Talk:Postman's Park

Postman's Park is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 30, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 13, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 1, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the practice of stacking dead bodies and covering them with soil instead of digging graves has left Postman's Park, a former burial ground in the City of London, elevated above street level?

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cemeteries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lead work

Postman's Park is a park in the City of London, a short distance north of St Paul's Cathedral. Bordered by Little Britain, Aldersgate Street, King Edward Street, and the site of the former head office of the General Post Office (GPO) from which it received its name, it is one of the City of London's largest parks.^{[n 1]}

The park's first incarnation was as the burial ground of St Botolph's Aldersgate church in 1880, during a time when London's population grew so quickly that living conditions brought repeating epidemics. Sufficient burial space was in short supply; at times bodies in the graveyard were stacked many high. As a result Postman's Park is significantly elevated above the surrounding streets. It expanded over the next 20 years to incorporate the adjacent burial grounds of Christ Church Greyfriars and St Leonard, Foster Lane, and the site of housing demolished during the widening of Little Britain in 1880. A subsequent ownership dispute occurred between the church authorities, the General Post Office, the Treasury, and the City Parochial Foundation, the result of which was the establishment of a public park.

In 1900 George Frederic Watts envisioned a monument to ordinary people who died saving the lives of others and might otherwise have been forgotten, calling it the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice. A loggia and long wall housing ceramic memorial tablets was designed by William De Morgan. Although there were 120 intended memorial spaces, less than half have been installed since 1904, primarily because of Watts' death, and a dispute between the tile manufacturer and Watts' widow. It remains a relevant memorial space, however: the last one installed was in June 2009 for a man who died while saving a drowning boy in 2007.

In 1972, key elements of the park, including the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice, were grade II listed to preserve their character. Following the 2004 film Closer, based on the 1997 play of the same name written by Patrick Marber, Postman's Park experienced a resurgence of interest; key scenes of both were set in the park itself. A large statue of the Minotaur by Michael Ayrton, which had dominated the park since the 1970s, has been removed to a less crowded location as a result of the increased attention.

That's my try for a simplified lead. --Moni3 (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"During a time when London's population grew so quickly that living conditions brought repeating epidemics" isn't right; we're talking about the City of London, not Greater London, and the City's population didn't really change much between Saxon times and the 20th century (when the population dropped sharply to make way for office space); the City's position as a travel hub has always made it a flashpoint for epidemics (most notably the Great Plague of London). The issue behind the burial grounds wasn't urban growth; it's the accumulation of a thousand years worth of deaths making the existing burial grounds unviable, and advances in medical science making people realize that stacking rotting corpses in residential areas was a bad idea, coupled with the system being overwhelmed by a cholera outbreak. (The traditional response to disease outbreaks, of digging a big hole outside the city and throwing all the bodies down it, was no longer viable, as the Industrial Revolution meant that the previously empty fields around London were now industrial towns.)

I think Brianboulton's comments are right, on reflection. Looking from the reader's viewpoint, most people looking up this park will know it because of the Memorial (either from Closer or because they're interested in either Watts or one of the people commemorated), so it probably should be mentioned in the first paragraph even though it breaks the chronological progression. – iride scent 01:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok, so the lead can be made accurate at least... Was my first try from reading the article for the first time a couple hours ago.

My point in the rewrite is that there is some repetition and some detail that is probably not necessary (Watts' widow's maiden name, the fine details about why so many tiles were neglected for so long). I think if you're going to put Closer in the first paragraph, you should restructure the lead that way so it is mentioned only once. I seem to have lost the ability to read articles simply as a reader and not a reviewer, which hampers my ability to learn stuff when articles really suck... Anyway all I see is mentioning Closer twice in the lead is redundant. Either it should be made a big deal in the beginning or at the end...hell, even in the middle, but once only.

The structure as well needs streamlining. The 2nd paragraph mentions the graveyard--and my line of thinking there is that if you get that bodies stacked many high right at the top, you'll still have readers' attention--the ownership dispute, then the elevation of the soil from the stacked burials. Consolidate.

