Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

New user category

FYI... I just created Category:Wikipedians from London as a complement to Category:Wikipedians in London. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 20:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Schools in London

Ive had a look at various articles of schools in London and their contents differ greatly. Can I ask what other users think an article of a school in London should contain. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 11:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a schools project, I think they define their own standards. Most schools in London have been added on an adhoc basis and need a good cleanup. We did an exercise to organise them, so at least most are now identifiable. I'm glad someone's taking an interest in them. Kbthompson (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it is nice to see someone looking in to them. It really depends on the school, in my opinion; if the history of the school is important (it's an old one, with a long history) then that should take up a good part of the article. If they're currently doing interesting or novel things with teaching, then that should take focus. Just my 2p ;) —αlεx•mullεr 12:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Theatre

Her Majesty's Theatre is currently a featured article candidate please help improve the article, or leave comments at its nomination page. Kbthompson (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the issues raised on the nomination have been dealt with. Please do look over the article and feel free to make further suggestions for improvement, or express your support for its nomination. Taking articles with the project banner on through the wiki quality procedures is an important part of the project work, and frankly, (as a project) we're not doing enough of it.
You can find the article here and the candidate page here.
cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

... is a featured article. Kbthompson (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Forty Hall and Elsyng palace

I have proposed a merger of Elsyng palace into Forty Hall. Simply south (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable idea, but the proposal is malformed at the moment. Do you want to carry it forward? Kbthompson (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

East End of London

... is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 23, 2008.

Thanks to everyone who did work on it, and congrats to WPLondon for making the WP:Main Page. Kbthompson (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

London image

Hello again team,

Just a note that I changed the lead image on London per a small discussion on the talk page. I hope it's okay with everyone. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

LB coats of arms

Hi folks

Since these were all created in 1965/6, they are copyright images. These are ALL now coming up on the radar for two reasons:

  1. The arms have no free use rationale for their principle usage on the main borough pages.
  2. The arms have been included in the boro' templates, so now are counted as also being included in each district of the borough - 10-15 instances in each case. A free use rationale must be included for EACH of these pages, or the arms should be removed from the template.

The former use is probably OK. The secondary use is possibly stretching it, as the use is essentially decoration of the template, although an argument can be made that the 'parentage' of the district essentially constitutes a critical commentary of the authority, and so it does have a fair use rationale. 'Fair use' is not 'inherited', so fair use can't be put in for the template.

Now, I have no problem with updating 31 free use rationales, but 600 instances generated by the template? We have also had this problem with the 90-100 odd metropolitan arms. About 30-50 got fixed, most of the rest are lost. If anyone notices such instances, I have no problem in bringing them back (if still there, the deleted image cache is purged regularly, compared to the deleted pages - which are usually recoverable) - BUT, someone must enter the fair use rationale.

In illustrating the London borough, former boroughs and rural districts, etc. There is a clear fair use rationale in articles on the entity. Beyond, less so ... Any ideas, volunteers to add 600 fair use rationales - or should I fix the 31 and remove the image from the templates? Kbthompson (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(examples are in Category:Coats of arms of London Boroughs) Kbthompson (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet more, I've created an example of what it should like at Image:Arms-hackney-lb.jpg. That includes a fair use for the template, but frankly I don't think that will work. Where it says 'logo', that should be changed to 'symbol'. Kbthompson (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. {{Non-free use rationale}} has now been added for each LB. I have also added it for 'LB template' - but not each district. Some have already been deleted from the templates under the lack of fair use and over use. Maybe this should taken up at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Any thoughts? Kbthompson (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the use of non-free arms images in templates can be justified under WP policy. JPD (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That was my impression, but I don't want to appear as arbitrary as the bots! I think a description of the arms should also appear on every page where they are used - otherwise, again it degenerates to pure decoration. This description occurs on some borough pages - and (I think) lozleader added descriptions to most former authority pages. Those texts should not just reproduce what is on civic heraldry (link on most of the image pages), although it is a good source. That gives the following tasks:
  1. Remove images from 31 templates (a handful have been done)
  2. Remove fair use case for template, from 31 images
  3. Check London boroughs' articles for descriptions of the arms and seal - add if necessary.
  4. Check fair use for approx 100 former authorities, ensure fair use. Ensure description in former authority article, check usage in district articles of former arms - ensure fair use and relevance of description of former authority arms to locality.
That should do it ... anyone care to put a case for keeping them? Kbthompson (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lord Mayor of London

