Talk:Portable building

Untitled

The assertion that Transportable buildings and Demountable buildings are the same thing is not accurate. Transportable buildings are constructed off site , transported whole to the site and installed, for example temporary office or living accomodation on a mine or construction site. They are then uninstalled and transported whole off site. 'Demountable buildings, such as a "yurt" are transported to , then constructed 'on site and are de-contructed or "Demounted" on site prior to transport. This is a common error as Transportables such as those used on a mine site or school are often referred to as "Demountables" as a generic term when in truth they are "Transportables". This may seem to be a fine distinction but if Wiki is to hold any credibility then we should make sure distictions such as these are recognised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.47.132.150 (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Portakabin

• I live in England, and over here the name "Portakabin" is very well known, often as a genericized tradename; it is unlikely that a passing mention of the name here is "spamming" in the sense of making the name widely known from being not widely known before. Anthony Appleyard 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Anthony Appleyard. I don't doubt your personal knowledge. I'll bet the usage of the word "portakabin" is exactly as you say in the UK. However, there is a standard to be met here under Wikipedia guidelines. Especially considering that this company is getting a bit of free publicity to its commercial links in your edits to this article, the edits are suspect. I do not think that you have a conflict of interest personally, and I don't mean to accuse you at all. But inclusion of commercial information like this needs some cold hard references from non-biased reliable sources. Thanks. And challenged text that is not accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source is due to be deleted, see WP:PROVEIT.OfficeGirl 17:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS- the information about Portakabin in this article is not merely "passing." There are assertions of prominence in the marketplace that are unsupported by any reference material other than the commercial website of the company being promoted (though promotion was probably not your intention, it was certainly the result-- I KNOW you had good faith), accompanied by external links to the commercial website. Wikipedia policy dictates that these mentions and references should be deleted until the assertions of fact can be supported by RELIABLE sources. But when and if the non-biased reliable sources are produced, I will welcome, welcome, welcome the appropriate information concerning the "Portakabin" name. I am looking forward to the time those sources are provided so that the generic trademark issue can be included in the article.OfficeGirl 18:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why are the editors of this site sure that "portakacin" is the generic term. This is simply untrue. The full name portable building is shortened to ‘porta’ ‘cabin’ cabin being the traditional term for an ‘out house’ type of building. I believe that the trademarks office refused the trade name portacabin on these grounds. Portakabin is a trade mark and any refrence I have ever herd of is spelt with a Cabin. (if we prove the tadename thing can we get it off?)

In any case having established porta kamp were the first manufacturer why even have Portakabin listed. Unless that is we are slaves to Portakabin empire. (This is no hover or dyson argument it a ‘vacuum cleaner’ after all. (signed that annoying ip address making all the changes)21/04/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.232.77 (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Portakabin spam links

• The references to the Portakabin company look really spammy. If there are reliable sources that do not have a conflict of interest which can demonstrate that the Portakabin name is being turned into a generic trademark would someone please cite them? I note that there was originally an article dedicated to the Portakabin company, but it was cleared of content and redirected here, and it looks like that merge is where the commercial references to this company came in to this article. All other commercial links have been deleted, and we really need some proof that these commercial references and commercial external links are justified by citations to non-biased source material. OfficeGirl 17:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• "really spammy": The article merely says that Portakabin Ltd exist and what they make, not a load of praising their wares and such things as adverts do. Anthony Appleyard 18:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/Binary.ashx?Document=15098 is an apparent case (twice) of "portakabin" used without a capital as a generic. Anthony Appleyard 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• http://www.theconstructioncentre.co.uk/products/portakabins/one-brochure.html directly admits that "portakabin" is used as a generic. Anthony Appleyard 18:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for these two links. However, neither one of them is a reliable source for the fact you are seeking to assert here. The first one is a document from the proceedings of a local municipal zoning issue-- it uses the term "portakabin" without explaining the origin and use of the term (and we need to have a reliable explanation of the origin and use of the term). The second one is yet another commercial website which also provides no explanation of the term.