Again, these are suggestions, which you can completely blow off. But I wouldn't give them if I didn't think they were valid. Ask Brian's opinion too. --Moni3 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? (The reason I included Mary Watts's maiden name is that she was famous in her own right before marrying Watts - our article on her is at Mary Fraser Tytler. If we use the "Tytler" name, people will complain that that isn't the name she was using at this time; if we use the "Watts" name, people who are only familiar with her under the name "Tytler" won't realize it's the same person. This problem always arises with women who were famous under both their single and married name, or people who went on to become lords or kings, and there's no right answer; there's a similar problem with the treatment of Victoria Adams/Beckham at Spice Girls, for instance, or with Princess/Queen Wilhelmina at Koninginnedag, for example.)

Postman's Park is a park in the City of London, a short distance north of St Paul's Cathedral. Bordered by Little Britain, Aldersgate Street, King Edward Street, and the site of the former head office of the General Post Office (GPO), it is one of the City of London's largest parks.^{[n 2]} A shortage of space for burials in London meant that corpses were often laid on the ground and covered over with soil, as a result of which Postman's Park, built on the site of former burial grounds, is significantly elevated above the streets which surround it. It is best known as the location of the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice.

Opened in 1880 on the site of the former churchyard and burial ground of St Botolph's Aldersgate church, it expanded over the next 20 years to incorporate the adjacent burial grounds of Christ Church Greyfriars and St Leonard, Foster Lane, as well as the site of housing demolished during the widening of Little Britain in 1880, the ownership of which became the subject of a lengthy dispute between the church authorities, the General Post Office, the Treasury, and the City Parochial Foundation. The park's name reflects its popularity amongst workers from the nearby GPO's headquarters, despite that building's closure in the early 20th century.

In 1900, the park became the location for George Frederic Watts's Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice, a memorial to ordinary people who died saving the lives of others and might otherwise have been forgotten, in the form of a loggia and long wall housing ceramic memorial tablets. At the time of its opening, only four of the planned 120 memorial tablets were in place, with a further nine tablets added during Watts's lifetime. Following Watts's death in 1904, his wife Mary Watts took over the management of the project and oversaw the installation of a further 35 memorial tablets in the following four years, as well as a small monument to Watts. However, disillusioned with the new tile manufacturer and with her time and money increasingly occupied by the running of the Watts Gallery, Mary Watts lost interest in the project and only five further tablets were added during her lifetime.

In 1972, key elements of the park, including the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice, were grade II listed to preserve their character. Following the 2004 film Closer, based on the 1997 play Closer by Patrick Marber, Postman's Park experienced a resurgence of interest; key scenes of both were set in the park itself. A large statue of the Minotaur by Michael Ayrton, which had dominated the park since the 1970s, was removed to a less crowded location, and in June 2009 the Diocese of London added a new tablet to the Memorial, the first new addition for 78 years. – iride scent 12:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all right. That gets the point across nicely while still inviting the reader. Good job. --Moni3 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the article. I've taken out the bit about the Minotaur statue, as I don't think it's important enough to warrant mentioning in the lead. And now that's out of the way, the argument over WP:ACCESS begins. – iride scent 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break: Galleries

