Talk:King's Observatory

Date?

"The building was complete at the time of the transit of Venus in 1769." This could also be said of the Tower of London, Freiburg Minster or the Colosseum in Rome, to only name a few. Was it just complete at the time of the transit? --129.13.72.198 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've checked the source and that's what it says. I suspect it means that we don't know what the actual completion date was but that we do know the building had been completed by the time the transit of Venus occurred. Headhitter (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've now amended the text, adding reference to a further source, and I hope it now reads better. Headhitter (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King's Observatory. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.citiesofscience.co.uk/go/London/ContentPlace_2879.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Richmond, History or Location.

@Lord Cornwallis:

Rather than argue on the article space, try using the talk page.

Read the first sentence under the heading of location. If you feel this isn't adequate then expand on the subject in that section, which is more relevant that under History. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure entirely sure what we're arguing about. The article at present isn't a big one, with plenty of space for expansion. This passage now has has two cites, and countless more can be found. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but your first reversion was either flippant or pedantic and that confused me. Did you really think readers were going to think that the Transit of Venus took place in Kew? In regard to your second point I would ask:

• 1) which part of the article directly mentions and links to Richmond Lodge? I can't see it.
• 2) Is not the location relevant to the article? George III used it as a country residence, and therefore the establishment of the Observatory is directly linked? It wasn't chance, and this was part of the history not the current location (the lodge was demolished in 1771).

If you still find this problematic, how do you think the article could be satisfactorily edited to included this information? I know we're all willing to work together. Regards, Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to Lord Cornwallis's addition. The location of the observatory close to the royal residence seems relevant to me. I think the edit should stand. TowardsTheLight (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The point being there is a complete section devoted to the location of the observatory, that is where any further information should be, not just randomly inserted into another section. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)