Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Ratings

I don't understand the rating system being used here for London articles. The serious mess of an article called Bethnal Green which doesn't even tell you where it is [!] and is seriously incoherent and completely unreferenced is given a 'start class' rating, whereas the Spitalfields article which I have spent ages researching (reading three books on the subject) trying to perfect and make rational and coherent - giving the exact location of Spitalfields, its history, notable recent associations, references etc - is given the self same 'start' class rating...Anyway I would value comments from those who have compared and contrasted both articles and can point out to me why an unreferenced incoherent article thrown together in a seemingly random fashion is given the same rating as one which is heavily researched, referenced and which I have taken enormous pains to make completely accurate. Colin4C 10:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Colin, it's not about your meticulously researched prose, but the whole article (and also laziness on MSRC's part when changing 2,000 odd instances of the London template). Maybe we should revisit it ...
It would be nice to get some sensible guidelines for specifically London articles. You could try starting with WP:GA/R - but the conditions are a bit nebulous and nonspecific (for our purposes). East End was rated 'B' Class for London, but has now achieved wikipedia GA. Do I just move it into London:GA? - maybe I will. I think this is a review process in development, so I'm prepared to wait a little to see what emerges. Kbthompson 10:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If it would make Colin4C feel any better, I would assess Spitalfields as a B class article. (You can change the assessment yourself, you know.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Kb, and Submillimeter. As for the Bethnal Green article I would actually like to improve it rather than just negatively carp about it here: its just that at the moment I have a serious lack of reference materials on that particular neighbourhood and even when I lived nearby all I got was blank looks when I enquired where the fabled 'Green' was... Colin4C 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know (not much, by all accounts). The Green lies beneath the park and V&A Museum of Childhood. Kbthompson 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The Green is the patch of grass behind the Museum of Childhood. Part of the confusion is that Bethnal Green railway station isn't particularly near it - it was originally "Bethnal Green Junction" and was where trains branched off the main Stratford line to run via Bethnal Green (the same reason Clapham Junction isn't in Clapham), and at some point lost the name, and also that Bethnal Green Road has been diverted and runs south of its original route (it originally ended just south of Cambridge Heath station) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Canonbury and beyond ...

Finn and I were moaning about the lack of substantive content in Islington. An anon user has begun an article on East Canonbury (does it exist?) - which I suggested be merged with Canonbury. The editor has now started on Downham Road. I issued a welcome, but no response. There's a lot of bytes flying around without any major content. Any ideas? Kbthompson 15:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the East Canonbury article is unsalvageably bad ("East Canonbury is an unknown section of Islington", "East Canonbury isn't well connected to the London Underground, the area has three London Underground Station less than a mile away", "Many people feel that the area is the London Borough of Islington, even those who actualy live in the borough of Hackney", "actors from Birds of a Feather lived near Caledonian Road" - you get the idea). Besides, in over 30 years in and round Islington, I have never heard anyone refer to it as "East Canonbury" - this seems like a long-winded attempt to avoid admitting you live in Dalston. Personally, I don't even think it warrants a merge with Canonbury.
I'm going to AfD Southgate Road and Downham Road if they haven't improved in a couple of days, as at the moment they contain no encyclopaedic content other than an indiscriminate collection of information. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems fair enough! Kbthompson 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated the two roads for deletion. I've also nominated Canonbury East; while there may be some merit in merging East Canonbury into Canonbury (although it doesn't seem to actually contain any useful content), we certainly don't need separate articles on East Canonbury & Canonbury East. (In 30 years living in Islington, a good chunk of those working for the Metropolitan Police, I have never heard "East Canonbury/Canonbury East" called anything other than De Beauvoir Town). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It's strict stream of conciousness stuff. Kbthompson 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"a long-winded attempt to avoid admitting you live in Dalston" - well that's understandable :P Stevekeiretsu 02:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
He may want to avoid admitting he lives in Dalston, but he's now trying to move all the territory between Southgate Road and Kingsland Road into Islington! (see De Beauvoir Town). There's also now a Cat:East Canonbury. Kbthompson 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, just as Hackney becomes trendy and as Islington starts to degenerate back into what it was 20 years ago. Think anyone ought to tell him that Islington now has a higher crime rate than Hackney? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that the roads and Canonbury East have gone off to the Great Pagelist In The Sky, does anyone have any objections to my merging what's salvageable from East Canonbury into Canonbury and De Beauvoir Town as appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridescenti (talk • contribs)

No problem, Canonbury East still exists, there being only two votes for returning it to the recycle bin (pls express your opinion!). There's not much that can be xfrd from that article. I did some looking, and it seems to have been the former St Peters ward of Hackney, transferred in the last big boro' land swap in 1993, to straighten out the edges of LBI - but the order is not that specific as to location, and of course there are no 1993 maps. So, that factoid needs verification. I would suggest Cannonbury East ->Redirect(Cannonbury); include a note on Canonbury that Cannonbury East was a small enclave that is now part of Canonbury ward. Be specific about the LBI/LBH boundary and ensure De Beauvoir Town is firmly in LBH (the library, for instance that is the base of the DB society is in Hackney, not LBI). Its a cross-boro PoV mess, but seems to have stopped now. Bus routes need to go back to some summary condition, and be more specifically located in the area. I'd want to read more on the DBE, and its extent, but I think it is firmly to the east of Southgate Road, and the LBI developments are unrelated. Kbthompson 10:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

South Bank

WP:RM South Bank --> South Bank, London. Also South Bank (disambiguation) --> South Bank. It is in the same move. See Talk:South Bank#Request move. Simply south 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace FAR

Buckingham Palace has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. 

Simply south 10:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Regent's Park

I'm not really sure what to do here. Should i propose the move of the article? The reason is i have discovered that there is a district in London, named after the park. It is located on the eastern side of the park and i also called Regent's Park but does not have an article yet. Would this one be called Regent's Park, London? Simply south 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to think where that is. There are a number of mansion blocks within the park, they are part of the Crown estate (part of the park). On the NE, it's straight into Camden Town, on the east, you're quickly into Mornington Cresc and what's left of Somerstown. The park is the accepted use of the term, so that shouldn't move. Adjacent areas are often derived from their proximity. Would it be Regent's Park, Camden - with an otheruses on the top of the page? Would that solve your dilema? There's a Regent's Park ward, is that what you mean? Camden Map doesn't mention it - ward map has it, but seems to be Mornington Crescent. Regent's Park ward. Everything to the left of Albany St is Crown estate, and what you bet it's the name of the barracks. Not convinced it has any other existence. Kbthompson 23:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
According to say multimap or OS it is that same general area. Simply south 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Mornington Crescent isn't an area, its a Winchmore Hill, er... I mean a Charing Cross (what is wrong with me?), it is an Edgware Road.... er... road and so i don't think it is a Hampstead Garden Suburb or District (Line). Simply south 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I was right, it is the name of the barracks ... That map puts it squarely over the mansion blocks in the park. I never knew there was a cathedral there! "Boing" said zebedee ... I don't know, never heard it mentioned as an area. Mornington Crescent is a valued national institution. Kbthompson 23:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
And yet doing a quick search on google -
For disambiguation for the district, would Regent's Park (district) or Regent's Park (neighborhood) work? Dr. Submillimeter 06:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The majority of the google hits are related to the park. Others, the college is in Oxford, at least one of the hotels on the western edge, another on the northern. The LBS is just north of Baker Street (ie south). So, a bit of a diasporic neighbourhood. I think it may be a name applied to the houses within the park, and by extension to a ward of Camden. Kbthompson 08:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that my A to Z has a place named "Regent's Park" located between Regent's Park (the park) and Mornington Crescent (the Underground Station). This matches the location given by Simply south. Dr. Submillimeter 08:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Originally Bedford New Town (Duke of Bedford), there's an account of the area (but not the name) in Old and New London. Dickens went to school there, the "infant Roscius," lived there, painters, the usual bunch of Camden non-conformists (black clothes and boots, nothing changes). The thin strip west of Albany Street is very much of the park; the area to the east is the backstage area, and has more in common with Camden Town and Somerstown. Kbthompson 09:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Camden's Health report 2003/2004 lists Regent's Park as a ward. This map also shows Regent's Park but as a Neighbourhood. Simply south 11:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It must be Liberal, then ... Liberals are fond of neighbourhoods (strictly groups of wards). If you dispense with the Crown estate, the barracks, etc. It's a pretty small area ... if there's three councillors, there should be about 6,000 people, no 7,247 actually ... ward since 1964. Kbthompson 13:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
And here is the batrracks, although maps etc also call this Regent's Park, i think it is in the district of Regent's Park, according to the same maps. Simply south 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge Regents Park Estate(one of the biggest in Camden) bordered by Albany St/Drummond St/Hampstead Rd/Granby St with a number of tower & other blocks as well as its own shops, schools & library; I've never heard anyone living there refer to it as anything other than "Regents Park" and certainly not "West Somers Town", "South Mornington Cres" or any other possible variant. The official Met Police designation for it is "Albany Street Division" but again noone (even the police, who refer to it internally as "North Holborn") actually uses the term. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Knightsbridge

article is a bit of a state! We've rated it as importance:top (contentiously, see talk:Knightsbridge), but it's only start-class and could do with lots of work - it would be helpful if the experts could compile a list of to-dos for us newbies to work through... Paulbrock 02:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Marylebone

