Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London/Archive 2

message: Just thought I would bring these to your attention...
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 157
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 130
Regan123 09:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we could start a London-related 'afd watch' on the project page. MRSC • Talk 15:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea.  Is there an RSS feed of these around, as it would make it easier to keep track of. Regan123 15:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember seeing something like this on another project. Can't remember where though. MRSC • Talk 15:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfDs of interest 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 21:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I just thought you'd like to know that this article has been nominated for good article status. Are there any others nominated, or are there any aleady good or featured articles? Perhaps we should list them on the project page? I know the actual London article is at good status, but what about other pages? Max naylor 11:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Rainham, London]]

message: London congestion charge 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.
Gzkn 02:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR for [[London congestion charge]] 

message: Hi, long-time Wikipedian here, moved over a year ago to London, very interested in London theatre, but find it sorely underrepresented in Wikipedia. Which is a pity because (like its financial district) London's theatreland is now acknowledged to be the finest in the world. If anyone else has an interest in this, I would be very happy to collaborate with them on theatre-related articles and to keep WP updated with details of the latest productions (at least the important ones anyway - there's so much going on here that you'd need a team to keep track of everything.) Please drop a line here or on my talk page, if interested. Much obliged, thanks! --Peripatetic 11:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, there's already Elizabethan theatre which deals with the early history of (essentially) London theatre. Moving forward, there's some good stuff on the Patent theatres, and Colin4C and I have collaborated (or, is that disagreed?) on some articles about early Music hall theatres in London. I agree a lot of currently active theatres need to be brought up to the standard of Theatre Royal, Drury Lane and Theatre Royal, Covent Garden; and even they have important aspects missing. I tend to dive in where my interests take me, examples Britannia Theatre and Theatre Workshop. I would suggest you do the same, but it's always good to get an extra eye to look things over, so feel free to be in touch if you need any kind of help. Kbthompson 11:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add that the list of bygone London Music Halls is incomplete, and that looking at the Strand, London article one would never guess it was THE entertainment Mecca of 19th and early 20th century London...Marie Lloyd could do with a complete revamp as well...Colin4C 11:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been cleaning up, and applying structure to List of London venues - which is the main list of current and historic theatres in London. Surrey Theatre needs loving care and attention, and I will try to get to it. All critiques and collaboration on both pages welcome. Kbthompson 17:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Venues? That sounds very vague. Separate lists of London theatres, music halls, cinemas, clubs etc might make more sense??? Colin4C 20:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it is, I also think lists themselves are more a cross to bear, than useful (why not use categories?); but it was there, and in need of tidying up. Next thing is to go through the list, checking that each theatre has something more than stubbiness ... I think cat:Theatres in London -> cat:West End theatres + cat:Beyond the West End (although you end up with some major theatres in the 'fringe' category would make a start; cat:former Music halls?). But that's another day, and another argument. Kbthompson 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone interested in collaborating on articles about the London theatre?

message: Are there any available photographers for tomorrow? Wikinews has received invitation to a Disney-run event, of which I don't have details right now, but I want to keep the option open should it be a good event, worth sending someone to.  --  Zanimum 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be able to help out if I get some more details... Am heading back to London now anyway, I'll make sure I have my camera just in case. Do we know where or anything like it? Driller thriller 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Driller Thriller for the offer. I got the info too late to be useful, but it was a celebrity red carpet launch of the Peter Pan DVD. Can I keep you in mind for any other London events in the future, if I have better notice?  --  Zanimum 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographer for tomorrow? (Saturday 3 March 2007) 

message: I'd really like to create an article List of highest points in London, to consolidate the various "one of the highest points" claims that appear on articles such as Shooter's Hill and Crystal Palace, London. Does anyone have any suitable sources? MRSC • Talk 20:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I always thought that the pub Jack Straws Castle near Whitestone Pond, Hampstead was situated on the highest point in London. (that is the EX Jack Straw's Castle - it having recently been demolished by evil financiers and yuppy flats erected on the site). Colin4C 20:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was always told the highest point was in Highgate Cemetery, but looking at my OS map, I think you're right. The area round Jack Straw's and a patch just north of Highgate Cemetery are above the 125m contour, but a little way north of the Vale of Health a spot height of 134m is marked, no spot height for Highgate though. Tarquin Binary 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The highest geographic point (eg, not a building, mast etc) is the Whitestone Pond, next to Jack Straws Castle. -  iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: High in London

