Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London/Archive 3

message: WP:RM South Bank --> South Bank, London. Also South Bank (disambiguation) --> South Bank. It is in the same move. See Talk:South Bank#Request move. Simply south 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Bank 

message: Buckingham Palace has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
 Simply south 10:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buckingham Palace FAR 

message: I'm not really sure what to do here. Should i propose the move of the article? The reason is i have discovered that there is a district in London, named after the park. It is located on the eastern side of the park and i also called Regent's Park but does not have an article yet. Would this one be called Regent's Park, London? Simply south 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to think where that is. There are a number of mansion blocks within the park, they are part of the Crown estate (part of the park). On the NE, it's straight into Camden Town, on the east, you're quickly into Mornington Cresc and what's left of Somerstown. The park is the accepted use of the term, so that shouldn't move. Adjacent areas are often derived from their proximity. Would it be Regent's Park, Camden - with an otheruses on the top of the page? Would that solve your dilema? There's a Regent's Park ward, is that what you mean? Camden Map doesn't mention it - ward map has it, but seems to be Mornington Crescent. Regent's Park ward. Everything to the left of Albany St is Crown estate, and what you bet it's the name of the barracks. Not convinced it has any other existence. Kbthompson 23:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to say multimap or OS it is that same general area. Simply south 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mornington Crescent isn't an area, its a Winchmore Hill, er... I mean a Charing Cross (what is wrong with me?), it is an Edgware Road.... er... road and so i don't think it is a Hampstead Garden Suburb or District (Line). Simply south 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh, I was right, it is the name of the barracks ... That map puts it squarely over the mansion blocks in the park. I never knew there was a cathedral there! "Boing" said zebedee ... I don't know, never heard it mentioned as an area. Mornington Crescent is a valued national institution. Kbthompson 23:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet doing a quick search on google - 
*133,000 results - a mixture of the park, and other things (Regent's Park, London)
*317 317 results - some addresses, park again and others (Regent's Park, Camden) Simply south 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For disambiguation for the district, would Regent's Park (district) or Regent's Park (neighborhood) work?  Dr. Submillimeter 06:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The majority of the google hits are related to the park. Others, the college is in Oxford, at least one of the hotels on the western edge, another on the northern. The LBS is just north of Baker Street (ie south). So, a bit of a diasporic neighbourhood. I think it may be a name applied to the houses within the park, and by extension to a ward of Camden. Kbthompson 08:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that my A to Z has a place named "Regent's Park" located between Regent's Park (the park) and Mornington Crescent (the Underground Station).  This matches the location given by Simply south.  Dr. Submillimeter 08:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally Bedford New Town (Duke of Bedford), there's an account of the area (but not the name) in Old and New London. Dickens went to school there, the "infant Roscius," lived there, painters, the usual bunch of Camden non-conformists (black clothes and boots, nothing changes). The thin strip west of Albany Street is very much of the park; the area to the east is the backstage area, and has more in common with Camden Town and Somerstown. Kbthompson 09:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Camden's Health report 2003/2004 lists Regent's Park as a ward. This map also shows Regent's Park but as a Neighbourhood. Simply south 11:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be Liberal, then ... Liberals are fond of neighbourhoods (strictly groups of wards). If you dispense with the Crown estate, the barracks, etc. It's a pretty small area ... if there's three councillors, there should be about 6,000 people, no 7,247 actually ... ward since 1964. Kbthompson 13:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And here is the batrracks, although maps etc also call this Regent's Park, i think it is in the district of Regent's Park, according to the same maps. Simply south 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regent's Park 

message: article is a bit of a state!  We've rated it as importance:top (contentiously, see talk:Knightsbridge), but it's only start-class and could do with lots of work - it would be helpful if the experts could compile a list of to-dos for us newbies to work through...  Paulbrock 02:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knightsbridge