Suddenly there's a category:Marylebone is this a good idea? Kbthompson 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a horrible idea. What next, a Category:Dollis Hill? The regional categories should follow the boroughs, with (maybe) an exception made for historic boroughs that have a very distinct character from their modern "parent" borough, such as Hampstead and Tottenham — iridescenti (talk to me!) 07:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It made me think twice - in fact, I'm still thinking about it. Its perfectly good faith, and follows your potential argument for Hampstead and Tottenham. (S)he has not fiddled with the borough category. Does it matter? I'm not sure, there's already instances of wards in ... and education in ... (and yes, I am guilty of some of them), mainly to tidy a borough - it is an aspiration to have an article on every school, so the later is certainly not unreasonable. But essentially metropolitan borough categories? I'm still not certain ... that's why I raised it here. Is it useful to anyone? Its marginally more useful than one I saw cat:buildings in London destroyed by bombing (or some such), last time I looked that only had two members. Kbthompson 11:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to somewhat retract - I do think the primary geographic categories should be the current borough boundaries, but Marylebone is so distinct from the rest of Westminster that it probably could be kept, as per my examples re Hampstead/Camden and Tottenham/Haringey above. However, I do think that it would open two big cans of worms; firstly, the "well, why can't St Pancras, Bermondsey, Ruislip-Northwood etc have their own category" slippery slope we'd launch, and secondly the problem of locating buildings within the correct historic boundaries — I can place, for example, Edgware Road tube station in the current borough of Westminster by just looking at a map, but have no idea whether it was historically in Marylebone or Paddington, and I suspect there aren't many editors who have a pre-1965 A-Z lying around the house — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Harrow

The Harrow,_London#Present_day Contains the following text:
In spite of Harrow's relatively suburban location, being farther than ten miles from the West End, it shares many of the social and economic problems associated with more impoverished inner-city areas
There is no citation for this assertion. This does seem to fly in the face of recent reports with regards to poverty and crime [1]. The article shoudl also probably have some reference to the high cutural mix in the area. PeteBrant 11:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole article contains no references; the reference section is blank. I have added an {{unreferenced}} tag to the article. I suggest editing the paragraph and adding a reference to the London government page. In the future, feel free to be indignant about these types of things and to change things. Dr. Submillimeter 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It's been changed, but not by me - It now describes some crime free utopia. It's gone from the sublime to the ridiculous :) PeteBrant 12:57 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, rewrite it as you see fit. (The article still lack references.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The note in the article that Harrow is "technically situated in Middlesex county" is not very helpful, either, since the name Middlesex is only used informally nowadays. Patche99z 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Scope

There are a LOT of articles - I'm wondering how many actually are relevant here. Particularly wrt people - do we really want to include everyone born or who lived in London? I can see the relevance of covering Ken Livingstone or Dick Whittington, but Amanda Donohoe and Sebastian Brock? (I've removed the last two from the project but they were previously tagged) Paulbrock 18:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A1 road (London)

I've just created an experimental new format for UK A-road articles at A1 road (London), with individual sections on each stretch of road, instead of either a single generic article about the entire road, or multiple free-standing stubs about each section. I'd be grateful if anyone with an interest would take a look and offer suggestions as to what they think of this as an article format and whether they think it would be useful for other similar roads that change their character repeatedly along their length, (eg, the A10). I'd also appreciate any feedback about what does/doesn't work before I do any more (this article took a week to write, so I don't want to waste any more time if people don't think it's useful) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Format of borough articles

The articles for London boroughs vary considerably, both in quality and structure. Can we establish what should and shouldn't be included? How about starting with the guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements? Specifically, include the following sections:

  • Lead
  • Geography and administration
  • History
  • Landmarks
  • Demographics
  • Economics (not sure about this one)
  • Places of interest
  • Culture
  • Transport
  • Present day
  • Notable residents

Thoughts? Paulbrock 12:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Education is also a part of that guideline, and I've been including LEA lists at the borough level - mainly to forestall individual additions and lists at the locale level (although strictly local examples are relevant there).
Economics in London articles tends to be very patchy. Often, the largest local employer is just the borough and the NHS. Most big employers have disappeared from inner London - apart from the West End, City and Canary Wharf. There's a danger in local articles of encouraging people to list shoe stores and supermarkets .. not desirable. Saying an area is expensive (to live) may be notable, but not the plethora of estate agents' drivel that seems to turn up (see Knightsbridge, if it hasn't been fixed yet).
The key Demographics are in the template, and I'm not one to merely repeat them in the text. If there's anything notable, like Green Lanes being a centre for Turkish nationals, or Stamford Hill's orthodox Jewish population, then I think that's worth a mention. Proportion of owner-occupiers might be of interest, but not at the locale because one big estate is sufficient to skew the figures.
Notables most London boro's have sufficiently long lists to warrant their own sub-article. In which both their key connection with the area and their notability could be expressed in (say) a couple of sentences; and the whole thing referenced.
Under Transport, I'd include nearest places, and call it transport and locale (if anyone objects that nearest is not about transport!).
You should add references to that list, although I don't think the non-contentious should be referenced, referencing should be encouraged for anything that might be arguable, or stinks of original research.
Quality goes back to individual contributors, it would still be an idea to have a borough of the month project to standardise and improve entries for a particular boro.
Anyway, those are my immediate observations. Kbthompson 12:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
A decent economics sectino does seem quite difficult to me, but couldn't it include info o nthe council finances and so on, given that we dont have separate articles for the council? However, it would be good to see demographics sections that cover more than population and ethnicity. Proportion of owner-occupiers and many other statistics could be included if available, and even at the locale level, being able to mention factors skewing or simply affecting the numbers just makes the section better. JPD (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments:
Dr. Submillimeter 09:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to have a section on the pre-1965 boroughs/counties that make up each current borough as well (presumably "Geography and administration" would be the best place). I also think the transport section should include at the very least a list of tube stations and possibly of BR stations as well (would lead to a bit of a laundry list for Westminster but I think it's important), since the history & growth of the boroughs is so tied to the spread of the railways. I'd be against an "Economics" section except in the context of a brief discussion; the boroughs are so big that it would either be pointlessly vague ("it contains industry, shops and housing") or unmanageably long. Since even a relatively nondescript borough like, say, Haringey contains the heavy-industrial complexes around N17, the bulk-shopping malls and retail parades of N22, the boutique shops of N10 & N6, the office buildings of N15 as well as housing ranging from sink estates to millionaire supermansions, imagine the length of a similar section for Westminster, Camden or Tower Hamlets — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is not being made between geographical areas, and Political Entity, such as an Authority or Borough. Editors above have ventured into unwise territory in these respects, and erred in doing so. (see London Borough of Camden as opposed to Camden Town). The former need to have a political and modern orientation to respect the political and administrative functions the entities represent. There is no point in treating many of the Boroughs as geographical entities which are dealt with better, elsewhere.

