# Talk:Trafalgar Square

The article currently (Oct 2017) reads, "There is a life scale replica of the square in Bahria Town, Lahore, Pakistan where it is a tourist attraction and centre for local residents." Indeed, the newsweek article cited ( http://www.newsweek.com/safe-behind-their-walls-93819 ) does say "an exact replica of Trafalgar Square at the Bahria Town development in the city of Lahore." (It's unclear where the tourist attraction part comes in, esp. as it is a gated community.)
However, no one looking at any images of it as it actually is would use that particular wording  of "exact replica." There's a piazza for sure, and there's a similar Nelson's monument column in it, with what appears to be the four lions around it though with a different looking topping, but that appears to be the end of the similarity.  If such links are not allowed, here's a link to Google maps where what it actually looks like can be viewed: https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Trafalgar+Square,+Lahore,+Pakistan/@31.3877259,74.1900251,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x3918ff9564b07d7f:0xb527801c5f185e51!8m2!3d31.3876784!4d74.192365 . It's surrounded by quite nice looking suburban townhouses.
Perhaps what's meant is just the centre monument part itself and not the square as a whole. Otherwise, I'd say it needs to be reworded to something like "a nod towards Trafalgar Square" but I'll let greater minds than mine decide.
Randal Oulton (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Right I've just been templated by Mx. Granger for "being nonconstructive" .... So could someone for the love of God explain how this edit is now vandalism ?, I'm absolutely baffled!. –Davey2010Talk 02:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's apparently an attempt to include the Hello Internet phrase "love lion", which they have asked listeners to add to this article as part of a long pattern of encouraging Wikipedia vandalism. Please do not add it again. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Mx. Granger Well why did you not explain that instead of slapping a pointless warning on my talkpage!, I'm not a mindreader Granger and had I known it was vandalism I wouldn't of reverted in the first place!. –Davey2010Talk 02:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought it had already been explained by Onrandom in the edit summary for the edit you reverted. I assumed that if you had read the edit summary before reverting, you would know that it was vandalism. I'm glad the situation has now been clarified. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Mx. Granger No because I had no idea what he was on about and I thought I made that clear in the summary when I reverted, Don't you think for one minute if I knew it was vandalism I would've reverted ? .... Regardless had you simply reverted I would've then done some research but instead you felt the need to slap a warning which was wholly inappropriate!, In future please read WP:AGF as well as WP:DTTR. –Davey2010Talk 02:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
BTW anyone can revert stating "vandalism" and my reverting edit summary did state "The reference is legit .... there is no "love lion" nor are there any memes" which was a clear and completely obvious indication that I had no idea it was vandalism!. –Davey2010Talk 02:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like this is starting up again - anyone got an actual reliable source for this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What was the ref in the latest edit? NM, that edit was from last month. Everything I've found shows this is a meme from reddit and nothing reliable to suggest that these statues are referred to as such. CrowCaw 16:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed the article from saying that Trafalgar Square is owned by the Queen in Right of the Crown to saying that it is part of the Crown Estate.[1]  The first term is rarely used and requires explanation.  The Crown Estate is the property owned by the Queen in right of the Crown, according to a House of Commons report.[2]  However one editor reverted my change.  TFD (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You also removed a reliably sourced footnote for no reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Trafalgar Square. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170313082004/http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/central-london-bus-map.pdf to http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/central-london-bus-map.pdf
Added archive https://archive.is/20120629083412/http://www.24dash.com/localgovernment/27299.htm to http://www.24dash.com/localgovernment/27299.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160318020323/http://scarboroughcricketclub.co.uk/the-club/club-heritage/the-scarborough-cricket-club/ground-development to http://www.scarboroughcricketclub.co.uk/the-club/club-heritage/the-scarborough-cricket-club/ground-development
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@MrUmBongo: Please can you explain your view that "References in newspapers from the turn of the millenium are innaccurate and untrue." The source in question this one, and the claim that the fourth plinth was empty until 1998 is backed up with "this source" in The Independent, which is generally considered a reliable source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)