message: Suddenly there's a category:Marylebone is this a good idea? Kbthompson 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a horrible idea. What next, a :Category:Dollis Hill? The regional categories should follow the boroughs, with (maybe) an exception made for historic boroughs that have a very distinct character from their modern "parent" borough, such as Hampstead and Tottenham —  iridescenti (talk to me!) 07:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It made me think twice - in fact, I'm still thinking about it. Its perfectly good faith, and follows your potential argument for Hampstead and Tottenham. (S)he has not fiddled with the borough category. Does it matter? I'm not sure, there's already instances of wards in ... and education in ... (and yes, I am guilty of some of them), mainly to tidy a borough - it is an aspiration to have an article on every school, so the later is certainly not unreasonable. But essentially metropolitan borough categories? I'm still not certain ... that's why I raised it here. Is it useful to anyone? Its marginally more useful than one I saw cat:buildings in London destroyed by bombing (or some such), last time I looked that only had two members. Kbthompson 11:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to somewhat retract - I do think the primary geographic categories should be the current borough boundaries, but Marylebone is so distinct from the rest of Westminster that it probably could be kept, as per my examples re Hampstead/Camden and Tottenham/Haringey above. However, I do think that it would open two big cans of worms; firstly, the "well, why can't St Pancras, Bermondsey, Ruislip-Northwood etc have their own category" slippery slope we'd launch, and secondly the problem of locating buildings within the correct historic boundaries — I can place, for example, Edgware Road tube station in the current borough of Westminster by just looking at a map, but have no idea whether it was historically in Marylebone or Paddington, and I suspect there aren't many editors who have a pre-1965 A-Z lying around the house —  iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marylebone

message: There are a LOT of articles - I'm wondering how many actually are relevant here.  Particularly wrt people - do we really want to include everyone born or who lived in London?  I can see the relevance of covering Ken Livingstone or Dick Whittington, but Amanda Donohoe and Sebastian Brock? (I've removed the last two from the project but they were previously tagged) Paulbrock 18:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: I've just created an experimental new format for UK A-road articles at A1 road (London), with individual sections on each stretch of road, instead of either a single generic article about the entire road, or multiple free-standing stubs about each section. I'd be grateful if anyone with an interest would take a look and offer suggestions as to what they think of this as an article format and whether they think it would be useful for other similar roads that change their character repeatedly along their length, (eg, the A10). I'd also appreciate any feedback about what does/doesn't work before I do any more (this article took a week to write, so I don't want to waste any more time if people don't think it's useful) —  iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[A1 road (London)]]

message: I have nominated the above for deletion.  See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 26 and add your thoughts. Regan123 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Marylebone]] 

message: Please see and comment here for a proposed solution to these long-standing stubs:Talk:London_postal_district#Suggested_way_forward_for_postal_stubs. Thanks. MRSC • Talk 14:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This review is now complete. MRSC • Talk 08:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: London postal district stubs

message: Several Croydon-related articles now overlap on arbitrary grounds - discussion started at Talk:Central Croydon. Martín (saying/doing) 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Croydon]] and [[central Croydon]]

message: It's not a topic I know anything about (it only came to my notice because I took an image from it to illustrate Holloway Road) but there's what looks like some large scale edit warring going on at London Metropolitan University between an anon IP account on the one hand and a SPA on the other. As I know nothing about the points being revert-warred over I don't really want to jump in and start issuing warnings — is there anyone here who does know the place in a position to decide who (if anyone) is in the right here? As the debate seems to show no sign of fading, and some of the allegations being made look libellous, it might need to be semi-protected —  iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AN and WP:ANI may the the best places to go seek administrative intervention.  Dr. Submillimeter 12:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A note has been left at WP:ANI#Edit war at London Metropolitan University.  Dr. Submillimeter 13:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: London Metropolitan University

message: Four subcategories of :Category:Cemeteries in London that list the people who are buried in each cemetery have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 3#Subcategories of Category:Cemeteries in London.  People here may want to comment.  (Deleting these categories seems like a generally good idea as long as it is done for all cemeteries, not just London cemeteries.)  Dr. Submillimeter 13:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategories of [[:Category:Cemeteries in London]] 