The sources you need are any news report or even a government document showing that the Portakabin company has brought legal action to enjoin other companies from using their trademarked name. And actually the easiest way to find those documents is to call up the Portakabin company and ask to talk with someone in their legal department. Tell them that you are looking for newspaper reports or officially filed court or administrative government documents regarding the trademark issue for an article you are editing on Wikipedia. And ask them if they can just send you some copies that show the date, title and publisher of the news reports or government documents so that you can give the citations where readers of Wikipedia can independently look up and verify the information on their own if they choose. That should take care of the problem.

I really do want to see you successfully include the information you are trying to share with us-- it just has to comply with Wikipedia standards, that's all.OfficeGirl 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• That seems unnecessarily restrictive. http://www.theconstructioncentre.co.uk/products/portakabins/one-brochure.html contains near its beginning the text "One brochure request to all 'portakabins companies': Portakabin Ltd, Foremans Relocatable Building Systems Ltd, Conport Structures Ltd ...", directly clearly using "portakabin" lowercased to also mean two other companies' products. the single-quotes show that they are quoting a common usage. Anthony Appleyard 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an example, but it's not a reliable source providing an explanation of the information you are seeking to assert. It doesn't verify the fact you are wanting to assert. And you are really stretching your evidence far, far beyond what it actually says.

Rome wasn't built in a day, my friend. If the sources you need aren't instantly available on a google search it just means that it will take longer to properly include the information you want to put into the article. Just call the company, or any reference librarian in a public library. Sometimes research takes a little work if it is to be done properly. But we can't just take your word for it, even if you are correct. The inclusion of commercial references and links needs to be avoided, especially when no reliable sources are present (at the moment) to justify the commercial information.

The burden of proof is on you, the proponent of the commercial information. I believe that you have good faith and that the proof is out there somewhere, but before you include any commercial information, especially assertions of one company's dominance and preeminence in a particular market, you first need to WP:PROVEIT. I am with glad anticipation to see you accomplish this very attainable task.OfficeGirl 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

• Back in old history and 18:15 11 September 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard included in page Portable building mention of Portakabin Ltd as important in the history of portable buildings, and the tendency in Britain for "portakabin" to become a genericized tradename for any portable building regardless of who made it: as this edit.
• 16:39 11 September 2007 and 22:04 11 September 2007 User:OfficeGirl twice deleted this matter, alleging that it is spammy, as this edit.

Anthony Appleyard 22:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• User:OfficeGirl's position is that any insertion of material that asserts market dominance, superiority or a special role of a particular business organization in any given field on Wikipedia carries with it an inherent controversy or suspicion, especially when links to the business website are part of that inclusion.

We should particularly take into account that numerous other businesses have had links and references deleted here [1] and here [2] and here [3] and here [4] and here [5] and here [6]. And Anthony Appleyard himself deleted one of Portokabin Ltd.'s competitors while adding Portokabin Ltd. information here [7].

Anthony Appleyard's inclusion of the Portakabin Ltd. company in the article was first removed by User:Breary5, with an edit history stating "removing incorrect tm reference". And, of course, the disagreement made the subject of this Request for Comment is set forth above.

If Portokabin Ltd. is to receive preferential treatment and mention in the article to the exclusion of its competitors, there needs to be justification therefor provided from RELIABLE SOURCES and it is absolutely necessary to WP:PROVEIT.

User:OfficeGirl has provided Anthony Appleyard with advice and encouragement for finding the necessary third-party unbiased sources to support the assertion he is trying to make.OfficeGirl 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Portakabin is notable as inventing and designing the first portable cabins, and because their name become a generic in Britain. I did not praise their wares or the like. Often companies' websites, among the spam, contain useful images which cannot be copied into Wikipedia because of copyright. If we delete this, we better delete every other name of and pointer to a commercial company in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an ivory tower. Anthony Appleyard 05:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there, I saw the RfC, and thought I'd chime in. It seems like Facial_tissue has the same problem with Kleenex. (Which is the US Genericized_trademark name for it). Ie, they don't source it either. I think I'd oppose including the Company name, but not on the same grounds as officegirl. (Although I do see her point, and agree). For me, the bigger issue is that just because something has a common name in one place, it isn't necessarily worth listing. (Ie, I don't think it's worth adding slang terms for something from every english speaking country, unless notability can be proved internationally). I'd probably remove the Kleenex mention too (although I have a vague feeling that that might be source-able).

