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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Hi. I was looking at this bit "the roof being removed and the shell becoming a ruin for 40 years, despite being a Grade I listed building." As far as I recall, "ruin" is not quite accurate - they deroofed it but left it and I think maintained it in a more or less stable state, which is one reason why it was possible to rebuild it into LSO St Luke's. "Ruin" suggests walls falling down etc and I don't think that happened. Would anyone care to comment please? At the same time, the "despite" has a little ring of, perhaps, judgement or commentary or something which I don't think is quite appropriate. If no-one has a view I might have a bash at a minor rewrite myself, but I'd love to hear from others. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm I've read up a bit and it sounds worse than I remembered ... still not sure about the word "ruin" though ... help!! :) DBaK (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and while I'm at it. I think the "events" bit is in need of a sortout. In any case I think it should resist the obvious urge to list everything that happens there; but it also suffers from the unfortunate mistake that people make when they write about something that is planned to happen, then go away and forget about it. It would be so much more productive to just write up what did happen than to make the encyclopaedia a hostage to fortune - and maintenance! - by saying "Zorbg Grelzer and The Grokuloids were due to record a session there in May 2009 for transmission in July" - why not just wait till July then write up the, er, fait accompli?? :) Again, if someone wants to have a go at this feel free; otherwise I may (or may not) have a look at it myself. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