Again, it must be said that political views should not be openly expressed or enacted. Additionally, I think there should be some feeling of obligation on editors to make some contribution to an area they know, and to know something about that area. Again, lack of local or specific expert knowledge has lead some of the editors above into error. Paxsilvestris 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Marylebone

I have nominated the above for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 26 and add your thoughts. Regan123 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

London postal district stubs

Please see and comment here for a proposed solution to these long-standing stubs:Talk:London_postal_district#Suggested_way_forward_for_postal_stubs. Thanks. MRSC • Talk 14:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This review is now complete. MRSC • Talk 08:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Harringay

Someone with local knowledge may wish to take a look at Harringay. An editor is adding some useful material to the page, but it's disorganised and straying into the London Borough of Haringey. The borough meanwhile seems to be heading for a list of names and addresses. Many titles, little content. Kbthompson 15:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If it weren't for the gaping hole it would leave I'd happily either AfD or sub-stubbify the borough article and let it be rebuilt from scratch - it's one of the worst articles I've seen for a long time. This paragraph in particular is possibly the most cringeworthy piece of dubious original research I've seen on Wikipedia since we deleted Canonbury East. "Whether you're visiting the borough for business or pleasure, you'll soon see that it has something for everyone" — this is Haringey we're talking about (what kind of person visits Haringey for pleasure, anyway?). If noone has any objections I'm going to delete all the indiscriminate lists (I really don't think we need a list of martial arts classes in Tottenham), original research and unsourced statements, and also do some checking for copyvios, as some of that page looks suspiciously like it's come from a local authority booklet.
Harringay in my opinion ought to have in the first paragraph a very clear definition of the boundary (the GNER railway line - Turnpike Lane - Green Lanes - Seven Sisters Road). I agree that a lot of the places covered are actually in neighbouring areas (mostly St Annes). Part of the confusion may stem from the fact that Harringay Green Lanes railway station isn't actually technically in Harringay while Harringay railway station is right on the edge, so people are confused as to where the boundary actually is — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with your criticisms, and East Canonbury was only a couple of weeks ago! It looks like some para's are copied verbatim from websites - they are ref'd, but it's a conglomeration of notes rather than an article. I was hoping for someone to define those boundaries in the article, so our intrepid editor doesn't spread his/her wings too far. It needs a rewrite, sure - reordering, removing the worst excesses of flowery language, paraphrasing the parts they've nicked - could clean it up; but I know more about S.London than Haringey (and I'm from East London). Kbthompson 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed most of the directory-like and brochure-like sections of the borough article: it was indeed rather cringeworthy. The article is basically now back where it was before 81.xxx.xxx.xxx got hold of it: not great, but not as bad as it could be. I'm not so sure about the Harringay article though: it needs cleanup, but can be sorted out. Anyway, I thought that Harringay Green Lanes railway station is in Harringay? --RFBailey 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
(Warning - long boring reply follows)
Harringay railway station is half in and half out of Harringay, as the boundary formally runs down the centre of the railway formation, with one exit in Harringay and one in Stroud Green. Harringay Green Lanes railway station is entirely out of the area; Green Lanes forms the eastern boundary, and the station's entirely on the eastern side of the road, putting it in neighbouring St Anne's. The boundaries are easier to visualise on a map - Harringay consists of the "ladder" of roads between Green Lanes and Wightman Road, the train sheds between Wightman Road and the GNER mainline, and Finsbury Park itself (off the bottom of the map). Annoyingly, the only map I can find online that shows the formal boundaries is too small to show their precise location unless you're familiar with them already.
Obviously while not in Harringay the stations are both well within Haringey. Haringey/Harringay is right up there with London City/City of London, London Docks/London Docklands, Clapham/Clapham Junction and the three Shepherd's Bush stations in the "well, what did you think would happen when you named it that?" stakes. (There are also both a Harringay Road and a Haringey Road in Haringey, which I can say from experience cause almost as much fun for the local emergency services & post office as the fact that the numbering on Green Lanes starts again from 1 once it crosses the boundary between Haringey & Enfield.) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there's a subtle point here. You are assuming that the ward boundaries correspond to a common understanding of where an area is. This is quite simply not the case, in Harringay or many other places for that matter. I know where the "Harringay Ladder" (as estate agents put it) is: that doesn't mean to say that nowhere else is in Harringay. If you want a better map of the ward boundaries, go to http://www.election-maps.co.uk, type in "Haringey" and choose the appropriate options. I know both the stations are in the borough of Haringey: I'm not disputing that for a second. (For the record, I live in the borough in question.) However, under your argument, neither Harringay Stadium nor Harringay Arena count as "in Harringay" (as they are/were east of Green Lanes). But this does not in the slightest mean that they are not in the area of Harringay. (I am not convinced that "St Ann's" is an area of London in the way that Harringay, Tottenham or even Stroud Green are.)
I should point out that similar "ward boundary" arguments have recently been (equally fallaciously) used at Talk:Mile End, ignoring the fact that a large part of the area commnly thought of as being part of Mile End is in the Bow West ward. Claiming (as appears to be the case here) that "the area of Harringay is in a one-to-one correspondence with the Electoral Commission's most recent version of Harringay Ward" is a gross over-simplification. --RFBailey 23:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no - I can see your point, but nothing official — council wards, Geographic Policing Areas, the N8 postcode, the old Tottenham/Hornsey borough boundary — doesn't use the railway line as a western boundary and Green Lanes as the eastern boundary. While people might not use "St Ann's" as an area name, the'd use "South Tottenham" of which St Ann's is a part; again, everything official I can think of refers to the N15 area (everything east of Green Lanes and south of West Green Road) as one or the other. IMO, if we start using public perception, rather than formal boundaries, as the guideline, things start to get very messy very quickly and we're back to a rerun of the "Dalston = East Canonbury" position; most people on the Ladder - indisputably Harringay proper - would likely describe themselves as living in either Finsbury Park, Wood Green or West Green. The Harringay Stadium argument doesn't convince me - as with railway stations, most old stadia were built on the edge of the area they served, on what was then open land; Walthamstow Stadium is over the line into Chingford, while White Hart Lane is two miles from Tottenham town centre. (Even Stamford Bridge was built on open fields in Fulham and not in Chelsea.)
There's no right answer here, so I'm not going to lose any sleep either way - sticking rigidly to the (often arbitrary) boundaries seems petty, while it seems that it will lead to content-forking to allow the areas to overlap. In this part of London even the borough boundaries are quite arbitrary - there are parts of three different boroughs that could legitimately be described as "Finsbury Park" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a word with User talk:Hjuk to try to indicate what is required. I'm sure s/he will make useful contributions, they just need to see what form their edits should take. Kbthompson 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Far too much is being made of the name difference. It is dominating the article. Aside from that there are tone issues, manual of style and quite a few assertions without referencing. Despite that, there is lots to work with. MRSC • Talk 10:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Croydon and central Croydon

Several Croydon-related articles now overlap on arbitrary grounds - discussion started at Talk:Central Croydon. Martín (saying/doing) 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

LB Camden

LB Camden, outbreak of self righteous council hating libel. Trying to persuade them to reference it and just got vandalised for my pains ... help! Kbthompson 23:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave it a few days until they get bored, then edit out the worst offending parts. Much of it's libellous and POV-pushing but some of it's valid — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that some of the material (which is referenced) should be kept, but some of the unreferenced material could be problematic. The unreferenced material does look properly flagged. (I also worry about the quality of the references, but on the other hand, I suspect that these small internet newspapers are going to be the best sources for current events information related to the Camden council government.) If you need more help, I would suggest asking for assistance from an administrator (at least to provide moderation) at WP:AN. Dr. Submillimeter 21:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
To address one concern raised on the talk page, I can confirm that the Camden New Journal is a bona fide local newspaper — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think they got bored, marked it for cleanup - don't know the exact ins and outs of Camden, so more for someone with local knowledge of this issue - who doesn't have an axe to grind. Actually needs a lawyer to avoid libel! Kbthompson 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've cut this article down considerably. Some of it was violating Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and also there were lots of innacuracies. Camden Council (created in 1965) was being retrospectively blamed for the housing stock built before it was created. The comments on the talk page are not very nice either. If they carry on like that, the editor should be warned and then blocked. MRSC • Talk 06:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
MRSC:You cannot destructivly remove 70% of an article becauese you think don't like it. The talk page is there for a reason- you cant just ignore it because you think it is "not very nice." You may have a point, but many of the entire sections you have removed are proven facts, the article now needs to be reverted to undo your vandalism.
It is true that some sections needed to be put in the context of a neutral point of view, but that does not justify deleting them outright. When cleaning a page you must 1. Not delete entire relevent sections without moving them to a new page 2. Not be childish and delete anything you don't like.
Sections deleted: general, electoral wards, town hall salaries, parking and traffic, camden governence and corruption, housing. This clearly needs to be reverted/worked back into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.118.10 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 4 June 2007.

Please sign this! Paxsilvestris

reported at Incidents Kbthompson 14:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat by Paxsilvestris (talk · contribs) removed. Uncle G 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also take the opportunity to criticise some of the comments above. There is some self-serving material here from from the two editors. Both editors have acted wrongly in editing and deleting material, and for disputed reasons in this matter, and both have posted here... I believe evidence quoted is relatively solid.

In relation to comments above, the Camden New Journal has been either Newspaper of the Year in its category, or runner up five times (I have checked this) - I believe another editor stated four times.

I think the comments concerning, "boredom" are wrong, patronising and regrettable. The editor described, clearly has a detailed knowledge of the matters far beyond the critics, who have acted inappropriately. Far more so than myself.

