Talk:Mezzanine

Architecture High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Is this original work by the author? RickK 01:20, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Mezzanine definition

There is no full-height partition between mezzanine and the room in which it is located, therefore not every intermediate floor is a mezzanine. (E-Mail removed for security purposes)

Email addres removed by:Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Link?

I have added a spam-link warning to this page because user:Uraknai has inserted a link to a mezzanine builder, Pearson Knight, and reinserted it without comment after I deleted it, remarking: "Removed unhelpful commercial web link. If this company is more relevant than other mezzanine builders, write a paragraph explaining that."

Since I assume good faith, and was willing to concede that a link to a mezzanine builder might be helpful I looked for the most informative builder's website I could find (http://www.eseprojects.co.uk/mezzanine-floors.asp) and substituted that one for Uraknai's preferred site. Now Uraknai has reverted back to his/her original Pearson Knight link, again without explanation, suggesting that the motive may be commercial rather than educational.

Tell us, Uraknai, are you in any way affiliated with Pearson Knight? If not, then you must have another reason for so persistently preferring this web link to others that seem to be more informative. Please state your reasons on this talk page before editing this article again. Perhaps this is just a misunderstanding on my part. —Blanchette 05:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's a red-link whose only activity has been on this page. If he refuses to answer, take the issue to an admin. With any luck, the admin will block the user, and then you can delete the spamlink. Baseball Bugs 12:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse (but almost definitely better), the link has been removed by 62.190.179.10. Since both links were to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services (criteria #4 of links normally to be avoided), neither would be suitable for Wikipedia, really. Now this page is most certainly spam-free (horray! :) ), so I removed the cleanup-spam tag. I also added a Level 1 spam link warning on Uraknai's talk page. ~ Danelo 00:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Danelo. —Blanchette 22:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzanine Resources

There are very few resources online for mezzanines. A few that I have found are American Mezzanine Systems, The Storage Equipment Manufacturers Association, Mezzanine-Info.Com and DMOZ. I have listed these links and they were all deleted. I would like to discuss these links and if anyone has any better resources out there for this article. Thank you Markj52 (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We want links to articles that could be used as references or would otherwise meet WP:EL criteria. Links to manufacturers and list of manufacturers are not appropriate per WP:ELNO #14. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Links to manufacturers that offer further information that pertains directly to the content of the article should be acceptable. If a manufacturer's site is the only resource out there that contains real solid information and we can't use it according to you, then do we just not make it available to Wikipedia users? Do we just leave it as a poorly written psudo article? These are the exact thoughts that have brought about the distrust in Wikipedia articles. If I who have a great deal of knowledge on the subject keeps getting beaten down by someone who has no knowledge of the subject. How can we get the information to the people? WP:ELNO is just that "links NORMALLY to be avoided", it doesn't state "links to always be avoided and beat down any good intentioned people that try to make a difference in Wikipedia". Do you have any better resources to improve this article or should "We" just leave it like it is? Markj52 (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"beat down any good intentioned people that try to make a difference in Wikipedia" See WP:CIVIL. --Ronz (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. It still doesn't answer the question. Markj52 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion over as far as I'm concerned until you can demonstrate some basic application of WP:CIVIL in this case. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

it says in one place it shares the same ceiling as the ground floor and the next sentence says it can be at the top of a building --209.181.16.93 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -dmmaus (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzanine (architecture) → Mezzanine — The "mezzanine" disambiguation page was until last month at the unparenthesized title, and I think moving it was the right idea. However, the move in isolation made no sense; this article now needs to move to mezzanine in order to complete the implied notion that this article is the primary topic. Powers ^T 16:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, agree that this is the pirimary topic.--Kotniski (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mezzanine debt?

Should link... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.14.79 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]