Anyway, hope that wasn't too incoherent. Let me know what you think. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• We seem to have run into something which is more notable in Britain than in the USA. Portakabin Ltd invented portable cabins as we know them, and thus are notable for that; other companies arose later and copied them. Things which are notable in Britain are notable. I live in England, and Britain has as much population as several USA states put together: it is not a small offshore island. Anthony Appleyard 05:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I wasn't trying to make the point that any one country was less notable/important, rather that slang names (if they can't be verified) from one country (US or UK, or china for that matter) might not be necessary. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• • If there's a decent amount of sourcing for all this stuff about Portakabin, I see no issues adding it. If there's thin or no sourcing, that would make the edit, firstly, from personal knowledge, which is not an acceptable source, and also show it really hasn't been noted. It really depends on that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.theconstructioncentre.co.uk/products/portakabins/one-brochure.html directly uses "portakabin" to mean portable cabins made by two other companies. Anthony Appleyard 08:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was asked to poke my nose into this RFC by a member of the discussion. From what I've seen there is a bit of a catch-22 going on here. Being British I can attest to the fact that "portacabin" is the generic term over here for portable buildings (mostly it is spelt with a "c" rather than with the "k" as in the brand name) similar to the way "Portapotty" is used in the US. So yes in the UK PortaKabin is certainly notable for the reasons stated above. But yes OfficeGirl is indeed correct to point out (insist even :) ) that external links have to have a certain 'quality' about them. Can I suggest a couple? E.g. The Times 100 - Edition 12 - Portakabin Case Study Summary, the Times newspaper certainly being a reliable source. Or this one from the website of a company called Allspace in Ireland. Although it's a commercial website this particular article is neutral and quite informative and certainly meets the WP criteria on external links. --WebHamster 11:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks, WebHamster. Anthony, I think the Allspace link is neutral ENOUGH to support the explanation of the term that you want to include, but I still oppose links to the main Portakabin Ltd website or any commercial links that advertise. Whaddya think?OfficeGirl 11:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in late, right when it seems we're getting close to a compromise, but I still don't think we should include this information at all.

While the Allspace link might be acceptable as an external link (and I'm not even sure about that), it definitely does not meet the standards for a reliable source. A reliable source is one that is "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and has "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Clearly, a commercial website does not meet that standard. So unless we can find a truly quality source that confirms the disputed information, it should not be re-added to the article. -- Satori Son 11:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The times link above would be better though, no? (It at least establishes that the brand is the leader in it's field. Although it doesn't quite comment on the trademark naming). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 12:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the Times link reads like an advertisement but the Allspace link reads in a straightforward fashion that isn't very POV and doesn't sell anything. That's why I singled it out for compromise. Even though it's a commercial source, it isn't half bad.OfficeGirl 13:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Commercial companies and their websites are a fact of life. We must acknowledge that some of them exist. Wikipedia is not an ivory tower. Anthony Appleyard 12:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, you won't find a mention of "ivory tower", but it does clearly state that "Wikipedia is not a directory".-- Satori Son 13:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Two different issues

One of the reasons why I think this debate has been somewhat disjointed is that we are actually discussing two distinct issues:

1. First, is the company Portakabin Ltd. notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? If so, then Portakabin should have its own article; as of now, it is simply a redirect to here. If someone believes the subject Portakabin Ltd. meets the inclusion criteria of WP:CORP, then they should restore that standalone article using the above mentioned “Times 100” link, among others, to establish that notability. Once that article is restored, and survives a likely AfD nomination, then it can be listed under the “See also” section here in Portable building.
2. The second, and completely distinct issue, is whether the assertion that the term “portakabin” is used generically in England to refer to all similar portable buildings can be verified by reliable sources. This issue has nothing to do with whether the Portakabin Ltd. company itself is notable. And as of yet, that assertion has not been properly verified, so it should not be included in this article.