message: Following events at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, I have started working on a list of blue plaques.  I would like to make the list look similar to the lists at [www.english-heritage.org.uk] and [www.blueplaue.com].  At the moment, I have created a preliminary tabular format for two people (Matthew Arnold and Lord Ashfield) at the top of the page.  Please comment on the table's layout.  I will wait for feedback until 12 Mar 2007 and then continue tabulating the people.  (I anticipate that the page may need to be split into multiple pages at some point.)  Dr. Submillimeter 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of splitting alphabetically, although I have also thought about splitting regionally.  Maybe an alphabetical list can be created first and then regional lists can be created afterwards?  If people are split by region, I suggest splitting people in Greater London by borough. Dr. Submillimeter 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also local authority heritage plaques, often Green, or Brown. I went for a meander through Hoxton, Shoreditch and part of the City today, hoping to photograph some and the location. After walking for what seemed like 6 miles, but was probably more like 2, I managed to find 1 in the place it was supposed to be. Couldn't find either for The Theatre or for The Curtain; I have a suspicion that they are no longer a local council priority, and with rebuilding and such are disappearing fast. I will try to find out the situation for LBH and report back. Kbthompson 14:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of blue plaques]] 

message: Please be advised that User_talk:Raptornet seems to be haphazardly changing London to London, England unnecessarily on many London pieces. Even worse, they have also replaced the precise City of London in several places. (I've also caught one bit of vandalism and an attempt to impose US spelling, so I'm not sure this is at all well-intentioned.) I've undone a number of these but there seem to be a fair few more. There also seems to be an ongoing campaign by some anons to do the same sort of thing. Tarquin Binary 22:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly make it a policy to refer to it as London or London, England uniformly. This seems to be what they are trying to do, just taking it into their own hands. Suggest you (and I shall help if a third person agrees that it should be done) revert all edits and possibly add to WP:AIV? JoshHolloway 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone may want to explain the difference between the City of London and London to Raptornet.  He does not seem to understand the difference.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Before you posted that, I think I'd already reverted all his London edits. But, as I speak, all the Englands are being put back by anons - quite a concerted campaign.  Tarquin Binary 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if I inadvertently triggered this by doing the disambiguation of East London? To me, East London is where you get to on the District Line, but there is also a South African city of that name. The page on the Eastern part of London was never at East London, but at East London, England. Recently the South African city was moved from East London to East London, South Africa. The disambiguation involved changing a lot of links from East London to East London. Sam Blacketer 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As I've said elsewhere, the user also seems to be making whimsical deletions of copy and images (in the latter case refers to them as 'illegal' when they are blatantly Commons or public domain). Suggest they be cut a bit more slack given the comments you've made on their Talk page, but not much more... Tarquin Binary 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary [[England]] links... 

message: A new infobox has been developed for use on UK places articles. If you have any concerns or appraisals, please make them at Template talk:Infobox UK place. Regards, Jhamez84 02:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infoboxes 

message: Template:West End Theatres has been added to West End (and Beyond West End) theatres, it appears at the bottom of the page. I doubt the benefit to roll out to all the Fringe and Suburban theatres, but they are listed. Pls let me know if you have any comments. The idea came from a 'linked to' in someone's user area, but the code for this was nicked from WWII! When I have sufficiently recovered, I shall consider doing one for former theatres of London. Kbthompson 00:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you blinked and didn't notice, Theatre Royal, Drury Lane made wikipeida FA of the day on Mar 17, 2006. Well done. Kbthompson 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation box (London theatre) 

message: I'm new to this topic so excuse if this is covered elsewhere - but I can't find any reference to London's Underground Rivers - which are not going to get tackled at the locality levelCosmopolitancats 19:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not easy to find - being underground - Subterranean rivers of London. They are mentioned in a number of the Hackney articles, in respect of Hackney Brook. River Fleet is mentioned in Farringdon Without, amongst others. HTH Kbthompson 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's because they are down as 'subterranean'. There is a list here Subterranean_rivers_of_London that does not look complete to me. I would imagine that some were added at locality level, for example , I added the Hackney Brook locally (but then expanded it to an entry) and the Moselle as part of expanding NE London pages (though the latter is only somewhat subterranean, actually). Tarquin Binary 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Another bit extra. It's a valid point that (particularly non-Londoners) may use 'underground' (ambiguous to Londoners) rather than 'subterranean' so have added a couple of redirects to help, as in London's underground rivers. Tarquin Binary 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't 'Lost rivers', be a better heading? These rivers were not always subterranean. And isn't it assuming a lot to suggest that they are actually still there flowing underground and have not been diverted long since down Balzalgate's drains or have completely dried up???Colin4C 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of Hackney Brook, it is Bazelgette's sewers ... I think Subterranean Rivers of London and London's Lost Rivers are both book titles. For form's sake they should probably be avoided. Kbthompson 00:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, unlike the Hackney Brook, they are not all lost, and in most cases we know for certain they are still flowing, albeit in pipes and culverts. The outlet of the River Effra into the Thames is well known, there's a pic of it on its piece (the Tyburn empties close by on the other bank) - and the course of that river has been traced underground. The legendary case, of course, is the River Westbourne that can seen on its way through Sloane Square station in pipes. I think the Fleet is partly lost but can be traced in a few places, including its Thames outlet. Tarquin Binary 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: London Rivers

