Jump to content

Talk:Bond Street

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBond Street has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starBond Street is part of the List of London Monopoly locations series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2015Good article nomineeListed
May 17, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Pop Culture section

[edit]

Is there where the Austin Powers 1 opening takes place? (Or supposed to take place?) --Navstar 23:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope ,that's Carnaby Street Paulbrock 20:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Premises

[edit]

This whole section is superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.76.70 (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bond Street In Song

[edit]

The British band, Sweet Thursday, in their song, "Gilbert Street," mentions Bond Street and the Underground's Central Line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.22.6 (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC) "Maid Of Bond Street" is a song by David Bowie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.22.6 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stores?

[edit]

Should the entry contain of list of the stores "currently" on Bond Street? That seems like an advertisement for the stores plus who is going to check that list every 6 or 12 months to make sure it is up-to-date? Likewise, the rent rates: "In 2010, Bond Street was Europe's most expensive retail location. Rent rates rose 19.4% from the year before."Risssa (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

[edit]

Right, from the top, the problems with this edit are :

  • "The street was laid out on fields" - I think the fields were probably dug up to put road surfaces on

You are wrong here

  • "The street" - repetition in the second sentence

Maybe

  • "demolished it before developing the area" - was there a gap between the two activities

Not obvious from what you wrote

  • "New Bond Street was laid out" - we've already had that word, "added" is simpler to understand

Laid out is preferable, constructed maybe

  • "their upper storeys" - spelling, should be "stories"

Really!

  • "several loungers at his doorstep" - it's a proper name, should be in caps

Not a proper noun, Bond Street Loungers is a proper noun

  • "resulting in a five-year prison sentences" - grammatically incorrect

OK I missed the "a"

  • no reason for removing the "popular with tourists" given the source says, verbatim "The Allies' in New Bond Street is a favourite spot for tourists"

No opinion

  • "The plot of the 1948 film 'Bond Street centres around items purchased in the street" - that implies that there was some market stall planted in the middle of the road, which it wasn't

Far-fetched

  • "Bond Street, a square on the British Monopoly board," - clunky grammar

No, it replaced "clunky grammar"

I could go on, but that's enough to justify the edit as a net-negative improvement. The best way to improve an article is to make small, incremental improvements which can be reviewed individually, and if other editors who have worked hard on the article disagree, see what the issues are. And don't call editors spiteful, try and work with them. PS: For context for everyone else, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your edits are spiteful, it's not the first time you've protected an article to prevent IPs from editing. You most certainly haven't justified your blanket revert and article protection. You should practice what you preach to avoid being hypocritical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.15.46 (talk)
"You", "you", "you". I wish you'd keep it on content, seriously that's why you keep getting blocked. Unless you can persuade Yngvadottir or Drmies to take up your cause, you're out of luck I'm afraid. Remember, you have been formally banned from the project, and policy allows editors to revert for any reason at all, including no reason and just block, rinse and repeat, so the fact you are still here to tell the tale (primarily because 188.28.0.0 is too large a range to block without collateral) is to your advantage. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I instead made my own less thorough copyedit and tweak; I loathe that loose use of "due to", and the IP is correct with regard to "storeys" since the article is in British English (I looked it up; I can never remember which variant of English spells it which way). I'll now look again, because I see "centres around" above and that is hideous. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, the best thing to do when two editors clash is to get a third one in to be the judge and it works well, I'm sure the answer is midway between the changes in that diff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I futzed with it some more. But I am rather mid-Atlantic and frankly I usually agree with the IP's changes but find they have missed stuff I would have changed '-) @Eric Corbett and Dr. Blofeld: See anything I missed or mucked up? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the 1948 film, I would probably go with "is based on" rather than "centres around" myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Centres around", brr. I am so tired of advocacy, of being in between things. That will be one of the reasons I quit. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Yngvadottir for agreeing with the IPs changes. For some reason Ritchie333 doesn't approve of IPs editing his articles even when they've improved them. As he's protected the article, oh the joys of being an admin, it would have been nice if he'd reverted his revert but I can wait. Thank you for your kind words. Ritchie333 I have no idea what you are referring to, I'm not banned from anything except it seems improving your articles. C'est la vie. 92.41.44.124 (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir did not agree with your changes; they improved the article in a different manner. Your ban is documented here. Just because you think your edits improve an article, it does not mean people have to share your opinions, and insulting admins won't help you get the result you want. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "and frankly I usually agree with the IP's changes but find they have missed stuff I would have changed" don't you understand? Fwiw I'm most definitely not the editor you think I am. I have no blocks, bans or anything else. I just edit the encyclopedia anyone can edit with an IP because mostly I can just copyedit without any difficulty or interaction, I'm interested in readability and flow not researching, I don't often puncture egos, most aren't so fragile. The article is the loser not me. 92.40.146.4 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to continue this conversation, which has nothing to do with Bond Street, try my talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of visiting your talkpage as what I have said about the article and my edits to it are relevant. Yngvadottir supported my changes so what is the point of another opinion if you ignore it? I don't think admins should be protecting their version of articles just because they don't like IPs and their style of editing. If it needed protecting it should have been done by someone else. 188.28.113.35 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the list of changes Yngvadottir made. And she said they supported the user informally known as the "Best Known For IP"'s changes in the main (which tend to be on articles needing severe improvements and copyediting - and I agree most of the time his edits are good), which you have said is not you (and I'm inclined to agree now having got some more behavioural evidence). I've left her version in place and have no intention of reverting from it, and if you can agree the same we can unlock the article and close the issue. There are over 1,700 articles marked as "need a serious copyedit" - I'm not working on those and as far as I know, nobody else is - so why not look at one of those? I know I have given Jaguar a hard time for GA reviews recently, but I try and make sure an article is as good as I can possibly get it before nominating; if it was that problematic, a complaint would have been listed on WT:GAN or a reassessment listed on WP:GAR. I'll further reiterate that other admins would repeatedly kickban you for sockpuppetry and edit warring at this point, and you'd find it very difficult to get any complaint filed against it - but I don't like that as it's not conductive to writing an encyclopedia. As you can see, I edit as an IP too, so your "is it cause I is IP" victim seeking is wide of the mark. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, I keep seeing more stuff; this is why I pinged a couple of others. IP, for what it's worth you have my apologies; one of the disadvantages of IP editing is cases of misidentification, and this was one. Please consider registering to avoid future cases; rightly or wrongly (wrongly in my view, as it happens), the IP editor with whom you were confused is banned, which means their edits may be reverted on sight and someone must be willing to take personal responsibility for them by reinstating them on a case-by-case basis. Variations between varieties of English are a minefield on an international project like this, with it being safe to assume no one can possibly know all the variant rules and conventions, and that added to the mistaken impression in this case. And people vary in their copyediting ability (and style); I'm sure there's still stuff I've missed, and also that there are changes I've made that others (including you, I don't doubt) will disagree. Can you take a look now and, since the article remains semi-protected but there are at the very least 3 of us looking at it now, note here what you consider should still be changed (or be changed back?) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...which doesn't mean revert to the right version ten minutes after protection expires. Re-locked for a month. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bond Street. 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:

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) 07:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bond Street. 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:

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) 18:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Nelson

[edit]

I'm intrigued to know how Lord Nelson could have stayed in Bond Street six years after his death? Maybe this should be 1801-1803 and it's a typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squajar (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Squajar: The sources says ".... and Admiral Nelson at Nos 147 and 103 New Bond Street in 1797-8, followed in about 1811-13 .... by Lady Hamilton. I've added the missing three words that mean this sentence makes sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bond_Street&oldid=1227468225"