message: While we are all still trying to recover from the Camden flame war of '07, I recommend keeping a close eye on 2012 Summer Olympics at the moment.  The logo has triggered a huge discussion and lots of editing.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2012 Summer Olympics]] logo has hit the fan 

message: If anyone feels the urge, could you take a look at the article I've just written on Broadwater Farm? (I'm shocked we didn't already have one.) Since the topic's still controversial, I'd appreciate anyone else's input. I realise it's very heavily referenced, but for a topic this contentious I think it needs it —  iridescenti (talk to me!) 04:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing this. I'm amazed we didn't have one either. Secretlondon 12:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broadwater Farm

message: :Category:London buses contains many articles on specific models that are used in the London bus system.  The problem with this is that many of these models of buses are used in the mass transit systems of many other locales as well; see, for example, MCW Metrobus and Volvo B10M.  Categorizing buses according to which cities use them is not feasible, as the list of categories for each locale that would be placed in each article would be very long.  It would be best to remove the bus model articles from this category.  Would people object if I do this?  Dr. Submillimeter 08:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional clean-up needed

message: It is pretty clear that this CfD deletion nomination will succeed. All the relevant articles have lists, but none are nearly as full as thwe categories that will disappear. It would be a good idea to start adding to the articles before this happens. Johnbod 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several people have indicated in the discussion that the categories should be turned into lists.  The administrators have both special templates and special bots for doing this.  You do not need to worry about populating the list; just make sure that the administrator does this.  Dr. Submillimeter 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So people at CfD always confidently say; we shall see. Closers tend not to pick up these comments.  In these cases there are already shorter lists or text passages in the articles on the cemeteries, which I would think are the best places for them.  I don't think bots will do this.Johnbod 19:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my experience at WP:CFD, I know that this happens frequently.  See list of blue plaques as an example of a list made from a category.  If it makes you feel better, I will leave a note to the administrator at the nomination.  Dr. Submillimeter 19:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People buried in London cemeteries 

message: This category tree seems to be applied vaguely and broadly to anything which could subjectively be called "historic", including articles on assorted people, existing and demolished buildings, defunct organizations, and even some categories such as :Category:Crime in London and :Category:Terrorism in London.  At the very least, labeling people as "historic" is not useful (as the term could be applied to anyone who is dead), and labeling existing structures as "historic" suffers from POV problems (for example, I can provide a explanation for why the Earl's Court Underground Station is "historic").  Would it be acceptable to other people if I cleaned-up the category appropriately?  Dr. Submillimeter 09:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guilty as charged for some of this. I have added demolished buildings (eg former theatres) to history of ... rather than buildings and structures in ..., but tend not to put existing ones in - although where they had a link to history of london, I've tended to convert it to a boro' link - so, I think the Tower ended up with a history of tag. I agree labelling people as historic, is of mild use (and I think I did put them all in the people bag). I accept that the category schema has holes - I was just waiting for people interested in xxx-FC to start complaining their premiership footie team was in sport in local borough; and the British library complaining it was now a library in camden ... but there are over-schemas for these things of 'national importance'. In such a large exercise, mistakes will be made, and one of the things about wiki, is there are always people like yourself who will put in the hard work of correcting them. A bigger problem, I think is the over categorisation - where something appears in both history of and terrorism in London, for example.Kbthompson 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will clean it up as is appropriate.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved Hackney Downs School back into :Category:History of Hackney, rem'd all the inappropriate school info and added :Category:Former buildings and structures of London. Any better advice on what to do with notable former schools, gratefully received. Kbthompson 09:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Former buildings and structures" categories for each borough would be appropriate (as long as they contain at least one article).  Dr. Submillimeter 09:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, that works for me, if I can dump the cat:former in cat:history too! It makes for a clearer relationship. I think it's also useful for all those former sports venues hanging around, the borough link can be in the former b & s cat, rather than 'sport in'. Kbthompson 10:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:History of London]] 

