Talk:Alice Ayres

Comments from Moni3

Quite an interesting article.

• What about explaining in the top image caption that the illustration was made after Ayers' death and under what circumstances: i.e. printed in Postman's Park: G. F. Watts's Memorial to Heroic Self-sacrifice after her death, with...who is the child?
• Note 1: ...and must be viewed in that light. I don't think it's the article's place to tell folks how to view information, just to present it to them.
• Was Alice standing on a balcony to throw out the mattress and the children? She kept returning to the burning building, making it sound as if she left the burning building repeatedly.
• You may not be able to answer this in the article, but why might an oil and paint shop need gunpowder??
• Notes that have no cites need them.
• Images sandwich text in the Secular canonisation section. If there are too many images, what about a gallery of images in between the Depiction in literature and art and Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice sections?
• I'm re-reading to improve Tipping the Velvet (for obvious reasons) but a significant part of that novel, set in Victorian London, is class differences. The last third of it goes into great detail about the problems of the working class/working poor and the appeal of socialism and social activism, particularly when juxtaposed with the privileges of the wealthy. There are good reasons this book is compared with Dickens, who set most of his novels around institutions that exhibited stark class differences. No great historian of London am I, but this gives me the impression that a social revolution was brewing or in full force. Dickens' serials were so popular because they dealt with real issues at the time. The Differing perceptions section explains why Ayers' story resonated so well, but I wonder if a bigger emphasis could be made at the beginning of the Secular canonisation section and perhaps the Memorial section to drive home this point to readers about why Ayers' story struck the imagination of so many Londoners and/or was exploited by socialists and those of the wealthier class who were looking to present a role model for their own political purposes.

• In fact, the way Henry Chandler died is almost perfection for illustrating the point of a cowardly money-handler, forsaking his own children for his money and getting his just due for doing it, while his wife and child dying from the results of his greed adds to the tragedy.

• Formatting blah-blah: There are two instances of 2-line blockquotes on my wide browser. The general rule has been 4 or more lines for a blockquote. Is there something I don't know or a particular reason for the 2-line quotes? Also: on rare occasions a reflist|3 has made it through FAC. I'm not sure a reflist|4 would. I recall the rule is reflist|2. I don't fuss much with formatting since it seems to change from season to season.

The prose is good. I gave suggestions where I think some improvements could be made. Quite a good article. No doubt, Ms. Portman adds all to it. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Replies in order:

• The portrait of her appeared in the Illustrated London News on 8 May 1885, just after the fire as part of a series of illustrations on fire-related topics (what the original looked like in context). I believe it's an engraving from a photo of her whilst still alive - some contemporary sources mention a photo which her brother gave to the news services. In these pre-xerography days, engraving from the photo would have been cheaper than photographic reproduction. The caption is intentionally vague as AFAIK there's no date for the photo. The child appears to be a boy, which would make it the young Henry Chandler (six at the time of the fire), but could equally well be one of the girls in boyish clothing and a shorter-than-usual haircut.
• I tossed-and-turned about the "and must be viewed in that light" – I understand the issue with giving instructions to readers (I've been told off by Sandy for "note the..." in the past), but I do think it's essential to hammer home that the context of what's essentially a politically-motivated hagiography means these are exceptional circumstances in which normally-reliable sources can't necessarily be considered reliable, even by the standards of obituaries.

• Of course, these are my suggestions, and you can take them as you wish, including not taking them at all. I predict, however, that someone else will make a deal out of this. It's my opinion that that phrase should be removed. I think we can give our readers some credit to understand the multiple sides of an issue without instructing them to treat the information in the article with skepticism. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I actually quietly removed it while I was citing the references. – iridescent 20:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Detail of the only surviving eyewitness sketch of the fire, showing the position from which Ayres threw the children

• Ayres was leaning out of a window to drop the children - see this detail from the only surviving eyewitness sketch - and ran back four times (to fetch the mattress, and the three girls) before jumping/falling herself. By "went back into the burning building" I mean she went back towards the inside of the building; other phrasings like "went back into the smoke" seem too melodramatic to me.