The well-known series of serious incidents of corruption which one editor describes as "self righteous council hating libel" is probably the most serious set of such incidents over a long period known in local government. There are quite a few other to choose from. In that series we have some of the worst sustained frauds and malpractice known. (I am in a reasonable position to make that statement). That they have continued, is one of the surprising and notable features of London Government since the War. No one is going to get bored, and no one has. They are very serious matters indeed. Please refrain from this regrettable approach, which I am also reporting as an incident, alongside the various incidents of destructive editing which are very unfortunate to say the least. I believe that a serious effort to introduce a mature political record has been damaged. That sort of effort has been long discussed in NGO's and Public Policy Organisations.

The points about pre LBC Housing is a little silly, unless you subdivide each section into the original Boroughs and made a critique of each one. No one does that in looking at the Housing Stock or describing the history. The legal entities of the earlier, more local Borough were merged into one, London Borough of Camden, which then assumed legal responsibility and most of the staff, apparatus and so forth from the other Boroughs. A reversal of that move has actually been considered to my certain knowledge, bearing in mind the problems seen.

Personal attack by Paxsilvestris (talk · contribs) removed. Uncle G 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Paxsilvestris 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone else who isn't being personally attacked by this editor take a look at this article? MRSC • Talk 06:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I was told I should have another look. Same problems but worse. Unbeleiveable in fact.

1. The useful material has all been deleted. All of it. That is above all the history of the public architecture. There is no one at the London group that I have seen who is adequately qualifiesd to produce material about Camden architected or Political or Social History. Some editors have just destroyed the things they don't agree with or don't like. That is unacceptable, but at the end of the day the real material will end up in a new project.

2. Censorship. All negative comments about this website have been removed, and omitted from the history. The only things left in the history are the things they want? This must have happened at a senior level in this project. Who did that and why? Is it allowed to conceal history? Is that not dishonest?

3. The experts in Camden have been blocked by the people who have put themselves in charge.

4. Any mention of another online encyclopedia has been immediately removed or edited to be unfavourable. Citizenpedia I understand. Thats the name alright. I am looking at is now and it is aimed at having qualifies expert edting. That is right and proper.

4. Censorship is something we fought hard to get rid of in the 1960's. Do you know in China you can't look at the BBC website, and probably not this either, despite the liberalisation? Shame on you, indeed.

4. Also, The knowledgeable people of Camden are setting up another internet site. I will be happy to write for that. It wil be necessary to submit material to be be looked at first, and names wil be known - with addresses. I like the idea of "Londonpedia"? Good idea.

5. I'm sure that like my earlier material, this will be deleted....

6. My offer to host some of the young editors to see Camden was ignored. Eventually in life you need real relationships and real community or life will be pretty miserable. Take that piece of advice from an experienced person.

J 6th June 07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.16.50 (talk • contribs) 09:39 6 June 2007


Personal attack by 193.82.16.42 (talk · contribs) removed. Uncle G 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

JHD 5th June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.16.42 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 5 June 2007

London Metropolitan University

It's not a topic I know anything about (it only came to my notice because I took an image from it to illustrate Holloway Road) but there's what looks like some large scale edit warring going on at London Metropolitan University between an anon IP account on the one hand and a SPA on the other. As I know nothing about the points being revert-warred over I don't really want to jump in and start issuing warnings — is there anyone here who does know the place in a position to decide who (if anyone) is in the right here? As the debate seems to show no sign of fading, and some of the allegations being made look libellous, it might need to be semi-protected — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN and WP:ANI may the the best places to go seek administrative intervention. Dr. Submillimeter 12:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A note has been left at WP:ANI#Edit war at London Metropolitan University. Dr. Submillimeter 13:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Subcategories of Category:Cemeteries in London

Four subcategories of Category:Cemeteries in London that list the people who are buried in each cemetery have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 3#Subcategories of Category:Cemeteries in London. People here may want to comment. (Deleting these categories seems like a generally good idea as long as it is done for all cemeteries, not just London cemeteries.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Theatres

I'm not sure if this is a subject for this project, or for WikiProject Theatre (or even WikiProject Musical Theatre), but I've been going through some of the London theatre articles, tidying up and so on. It strikes me that it would be useful to put together an infobox for the theatres, for easy access to pertinent facts (location, owner, current show, year opened, etc). It could probably use the Broadway theatre template.

Any objections, comments or whatever if I were to start putting such an infobox together? - Dafyd 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that WikiProject Theatre would be the more appropriate place to ask about this. Infoboxes may already be in use for some articles on theatres located outside of London. If so, they would know about it, not us. Dr. Submillimeter 16:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
WPTheatre seems a little dead in the water (so here's as good as anywhere) - whereas there are now two projects on Shakespearean theatre (one started that way, decided their remit was too limited and the other started up to fill the non-existent vacuum). London theatre is a little different from Broadway, in that they're not usually participants in the production. They're either receiving houses, or in the case of the public sector, almost all repertory. Outside the public sector, ownership is concentrated in 2-3 hands, or is in the hands of a uniquely structured theatre trust - like National, Sadler's Wells, Hackney Empire, etc. Size does matter (seats, stalls, gallery, style of stage), possibly architect (Crew, Matcham, for instance), listing status - most are. There are a hotch-potch of photos available for theatres, in various sizes - with varying lengths of explanatory text.
If it were desirable, such a template should also cope with former theatres - some are demolished, some (Empire Leicester Square) are now cinemas. Many theatres have had different names over the years, many are rebuilt on the same site.
It's a large task, and I don't know if it adds anything to what should already be in the text. I've not found an instance of the Broadway template actually being used? HTH. Kbthompson 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Globe Theatre has a buildings template - doesn't do that much for it. Kbthompson 17:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics logo has hit the fan

While we are all still trying to recover from the Camden flame war of '07, I recommend keeping a close eye on 2012 Summer Olympics at the moment. The logo has triggered a huge discussion and lots of editing. Dr. Submillimeter 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Subcategories of London boroughs

As we each often work on certain bits of the capital, I've created a page Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Categories for us to record which sub categories we are creating, so they remain consistent across London. It will also help us identity any gaps. MRSC • Talk 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It would not be a bad idea to just create these category hierarchies now and to populate these using existing articles. Do other people like this idea? Dr. Submillimeter 11:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just done a bit for the parks ones. Secretlondon 11:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of boroughs is missing a "t" in Westminster each time, and I can't see how to fix it, or I would. Bencherlite 11:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't work out how to add to it either.Secretlondon 11:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Found the answer and fixed it: the list of categories is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Categories/Categories
I'll continue to try to populate the Education in ... classification, that list is helpful reference, because it reminds me where I haven't filled in the lists of schools on the boro' page! Re:Education sections on area pages - I've added links to the borough education section for most of the one's I did, but began to run into opposition - some people didn't want it at all, some still want their 'local' schools listed. Do we have a common view on this issue? Are we encouraged to populate these sub-categories? - and I'll get on with Neighbourhoods of Richmond - I seem to have missed that (probably an existing template). Schools in ..? I've just been moving them to Education in ...; any thoughts? Kbthompson 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
We should merge Schools in Croydon into Education in Croydon. MRSC • Talk 12:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean a full CfD, or be bold? Kbthompson 12:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I think it is good idea to populate the categories. MRSC • Talk 12:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

City of London categories

I think these categories relating to the City should be changed. MRSC • Talk 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We should treat the city like a borough. Make the new cats and stick the old on cfd? Secretlondon 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Use the same naming scheme, yes. I have recategorised the "People from" but the other two remain to be done. MRSC • Talk 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no identity between 'Wards of the City of London' and 'Neighbourhoods of ...' - although they are similar to political wards, they're not the same as wards elsewhere, if you see what I mean. Always a problem in dealing with a historic precursor ... Kbthompson 16:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought I'd just go ahead and do the above, but looked it up instead. I believed that the MoS had a naming convention for these things, which the old style doesn't conform to, and the new one does. Then I went to CfR, oh my god, what a process. There's one link to Category:City of London churches and none to Category:Transport in City of London. So shall we begin the CfR process? Kbthompson 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are intimidated by WP:CFD, I can do the nominations. Dr. Submillimeter 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Might as well, I'll watch and learn. If I'm not mistaken, there is actually a bot template category redirect|target that does the move for us. Kbthompson 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Creating Category:Churches in the City of London and adding the category redirect to Category:City of London churches made a mess of things. People should have just waited for a CfR nomination to pass through. I'll do the rename using the AutoWikiBrowser instead.

