Talk:Inner Temple

message: A page from the Inner Temple website  suggests that it is not a local authority - its Sub-Treasurer is.  It also suggests that most local authority powers have indeed been "delegated" to or are exercised by the Corporation of London so "the local government functions are few".  The same applies to the Middle Temple except that its local authority is the Under-Treasurer. --Henrygb 00:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Local authority

message: The inclusion of Inner and Middle on the Template:London suggest that they have some special status and are perhaps not part of the territorial authorities that they lie within. If this is the case. The Template_talk:London has a short discussion, but it should probably be mentioned in the articles if the special status is unique enough to be noteworthy. Conversely, if their status is nothing special, they oughtn't be on the template. Thoughts? /Kriko 14:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial status 

message: I suspect that 1 Temple Gardens was an inadvertant vanity article creation by a barrister practicing there.  Besides the article does not assert any notability, let alone notability independent of Inner Temple.  Merge JASpencer 17:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. JASpencer 22:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with [[1 Temple Gardens]] 

message: The requested photos were added so I deleted the reqphotoin London tag. What do you reckon?
The Blackfriar 14:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: This sentence confuses me:  The Inn is both a professional body and what?
DavidHeald (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed; that was initially meant to have another clause, but it got lost somewhere along the way. Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Confusing Sentence 

message: The following is written wrong:
"first, a decree by Henry III of England on 2 December 1234 that no institutes of legal education could exist in the City of London,[9] and secondly a papal bull of 1207 that prohibited the clergy from teaching the common law, rather than canon law.[10][11]"
1207 was before 1234.  Either one of the dates is wrong, or the papal bull was first and the royal decree was second.
Someone who knows, please fix this.
71.109.150.141 (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, sorry; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Either these dates or this sequence is wrong.  Please fix. 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Templarsign.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion