Talk:Queen's Park, London

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Kilburn

I would disagree with the edit that said that Queen's Park was an area of Kilburn. Kilburn and Queen's Park are seperate areas, just as Kilburn is from West Hampstead. They are just next to each other. --Studiosonic 13:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought of it as part of Kilburn. The park itself used to be called Kilburn Recration Ground, and a fair few of the shops in Salusbury Road use Kilburn in their name. ArtVandelay13 17:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, while I think it is a distinct area in its own right, ultimately it doesn't quite qualify as a London district (it's not on Wikipedia's list, for example), and in those terms it would be considered part of Kilburn. ArtVandelay13 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the recent elections were for the Queen's Park ward, and not Kilburn. If it was part of Kilburn, surely there wouldn't have been separate elections? I know what you mean - historically i think it has been part of Kilburn but I think it's grown away from that now. Although the police station is Kilburn police station. It just seems a bit odd, as Queens Park is quite an affluent and nice area, whereas Kilburn still has a way to go before it gets anywhere near the same level IMO. The character of the two areas is very different. --Studiosonic 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you for nothing that the people who paid £830,000 for 4 bedroom houses don't like their area to be called Kilburn! It's a bit of a local joke actually - "Queen's Park, formerly known as Kilburn..."

I believe the area was formerly known as West Kilburn to be precise. I have seen this on old photographs and maps of the area If this can be verified the article should reflect this. Natalieduerinckx 14:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in the Queens Park area. It was generally the area South of the railway line that was known as West Kilburn. Got a feeling the buses used to say they were going to/from West Kilburn. Twoquidtunes (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the debate. When I lived in Queen's Park in the 70's and 80's Brondesbury Road was regarded as Queens Park, and anything South West of the tube station and track was Harrow Road or Kensal Green at a push, and anything South East of it was Kilburn Park (or even Kilburn West). Kilburn itself was originally where Belsize Road meets Kilburn High Road. Also confusingly just north of the Regent's Canal is Queen's Park Library at 666 Harrow Road, North Kensington London, W10 4NE; now the area around the Library seems to making claim to be called Maida Hill (after failing to be subsumed into Maida Vale), whereas back in the 80's it was Paddington Green (sic). BeckenhamBear (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

famous residents and house prices

NB. Have added references about famous residents and house prices

Carol Caplin

Someone keeps adding information about Carol Caplin to the page. It feels a bit spammy to me and isn't relevant. Twoquidtunes (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

The references here have been somewhat ineptly inserted. Whoever put them in should really go and have a look at how to do them properly. At present they look daft. Macphysto (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Queen's Park, London. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant clean-up

Hello all,

I noticed this Wikipedia article was one of the poorest I have come across for a very long time. Block copied text from external websites in first person tone, very minimal referencing, and questionable content (including a possibly over-the-top obsession with demographics).

I have attempted to significantly improve the article by reorganising, adding references, eliminating content that appeared irrelevant and adding new content. In doing so I have carefully reviewed better articles of nearby London areas such as St John's Wood, and attempted to use similar structures etc wherever possible.

It's a work in progress and I intend to contribute to this article long-term. Any questions or disagreements please do let me know!

Therandomer (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe

Should there be an apostrophe in Queen's Park? I feel like there should but it's also not reflected everywhere - QPR, for example, don't have an apostrophe in their name. Piraneasy (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be. Not only is it correct grammatically, that is what the Corporation of London call their park which gave the area its name.

Some organisations miss it out in their own names but that's their own choice whether for either ease of typing or simple lack of knowledge on conventions. Chinchilla1957 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]