Hi there folks. Recently, due a change in the corporation's official title of the Lord Mayor to be the Lord Mayor of the City of London - changes have been made to a number of articles changing Lord Mayor of London -> Lord Mayor of the City of London. Now people are changing them back. Maybe we should have a discussion here. My understanding is that Lord Mayor of London remains the historical title, and that Lord Mayor of the City of London is the title that applies since the reconstitution of the Corporation of London as the City of London Corporation, ie current and modern usage. Can we please get our current and historical usage straight please. thanks Kbthompson (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, no one was called "Lord Mayor of the City of London" until very recently. To introduce that neologism into articles going back far into the Middle Ages is a dreadful anachronism. The redirect from Lord Mayor of London to the article which has just been renamed Lord Mayor of the City of London works well, but if anyone wishes to link men known as Lord Mayor of London to that article more directly (or, of course, women, such as the one female Lord Mayor, Lady Donaldson), then the grown-up way to do it is to use [[Lord Mayor of the City of London|Lord Mayor of London]]. I don't see any need for that, but there's really no harm in it. Xn4 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite right. - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Beckton Gas Works

I've recently done quite a lot of work on this article about what was often quoted as the world's largest coal-gas works, so article is no longer a stub. Would anyone care to rate it now? Pterre (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I did rate it, a B. Its actually borderline A. I have requested a peer review of the article. I wouldn't expect to get too much from a WP:peer review, they often just give you automated comments on the article structure and content. The next step would be to put it forward to WP:GAR, I don't think the article is quite ready for that, but it is worth seeing the quality process articles go through. Kbthompson (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You've had some useful comments at WP:Peer review/Beckton Gas Works/archive1. Normally good etiquette to thank the reviewer and attempt to address some of the issues raised. cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Noted, thanks. I think the content of 'popular culture' definitely ought to stay, albeit in edited form - it is surely very unusual for a single old industrial plant to have starred in such a number of very well known films etc. What do you think? Pterre (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally I see you have provided Cities of Science as a ref for the 'highest hill'. The text of this article leaves much to be desired - eg location because of the Royal Docks. As we correctly say, the works was specifically located there for DIRECT river access, nothing to do with the docks. Should we regard Cities of Science as a reliable source? Pterre (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think it is a good source, but several other web pages quote it, so I think it acceptable as a source for the purposes of (say) GA ... FA, I myself, would probably challenge it. (I think the LBN site links to it, and that's what swung it for me) cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

East London

There seems to be a one-man campaign at present to claim that everywhere in east London (eg Dagenham, Romford etc) is in Essex, not Greater London. does this constitute vandalism? I've just reverted Dagenham, but I can see this getting rather stupid. Pterre (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it continues and it is completely false, yes it is vandalism. I would warn the user first, and suggest that maybe he/she should look over their sources once more. Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I'm looking for some sort of policy here, as every location in Greater London not covered by a London postcode (and others such as my home town of N8 which was politically in Middlesex until 1965) is potentially subject to edit warring on this issue. Pterre (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
If it goes by both, then it should include exactly that. Hope that helps, Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My point is we should not have to get into an edit war each time someone wants to assert this view for a locality in outer London - we need to be able to point to a consistent policy.
Romford and Dagenham said (to the effect that) X is in Greater London and was in Essex until 1965. The edits in question altered this to X is in Essex (right next to the map showing it within London, making the article look rather foolish!), and in the Romford case inserted a { { fact } } tag next to the statement that it has been in Greater London since 1965. Are we going to provide a citation for the location of every place mentioned in every article? Further down was inserted the statement "Although Romford is controlled by a London Borough, Romford's postal district & boundaries have never been changed which means Romford still makes up part of Essex much like neighbours Upminster & Ilford which are also in Essex but controlled by London Boroughs." This is just plain wrong - 'Romford's boundaries' were abolished by the London Government Act 1963 -that's probably a lifetime or 3 ago for most of our readers. What next - someone editing the infobox to show a pre-1965 map of Essex? Pterre (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I had a run in with this lone crusader and suggested that there was plenty to be getting on with on towns that were formerly in Essex without denying reality. It's the same as the 'postcode marauders' who insist that parts of Hackney are in Islington because they share a postcode. Just revert it, point out the inconsistency - politely - either on the article talk page or their own. If they rack up enough warnings, ask WP:AIAV - or me - to block them for vandalism/adding misleading information. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to your comment at Talk:Romford#East London? I've now found what I was looking for, namely Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (places)#Counties of Britain. Perhaps we ought to have a pointer to this from Wikipedia:WikiProject_London/Naming_conventions as I'm sure I had a search around without finding it! Pterre (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry it was MRSC not you - but you probably knew that! Pterre (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