• Presenting the story vividly doesn't necessarily have to be melodramatic. I got confused about where she was and what she was doing. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed, I think – iridescent 20:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I can't say for certain why an oil and paint shop would stock gunpowder. I can strongly speculate that it was due to the use of toluene during the period as a solvent for dye and paint, a booster for explosives and a high-performance motor fuel (TNT itself was used for years as a yellow paint before anyone realised it could be detonated with a secondary explosive) but that would be Original Research.
• Is there any way to cite the notes? They're all referencable, but AFAIK there's no way to add a reference to another reference.

• See Mary_Shelley#Notes --Harthacnut (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• See the notes section in Rosewood massacre -- I just put them in parentheses. Not until I saw the notes section in Chicado V did I realize you can cite the notes...like you...didn't know til I knew. --Moni3 (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• All done. You really do learn something new every day. – iridescent

• I don't think the sandwiching is a problem - I've played about at various settings, and the images only sandwich at very wide screen settings, where there's adequate room for the text to flow. I think it's more important to have them attached to their correct places in the text, as they all illustrate particular paragraphs.

• If someone else makes an issue of it, consider the gallery option. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've got rid of one image that isn't really necessary, which has freed up some space elsewhere. The problem is that this image is one that has to be in that particular section to make sense, and it's got a very awkward aspect ratio. – iridescent 20:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I entirely agree with you about the whole changing-social-attitudes thing - which is why the article goes off on a seemingly unrelated tangent about the Victoria Cross and lifeboats at one point - but was trying not to turn it into The Condition of the Working Class in England or an essay on the growth of modern Christian socialism and One Nation conservatism. I know the arrangement is awkward - it goes from reaction to her death, to a mini-essay on social trends and the increasing prominence of female role-models, to more reaction to her death - but I can't see an obvious way to rearrange it without disrupting the narrative further.
• Entirely agree about Henry Chandler. I tried to lead the reader as much as I could without saying "hey, look at this" regarding him dying protecting the cashbox while the women died protecting the children. Even at the time, this was being pointed out (see this article, for example). The implicit assumption from both left- and right-wingers that "died for her employer" is inherently noble speaks volumes as well. There's a lot of further material, particularly from George & Mary Watts, on the difference in public perception of volunteers for hazardous jobs and of those who "do the right thing" when faced with an unexpected crisis (note the complete absence of the military on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice) which I've left out of this set of articles to avoid derailing them too much into broader essays on changing attitudes towards class and religion. ("Secular canonisation" isn't just a figure of speech - this period was the beginning of the Church of England's great decline, and the concepts of "martyrdom for the greater good" and "died for our sins" were still deeply ingrained in society. Any practising Catholic (or Anglo-Catholic) would immediately spot the symbolism here.)

• Some options: for sure add something to the lead, perhaps move the Differing perceptions to the top of "A secular canonisation", if not add a few sentences to the beginning of that section and/or a sentence to the Memorial section to reiterate the point before expanding it thoroughly in the Differing perceptions section farther below. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Will think about if/how it can be worked in more without veering too far off-topic. – iridescent 20:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a couple of lines to the start of "A secular canonisation" to provide a context. The main "perceptions" section can't move up there, as it talks about Watts and Rawnsley who at this stage haven't yet been introduced. – iridescent 21:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• "More than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines" is apparently our guideline for when block quotes should be used. You learn something new every day.
• The reflist is {{reflist|colwidth=25em}}, so it should reformat itself into an appropriate number of columns based on screen width; widen and narrow the browser window and watch it reformat itself. On a very wide monitor it will show in as many as six columns; on an ipod or small netbook as few as one.

• The current discussion about formatting at the FAC talk page... blah blah blah. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Think that's everything... – iridescent 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

TFAR check

Many red links. Can some of them not be links at all or the red link page be created? There is a disambig in the third note. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Alice has WikiSource material there is maybe an icon template for that. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Which redlinks do you think are invalid? I can't see any invalid redlinks myself. Unless someone else has added something, the only relevant Wikisource material is Rawnsley's poem, already linked in the article. – iridescent 08:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Isleworth Cemetery could do with a stub, just to say it's location. Red Cross Hall link seems none notable. F. J. Cross as well. Royal Society for the Protection of Life from Fire would be a redirect to the revised name Society for the Protection of Life from Fire, but neither exist and perhaps not notable either.