message: I'd like to separate the two into two articles - Finsbury Park. As the oldest municipal park in London, there's plenty of interesting things about the park itself - as the curent article suggests - it's mostly about the park. Thoughts, precedents, diktats? hjuk 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were down to me it would be about the park itself and nothing else. Since it's not official (and straddles three boroughs) "The FP area" isn't a clearly defined area in the way that, say, Stamford Hill is. I think any attempt to cover the broader area would just lead to content-forking from Holloway, Harringay, Stroud Green, Highbury Vale (which needs writing!) and Finsbury Park station. The park's article should probably be more explicitly linked to Parkland Walk (which I intend to do a complete rewrite of at some point as it's getting very messy), given that the two run into each other —  iridescent (talk to me!) 15:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would depend on whether there was anything interesting and unique to say about the area. Like the multicoloured one, I think probably not, and the parts of the area have more in common with their boroughs (probably even down to development, as the land ownership would not have been consistent). Diktats indeed, there's only agreement and precedent - 'cept the precedent is never written down, and the people wot made it have wandered off since, so it's only people who've been around for ages can actually (mis-)remember. Kbthompson 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finsbury Park Park vs Finsbury Park Area

message: Do Me ... London looked like an advertisement for a non-notable service, so I nominated it for deletion.  Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do Me ... London. Dr. Submillimeter 08:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Do Me ... London]] 

message: The categories for people buried in London are relisted for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19#Subcategories of Category:Cemeteries in London.  The last nomiantion was overturned because the categories were not tagged properly.  That should not be a problem this time.  Dr. Submillimeter 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories for people buried in London relisted for deletion 

message: User:90.198.188.222 is attempting to redraw the boundaries twixt LBH and LBI. This was done on the LBI article, LBH and LBI templates, the parliamentary constituency and De Beauvoir Town - quite thorough. All currently reverted, but interested parties should watch out for this seriously strange non-geographic point of view - probably post-codism, or East Canonbury. Kbthompson 00:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, though I think you mean 82.45.221.124 Paulbrock 00:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry dealing with two vandals at the same time! 222 was just being silly. De Beauvoir is in Hackney, has always been in Hackney; but is N1 postcode district. There is an extremely PoV editor who wants it to be East Canonbury, rather than West Dalston! Kbthompson 10:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done it again, reported for IP vandalism. Next time it's 3RR. Anyone for West Canonbury? Kbthompson 16:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is now about East Canonbury... time for an AfD? Regan123 17:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: An admin has kindly turned West Canonbury into a redirect to Canonbury. I'm a bit sick of it, and worried that if I have to revert this introduction of contra-reality stuff again, I'm in contravention of 3RR! Kbthompson 11:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meanwhile, in Islington

message: Familia link in external resources not working. hjuk 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Link

message: Is it okay if i add a bot for archiving this page? 30 days? Simply south 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot

message: Is St Giles a district? There seem to be things around there such as St Giles in the Fields and St Giles Circus. Simply south 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: St Giles was a parish containing a notable rookery, just to the north of Covent Garden - now largely cleared by office development, New Oxford Street and the roads surrounding. A visit to Old Bailey on-line should give a flavour of the district! Kbthompson 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: St Giles

message: Someone has proposed deleting List of libraries in Barking and Dagenham and List of libraries in Barnet, on the basis they're advertising. First of all, they're lead articles in the category:library in london borough; secondly, as with the aspiration to have lists of london schools in boroughs, libraries are a council service that should have an article (I'm the first to admit, they're not good articles) (see How to write about settlements). Anyone want to comment, suggest improvements, trash the idea? Kbthompson 15:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not at all clear that categories need a lead article, or even that each library deserves a separate article. However, it would be silly to have neither individual articles nor a general "Libraries in XXX" article. The article would probably be better written not simply as a list, but even a vaguely well written article on the subject couldn't be called called simply advertising. JPD (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy deletes (list of libraries)