Talk:Buckingham Palace Garden

Merge Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was to leave Prom and Party where they are.

I am proposing that both Prom at the Palace and Party at the Palace be merged with this article.

One distinguishing feature of both concerts was the venue - the Garden. They both derived their historic quality from the venue itself. The audience placement and interaction with the public was enhanced by the location. The Garden has of course been used for several concerts since the Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II in 2002, mainly in celebrating the Queen's 80th Birthday in 2006 and these would be incorporated into the present article, enhancing it.

Another distinguishing feature was the Queen's Golden Jubilee aspect, and indeed both concerts are even more fully described in Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II. So these articles do not really add much new.

Furthermore, at a few years' distance from these concerts, the labels have been largely forgotten and the recordings are difficult to obtain in the UK - except at Buckingham Palace itself. In any event, a merge would be followed by redirects of both names.

Categories of Buckingham Palace Garden would be expanded to take the concerts into account following a merge.

Please support or oppose below. -- FClef (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE merge proposal

Possible merge party and prom at the palace together, but not into the garden. The garden is a separeate entity and should be kept as such. Batchelor 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concur with Batchelor: Keep the Garden separate. Cheers, Lindsay 08:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Possibly merge with the Golden Jubilee article but this should be a separate article. Paulbrock 08:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photos

I have a few photos of the garden, and would be willing to licence one or two for Wikipedia. Unfortunately there's not a lot to see! Probably the most suitable one is this one [1] as it at least shows some of the Palace, most of the rest just look like a field. The others are shown on the same link. What do people think? Paulbrock 13:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only bonus would be realising the truth (rather shabby though it is!) of something i have always considered glamorous. I guess i mean that one of them (number three or six) would add a little value to the wikticle, but not much beauty! Cheers, Lindsay 07:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added! Paulbrock 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Urn

This article says the urn weighs 15 tons, but the urn article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_Vase says it weighs 20 tons

which is correct?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garden at Buckingham Palace. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051120183508/http://www.rhs.org.uk/Learning/publications/pubs/garden1204/buckinghampalace.asp to http://www.rhs.org.uk/Learning/publications/pubs/garden1204/buckinghampalace.asp

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) 23:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Am planning to expand this a little. Is there a reason why it is titled Garden at Buckingham Palace rather than Buckingham Palace Garden / Buckingham Palace garden / Buckingham Palace gardens? The Royal Collection uses Buckingham Palace Garden, [2], as do Historic England, [3]. I originally titled Belton House Boathouse, Boathouse at Belton House, and it was subsequently changed, I think for the better. Is there any objection to retitling? KJP1 (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. KJP1 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I’m also thinking of adding an infobox, but appreciate this may be controversial. I like {{infobox historic site}}, as it allows up to 5 listing designations which would enable us to put in the garden itself, the summerhouse, the Waterloo Vase and a couple of others. Views? KJP1 (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.KJP1 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big Royal Dig

Looking at this, I'm not at all certain it's all that useful. It's completely uncited, has a number of embedded external links (none of which take you anywhere useful), the language isn't very encyclopaedic, and I think a whole section on one TV show is Undue. Shall trim unless there are any objections. KJP1 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now trimmed. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]