Battle of Alexandria is the disambig page.

Yea, only that one poem on Wikisource, so not worth adding the template. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Isleworth Cemetery is a major landmark; F. J. Cross was one of the best-selling authors of the 19th century; Red Cross Hall was (and still is) not only a landmark in its own right, but the home of numerous artworks by notable artists and the birthplace of the Army Cadet Force and the Chartered Institute of Housing; Society for the Protection of Life from Fire has been in existence for over 170 years, was the first non-privately-owned fire service in Britain and a direct precursor to the modern concept of a fire brigade, and inter alia was among the first organisations in Britain formally to recognise the achievements of the lower classes. I'm really not seeing this. – iridescent 12:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Isleworth Cemetery is notable but ambiguous, hence the requirement for a location. Do you have a reference for F. J. Cross being best-selling author. Google gives plenty about the book Beneath the Banner, but this article does not red link it, implying that the book is not notable. Perhaps red-link is missing in this case then? Is Red Cross Hall the one in Cecil Street, Tring, where you can hire for £5 to £15 an hour? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've created an Isleworth Cemetery stub. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Created Society for the Protection of Life from Fire and Red Cross Hall, the latter could do with some reliable sources on it's page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Could I suggest you tag Red Cross Hall for deletion, since as it stands it's absolutely pointless. I'm not sure where this idea that "all redlinks have to turn blue" has come from; substubs of this type (particularly totally unsourced substubs) are a net negative, as they discourage people from creating the viable articles, which are the point of having redlinks. From the above conversation you seem to have somehow got the idea that Wikipedia shouldn't have redlinks; this is not and never has been the case. – iridescent 22:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent is right. Stubs shouldn't be created just to turn redlinks blue. I've seen that happen and sometimes the stub languishes for years, and sometimes someone expands it. I had been working on Royal Medal for some time (ironically, creating smallish stubs with great care to slowly complete the list) and then when someone brought it to featured list status, they created about 20 (maybe more) 1-sentence stubs in one evening just to turn all the remaining redlinks blue. I was rather annoyed at that, though I was restrained at the time (I also saw it as an opportunity to come back in a few years and see how much the articles had been expanded). My view is that there should be a balance between redlinks, stubs, and fully fleshed-out articles, with the considerations being how to drive article expansion. In that regard, linking articles from other articles seems to be the key. If you create a stub and don't link to it from other articles (I'm particularly bad at doing this), it is likely that few people will read the stub, let alone expand it. Link it from lots of other articles and you may get people gradually expanding it over time. Possibly, creating a stub may be justifiable if there are lots of valid incoming links already existing, or if you are prepared to bring it to a minimum standard. But I can't say this without wondering about some of the articles I've created. Let's say that I try more and more now to create articles fully-formed, not as stubs, and I want to find the time some day to go back and expand the stubs I left in my wake... Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree there is no written recommending turning red links into blue. I did a few because many red-links tends to turn people off. Stubs is an interesting question. The impression I have is that stubs are more likely to lead to a article getting attention then no article at all. Will see if more linking can be done on these stubs. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about red links turning people off. I don't know how that kind of evidence is gathered. I got here because I saw a red link and I made it blue. I think that's how most of us got here, or something similar, fixing, adding small stuff, etc. --Moni3 (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ayers as a Domestic servant

It was not unheard of for Victorian families to have a live-in unmarried sister who worked like a drudge and was given a stipend if she had no money of her own. The problem as I see it is social status. a paid "household assistant" or "nursemaid" who is not a relative had a drastically different social status than a sister, cousin or other relative who did exactly the same work. The relative dined with the family, socialized with their friends and so on. A servant was a servant. These status differences loomed so large and were taken so seriously, that the status of the sister and brother in law in this or a similar household would have been threatened if they had addressed or in any way treated Alice as they would have treated a paid employee. "Can you imagine, my dear, her own sister, and they treat her like a common housemaid!" Unless you know that the family was really treating her this way, best change the wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've already told you on your talk, yes we do know, and the fact that she was a paid employee, not living with the Chandlers as a member of the family, is one of the few aspects of her life that is extremely well-attested. We are talking about a bricklayer's daughter, not the Duchess of Devonshire. – iridescent 09:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency

• five-year-old Edith, four-year-old Ellen, and three-year-old Elizabeth.[1]
• carefully dropping Edith onto it.[1]...... Ellen clung to Ayres and refused to be dropped, but Ayres threw her out of the building, ..... returned carrying badly injured Elizabeth, whom she dropped safely onto the mattress.[1]

The order given here, and referenced is Edith (5), Ellen (4), Elizabeth (3)

• Frederick Watts says the girl is again at the window, a child of three in her arms, which with great care and skill she throws safely upon the mattress. Twice again with still older children she repeats the heroic feat.

By Watt's account, the youngest is thrown first.

Watt's is perfectly capable of getting it wrong for the sake of dramatic effect. But can we be sure of that? Amandajm (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, he did get it wrong! Amandajm (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The correct order, according to contemporary reports, was Edith, Ellen, Elizabeth, with Elizabeth badly burned by the time she was dropped and dying around three days later. Henry jr wasn't dropped, and was found next to the first floor window (that is, the one below Ayres's window) along with Mary Ann. Watts wasn't there, and he had a clear agenda—to create a body of idealised inspirational figures for his proposed memorial. His version of events is based on hearsay and half-remembered press reports and is very garbled. Another Jubilee Suggestion needs to be included, as it's the item most responsible for creating the myth, but Watts is an unreliable source for anything other than his own statements and actions. – iridescent 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Southwark, just south of London

Confusing text, as it's now firmly part of London. Southwark at the time, according to Southwark was in Surrey, just before becoming part of London. I notice the main article text doesn't deal with this at all. It needs clarifying, and also to not be just in the lead and nowhere else. Ty 12:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Absolutely, and even at the time the location would be considered part of London. I will change the texct to state: Southwark, in south London. Markb (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Southwark was not a part of London at any point in Ayres's lifetime. "Close to London" is not the same as "in London", any more than the present-day Waltham Cross is "in north London" despite being a part of the conurbation. – iridescent 16:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So what is the decision on the wording? It has just been reverted to "south of London" or some such. Can you reach an agreement? Amandajm (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"South of London" (or some variant thereof) is the only correct version. London has expanded, and Southwark is now a part of London; it wasn't then. – iridescent 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-colons

Semi-colons are the most abused item of punctuation on the wiki-editor's keyboard. They are almost always used incorrectly. My advice is, if you don't really understand how to apply them, then don't.

• Correct: Although some press reports at the time stated that Ayres died without regaining consciousness, this is incorrect; she was conscious and lucid while in hospital and gave the authorities a full account of her actions during the fire.

This use of the semi-colon is correct because there is a statement in the first half which is contradicted, and the second half tells us precisely why.

It could have been written as:

Although some press reports at the time stated that Ayres died without regaining consciousness, this is incorrect because she was sufficiently conscious and lucid in hospital to give the authorities a full account of her actions during the fire.

But this lacks the power of the direct assertion made in the second half of the above sentence.

• Incorrect: Ayres was given a large public funeral, attended by over 10,000 mourners; her coffin was carried from her parents' house to her grave in Isleworth Cemetery by a team of 16 firemen, relieving each other in sets of four.

What is so wrong about it? There are two completely discrete facts here, which are not dependent on each other.

1. Ayres was given a large public funeral.

2. Her coffin was carried from her parents' house to her grave in Isleworth Cemetery by a team of 16 firemen.

The second statement doesn't expand the first. It doesn't deny the first. It doesn't relate to the "size" or the "public nature" of the funeral. The first statement is a very broad description of the event ("large and public") while the second statement tells us one specific detail about the way that funeral was conducted. If we are going to link that fact, then we could link any funeral-related fact whatsoever.

Each of these two statements has its own descriptive phrase attached:

1. Ayres was given a large public funeral, attended by over 10,000 mourners.

2. Her coffin was carried from her parents' house to her grave in Isleworth Cemetery by a team of 16 firemen, relieving each other in sets of four.

• Incorrect: This was a period in which political pressures for social reform were growing; the version of Ayres presented to the public as a woman devoted entirely to duty embodied the idealised British character at the time, while the image of a hard working but uncomplaining woman who set the welfare of others above her own embodied the idealised vision of the working class presented by social reformers, and the ideal selfless and dedicated woman presented by campaigners for women's rights.

