Talk:Cobe (architectural firm)

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Jasparbang in topic POV

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion edit

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 1 April 2020 edit

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved COBE ArchitectsCobe (architectural firm), disambiguation page not moved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


– The company formerly known as COBE Architects has adapted into a new graphic identity from January 2020. Cobe's website now only refers to the company as "Cobe". https://cobe.dk/approach This is also the case with the social media platforms: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cobearchitects/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cobearchitects LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cobe/ Jasparbang (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose move to basename. 2019 pageviews, 32,000 for the satellite, 3,600 for the company. The company is nowhere near being WP:PTOPIC.
Support moving COBE Architects to Cobe (architectural firm) per WP:PRECISE.
Violently oppose moving DAB page Cobe to Cobe (disambiguation) per MOS:DAB, WP:INTDAB and WP:MALPLACED. Narky Blert (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV edit

I feel like this article is very much influenced by the view of whoever wrote it. I do not find it relevant that there is a large section about Dan Stubbergaard, the founder of the firm, describing his previous work at other firms, and I think the part about the studio sounds like something pulled straight from their website or an ad. I can't see why on earth it is important for a Wikipedia article to contain the fact that "the space has been opened up with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the water. In between the large columns, the office is designed as a village with small houses and plazas that allows for both formal and informal meetings," and that "In addition to the actual studio Cobe has its own public café open open Monday to Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. On display in the café are all smaller versions of Cobe's buildings and projects, so the café offers an opportunity to come inside and see where the surrounding architecture was conceived."

We've had issues with this firm on the Danish Wikipedia as well, with employees of the firm editing pages related to the firm to make it sound like an advertisement for the firm, which Wikipedia sure is not meant to be. That's why I've added the POV template to this article. | LinguineFusilli (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have deleted the sections of 'The Studio' that you have pointed out are too advertisement-like. Furthermore, I have deleted and corrected the section about Dan Stubbergaard, so that the article only refers to relevant information about the company and not the founder. Let me know if the corrections are sufficient enough to have the POV template removed. Otherwise, please inform what content is still POV. /Jasparbang Jasparbang (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply