84:
386:, I'm not sure we can use their own statements for even their own intentions. I'd want to see a RS discussing the stated intentions. People and companies and municipalities characterizing their own intentions is...open to interpretation, at best. We can, however, find someone else saying, "According to FF, the design is intended to encourage people to walk." The sources are all blurring together for me at this point, but it's possible someone in one of the included sources did say that.
369:
personally speaking, it does strike me as perverse to say that a chair is successful because it is designed to make people walk - I.e. to NOT use it. That’s like saying a new diet-food product is successful because it tastes so bad people prefer to starve. “Setting a new standard in…” is also marketing-speak unless it is clarified what specific standard is being referenced. words to the effect of “exceeding technical-standard XYZ set by the UK Standards
Authority” might be more clear.
74:
53:
22:
298:
park benches had been removed from many London streets following complaints about anti-social behaviour. So if the benches in Great Queen Street attracted any anti-social behaviour they would be removed and there would have been no seating, just a paved space. They also created best practice in inclusive design by providing more ergonomic seats in 5 different sizes and heights.
222:
point of the bench was to encourage walking and the use of this new public space. The bench also set new standards of inclusive design, which again has been overlooked and some commentators have even criticised it for lacking. I hope this is a better reference as many of them are no longer maintained.
195:
which wasn't actually attached to any of the content you changed and which even if it was, seems a little iffy -- inthebag.org.uk seems to be a blog, for instance, which isn't considered a reliable source. The pdf looks like it originally came from Design
Against Crime, which helped design the bench
275:
Again, that appears to be written by
Factory Furniture, so not an independent source. Knowledge reports what others are saying about a subject, not what the subject says about themselves. The places for article subjects to talk about yourselves is LinkedIn, Facebook, other social media. Knowledge is
241:
Hey, 80.7! That's still an affiliated source. We can't use it to state in
Wikivoice that the point was to encourage walking and the use of this new public space, that it set new standards for inclusive design, or that these reasons have been overlooked. Those are all opinions, which can't come from
221:
Hi
Valereee, I have managed to find the original description of the bench. This was read by most of the critics, who ignored that the whole reason for the bench was to reduce the complaints to avoid it being removed from central London, as has happened to many benches on the street. Thus the whole
297:
Hi
Valereee, I hope these are more suitable articles from a recognised source, see the bottom of page 8 and then 9. It should help you to correct the whitewashing of this issue by commentators who have overlooked the fact that these benches were designed so they could be reintroduced after simple
368:
just to add a little note that it WOULD be valid to cite these above sources to state that the designers/creators/commissioning organisation had the intent to “encourage walking and the use of this new public space”. The creator’s intention is an important and relevant thing to include. However,
199:
All content needs to be cited directly to a source, preferably inline. We need to report what reliable independent sources are saying. Affiliated sources cannot be used for anything except noncontroversial facts such as who designed it, what the measurements are, where it's being used,
322:
Tim Long wrote both of those, so they are not independent. I've explained this multiple times. I'm not sure why it doesn't seem to be landing, but I'm not going to waste my time checking any more of your sources. You can ask questions at
203:
I went through the article yesterday to check sources, and many of them aren't good enough (which is why I've tagged the statements they support as ), and other statements are unsourced, so I tagged those as
191:
Your edit summary says "Please see the new reference which notes that this design was required in order to "maintain street furniture" in the street" and the new reference seems to be this pdf:
256:
How about this. This is a copy of the original article which explains that the reason for designing the Camden bench was to provide seating, otherwise it was likely to be removed.
259:
242:
an affiliated source. I've been working on this today, though, and I've actually added a history section that does explain why the bench was commissioned.
140:
415:
130:
410:
348:
317:
292:
270:
251:
236:
216:
186:
395:
260:
https://www.externalworksindex.co.uk/entry/2841/Factory-Furniture/Public-realm-seating-in-Camden-resolves-urban-challenges/
207:
Consider making an account, which will allow other editors to more easily communicate with you. It's fast, free, and easy.
309:
262:
228:
178:
106:
301:
83:
306:
376:
171:
97:
58:
33:
280:
331:
You cannot control what WP says about you, your company, your town, or your product. We report what
192:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
21:
313:
266:
232:
182:
162:
Hi, IP! Please let's discuss before you revert again. I do not understand your edit summary.
39:
339:
Again, you can say anything you like on your social media. Knowledge is not social media.
8:
373:
157:
391:
344:
324:
288:
247:
212:
167:
225:
177:
Hi
Valereee. Please explain what you do not understand and I will happily explain.
383:
370:
404:
387:
340:
284:
276:
completely different. Article subjects have no control over the content here.
243:
208:
163:
89:
302:
https://www.udg.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/UD114_mag_lores.pdf
307:
https://www.udg.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/UD129_magazine.pdf
73:
52:
193:
http://www.inthebag.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/camden.pdf
102:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
79:
226:
https://issuu.com/grupo_amop/docs/camden_bench_book
402:
196:and therefore is a not an independent source.
19:
279:You can read more about these policies at
416:Low-importance London-related articles
403:
95:This article is within the scope of
15:
411:Start-Class London-related articles
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
14:
427:
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
1:
109:and see a list of open tasks.
333:independent reliable sources
115:Knowledge:WikiProject London
7:
118:Template:WikiProject London
10:
432:
141:project's importance scale
271:22:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
252:17:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
237:17:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
217:12:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
187:08:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
172:17:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
396:11:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
377:08:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
349:18:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
318:17:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
293:12:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
121:London-related articles
28:This article is rated
281:WP:reliable sources
98:WikiProject London
34:content assessment
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
423:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
431:
430:
426:
425:
424:
422:
421:
420:
401:
400:
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
429:
419:
418:
413:
399:
398:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
337:
335:say about you.
328:
304:
299:
277:
257:
223:
205:
201:
197:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
428:
417:
414:
412:
409:
408:
406:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
380:
379:
378:
375:
372:
350:
346:
342:
338:
336:
334:
329:
326:
321:
320:
319:
315:
311:
308:
305:
303:
300:
296:
295:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
272:
268:
264:
261:
258:
255:
254:
253:
249:
245:
240:
239:
238:
234:
230:
227:
224:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
189:
188:
184:
180:
176:
175:
174:
173:
169:
165:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
90:London portal
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
367:
332:
330:
161:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
325:WP:Teahouse
310:80.7.80.213
263:80.7.80.213
229:80.7.80.213
179:80.7.80.213
158:new content
30:Start-class
405:Categories
384:Wittylama
388:valereee
341:valereee
285:valereee
244:valereee
209:valereee
164:valereee
139:on the
112:London
103:London
59:London
36:scale.
371:Witty
392:talk
374:lama
345:talk
314:talk
289:talk
267:talk
248:talk
233:talk
213:talk
200:etc.
183:talk
168:talk
131:Low
407::
394:)
347:)
316:)
291:)
283:.
269:)
250:)
235:)
215:)
185:)
170:)
390:(
382:@
343:(
327:.
312:(
287:(
265:(
246:(
231:(
211:(
204:.
181:(
166:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