-- Satori Son 13:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Given that PortaKabin is the #1 portable building manufacturer in the UK and entered the UK zeitgeist as a generic description of the same, then yes I'd say they should have their own article. As regards the second item, the simple expedient of doing a Google for "portacabin uk" and/or "portakabin uk" and then looking at the sheer number of pages using the term generically should imply that this is indeed the case. As for supplying a verifiable source for it, personally I would have thought Wikipedia was the most appropriate place to distil all that usage into one description. --WebHamster 14:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Distilling all that usage into one description" would amount to an original research analysis. But see above for my suggestions on how to get the documentation needed-- The only way to protect a company's trademark is to take legal action when it is slipping away from you by others' wrongful usage. Surely Portakabin Ltd. has filed something somewhere. And those documents or news reports about the legal action would be about as reliable as you can get. And would establish proof of notability for a separate company article, to boot. As soon as someone can lay their hands on some documentation like this we're in business, encyclopedically speaking.OfficeGirl 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "portacabin" is the British generic term for a portable building isn't original research whether it's verified or not. Sometimes facts are still facts even if there are no verifiable sources to back it up. Sometimes there just aren't single documents to back it up, sometimes the verifiable source is a non-specific entity such as 1000s of pages demonstrating that this fact is indeed the case. When it's incorporated within a factual paragraph about the company PortaKabin LTD it's still a fact, and when there _are_ documents verifying that... well you see what I mean. Sometimes it really isn't necessary to back up every single, solitary claim with a source. There are 1000s of articles within WP that do just that, this does not mean they are wrong or tainted. For example I just implicitly claimed that there should be a full stop (period) at the end of that last sentence, but do I need to back it up with evidence? A ludicrous example yes, but sometimes one has to exaggerate a point to make it become clear. TBH I rather doubt that PortaKabin has sued anyone for using their name as a generic term, it wouldn't be in their interests to. They may not like it, but so long as it isn't being used fraudulently or libellously they wouldn't get anywhere in the UK courts anyway. --WebHamster 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with OfficeGirl's point by restating it: saying Wikipedia is "the most appropriate place to distil all that usage into one description" is not correct. Such a heretofore unpublished distillation violates WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY.

Remember, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". -- Satori Son 21:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. WP:V is rather explicit. To directly quote: "...any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Verifiably isn't an optional guideline -- it's a core policy. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, do we ask for the birth certificates of every bio article or do we assume good faith? It's commonsense based on the sheer numbers of pages actually using the term generically that it's a fact. This is what I meant by distilling it down. Stating that "portacabin is a generic term used in the UK for most portable buildings" is NOT original research. It's fact, it's common knowledge, it doesn't necessarily require a specific verification. It's the sort of thing that is proven by example not by definition. Be honest where are you going to find something like that which is linkable? One of the first places I looked was the OED as I know it's in there, but of course it's a pay site so a specific entry cannot be linked to. I'm sorry guys and gals but pedantry should only go so far, and believe me I'm more pedantic than most so it goes against the grain for me to say that :). Dictionary.com is ostensibly US-English orientated so it's not in there. If anyone knows a British-English orientated online dictionary then that may be a place to start., but I can assure you that there is an entry in the OED for portacabin (with a C). There is always the option of entering the definition in the article then waiting to see if it's challenged then deal with it then. I've been thinking about this all day off and on, and I simply don't know anyone who ever refers to a portable building as anything other than a portacabin. A perfect example of an article being factual but providing no definitive proof whatsoever, none at all, is God. --WebHamster 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing proving with verifying. I don't have to prove god exists, I just have to show that he's verifiable (ie, cite the Bible/Torah/Koran). Ditto with Bio's (cite a NYTimes / Newsweek article). And in this case, wouldn't it suffice to search in google books for the term and see what turns up? If you can find the term used as a generic noun in multiple published texts, I think that would be sufficient. (I did it for portacabin, and it works). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Without going too far off track into a theological debate one can only verify that He/She/It has been written about. There is no verification of existence, only speculation. The point is though that it's common-sense (defined in this instance as knowledge of the majority) that He/She/It does exist and as such is perfectly valid as an article regardless of the fact there is no reliable verification of He/She/It's existence. A bit like Warp drive really heheheh --WebHamster 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, I do have OED access through my uni, so I looked it up. From [8]:

A proprietary name for: a type of prefabricated building designed for quick assembly and easy transportation. 1963 Trade Marks Jrnl. 4 Dec. 1742/1 Portakabin... Buildings (not being fixed metal structures) and parts thereof included in Class 19. 1975 Times 23 Sept. 6/1 The Portakabin which served as his drawing office. 1987 Guardian (Nexis) 2 May, Some schools had to hastily erect Portakabin classrooms to deal with extra pupils. 1996 New Scientist 6 Jan. 33/2 You can..climb the spoil heap to test the potential power of the local wind, and fear for the site staff, hunkering down for the winter with only a couple of Portakabins.

. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, with any luck someone will accept that the fact that even the OED uses the term as a noun (as opposed to a pronoun) is verification enough for a mention in this article. If the OED can use it then why can't we? --WebHamster 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This OED entry does support perhaps the inclusion of a phrase such as "In the UK, portable buildings are often referred to as 'portakabins'". The mention of the trademark, seems superfluous. However, the OED does nothing to support the assertions presented in the History section, which should be removed in its entirety unless it can be verified by reliable source. Additionally, the external link to the PortaKabin site should be removed, as this company is only one of many portable building manufacturers worldwide. Dlabtot 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Grin, apparently this is a modified example of "an week in the lab saving you an hour in the library". --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• As there seems to be enough support here to restore the Portakabin matter, I have done so. Thanks. Anthony Appleyard 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll concede the point now that someone has finally found a reliable source. But the external link embedded in the text is wholly inappropriate, especially since it's already included under "References" (which I'm not sure I agree with either, but I'll wait to hear what others think). -- Satori Son 19:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean the OED link rather than the PortaKabin link? The OED link is no good as it doesn't go anywhere other than a login page. It's a subscription site so that's a WP:LINK no-no. A straight-forward text reference to the OED definition would suffice shouldn't it? E.g. "Defined in the OED as a proprietary name but also used as a generic name" or words to that effect. Obviously we can't use the definition word for word, so do as a lot of references do, refer to the dead tree version. --WebHamster 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion - my fault. I meant the Portakabin Ltd. commercial link, but now I see what you mean about the OED link. You're right, of course: a paraphrasing and dead tree citation would be appropriate there. -- Satori Son 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In my view the PortaKabin site link is okay and is relevant to the text in the article. The article itself isn't attempting to advertise the company and I believe that WP:EL#What should be linked #1 is relevant. Of course it could be argued that there are are other sections on that page that say it should be avoided. But on the other hand there is nothing on that page that says it is forbidden. So my vote is that as it's relevant and being used innocently it should stay. The OED gets the gong though! :) --WebHamster 19:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about the useless link. Paper versions next time :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't find the mention of this company to be appropriate. Apparently 'portacabin' is a popular way to refer to a portable building in the UK. Fine if the article wants to make mention of that fact, by citing a reliable source. But the fact that there is a company with a similar name is not notable in describing what a portable building is - which is the purpose of the article. It's nothing but commercial spam. Dlabtot 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you didn't read the article or the comments above. PortaKabin invented the concept and were the first to make them commercially. That's pretty much a slam dunk for notability and for inclusion on an article about portable buildings wouldn't you say? ---- WebHamster 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the article and the comments. I don't believe your assertion that 'PortaKabin invented the concept' is true; but regardless of it's truth, it's definitely not verified by any citation to a reliable source. THIS IS SPAM Dlabtot 17:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that Big Brother is so popular, but me not believing it doesn't make it so. I'll see what I can come up with, but I see no reason to disbelieve the contents of the PortaKabin About Us page. Yes I know it's not an independent source, but it's a start for facts and figures to work on. Are you aware that in the UK it is illegal to make false statements in any adverts. Their server and company headquarters are in the UK so that means their website comes under English jurisdiction. I know that means nothing from a WP standpoint, but at least it will give some perspective to their claims.