Trying again on this... tell me why you hate galleries. I did it here because so many images should be added to this article. I'm thinking of doing it to Everglades National Park. It's done in this article as well. I can understand random loathing. I hate things at random. Just curious about yours for this formatting issue. --Moni3 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hate them, and there are occasions where there are good reasons for them—works by a particular artist, say, or a large number of necessary photos that would overwhelm a short article (see my Hammerton's Ferry for what I mean by the latter); indeed, this page's sister article is a de facto enormous gallery, as is the Styles of tiling section here. In a case like this article, though, I don't really like them. If we had a large number of general views of the park and wanted to include them all, that would be an appropriate use for a gallery, but all the images currently in the article (other than the "general view" in the infobox) illustrate particular points in the narrative. I think it's more important to have the images next to the paragraphs they illustrate—even if it breaks the smooth flow of text. In a long article, the reader of the text has no reason to realise there's an image later on illustrating what's being explained, and thus won't skip down to the gallery if they're having trouble visualizing something. Likewise, detached images in a gallery are out of context, and someone looking at the gallery won't realise the significance of what they're looking at without explanatory text alongside. Besides, galleries can't handle alt-text, and for an article at FAC that's an instant kiss-of-death in the current climate. I've already intentionally violated WP:ACCESS once on this article, but that's for a specific reason which can be justified and explained. If we drop a dozen images into the article with no alt-text and without even the defense of being adjacent to a paragraph which explains what they're about, the vultures will swoop. – iride scent 14:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<reset>Well, that's a valid explanation. In my experience, the vultures will swoop for any reason, valid or not... It's quite a matter of picking your battles. --Moni3 (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Serene City: Finsbury Circus" (PDF). City Resident. Corporation of London. 2009-03. p. 3. Retrieved 2009-09-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "History". City of London Bowling Club. Retrieved 2009-09-01.
^ "Serene City: Finsbury Circus" (PDF). City Resident. Corporation of London. 2009-03. p. 3. Retrieved 2009-09-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "History". City of London Bowling Club. Retrieved 2009-09-01.

Christ Church Tower

It seems the tower is now a private residence, rather than office space: [1] (earlier website on the project: [2]). Also cf. our article on Christ Church Greyfriars. JN 466 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll double check when I get the chance. I think (without sources) that that project may have fallen through - I'm about 75% sure it's currently occupied by a dental surgery. – iride scent 02:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of one hour ago, the dental surgery was still there and open for business. It seems mainly to occupy a newer structure attached to the southern side of the tower. I am not sure if it extends into the tower itself. Perhaps the office space referred to in the article is related. When it stops raining I will original research my way over there and ask them. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tower is indeed a single private residence on multiple floors, currently occupied. The dental surgery occupies what the other article describes as "neo-Georgian brick offices" added in 1981. It also extends a short distance into the southern edge of the base of the 17th/18th century masonry tower at ground level - a dental operating theatre on the eastern side, and a staff area adjoining a waiting room on the western side. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pond

No mention of the Pond at the eastern entrance - it is populated with ornamental Carp (big goldfish) and occasionally ducks. Suthringa (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Park

The article currently starts: "Postman's Park is a park in central London ... it is one of the largest parks in the City of London ...". I'm sure that's all technically correct, but it seems to me to be highly misleading to readers not familiar with the City, and who don't appreciate the density of building, and the sparsity and small scale of its green spaces. Postman's Park simply isn't a "park" in the normally understood meaning of the term. I would prefer to change the first "park" to "public garden", and the second to "open spaces" (or similar). I have no problem with calling it a "park" thereafter, as that's clearly its official name. Comments? GrindtXX (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2.5 years on, no comments, and this still bugs me. In colloquial English, the word "park" implies an open space of some tens if not hundreds of acres, not a confined garden like this one. I'm going to make the two adjustments I suggest above. GrindtXX (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Postman's Park. 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) 15:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Postman's Park. 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) 10:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Postman's Park. 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/20131203041744/http://postmanspark.org.uk/ to http://www.postmanspark.org.uk/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.prossimo-ventures.co.uk/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203041744/http://postmanspark.org.uk/ to http://www.postmanspark.org.uk/

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) 08:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Postman's Park. 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/20090928221620/http://postalheritage.org.uk/collections/archive/businesshistory/counters to http://postalheritage.org.uk/collections/archive/businesshistory/counters/

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) 07:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).

[1] "Serene City: Finsbury Circus" (PDF). City Resident. Corporation of London. 2009-03. p. 3. Retrieved 2009-09-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[2] "History". City of London Bowling Club. Retrieved 2009-09-01.

[4] "Serene City: Finsbury Circus" (PDF). City Resident. Corporation of London. 2009-03. p. 3. Retrieved 2009-09-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[5] "History". City of London Bowling Club. Retrieved 2009-09-01.

[n 1]

[n 2]