Talk:Fulmer Research Institute

For thirty years I was an employee of Fulmer Research Institute in the roles of investigator and manager. I am now a member of a small group of ex-colleagues compiling an archive of Fulmer and seeking to ensure that its important place in UK 20th century R&D is not forgotten. We are volunteers and have no commercial interests in writing this Wikipedia article.

/* Other key technical staff */ Added more staff

I would like to defend the inclusion of this section as providing acknowledgement of these people's role in establishing Fulmer Research Institute's culture. I fully acknowledge that many of them may not be considered 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense and would not warrant a biographical article, though some of them are and would do so. The article as a whole is extensive and well referenced and I think inclusion of this short paragraph enhances it rather than detracts from it, even though the paragraph doesn't contain references.DavidGSDavies (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I am now minded to relegate the list of people to a footnote. Would this be more acceptable? DavidGSDavies (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead. But I still think that that list is only interesting for the people on the list and their friends... Christian75 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DavidGSDavies (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

button:skip complete section

There are three places in the article where a button has been added to enable the reader to skip a subsection of technical information without losing the thread. In the case of the middle one of the three, the subsection skipped is fairly short and it could be argued that, depending on the device being used to view the article, one can move to the next section immediately without the button. However I would argue for consistency and prefer to retain the button in all three cases.--DavidGSDavies (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Spelling

This article was written using the Oxford spelling style en-GB-oxondict which is that used by ISO and by UN agencies. I see no reason to change it to the more informal en-GB style and have therefore reversed the edit 19:02. 21 November 2023 by Puppies937 DavidGSDavies (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)