This sentence is an absolute monster!

• Incorrect: Ayres's body was not taken to Guy's Hospital's mortuary, but was laid in a room set aside for her; the estimated value of the floral tributes came to over £1,000.

I ask you "What, precisely, does the cost of the floral tributes have to do with the fact that her body wasn't sent to the morgue?" They are two completely separate facts!

• Incorrect: Ayres's condition deteriorated and she died in Guy's Hospital on 26 April 1885; her last words were reported as "I tried my best and could try no more".

Once again, these are two completely distinct facts. They do not get a semi-colon.

On the other hand, if you are intending to describe not the fact of her death but the act of her dying, you could link the two ideas thus:

Ayres's condition deteriorated and she died in Guy's Hospital on 26 April 1885, her last words being "I tried my best and could try no more".

Note that the second statement is no longer a complete sentence, and is joined by a comma, not a semi-colon.

In the interests of better FA's, I hope that this is useful! Amandajm (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Red links

I have just written short biographies on Banks and Chant, but can't find anything biographical on Fred! Amandajm (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A public-domain version of Beneath the Banner is available at Project Gutenberg, if you have a very high tolerance for turgid Victoriana. BtB was a massive hit in its day (Google "F. J. Cross" and you'll still find dozens of versions in print) but I know nothing about the rest of his career. (Admittedly, I haven't looked very hard.) – iridescent 16:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I found it! Yuk!

I meant to thank you (and others involved) for this article, which I found very interesting, despite my changes to the expression here and there, which have unfortunately been reverted and lost. The Intro remains the same. It previously read like a draft. You always have to get back to the intro, and make sure it states the real reason for the article, in the first sentence. I've rewritten an awful lot of first paragraphs for articles that were up for FAs ...lost count!

I located Emilia Aylmer's poem. That is pretty nauseating stuff as well! I can imagine her reciting it with great passion and wringing tears from every eye. The other one is thankfully rather better. Amandajm (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

in what was then called Borough

It is still called Borough, I can assure you, as I lived there. Not quite sure how to reference the fact, but really this is a misleading statement lacking a true reliable source; yes, it was called Borough - but it still is.

E.g. Flat to rent in Borough - 2 Bedrooms Flat in Union Street. Or Hamptons estate agency produced a heat map of house prices in London this week [...] Notting Hill (W1, W2 and W8) glowed orange, as did Borough (SE1).^{Telegraph article}

The main drag is Borough High Street, and the most famous feature is Borough Market; the tube station is also called 'Borough'. The area is, routinely, referred to as 'Borough', to avoid confusion with the London Borough of Southwark.  Chzz  ►  22:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree and have taken it out. 194 Union Street isn't even in Borough, it's right at the other end. – iridescent 22:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(adding) Culprit caught. She's not from the UK; she's probably not familiar with local geography. – iridescent 22:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  Chzz  ►  22:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes

Hi people. I worked through this article and made a number of changes to expression, moving the fact about "living above the shop" to a more pertinent location, and including a description of the premises based on the news pic. Most of my edits were reverted in one block by an editor who discovered a spelling error, and may have disagreed with the relationship of Southwark to London. (I don't think this editor had previously worked on this article or had any reason to be offended.) Do you mind (since this article is not my baby) taking a look to see if you want my edits included or not. NOTE: if you revert to my previous state there may be one or two things to tidy up or include in later edits. I can't find the vandalistic change to the numerals that I was looking for to correct, so perhaps it's been done. Amandajm (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the changes removed in this revert, I'd say (top to bottom):