As for your assertion of spam, I suggest you look up the definition of Wikipedia:Spam. The portakabin link may be perceived by some to be advertising, but it certainly isn't "spam". The article is not "advertising masquerading as article". It's a legitimate link to the UK's largest manufacturer which (allegedly) invented the concept. It's a relevant link within WP rules. You'll be telling us next not to put link to Microsoft in an article about computer operating systems. ---- WebHamster 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL Do you have a citation from a reliable source - NOT THE PORTAKABIN WEBSITE - which clearly is not a reliable source that states the viewpoint that 'PortaKabin invented the concept' ?? As you correctly note, whether or not you believe something to be true, is irrelevant. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability Dlabtot 18:15, 17 September2007 (UTC)

You seem to read the bits of my text that suits your purposes then ignore the rest. You haven't said anything in your last paragraph that I haven't already said. But you certainly haven't commented on my "place to start" remarks, or the comment regarding your accusations of advertising. ---- WebHamster 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is your way of admitting that there is no quote from a reliable source that claims that this company invented the concept? Fine. As far as your desire for me to respond to your assertion that this blatant spam masquerading as an unverified so-called fact is 'a good place to start' - I disagree. Dlabtot 18:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree all you want... Trademark Registration. ---- WebHamster 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

With a simple google search - "'portable buildings' history", I found out about a book, Houses in Motion: The Genesis, History, and Development of the Portable Building, Academy Editions, London, 1995 (Paperback) ISBN-13: 978-1854903952. This book "explores the design of portable, transportable, demountable and temporary buildings. Using numerous examples - indigenous tents, Buckminster Fuller's Whichita House and Nicholas Grimshaw's British Pavilion for Expo '92 - the author looks at the development of these buildings from prehistoric to present day." Considering the fact that the PortaKabin company did not exist in prehistoric times, it seems clear that they did not 'invent the concept'. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that they have a trademark for the 'PortaKabin' name. LOL Dlabtot 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a pedantry overload here. Quite obviously I'm not referring to the concept of every sort of portable building. Even I know they didn't invent the nomad camel tent, or the igloo, but they did invent the concept of the particular sort of portable building represented in the article with 2 images. If you read the trademark notice you will see that the trademark applies to a particular sort of building, not just a name of a company. And as you should also know one can't trademark something that has already been trademarked. When you register a trademark you have to declare the sort of thing that trademark will be put on. Now it doesn't appear that they've registered it for a desert tent so the Bedouins seem to be quite safe from legal appeals... for the moment. ---- WebHamster 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You've correctly identified the key problem with this article: rather than being an encyclopedic article about 'portable buildings' it is an advertisement disguised as an article about the particular type of portable building manufactured by one company. Perhaps with this admission, we are beginning to move towards consensus. Dlabtot 19:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That all depends on whether you deny that the portacabin is an example of a portable building or not. One that is somewhat more prevalent and numerous than the average Bedouin's living room or Eskimo's bedroom. It may not cover all portable buildings, but it certainly has a place in this article both on the grounds or notability (first to do something, brand name becoming a generic term for a particular type of building etc). I'm not proposing that the article be all about portacabins (or PortaKabin the company, which does deserve its own article), but it should certainly encompass a section towards the end (if the article runs chronologically). ---- WebHamster 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that just like the tipi, the structures manufactured by this company are portable buildings. What I question is the undue weight the article gives to this company. As well as the blatantly untrue and definitely not verifiable statement that: "Portakabin Ltd seems to be the first maker of such buildings." Dlabtot 19:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Until any article is fleshed out something will always have too much weight at some point in time. It's obvious that this article needs a lot of work and a lot of detail, but are we supposed to delete elements of it until others have been written? I am in agreement that portacabin shouldn't be a large section but it should be included as should the link. Once more information and links are added the link to portakabin and its relative weight will shrivel into insignificance as will any effects/illusions of advertising. The other alternative is to move the page to a more accurate description such as "Portable Modular Building" or similar so that it doesn't encompass such a wide rage of definitions and examples. I certainly think a page called "Portacabin" (with a C should be created with a redirect to this page (or if moved the new page) ---- WebHamster 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the first chapter of the book, which discusses portable buildings in prehistoric times, is viewable at amazon.co.uk: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/1854903950/ref=sib_fs_top/203-2575799-5725539?ie=UTF8&p=S00G&checkSum=fsamrYsUsNwacaAFInaH2Mp1i2QjGaV%2Fho3vnpaVJ0s%3D#reader-page Dlabtot 21:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually that brings up another bit of pedantry, ie the definition of a "building"? Do we use it as per the dictionary definition or in the modern meaning of a building. E.g. Tents and igloos aren't buildings per se, they are structures really, especially the tent.