Category:Transport in City of London has been nominated for renaming. The nomination even includes a paranoid statement about the difference between "London" and "City of London". Please go comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 7#Category:Transport in City of London. Dr. Submillimeter 09:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Entertainment by borough

May I suggest Category:Entertainment in xxxx, also possibly Visitor attraction in xxxx. There may be a need for more. Kbthompson 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Although Category:Entertainment in London exists, I could not find any corresponding categories in widespread use within Wikipedia. So, an "entertainment in X" category system may be a bad idea.
However, Wikipedia does have a "Culture in X" category hierarchy, including a Category:Culture in London. Unfortunately, this culture category appears to be a mess. For example, should football really be considered "culture"?
What types of articles do you want to categorize, Kbthompson? Maybe another appropriate category name can be identified. Dr. Submillimeter 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Something to catch business, commerce and/or economy might also be good. MRSC • Talk 07:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Subcategories of Category:Economy of London and Category:Companies based in London look like they would be appropriate (e.g. Category:Economy of Ealing and Category:Companies based in Ealing). Dr. Submillimeter 12:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been up to my ears in alligators ... I was thinking of all the theatre articles, perhaps not a great deal of use in (say) Tower Hamlets, but a lot would sit in the Westminster category (for instance). Just trying to vacuum up the odds and sods left in the borough categories - for instance, I've put Tower of London in both buildings and structures and history. I've assumed that's reasonable. Never sure about canals and such, they are buildings and structures, they're also geography ... some are history too! But I've tried to avoid over categorising. I think at the last count, I'd just about finished City, Hackney and Tower Hamlets. Kbthompson 11:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Use "Theatres in X" for theatres. (See Category:Theatres in London.) I would suggest avoiding placing buildings in "history" categories; history categories should be used for articles on history or on specific events (such as the 1666 fire). Dr. Submillimeter 11:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Broadwater Farm

If anyone feels the urge, could you take a look at the article I've just written on Broadwater Farm? (I'm shocked we didn't already have one.) Since the topic's still controversial, I'd appreciate anyone else's input. I realise it's very heavily referenced, but for a topic this contentious I think it needs it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 04:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I'm amazed we didn't have one either. Secretlondon 12:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:People from Ealing by district

Given that Category:Marylebone was deleted, do we want Category:People from Ealing by district and its subcategories? I currently live in Ealing, and I have problems identifying the borders between some of these areas (such as between Ealing and Acton or Ealing and Hanwell). Consequently, this category tree looks like it could have problems. Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Several boroughs do it, I seem to remember a People from Shoreditch category. It can be useful where there's a high granularity - I think less so in the outer boroughs - but to be consistent, should probably ditch the lot. Notable people for boroughs should probably be a list (rather than in the boro article), anyway. Organised by occupation, with specific local links in the text. That makes the whole issue of categorising them less important. Kbthompson 10:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Should we then upmerge these people into a Category:People from London? I also will admit that I have a general problem with categorizing people by location anyway. People generally live in multiple locations, so categorizing people by location is not necessarily meaningful. Moreover, mulitple "people by location" categories" can cause category clutter. However, it is not clear that people at WP:CFD have decided to stop categorizing people this way, so listing people in Category:People from London may be appropriate at this time. Dr. Submillimeter 10:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I still think people by boro' is of use; usually restrict it to birth, or long term habitat. The fact that I had a short term let in Ilford 20 years ago is of interest to no-one. So, while I'd move Barbara Windsor from Shoreditch to Hackney - with a list someone describing her relationship; I wouldn't drop it completely. I'd then make it a sub-category of people from London (otherwise London will be an enormous homogeneous list). Kbthompson 16:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we should leave it as it is. Aggregation into one-borough category and then applying retrospectively will cause all sorts of problems. Someone from 16th Century Middlesex could be categoried as coming from the London Borough of Ealing. Also I had some disagreement with another editor over if Windsor Davies born in Canning Town was from London or not, the current system allows for some flexibility that a universal "People from London" does not. MRSC • Talk 07:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
These arbitrary inclusion criteria drive people insane at WP:CFD. An objective definition of being "from" someplace is needed in general. Never expect people to follow unwritten rules or common sense; this has never happens in practice. Dr. Submillimeter 16:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I realise that WP:USEFUL is generally considered A Bad Thing as an argument - but does anyone ever actually use the People from... categories, whatever level they're at? I can't think of any circumstance where I'd ever think "I really need to look at a list of people who were born or lived in Merton".
Incidentally (while we're on the subject of boroughs) has anyone else noticed that the border between Barking & Newham has vanished from the {{infobox UK place}} London map? Anyone know how to put it back? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Where Ealing is the borough and then the districts sit underneath it I don't see a problem. In fact Category:People from Stoke-on-Trent by settlement got through a CfD. See Template:London people message and so on for more information and the topology and how this all ties in with historic counties, boundary shifts and so on. Regan123 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a Category:People from Southwark by district too and 10 people from.. sub cats including the confusing Category:People from Southwark. I think they are probably harmless, if not terribly useful (to me anyway) Secretlondon 18:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been working on populating the district cats by recategorising people in Category:People from London and using what links here. It is a slow process mind! Regan123 20:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Do we want to populate these categories anyway? At best, they have lukewarm support. Dr. Submillimeter 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It depends. Do we want everyone in Category:People from London? How do we deal with districts that were villages and not in London before? The whole system is to keep everything coping with pre and post Greater London and I can't see the point in reintegrating them all into one super cat...Regan123 21:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I almost think that dropping everyone into Category:People from London would be more appropriate. The subdivision by neighbourhood is just too detailed. What are other people's thoughts? Dr. Submillimeter 22:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As already said, I honestly can't see a use for splitting them even by borough, let alone by district. People move around so much, categories like this are virtually meaningless anyway - should Tony Blair really be in Category:People from Edinburgh given that he left as a toddler and never returned? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, stick it on CfD (actually a sort of Cfmerge) and see if it flies ... that's probably the best test. I'd go for the intermediate people from borough, and lose the people from district, as too confusing to be, eh, useful. Easy to state Capt Cook associated with Tower Hamlets, less and you get all sorts of arguments between Whitechapel, Stepney and Ratcliffe (let alone Whitby). Kbthompson 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The category tree has been nominated for merging into Category:People from Ealing. Please go comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 8#Category:People from Ealing by district. Dr. Submillimeter 13:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The nomination passed. Maybe the same should be done with other "people from London borough" subcategories? Dr. Submillimeter 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Befoe you do I am proposing to put this into Deletion Review as with only 3 opinions it seems to be a little rushed - no bad faith assumed or implied. Cheers, Regan123 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 15#Category People from Ealing by District Regan123 17:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this decision should be reviewed. MRSC • Talk 18:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If we merge People from Barnet and People from Richmond upon Thames, of the people born before 1965, how will we split the Surrey, Middlesex add Hertfordshire parts? Or will we add these groups to any category that might apply? This doesn't strike me as an improvement. MRSC • Talk 06:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The status quo is not quite acceptable, either (unless you can use references to identify practical boundaries for some of these neighborhoods). Maybe MRSC can propose an alternate scheme? Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The status quo is quite acceptable. It's worked across the whole of England. If we go down this route the edit wars over Middlesex/Lancashire/Greater Manchester/London/Kent will start again. If you want to do this I suggest a wider community discussion is raised at at least WP:England level. Regan123 01:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A message was left at WikiProject England.

At this point, I will make a larger merge proposal on 22 Jun 2007 unless I receive significant negative feedback from more than MRSC and Regan123. Except for those two people, everyone has been supportive of the merge so far.

One other point: it seems strange that these categorization schemes are supposed to handle people from locations that were formerly outside of London when the categories fall under both a Category:People from London by district and the individual boroughs' categorization scheme. Dr. Submillimeter 08:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See Category:People from Croydon, Category:People from Bromley as examples where they also sit in the county categories to cover both eventualities. I am also posting notices at relevant regional WikiProjects as this will affect the whole of England to get a proper community consensus. Regan123 11:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that once the objective definition of being "from" someplace is agreed, as Dr. Submillimeter has, I think, requested, then it ought to become obvious what categories should exist. Lacking such a definition, on balance I'd be inclined to go for present day local authority boundaries, with a short note explaining where that doesn't match with historical boundaries. As for whether categories like People from Ealing are useful or not, well, I think they're certainly likely to be of more use that a whopping great People from London category. ---- Eric 12:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the crucial, pressing concern if what is meant by "from". This is of far greater importance than arguing about the "granularity" of the size or which areas to cover. As such, any proposal about merging the pre-existing categories should be put on hold until this issue of what would be covered by "from" is sorted out.
I would therefore oppose any proposal about merging of areas prior to sorting this out.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a line to say that I am in agreement with MRSC and Regan123 on this one. I won't rehash their standpoint, as my own is identical - but in short I believe it works in its current form, very well for the Greater Manchester area. Eric and DDStretch also make valid points however, moving forwards with this. Jhamez84 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

People from location compromise proposal

One possible solution to the dilemma on what to do with these "people from location" categories for London might be to include dates in the category names. With Ealing, for example, the people could be subdivided into the following categories:

Category:People from Ealing (1965-present)
Category:People from Ealing (1863-1965)
Category:People from Acton (1894-1965)
Category:People from Southall (1894-1965)

The names of these categories could be adjusted if necessary. A few "pre-18NN" categories could also be created. This would solve the problems that Regan123, MRSC, and other people have with the fact that some regions fell outside of "Ealing" and London before 1965. At the same time, this would solve the problems that other people and I have seen with attempting to divide the London boroughs into vaguely-defined districts. What do other people think of this proposal? (I originally posted this on Regan123's talk page, but he appears to be inactive.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the basis for choosing those particular dates for the divisions? Additionally, I still find some "unpacking" of what is actually meant by "from" would be appropriate.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia articles, the London Borough of Ealing has existed since 1965. Before that, it existed as Municipal Boroughs of Ealing, Acton, and Southall; the dates give the time period of those entities' existences. Do the dates make sense?
Unfortunately, I have no solution to the "from" issue. However, the categories could at least be renamed now to avoid other issues. Dr. Submillimeter 18:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The dates do make sense — I was hoping they would correspond to the dates of major reorganisations or boundary changes of the borough. Thanks for the clarification.
Although I share your difficulty about unpacking "from", I do think it needs some wider discussion and work to make it a bit more clear. For instance, if "from" covers people resident in the place, for how long would their residency need to be, or under what circumstances would their residence need to have for them to be justifiably counted in the "from" category? Are there any other qualifiers that do not depend upon residency (e.g., birth whilst the mother was "just passing through" or on holiday)? I don't know, which is why I am asking.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, editors on Wikipedia have reached no consensus on this. However, I can at least say that this topic has been discussed in the past, with no consensus reached. I think the archives of Wikipedia Talk:Overcategorization may contain something. Dr. Submillimeter 20:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In lieu of any criteria for deciding who is "from" a particular area, I can't really see a justification for any categorisation based on "from". I have a similar problem with the common Notable residents section included in many settlements. Another editor and I have disagreed about whether DH Lawrence's mother — not DH Lawrence himself — was a notable resident of Ancoats, where she was born. But what makes someone notable probably ought to be a separate discussion :-)
I would not be in favour of the dated categories as suggested, for two reasons. First it seems overly fussy, but more importantly I don't think that the categories convey what is intended by their proposal. Without knowing or caring anything about boundary changes a reader would be likely to interpret those categories as representing people born in the area presently called Ealing between those dates IMO. Which is why, if the categories based on "from" persist, I believe that they have to be based on the present boundaries, not the historical ones. ---- Eric 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe these "people from" categories should be deleted wholesale. I might pose the question in a few other forums. Is there anyone here who really wants to keep the category system? (I am still operating under the assumption that some people want to keep the system.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
To answer the first question, very much so. These are often part of the historical perspective of a location. To compare the modern/local issue, the convention on here as been to describe people's birth location as it was at the time of their birth. For example in 1965 you would be born in Bolton, Lancashire and in 1995 it would be Bolton, Greater Manchester. Simple, accurate and encyclopedic. Lump everyone into Greater Manchester, Ealing, Oldham and there will be edit wars unabated on this. We can all see what happened in the case of the Oldham Met Borough. Finally can I raise another point? There is some issue of the difficulties of identifying boundaries. If that is the case then all the articles like Anerley, Ealing must surely be deleted as unsustainable and subsumed into a Districts of Foo article. We are in danger here of looking for organisational neetness where it is not needed and would in fact raise major accuracy issues.
Onto the "from" criteria. In my wanders around populating these categories I have used two simple criteria - born and raised or had a significant contribution/lived a substantial proportion of their life there. Regan123 21:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It might be impossible just to bring a nomination forward for the "people from" category hierarchy simply because it is too large, so I may not even try. Instead, let's just work on developing a way of organizing these categories that is acceptable to everyone. Dr. Submillimeter 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"To compare the modern/local issue, the convention on here as been to describe people's birth location as it was at the time of their birth. For example in 1965 you would be born in Bolton, Lancashire and in 1995 it would be Bolton, Greater Manchester. Simple, accurate and encyclopedic. Lump everyone into Greater Manchester, Ealing, Oldham and there will be edit wars unabated on this. We can all see what happened in the case of the Oldham Met Borough."
Absolutely agree, that can be said in the article itself, but the categorisations don't work that way. People from Oldham are people from Oldham, regardless of its boundaries from time to time. Hence the edit wars. ---- Eric 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
So far as categories are concerned, as opposed to how a place of birth or residence is described in an article, I can only see three sensible alternatives:
  • Introduce dated categories as Dr Submillimeter has proposed
  • Use the modern boundaries for the area
  • Drop the category altogether
Are there any other alternatives that I've missed? ---- Eric 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Leave them how they are :-) In all seriousness when we have a simple category that describes the area that they are from then why get into LA boundary changes or dates? What is fundamentally wrong with categorising people by the town / village / suburb in large connurbation, they are from? Regan123 22:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You're quite right. The first alternative ought always to be, do nothing. But the problem is surely that the boundaries of those towns/villages/suburbs has changed historically, sometimes several times. And sometimes the modern boundaries of those areas are not very well defined. Was L. S. Lowry a person from Salford, Old Trafford, or Stretford for instance? Or even all three? ---- Eric 23:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The status quo for London has weak support at best, and a lot of us would like to change it. Also, see my comments below on where I lived in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham below. Dr. Submillimeter 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to continue talking to myself, I spent many happy years living in both Chiswick and then Acton. But I never felt that I was a Person from Ealing. So I wonder how the people being categorised would have categorised themselves? Perhaps that's the criterion that ought to be used. :-) ---- Eric 22:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Up until a month ago, I lived in a location that could be considered on the border between Baron's Court, West Kensington, Fulham, and Hammersmith. The name of the neightborhood changed depending on whether I walked north, east, south, or west. I have no idea where I would be from if the area was divided into neighborhoods, but I can definitely identify the location as lying within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. I am certain that my situation is not the only one. Also, the example cited earlier with James Cook seems like another example of the problem with using ambiguous neighborhood boundaries. Dr. Submillimeter 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, I am in agreement with Regan123 on this matter. I was unsure at first, but now, I think the best solutuion is to leave the categories as they are, but re-affirm that the location should "describe people's birth location as it was at the time of their birth.", and that "from" should mean "born and raised or had a significant contribution/lived a substantial proportion of their life there." This second issue (the "from" issue) can be further clarified a little. For instance, in Stoke-on-Trent/Newcastle under Lyme, the maternity hospital for the entire area is located in Newcastle under Lyme. A "strict" interpretation of "from" would be silly in this instance, as it would mean that since that facility opened, no one could be born in Stoke-on-Trent except in cases of home deliveries or emergency, possibly unattended births. In cases like this, it would seem sensible to count the "from" bit as the usual place of residence of the mother, with the place of her confinement being incidental and not important for this purpose. Similarly, there was a very minor dispute a while back when someone added H.G.Wells to Stoke-on-Trent's list, on the grounds that he had written about staying in part of the area (Burslem, I think) for a while which had had some small impact on a small portion of one of his works of fiction. In the end, this was discounted, although it was felt that it was interesting enough, given that it could be cited, for it to be mentioned in other sections even though Wells would not be counted in any "People from" list. These kind of "boundary cases" (where "boundary" refers to the limits or scope-boundaries of any categories) are the ones to pay attention to and work out means of resolving any issues arising when they crop up.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I see little support for any solution on this. In my opinion, the status quo is broken, and it will come up for discussion again in the future. However, I can devote my efforts to other things instead. I see no reason to waste any more time on this. Dr. Submillimeter 09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


I think this discussion actually reveals a number of flaws with the current system. It is ambiguous on a number of levels. I actually think that organising by local authority boundaries may be a better idea. Firstly as others have identified the exact geography of districts are often ambiguous. Secondly, one issue I regularly come across is that people are just lumped into the local population centre. For example, with Manchester people are often thrown into Category:People from Manchester regardless of the district they actually come from.

As I previously stated on the Oldham debate, I think these categories should be "time invariant", i.e. the Category Category:People from Oldham describes an arbitrary area of the Earth's surface that happens to coincide with the current legally defined boundaries of the associated Metropolitan Borough. In other words the category describes people who lived within a close geographical proximity. The actual time in history that the person lived there is described by the Births and deaths categories.

As for a name for the category, I feel that "People from" has always been ambiguous, perhaps a way to scrape together some notability for settlements because Person X lived there for a year or two, or was born there (but left before they could talk). Perhaps a better categort name would be "People notably associated with"? That way a person is only put in a category if it is of note that they came from a particular settlement, it also means that a person who is associated with a settlement but did not actually live there can be added to the category as well.