message: An article (London farmers' markets) exists on this, but it appears to an advert for a company called London Farmers' Markets. As a company, it's a bit non-notable, but as to cybersquatting on what might be a topic of interest it's spam. (There are many other Farmers' Markets in London). Kbthompson 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should have a wider List of farmers' markets in the United Kingdom article, rather than focus on individual companies providing markets or on just London (although it would be a section in that list). MRSC • Talk 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: London farmers' markets

message: Does anyone agree that it would be useful to add a "Key Statistics" section to London Borough pages? This information is readily available from the [National Statistics] website. If it works for London, then it could be spread out to other areas of the UK. Rogwan 15:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific as to what types of statistics you want to add (or does "key statistics" already mean something more specific in British English than in American English)?  Dr. Submillimeter 16:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just meant things like population, age, race, religion Rogwan 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems sensible to me.  However, Hammersmith and Fulham and City of London, for example, both already have most of this material.  Is this information missing from some other borough pages?  (I also suggest referencing the information in the infoboxes using footnotes.  See NGC 4594 for an example of how this is done with astronomical objects.)  Dr. Submillimeter 16:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some do seem to include this. Yours are good examples, then there's Barnet which has a less complete section and Enfield and Islington with none of this information. I just thought it would be nice to have this information in a consistent format for all boroughs. Rogwan 17:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have been looking at the pages for the localities within the boroughs and not the boroughs themselves.  London Borough of Barnet, London Borough of Enfield, and London Borough of Islington seem to have all of this basic statistical information.  If you are going to edit these pages, I suggest checking that the pages are for the boroughs and not other locations with the same name.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to the info boxes where it is all listed. Noticing that though, it seems odd to duplicate some of the information in the article and this text isn't consistent throughout the boroughs. Rogwan 17:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find there was also trojan work done on applying the 1801-1965 Metropolitan Borough population data across the board. It doesn't make particular sense to duplicate the details in each locale article, but at the borough level there should be a link to statistics about each borough - select one of borough info, direct census data, or GLA diversity data. Maybe that link should be incorporated into the template? Kbthompson 09:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to have clarification of what statistical sources are to be used for these key statistics? The 2001 Census data is now quite old, and there are more current sources of statistics, such as the annual Mid Year Estimates from the Office of National Statistics for population counts, or their Ethnic Estimates. The GLA produce population projections for the London Boroughs, and these are often preferred by at least some London boroughs because of problems with the ONS estimates. The Density statistic in the InfoBox needs to be defined - what population source is used/preferred? Mivona 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Key Statistics and Census 2001

message: Bethnal Green seems to have lost its talk page.  It automatically links to the wiki London article - which effectively means there's no scope to make progress with the article on Bethnal Green - which needs work done.
Would somebody who knows about these things please reinstate the 'talk' page for the Bethnal Green article
Thank you in anticipation
Cosmopolitancats 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bethnal Green

