Talk:Vera Coking house

Tags

Okay, User:Valrith, while I'm greatly tempted to revert, I'm going to assume good faith, and first ask the following questions:

This is a short article--I show a word count of 233 words. I count 17 wikilinks, which comes out to about one link every 14 words or so. If this isn't enough "wikification" for you, what is?
Similarly, regarding the ostensible "orphan" status of the article: Another editor intimated that the link to Trump in of itself is sufficient to provide notability; if therefore the link to Trump is all there is (which, given the number of wikilinks, it is not), is it not sufficient reason to remove the orphaned status of this article?
While categorization of articles may be highly desirable, having an abundance of categories should exist as a natural outflow from the nature of the article. Some articles, either because of their length or their subject, will have many categories; however, given that this is a short article about a person who has a singular—albeit significant—claim to fame, why is it insufficient to simply categorize this as a US bio article?

Frankly, my first reaction to this was amazement at your arrogance. In each of my edits, I at least provided some rationalization (which may or may not have been sufficient—but it was clearly enough to demonstrate good faith). You, on the other hand, treated my efforts exactly as one would the work of a vandal. But as I said, I'll go ahead and assume good faith, and simply put out the notice that a little courtesy is not too much to expect of an editor with your level of experience. Unschool 00:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- In regard to the {{Wikify}} tag, there is much more to wikifying than simply adding links. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout.
- You appear to have misunderstood the {{Orphan}} tag. It indicates a lack of other articles linking to the article on which it is placed. In this case, there are no other articles that link to Vera Coking.
- Lastly, as to categories. If an article can't be categorized into at least one major category, it likely is about a subject that is too insignificant to exist in Wikipedia. HTH... Valrith 01:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your second point, you are quite correct. I had misunderstood that concept, and it makes much more sense to me now, in light of your explanation. I had always seen it to be a bit redundant when included with the tag requesting wikification. Question: Is there any way of checking what articles link back to a particular article, other than having the links be mutual?

Per the third point, that of the significance of the article, I'm sure that you'll agree that this is a matter of personal opinion. I've read the arguments of inclusionists and deletionists before and never really thought of where I fit on the continuum before, but given my normal conservative bent, I would have guessed that I would have leaned towards the deletionist school. I've always shaken my head at the "articles" written by adolescents describing a band that it turns out has probably only performed in their own garage, or the article about the high school basketball player who someone thinks is going to be in the NBA some day. But I look at this article, and I'm starting to wonder if maybe I'm not an inclusionist myself. I mean, I see this case as being significant, not just because "the little guy" won, but because she had and continues to have an impact on the landscape—literally—in one of the biggest tourist destinations in the US, and because her case is a part of the history of what is brewing to be one of the biggest issues of civil rights in the early part of this century: eminent domain and its use/abuse (depending on your perspective). Her part is small, but hey, there were literally dozens of cases that preceded Brown v Board before it became part of the history books. Those prior cases are recognized as an important part of the legal framework upon which Brown was established.

Per your first point, I think I understand what you are saying. I've now read the manual, but the entry on wikilinks was short. I guess what you are saying is that, the links need to help someone who might not understand the article, or its significance? If so, I will review the links and consider changes to be made.

It is evident that you question the inclusion of this article. That's fine; I respect your reasons (now that I know them). To the extent that I come to agree with you, I will work on meeting your objections. I think it unlikely that I will be able to actually convince you, ultimately, on the worthiness of the article, but at least the article will be improved as a result of your comments. Thanks. Unschool 08:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technicality?

"Judge Richard Williams ruled, on a technicality—because there were "no limits" on what Trump could do with the property—that the plan to take Coking's property did not meet the test of law."

This is NOT a technicality in my opininion, this is the actual substance of the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.21.182.21 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

last sentence

The article currently says:

"Coking lived in her home, next to the Trump Plaza Hotel, before selling it to a casino company in 2007."

I believe this to be inaccurate. I have been unsuccessful in locating the source "An era few will mourn - Schlocky shops will give way to casino expansion as Schiffs end holdouts and sell properties, JUDY DeHAVEN, 18 February 2007, The Star-Ledger". Furthermore, she was living in the home in January 2010 when she was rescued because of a gas leak [1]. Tax records for the property show it being owned by Vera Coking until being sold to a family member in June 2010. [2]

I do not know if she still lives in the home, so I will be deleting this sentence. --Carpetmaster 101 01:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

This is not a biography of Vera Coking. It's an article about her house. I thought I'd open a discussion here to get input from other page-watchers before moving it. I suggest Vera Coking house, but am open to other titles. Schazjmd (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]