On the subject of over-sized categories, my own opinion is that categories can more sensibly be broken down on the person's reason for notability. For example, we already have Category:Footballers which is a sub-type of person and Category:People from Manchester which is a sub-category of person. A footballer from Manchester will therefore end up in both categories. IMHO, it would make much more sense to join them up by recreating a sub-category of Footballers and People from Manchester called Category:Footballers from Manchester or associated with :). Pit-yacker 21:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:London buses

Would anyone object to renaming this Category:Bus transport in London to match Category:Bus transport and Category:Bus transport in England? (Also, a similar rename may be justified for Category:London bus routes and the other subcategories of Category:Bus routes.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Regan123 14:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. Kbthompson 14:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It depends what is intended to be in the category - London Buses is the name of the organisation responsible for Bus transport in London (a subsidiary of TfL). JPD (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The category really seems to be about bus transport in London in general, although it could be argued that all of that falls under "London Buses". However, if this category is going to be named so as to refer to London Buses, then the category should be named Category:London Buses.
So, this leads to a key question: is it more appropriate to use a category name that matches the organization that operates the buses, or is it appropriate to use a name that matches Wikipedia conventions? I would argue that it would be better to follow Wikipedia conventions just because the names for bus transport in other cities are different and sometimes use confusing acronyms. It would be better to just use a general term (which is appropriate anyway). Dr. Submillimeter 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd go with the rename. Note that not all bus transport in London falls under the remit of London Buses - in the outer boroughs there are a fair few Herts, Kent etc buses that stray over the boundary, plus there are the coaches, rail replacement buses, school buses etc — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This category has been nominated for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 12#Category:London buses. Also, I have nominated Category:London bus routes to be renamed as Category:Bus routes in London at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 12#Category:Bus routes subcategories. Dr. Submillimeter 10:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional clean-up needed

Category:London buses contains many articles on specific models that are used in the London bus system. The problem with this is that many of these models of buses are used in the mass transit systems of many other locales as well; see, for example, MCW Metrobus and Volvo B10M. Categorizing buses according to which cities use them is not feasible, as the list of categories for each locale that would be placed in each article would be very long. It would be best to remove the bus model articles from this category. Would people object if I do this? Dr. Submillimeter 08:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

People buried in London cemeteries

It is pretty clear that this CfD deletion nomination will succeed. All the relevant articles have lists, but none are nearly as full as thwe categories that will disappear. It would be a good idea to start adding to the articles before this happens. Johnbod 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Several people have indicated in the discussion that the categories should be turned into lists. The administrators have both special templates and special bots for doing this. You do not need to worry about populating the list; just make sure that the administrator does this. Dr. Submillimeter 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
So people at CfD always confidently say; we shall see. Closers tend not to pick up these comments. In these cases there are already shorter lists or text passages in the articles on the cemeteries, which I would think are the best places for them. I don't think bots will do this.Johnbod 19:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
From my experience at WP:CFD, I know that this happens frequently. See list of blue plaques as an example of a list made from a category. If it makes you feel better, I will leave a note to the administrator at the nomination. Dr. Submillimeter 19:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This nomination fell through because the categories were not tagged with templates. I will renominate them later today. Dr. Submillimeter 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:History of London

This category tree seems to be applied vaguely and broadly to anything which could subjectively be called "historic", including articles on assorted people, existing and demolished buildings, defunct organizations, and even some categories such as Category:Crime in London and Category:Terrorism in London. At the very least, labeling people as "historic" is not useful (as the term could be applied to anyone who is dead), and labeling existing structures as "historic" suffers from POV problems (for example, I can provide a explanation for why the Earl's Court Underground Station is "historic"). Would it be acceptable to other people if I cleaned-up the category appropriately? Dr. Submillimeter 09:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged for some of this. I have added demolished buildings (eg former theatres) to history of ... rather than buildings and structures in ..., but tend not to put existing ones in - although where they had a link to history of london, I've tended to convert it to a boro' link - so, I think the Tower ended up with a history of tag. I agree labelling people as historic, is of mild use (and I think I did put them all in the people bag). I accept that the category schema has holes - I was just waiting for people interested in xxx-FC to start complaining their premiership footie team was in sport in local borough; and the British library complaining it was now a library in camden ... but there are over-schemas for these things of 'national importance'. In such a large exercise, mistakes will be made, and one of the things about wiki, is there are always people like yourself who will put in the hard work of correcting them. A bigger problem, I think is the over categorisation - where something appears in both history of and terrorism in London, for example.Kbthompson 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I will clean it up as is appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Moved Hackney Downs School back into Category:History of Hackney, rem'd all the inappropriate school info and added Category:Former buildings and structures of London. Any better advice on what to do with notable former schools, gratefully received. Kbthompson 09:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I think "Former buildings and structures" categories for each borough would be appropriate (as long as they contain at least one article). Dr. Submillimeter 09:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, that works for me, if I can dump the cat:former in cat:history too! It makes for a clearer relationship. I think it's also useful for all those former sports venues hanging around, the borough link can be in the former b & s cat, rather than 'sport in'. Kbthompson 10:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Main Districts of London Template

Who takes the decision about what a main district is? The current template includes such principal london areas as Nag's Head and Coulsdon. Is this free to edit or is there a London Project leader to whom I can make recommendations? hjuk 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the template? Dr. Submillimeter 15:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm doing this right, but does this work as a link? - {{London Districts}} hjuk 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The link worked.
It looks like the template creator made arbitrary decisions when deciding what qualifies as a "main district". It is not immediately apparent as to what should or should not be included. The template is also so jam-packed with links that it is difficult to read (and hence difficult to use). Maybe it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
They seem to be the major areas of the metropolitan boroughs. I, with others, tried to provide a nav template for places in each borough (example). We have a borough to borough template for each borough page - between the two they provide easy access across London. So, maybe London districts isn't necessary. Kbthompson 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
What qualifies as a "major" area? It seems arbitrary. I did not see Baron's Court or West Kensington in Template:London Districts. Surely, at least one of those two locations should qualify as a "major" area.
Having said that, the borough navigation templates look better, although I wonder if they could ever be considered "complete". Wouldn't it be better to just use categories? Dr. Submillimeter
In going through trying to move stuff out of category:borough to cat:stuff in borough, I have been surprised by the number of 'places' that don't qualify in anyone's imagination as districts. A lot of articles on estates, for instance - which I've generally moved to buildings and structures - unless like the Barbican they would qualify as a neighbourhood in their own right; but some even transcend boro's (like Becontree). It's not perfect, and like personal perceptions of history of ..., it'll probably come back to bite us. Anyway, back to the point, if you think there's anything missing in the borough nav-boxes, please feel free to add it. They were based on the districts listed in the main borough articles, then the articles in the list were moved to neighbourhood of ...
In yet another part of the forest, I have been trying to create complete boro' lists of schools based on each LEA website. At least one of these has now been split out as a separate article. I don't have a view on that, but we should probably have a diktat for standardisation. I was hoping that a higher profile in the boro' page would encourage at least some more school articles to be created, if not be brought up beyond stub - moving off into a list of schools ... moves it back off the radar. Kbthompson 18:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

London Borough Infoboxes

Does the template require a Coat of Arms? Is the modern logo an option? If so how to edit? In Haringey for example, the COA image doesn't show in the edit page for the infobox. hjuk 15:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Another question. I notice that electoral Wards are not in the London infoboxes. I wonder if this mightn't be helpful for London Wikipedia users - reference perhaps and has a contribution to make in area definition. Si? Non? hjuk 15:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the template? Dr. Submillimeter 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Le voici - Template:Infobox London Borough. Coat of Arms is interesting history - but not clear on its relevance today. The message the borough wishes to project about itself and what people see is the logo. To me it'd make more sense to replace COA with logo. I've said my piece on Elec wards above. hjuk 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC) PS Just realised that actually I'm referring to 2 different infoboxes here. There's the London Borough one (Coat of Arms issue) and the London district one (elec ward issue). Here's link for 2nd Template:Infobox UK place hjuk 17:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The crests for the London boroughs themselves may not be relevant (except for the City of London crest, which is highly visible in the City), although having them in the London infoboxes seems OK. However, I would rather see the logos that are currently used by the London boroughs (such as the green circular design used by Camden on their webpage.
The UK crests may be more relevant in other locations. Template:Infobox UK place is probably maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom, so you you should discuss your proposal there. Dr. Submillimeter 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Have put a msg on UK talk page. How does a decision about the crests go forward? Do I just wait and see what cooks here? hjuk 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just wait to see what other people say. (Most new users are not smart enough or willing enough to start discussions about templates on the relevant WikiProject pages. I think hjuk deserves congratulations for actually doing this.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - will sit tight. hjuk 23:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he does seem smarter than the average bear ... In order. Coat of Arms, these are just heraldic devices, their relevance to modern life is probably minimal. Somewhere, there was already discussion about council logos - I think the decision at that time was that they were subject to copyright and they were generally removed, whereas the CoA were a fair use depiction of a work of art (go figure). (Being wiki, mileage may change depending on when you ask ...).
Wards. These are another thing that are neither coterminous with historic districts, or modern usage. Usually the boundaries are just drawn down the centre of some convenient major thoroughfare, and they often change (about every 8 years). There are few boroughs where they're filled in - and it's essentially a different taxonomic system to the districts. It would be nice to develop a system of handling wards that makes sense, and doesn't add to the confusion we already have about places (see somewhere like, Bow for an example). Cheers Kbthompson 00:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
There is some difference between Coats of Arms (including the crest! ;) and logos in terms of copyright, simply because any particular representation of the arms is one artist's interpretation. However, in our case we generally wish to show the depiction of the arms actually used by the borough, so the copyright situation is exactly the same as a logo. Both should be fair use when used in the article about the borough itself. As for wards making sense - you are quite optimistic, Kbthompson! JPD (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Finsbury Park Park vs Finsbury Park Area

