the wikidata item- there was the map of Ponders End (Was this what Donald Tusk was refering to?). I concluded that the template was pulling the geotag from there. So I captured the fix- and left an entry in the infobox, then headed to wikidata through link on edit page. I went for the coords section and it was now displaying mt new map! Back to the page and now a full page link to correct map.

So is a bug or is it a feature? I would now investigate whether the Lua can pull geodata from the infobox but misses it if the geodata is in a separate coords tag in external links. If the Lua is editted- there is a fair chance that the geodata will go wandering again- watch this space. ClemRutter (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]