1. a relatively permanent enclosed construction over a plot of land, having a roof and usually windows and often more than one level, used for any of a wide variety of activities, as living, entertaining, or manufacturing.
2. anything built or constructed.
3. the act, business, or practice of constructing houses, office buildings, etc.

---

WebHamster 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• User:WebHamster agrees that Portakabin Ltd's role in developing portable buildings is important, but yet the matter that mentions Portakabin or portakabins is still repeatedly deleted. Not every mention of a company name is spam. Anthony Appleyard 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard, the note attached to your revert: "I am not going to drop valuable information merely because..." raises significant questions of WP:OWNERSHIP. Especially in the context of the dispute resolution process that is working itself out here through the RfC. You might want to consider disengaging for awhile. Wikipedia operates by consensus. It is not you as an individual who appropriately decides what should or should not be included in the article, but the community of editors who come together to work on the article. Dlabtot 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to RFC. If the reference to the concept of Portakabin being a generic name for the unit can be really well verified then it should go in. However, this needs to be carefully reviewed and it must be considered from a CONSERVATIVE view. The notion that a name becomes Generic has very serious legal complications for companies, and if this company has an aggressive legal stance, they could insist that this be deleted (by law suit) and seek damages from wikipedia. So, it must be really really well sourced. If it cannot be well sourced, (virtually unimpeachable source and no O.R.) it should not be included. --Blue Tie 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Two very different versions of this page

Anthony Appleyard is one of the participants in the dispute that gave rise to the RfC. He has reverted my rewrite of the page to a version similar to the one that was here when I came here by way of the RfC. I would encourage those wishing to respond to the RfC to compare the two versions relative to the RfC and make their views known. Actually I think my rewrite was not WP:BOLD enough: there is still undue weight given to one company in one country, and the External Links section should be removed altogether, Dlabtot 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is currently undue weight given to one company at the moment. As I stated earlier, which seems to have been ignored, as the article grows then the relative "weight" will decrease. Like it or not in UK the term "portacabin" is synonymous with this sort of building, but again as the article grows and additional regionalities are covered that weight will decrease. There is a lot to be written on portable buildings and the current article doesn't yet scratch the surface. I recommend that people put up with the current problems for the time being and see what happens when (if) the article grows. A start has to be made somewhere, and it doesn't necessarily reflect what the article will eventually look like. ---- WebHamster 23:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is with the insistence on mentioning yurts?

I'm really at a loss to understand this. Why are yurts being singled out and emphasized? Dlabtot 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-Vamp

don't you think its time this article got a whole revamp. so? Is Portakain having its own article? can we agree on a framework? History, Applications, Design concepts, Images. suggestions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.232.77 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Portacabins in the UK

I'd just like to record that in the UK (population 60 million), temporary classrooms are called portacabins. Temporary offices on large building sites etc are also called portacabins. Nobody describes them in everyday speech as "portable buildings". Why so much fuss people? Its like forcing people to replace hoover by vacuum cleaner or sellotape by sticky tape. 80.2.199.66 (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? A discussion on the etymology of Portkabin?

Whether or not you can find sources on the etymology and pronunciation of Portkabin, at most it should be a minor point in the article...not fully 1/3. More correctly, if one can source the information why not create a full article on Portkabin and move that information there? You've been here long enough to know about sourcing statements, and what happens to unsourced statements. Syrthiss (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; it seems somewhat poor form to restore[9] unsourced information that has been challenged and removed as such, especially since it has been unsourced for over six months.[10] As I'm sure all of us are aware from the copious discussions above, it is the duty of the editor wishing to retain the information to provide inline citations to reliable sources for it (see WP:BURDEN). Anthony, could you please provide your source for this? Thanks very much. — Satori Son 14:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Promotional content

Hi User:Shoaibazmiup, I’ve noticed that you’ve added what appears to be spam to this article after I had already removed some. Could you please clarify what the purpose of your latest edit was? Friendly neighbourhood platypus (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)