I'd like to separate the two into two articles - Finsbury Park. As the oldest municipal park in London, there's plenty of interesting things about the park itself - as the curent article suggests - it's mostly about the park. Thoughts, precedents, diktats? hjuk 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If it were down to me it would be about the park itself and nothing else. Since it's not official (and straddles three boroughs) "The FP area" isn't a clearly defined area in the way that, say, Stamford Hill is. I think any attempt to cover the broader area would just lead to content-forking from Holloway, Harringay, Stroud Green, Highbury Vale (which needs writing!) and Finsbury Park station. The park's article should probably be more explicitly linked to Parkland Walk (which I intend to do a complete rewrite of at some point as it's getting very messy), given that the two run into each other — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it would depend on whether there was anything interesting and unique to say about the area. Like the multicoloured one, I think probably not, and the parts of the area have more in common with their boroughs (probably even down to development, as the land ownership would not have been consistent). Diktats indeed, there's only agreement and precedent - 'cept the precedent is never written down, and the people wot made it have wandered off since, so it's only people who've been around for ages can actually (mis-)remember. Kbthompson 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Decided to go for it anyway. I do think that the FP area is definitely an area that should have its own page. People think of themselves as living in FP and describe themselves as such. It may be a newer area than some. But I think we'd be unrealistic to say it's not an area. So have left that as a sep page and whilst it's now a stub have tried to leave it looking not too messy. Have mended all the links I can find to point towards it and not the park - where it is contrained on a list of links pointing to other areas, not parks. hjuk 09:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Do Me ... London

Do Me ... London looked like an advertisement for a non-notable service, so I nominated it for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do Me ... London. Dr. Submillimeter 08:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories for people buried in London relisted for deletion

The categories for people buried in London are relisted for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19#Subcategories of Category:Cemeteries in London. The last nomiantion was overturned because the categories were not tagged properly. That should not be a problem this time. Dr. Submillimeter 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of Historic Photos

A local museum has written to me to say that they will be happy for me to use soem of their photos on Wikipedia. But looking at the image pages, it all seems more complicated than that. I don't think they want to release them for free use. Anyone know what type of licence protects them and Wikipedia? hjuk 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If they don't want to release them for free use, then they cannot be used on wikipedia. That's the idea, in contributing you can only ever retain limited rights, like attribution. Wikipedia actually sells its contents to other commercial projects, in order to offset the not inconsiderable cost of providing this service.
If the art work is over 100 years since the death of its originator, then a photograph of that artwork is permissible - but then, again, that must be copyright free. There are also very limited fair use contexts, for images sourced from the web. You also need to record as much detail as possible, about source, etc.; there are many people around wiki who seem to make a career of finding reasons for removing carefully sourced images. Kbthompson 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Umm - I thought copyright extended for 70 years after the death of the originator? David Underdown 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Not for photos I think. Like recordings, they are 50 years from first publication - if they were published, which is a complicated area. Johnbod 11:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite correct for the UK, but here, US law applies: The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years. This photograph of the work is also in the public domain in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). source. Kbthompson 17:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not that simple, since that label is not intended as an explanation of what is in the public domain, but simply a label for images where the author died more than 100 years ago. In US law, works created in the US before 1923 are in the public domain because they already were when the current legislation took effect, and 70 years is also the standard term in the US now.[2] I'm not sure to what extent the US law is the relevant one - many countries do not protect works that have entered the public domain in their home countries, but I think the US may. JPD (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
US law is relevant because that's where the WP servers are based. David Underdown 08:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant the US expiry terms, rather than the law in general. I'm not sure whether US law contains a rule of the shorter term, which could make local law override the US terms in some cases. JPD (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Just reading about copyright law sends me to sle... Kbthompson 00:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
For Wikipedia purposes, the copyright law that applies is whichever is the longest of Florida, the place of creation and the place of uploading. I.E., if I uploaded a photo taken in Ireland, from my desk in London, it would be breach of copyright if it was still in copyright in any of the three countries.
Just be grateful we aren't in America, where photographs of buildings can't be uploaded without consent as they breach the architect's copyright — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in Islington

User:90.198.188.222 is attempting to redraw the boundaries twixt LBH and LBI. This was done on the LBI article, LBH and LBI templates, the parliamentary constituency and De Beauvoir Town - quite thorough. All currently reverted, but interested parties should watch out for this seriously strange non-geographic point of view - probably post-codism, or East Canonbury. Kbthompson 00:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, though I think you mean 82.45.221.124 Paulbrock 00:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry dealing with two vandals at the same time! 222 was just being silly. De Beauvoir is in Hackney, has always been in Hackney; but is N1 postcode district. There is an extremely PoV editor who wants it to be East Canonbury, rather than West Dalston! Kbthompson 10:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Done it again, reported for IP vandalism. Next time it's 3RR. Anyone for West Canonbury? Kbthompson 16:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Which is now about East Canonbury... time for an AfD? Regan123 17:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
An admin has kindly turned West Canonbury into a redirect to Canonbury. I'm a bit sick of it, and worried that if I have to revert this introduction of contra-reality stuff again, I'm in contravention of 3RR! Kbthompson 11:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Queensbury

Are Queensbury tube station and Queensbury, London in the London Borough of Harrow, or the London Borough of Brent, or some combination of the two? At the moment, the two articles appear to conflict with one another. -- Karada 13:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The website http://www.streetmap.co.uk shows the Underground station in Brent and the neighborhood in Harrow. Some of the neighborhood probably lies within the Borough of Brent, but I cannot find any maps that show this (and the neighborhood probably has poorly defined boundaries anyway). The articles already seem consistent with the information from www.streetmap.co.uk, so I see no reason to change them.
It's also worth pointing out that the names of Underground stations do not exactly correspond to the geographical locations that they are named after. For example, the North Ealing tube station is not located very far north in Ealing, and the Shoreditch tube station is not located very close to the area labeled Shoreditch in my A-Z. Dr. Submillimeter 16:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've now fixed the location of the locality of Queensbury, to show it in its correct place on the other side of the borough boundary from Queensbury tube station. -- Karada 10:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Familia link in external resources not working. hjuk 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Is it okay if i add a bot for archiving this page? 30 days? Simply south 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

St Giles

Is St Giles a district? There seem to be things around there such as St Giles in the Fields and St Giles Circus. Simply south 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

St Giles was a parish containing a notable rookery, just to the north of Covent Garden - now largely cleared by office development, New Oxford Street and the roads surrounding. A visit to Old Bailey on-line should give a flavour of the district! Kbthompson 16:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletes (list of libraries)

Someone has proposed deleting List of libraries in Barking and Dagenham and List of libraries in Barnet, on the basis they're advertising. First of all, they're lead articles in the category:library in london borough; secondly, as with the aspiration to have lists of london schools in boroughs, libraries are a council service that should have an article (I'm the first to admit, they're not good articles) (see How to write about settlements). Anyone want to comment, suggest improvements, trash the idea? Kbthompson 15:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that categories need a lead article, or even that each library deserves a separate article. However, it would be silly to have neither individual articles nor a general "Libraries in XXX" article. The article would probably be better written not simply as a list, but even a vaguely well written article on the subject couldn't be called called simply advertising. JPD (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Barking had the first pub lib in Essex, I'm fairly sure it also benefited from a Carnegie library - can't find any referenced information on it, though. I suspect librarians don't like to blow their own trumpets. The matter's been resolved by an admin labelling them invalid csd, but thoughts and suggestions on developing such articles still appreciated. Kbthompson 16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London/Archive_3&oldid=1136050352"