• "Just south of London" is correct; "in south London" is wrong. Southwark was in Surrey throughout Ayres's lifetime;
• No strong opinions about the ordering of the paragraph beginning "In 1881 Ayres worked as a…", although I disagree with your removal of "above the shop", as this fact is critical to what follows;
• Your amendment to the alt text violates WP:NOR. The figure isn't "blackened", that's her shadow (see enlargement, right);
• As does "A narrow building of three storeys"—I don't know where you've got that from. If anything, these houses were (and are) unusually wide by Southwark standards;
• No opinions on whether the sentences in the "Funeral" section are split by semicolons or stops. – iridescent 14:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Re how to describe location of Southwark with regards to London, I regarded the initial statement as rather clumsy expression. It has since been changed a number of times. I was not responsible for any of the more recent changes or reversions. I did make a comment on this page in the discussion of that subject.
• Removal of "above the shop"... yes, it is indeed critical to what follows. That is why I relocated the information from a sentence in which it had no significance to a sentence in which it pertained directly to circumstances of the fire and the rescue. This locating of the information will have been lost in the subsequent reversal.
• You have muddled my edits with the subsequent reversal. It was I who removed the reference to the "blackened figure". The blackness is clearly not the figure. The figure clearly is female and the child is not dangling. I nearly always leave an edit summary. If you look back at the summaries you will find where these changes were made.
• Narrow building. Yes, looking at the illustration again I see that they are in the corner of the building, which extends further to the left. The building is in fact wider, but they are only occupying a narrow section of it, three windows (presumably one room) wide. So that even though the building itself is wide, the premises are narrow, just like most Southwark premises. This accounts for why the parents and the daughters were sleeping on different floors. (The body of the mother was located on the first floor.)
• With regards to the semi-colon removal, the information about the firemen is a just one of the many details of the way the funeral was conducted. Linking the two complete and independent sentences (because that is what they are) into a single sentence with a semi-colon is bad expression. If those two sentences can be joined in that way, then one could make a decision to halve the number of sentences in the article by inserting semi-colons all over the place. Semi-colons are frequently misused. I'm having a blitz to discourage people from using them. People who write about locomotives are the worst offenders. I wonder why? ;-)

I will revert to the previous state if possible, which will fix the shadow and the "above the shop".

Amandajm (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes

• I have reverted the changes, as indicated above. I removed the word "narrow" and slightly restructured the description, as indicated.

The Chandler's shop at Union Street, as depicted in a contemporary newspaper illustration, occupied the corner premises of building of three storeys. The family lived above the shop, with Henry and Mary Ann Chandler sleeping in one bedroom with their six-year-old son Henry, and Ayres sharing a room on the second floor with her nieces, five-year-old Edith, four-year-old Ellen, and three-year-old Elizabeth.[1] On the night of 24 April 1885, fire broke out in the oil and paint shop, trapping the family upstairs.

• NOTE: This is where I placed the information regarding the fact that the family lived above the shop. It is altogether more satisfactory that the previous begining of this section which does not mention that vital fact, even though it has been stated elswhere in the article where it was less relevant. (It wasn't relevant to the fact of her employment.)

The previous version was as follows:

Union Street fire

In 1885, Henry and Mary Ann Chandler slept in one bedroom with their six-year-old son Henry, and Ayres in another room with five-year-old Edith, four-year-old Ellen, and three-year-old Elizabeth.[1] On the night of 24 April 1885, fire broke out in the oil and paint shop, trapping the family upstairs.

Amandajm (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Southwark

In the light of Iridescent's comments, let me put the record straight.

• 11:31, 3 August 2010 Amandajm (that's me) made the following edit:

...in Union Street, Southwark, at that time just south of London,...

to: ...in Union Street, Southwark, just south of London,...

• and left the following edit summary: (Errr... where is Southwark now?..). As far as I'm concerned, Southwark, although part of Greater London, is still "just south of London".
• the person who changed it to "in south London" was Markb.

Amandajm (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; the history of who was adding and removing what got confusing. Southwark is now in central London, not "just south on London". Southwark was then a part of Surrey, and thus just south of London. – iridescent 15:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alice Ayres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090920014325/http://www.london-fire.gov.uk:80/Documents/Directions-HQ.pdf to http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Documents/Directions-HQ.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alice Ayres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814121607/http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/%28S%28h2xwummwx1uaqxuqqfi1kc55%29%29/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=23973 to http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/%28S%28h2xwummwx1uaqxuqqfi1kc55%29%29/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=23973

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alice Ayres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603182005/http://www.thelondonpaper.com/going-out/whats-new/londons-10-best-picnic-spots to http://www.thelondonpaper.com/going-out/whats-new/londons-10-best-picnic-spots

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)