Thank you for your help in translating, and your edits at WP:PNT. A little thing: I can't see your signature after you edit....do you use 3 or 4 tildes for signing? Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Not a problem.
As per my signature-- Someone else already reported an issue with it. It's aligned to the right, not the left, so it can be hard to notice. I forgot to change it after I found out people were having issues with it. I'll do that right now. Will add a notice to my talk page, too, since this isn't the first time someone's had difficulties with it... Thank you! — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 14:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love the Fake building article. Does your definition require that the fake building was purpose-built as a fake, or does it include cases where an existing building or facade is repurposed as a fake to cover the utility or whatever?
Sorry if the answer is right in front of me! I might just be a bit slow on the uptake.
I am thinking of a specific example in my question: the former Central Cold Store in Smithfield, London disguises a small power station. Would that count as a fake building?
Sorry to bother you with this but I would love to know. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am grateful for all the kind words, they are much-appreciated. I am glad that you are interested in the topic!
The definition I considered when writing the article is "a (usually governmental) building, structure, or public utility housing that uses urban and/or suburban camouflage to disguise equipment and city infrastructure."
Really, this does not regard the original purpose of the location, but rather if it is supposed to camouflage what (otherwise-unexpected) material is inside of it in the moment.
On the page, there are multiple examples of previous domiciles that have been gutted for new usage. These buildings were originally residential but were later bought by large organizations.
This term -- "fake building" -- is more contemporary and vague due to its lack of publicity at this time, but I do understand why you believed the disambiguation to be more specific, so thank you for asking! I personally do not like the phrase as it implies that the building itself is "fake", as in non-existent or not functioning as a building. However, these are real buildings, the only thing fake about them is the expectation they radiate to nearby town-dwellers. One could argue that nothing is fake since this expectation derives from our pre-existing biases...
The example you provided seems viable! If you'd like to add any to Wikipedia, I suggest putting it on the article's corresponding list page.
You are not bothering me, also. I am rather active on here nonetheless. Talk to me anytime you wish! I hope your day is going well.
P.S. If you want more commentary on the topic, you can always visit its Talk page and tag me! — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 12:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the interesting and helpful reply. Sorry for my slow response: Real Life intervened!
It's very good to see your definition and to think about possible ways forward. I might add that power station. I'm a bit less active nowadays in that area of London, having changed jobs and locations a while ago, but it is still a very interesting corner.
Thanks again and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
