Talk:Pico House

Trivia question...

BMK, I've readded the trivia tag, because the examples concerned do feel like a random list of when it's appeared on a TV programme, and don't tell us anything about Pico House itself. A statement like "On January 7, 2011, the building was featured on Travel Channel's Ghost Adventures, with Kane Hodder and Rick McCullum", for example, may potentially be true, but it's not the kind of thing I'd personally expect to find in a serious encyclopaedia article or secondary work, unless it was followed by some sort of explanation about how it mattered to the building from a reliable secondary source. For example, if its appearance on the Ghost Adventures was particular well-known or notable, or if something significant happened to the house as a result, it would seem notable (and the event would probably be mentioned in reliable secondary sources because of that) - but as it stands, to me as an editor it does feel like an item of trivia. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it again, as, obviously, there is as yet no consensus for it. BMK (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Very happy to engage with you and discuss it, BMK (although it is very late in my time zone, so if I log off soon, please don't think it rude of me!). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Hchc that some of the material currently in the article is trivial in nature. Further, we typically do not require consensus to place a tag on an article, as one of its intentions is to encourage editors to discuss the issue in order to find a way to amicably address concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

On the basis of the talk page discussion here, which suggests a degree of consensus that there is an issue to be resolved, I've re-added the tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing....

Beyond My Ken, I've removed the unsourced claims again. They were first challenged and flagged up as needing citations back in September of last year (by yourself I think, although I agreed with your edit) which is plenty of time for a source to have been found; if they're to be inserted into the article, they'll need reliable citations. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please specific per item what your objection is. BMK (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Like yourself, I have doubts about these claims' verifiability. All claims on the wiki need to be verifiable - the burden of proof is on the editor making the addition, as per WP:Verifiable. Five months ago you yourself requested that citations be found for these specific claims, another editor @Nikkimaria: having also previously tagged the section with similar concerns. I agreed with these challenges at the time, and have given it many months for any other editor to provide a verifiable citation; none have done so. If you wish the claims to remain in the text, can you please now provide citations - if not, the material will need to be removed - again, I would stress that two of us (three if we include you!) have expressed concerns with the verifiability of this information. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2015‎ (UTC)

As per WP:Verifiable, I've removed the claims again. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"Large carriage entrance" on Sanchez Street (corrected)

A few years ago I added content about a supposed carriage entrance on Sanchez Street, halfway around the building from the Main Street entrance. However, period photographs generally indicate that guests arrived and entered at the Main Street entrance, which at various times in its early history was shaded by an awning. The large gate I mentioned in the article was almost certainly used for supply wagons and other large vehicles, rather than passenger vehicles like carriages and stagecoaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pithecanthropus4152 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)