List of libraries

List of libraries in Barking and Dagenham is up for deletion again. There are a couple of these, spun off to prevent enormous lists in Borough articles. How do we feel about these? Certainly not my greatest articles, and I'm not sure there's exactly much more to say about them. Of course, the danger is they'll then go for the categories. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Belvedere Incinerator

This is apparently a political hot potato where the locals are up in arms about a central government decision (nothing new there then). The 'locals' include Bexley council, a Labour MP, the Labour Mayor of London and a Conservative councillor, all opposed to the scheme. The article until recently mentioned the mayor and the MP. Mention of the MP has recently been removed and there are now six 'references' which are direct links to the local councillor's party political website. To me this seems to be turning an issue of local v national interest into a party political issue. I hesitate to revert this as vandalism - comments? Pterre (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I just realised this IP is a repeat offender at the Houses of Parliament. It's gone. Pterre (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's back. Can someone else please review this - in my opinion it introduces blatant party political bias. It appears that the local MP (Labour), Mayor of London (Labour), local council (Conservative) and individual councillors (Conservative) unanimously oppose the scheme, but the house of commons-based IP is trying to present it as a party issue. Pterre (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

List of eponymous roads in London

If anyone knows of roads in London named after a person, please add them to the article or as suggestions to the talk page ... I'm happy enough to do the spadework of geocoding &c. Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be a spoilsport but wouldn't a list of roads that are not eponymous be considerably shorter? There were 1300 roads in one small inner London borough foolish enough to employ me way back. The LCC's Names of Streets and Places in the Administrative County of London (1955 edition) has 835 pages of names about 30 to a page, and that's just inner London.. Good hunting! Pterre (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It's also pretty much impossible unless you can document the history of each road - is Bedford Square, for example, named for the Duke of Bedford or the town of Bedford, for example? — iridescent 14:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Museums in London

Could I ask for some help accessing local knowledge, from members of this wikiproject, on the behalf of the new WikiProject Museums? We are currently trying to identify articles within the Museum projects scope (& develop guidelines to help improve them etc). There is a List of museums in London. Could you take a look at the list for your local area and see if any are missing or create articles for any red links. Could you also add the new project banner "{{WikiProject Museums}}" to the Talk pages of the articles, so that we can identify those in need of work etc. Any help appreciated &, if anyone is interested you are welcome to join the project or discuss Museum related articles on the Project Talk Page.— Rod talk 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Capital of England

There is a debate at Talk:London as to whether London is the capital of England. Just thought the project would like to pass comment. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As i have said before, the capital of England is E. Simply south (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Was that a typo? I'm confused! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No, i was messing about and trying to insert a bad joke. Simply south (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I just got it (!) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
'Capital' is Latin for head. London is the head city of England both as the largest city and as the seat of government. Therefore London is the capital city. QED. Colin4C (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

London Map

I've been working on Wellcome Collection and there is now a map in the infobox - but it is Greater London which is really too big an area. Central London needs its own map at a scale that you can tell the difference between say, Camden and Westminster. User:Jza84 says he can make one but suggests I ask here if there is one already exists, or any views on the subject. ProfDEH (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Clicking on the globe brings up a scaleable map. I seem to remember changing {{Infobox theatre}} to bring up a landmark scale map. You're assuming readers would know the difference between Camden and Westminster. I think the original purpose of those maps was to show a places rough relationship with the rest of the world, not specific locations at that level of granularity. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, OK. I looked at the map popup - there are a lot of bad coordinates (Islington west of Kings Cross?) when it gets to close-up so maybe general location is the best approach. ProfDEH (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)