message: Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox flag straw poll 

message: I see on the external resources page there is a note about not being able to copy statistics from the Neighbourhood Statistics site.  I think there is a misunderstanding here which is probably worth highlighting and discussing further.
The wikipedia injunction against violation of copyright opposes the wikipedia requirement that all content is attributable to a reliable source.  The only reliable source for data collected by public bodies are their own publications.  However, there is no intention by government that statistics should not be used - but there is a requirement to use them responsibly and within due process and with proper attribution.
Neighbourhood statistics - as with other government statistics - are supposed to be copied and used in appropriate documents.  In other words they are in the public doman and permission can be granted for their use so long as proper attribution is given - as occurs every time every other public body, academic organisation or other organisation with a justifiable reason uses them.  Just as Wikipedia does, for example, every time Wikipedia copies and quotes their data each time mapping co-ordinates are identified and published or population data is quoted within any of the settlement templates for any of the UK places with articles.
'Copyright' does not mean 'do not copy'.  It means observe the copyright restrictions.  The wikipedia injunction to not violate copyright does not mean 'do not copy' it means do not infringe copyright restrictions.  So long as proper attribution occurs within the context of specified qualifying use and permission then it should be OK.
Given the extensive current use by Wikipedia of goverment statistics (see examples quoted above), I'm assuming that Wikipedia (somewhere in this vast set-up but I have not a clue as to where - but it would be nice to know!) have dealt with the following - which comes from the copyright notice of the Office for National Statistics
Reproducing National Statistics
Customers wishing to reproduce National Statistics material, other than for the purposes of research or private study, require a Click-Use Licence (details on how to apply are below) and whenever such material is published must accredit the material as being from National Statistics website, including the URL, as follows:
    Source: National Statistics website: www.statistics.gov.uk
    Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO
Additionally, by way of example, the statistics from the London Councils website has the following copyright notice.The Association of London Government retains full copyright of the material contained within its website(s), unless otherwise stated. Users may download printed copies of the material displayed on an ALG website provided that you maintain all copyright notices and other proprietary notice. You may not permanently copy contents for commercial gain.
  
Thus the main article for London - if it uses statistics from the London Councils (which it will need to do) - needs to ensure that the references section cites their copyright over the stats used.  I would think it adviseable to do this every time they are used given the various sources for data within the article.  This can be done as a footnote. 
Any questions or comments?   Cosmopolitancats 14:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why you link richly to and quote sparingly from government statistics, with full attribution. There is a FoI campaign at the moment to have these materials, and mappings released into the public domain. If in doubt contact an admin, and they will pass the query up to the wiki-foundation. Kbthompson 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please... admins are basically just normal editors. Any action on legal queries beyond normal discussion should go straight to foundation lawyers or whatever. But yes, the stats can be used quite a bit without excessive quoting. JPD (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.  I wasn't wanting to discuss legal action - just trying to identify where on earth this debate about use of census statistics has been had in the past on the basis that it's such a basic question it must have been asked and answered.  (And it's so flippin' difficult at times to find things on wikipedia) Presumably this means the note on the article page about not being able to use the census stats could be removed? Cosmopolitancats 16:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright and the use of national/local government statistics

message: A proposal to merge :Category:Squares in London and :Category:Streets in London is pending at WP:CFD.  Please go express your opinion.  (I wonder if I could write an article on Prince Consort Road...) Dr. Submillimeter 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I had trouble finding this proposal, it has been sensibly withdrawn, with a further request for standards to be applied. Kbthompson 12:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Squares in London and Category:Streets in London 

message: I have put this up on WP:FAR. It has been a featured article for the past 1 1/2 years. Simply south 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moorgate FAR 

message: Having not seen the process in action, I was emboldened to put East End forward for WP:GA. It hasn't been forward before, and was substantially improved by a group of us last year. If we can take it through the process, we can try for the giddy heights of Moorgate.
The process is similar to the FAR, but a lower hurdle. Past editors can attempt to meet any criticisms after the first stage of the process, but one aspect of the review is that the article is substantially stable, so no fiddling in the meantime. Tx Kbthompson 12:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: East End made GA with no changes. Next step, West End -> GA? East End -> FA? Kbthompson 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: East End GA

message: I've set up Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Assessment and related pages. Please join in assessing articles for quality and rating for importance so we can better prioritise our resources. MRSC • Talk 20:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Assessment

message: Someone's nominated Portland Road for deletion; in my opinion it's totally inappropriate for deletion given its history, but - seeing as people here are likely to know more about the pros & cons of keeping it - I'd urge any WPL members to go to the AfD discussion page for it and add their opinion either way. If nothing else, this might set a precedent as to which street entries are/aren't 'notable' enough for inclusion. -  iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD on [[Portland Road]]

message: I figured out how to use the AutoWikiBrowser to transfer these templates to talk pages.  The solution is not graceful, but it works.  Since the consensus in every discussion on this template has been to place these templates on the talk pages, I will do so as soon as possible.  Dr. Submillimeter 20:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SatyrTN appears to be trying to automate the transfer of the templates to talk pages.  I suspect that his solution will be better than mine, so I will wait to see what he does first.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated transfer to talk pages possible

message: We seem to have a lot of articles all over the place, that refer to sections of the London Inner Ring Road.  I have made a merger proposal there to try and consolidate the articles into something more meaningful and complete.  I would welcome your thoughts. Regan123 13:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you know my opinions on the matter... I'd support doing the same to all the various sections of A23 road, A1 road etc as well. -  iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is at Talk:London Inner Ring Road#Merge in... Regan123 13:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[London Inner Ring Road]] Merger