User talk:Kbthompson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Kbthompson/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --TheParanoidOne 19:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The East End

Hi! Just been browsing through some pretty dreadful wikipedia articles on the East End. There's a particularly bad one on the Ratcliffe Highway Murders which somehow manages to omit the names of both the victims and the murderer and the fact that the latter was buried at the cross-roads with a stake through his heart....which I thought might JUST be worthy of mention...Nothing much on 'The Jago' either (just an article on Morrison) and a pretty bad entry for Bethnal Green which omits to tell us where it is....Some very strained attempts to master the English language as well...Colin4C 02:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As someone who produces much tortured prose, myself; I sympaphise with the perpretrators. The main thing is

• a) to cover, however briefly the important topics in the East End (there are some areas in Hackney that just about say harmless;
• b) attempt to expand them with local history and other detail (eh, mostly harmless);
• c) correct the worst horrors, even revisiting our own stuff!
• d) Maintain a list of areas that need attention, and then clock them when either of us have time.
• e) Aim to increase quality, both in our own and others work

I think the fact that there's someone else actively working on the material is a big help. Everybody need editing, and everyone needs reining back sometimes from my more extravagent excursions ...

I'd go ahead and change anything you feel particularly interested in, especially where they're factually deficient. Kbthompson 09:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to burden yourself on my account Kb.....but....Just a bit bothered about 'The Jago' (aka 'The Boundary Estate'). I guess, if it is not indeed an entity in itself, it must be in Bethnal Green, certainly over the Shoreditch boundary. 'Bethnal Green' seems such an amorphous area though....however I'm not a born and bred East-Ender, so what do I know...I was also looking unsuccesfully for a reference to the 'London Burkers' (Bishop and Head) who conducted their body-snatching activities in this area (see 'The Italian Boy' by Sarah Wise)Colin4C 10:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Boundary was the world's (?) first council estate, built by a prepubescent LCC, complete with a bandstand in the middle to entertain the masses. All the areas are amorphous - they all were part of larger units - even Hackney was a part of 'Stepney' at one time! They sub-divided like amoeba with the growth in population. Nothing on London bodysnatchers turned up, except a 'paid for article' in the Surgeon Kbthompson 11:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit of an article Cromwell knocked about a bit?

Hello again Kb. I've just been rewriting part of the Music hall article so that it at least approximates the known basic facts of the matter and removed stuff which was irrelevent/stupid/false. That is one seriously bad article and needs a lot of work.....Colin4C 16:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Colin. I only contributed the section about surviving music halls; buildings being a particular interest of mine; and the article being particularly short in letting people know what was being talked about. The rest of the article was more than a little lengthy, and well to put it frankly, didn't read like an interesting story. You've done a good bit towards tidying that up.I think there's a bit of a jump (now) into the late period, but that probably reflects the relative importance of the buildings. From the Georgian period, Whitechapel/Mile End Road had over 100 (200?) music halls along it's length - most music rooms in pubs; some large purpose built. There should be some of this in the Charlie Booth archive.

Busy week for me, might not get too much time to look at stuff! Kbthompson 09:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your section is very good. I just had time to put in the bare minimum of info about the development of the music hall, mentioning e.g. how 'variety theatre' of the late 19th century subsumed the older music hall tradition. One interesting thing I've realised is how the development of the modern pub as-we-know-it with the saloon bar is essentially linked to the provision of entertainment in said saloon bar. Beforehand I guess your pub or tavern had a whole different ambience. This equation between saloon bar and music hall must account for the vast numbers of them you mention along Whitechapel/Mile End Road. Colin4C 10:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the best was the Lord Rodneys' Head - sadly now a supermarket - it had a glass roofed music room at the back, and you could see the previous layout in the ceiling (always look at the ceiling ...) Most refurbs of pubs these days are complete strip out jobs, and all 'authenticity' is added later! Laterly, the saloon was an area with a carpet and comfy chairs, with a couple of pence on the price, but entertainment was much the same idea. Kbthompson 11:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot Architecture Tags

Hmm. In that it's a physical structure, presumably designed by an architect, Aldgate is an architectural creation. I realize that the connection isn't quite the strongest ever drawn. My bot is tagging articles found in Category:Buildings and structures by country, which, presumably, if categorized correctly, have relevance to Wikiproject architecture. I hope that helps. Alphachimp 01:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A physical structure that no longer exists in an architectural form; was put together by 'rule of thumb builders' ... Certainly no architects were harmed in the construction of this object ... Kbthompson 08:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

haha. anyway, I'm just explaining why it was tagged. Feel free to remove it if you want. It is a wiki after all :). Alphachimp 13:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nyet ne probleme Kbthompson 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wilton's Music Hall

Hi, K (or b, as the case may be). I saw in the Music hall article that Hoxton Hall now has an article, so I hastened to put in a link at Leeds City Varieties. I couldn't understand why there isn't an article for Wilton's, so redlinked it to add to the one in List of Restoration candidates, and googled for other references (can you tell that I'm a librarian? ex-Leeds University, actually), intending to put up a stub from online sources. Then I found myself doing major surgery on Deborah Warner and ran out of time.

Anyway, I've never visited Wilton's (must do it soon), so I'm sure you're in a better position to start an article. Do you know the Theatre Trust database? The Wilton's entry is here and looks well worth plundering. Best, Andrew (GuillaumeTell 17:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

The New Standard Theatre

Hello again Kb. Although I like your picture of the New Standard Theatre in the Music hall article I can't help questioning whether the New Standard Theatre was in fact a music hall...According to my info it was a regular theatre... Colin4C 11:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The New Standard was a strange place, it was a music hall, but aimed to provide a 'higher class' of entertainment. It would provide normal music hall entertainments, until people like the Royal Ballet had finished their normal performances, and then came down to do an extra late 'gig' at the New Standard. I think it's fair to use it here, as many of the stars listed performed there, and I found an image of the Canterbury to put in the article further up! It also hosted touring performances of straight theatre ... Point taken, if I found something better, I'd replace it. Note variety acts and concert performances Kbthompson 11:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I clarified that in the caption (still awaiting a better image). Found an image of Hetty King on some sheet music, and added that to Shoreditch, as she was born there. Liked the joke so much, I added it to the boro' page as well! Kbthompson 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hands of the Ripper...

Hello again Kb. Just to say that there is a new series starting Tuesday on Channel 5 on Jack the Ripper which you might be interested in. I doubt that they will turn up any new evidence but its always fun to see 'the usual suspects' (the Masons, the Duke of Clarence, Sickert, Patricia Cornwall) do their jolly music-hall turn as the audience gasp in horror (and despair...) Colin4C 11:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ta, with Five, it can either be good, or just plain piss poor ... you just never know Kbthompson 11:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 20:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, I used it in the sense to which it is usually and commonly used, i.e to denote the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Commonwealth, that existed in the historical period referred to. cheers, Kbthompson 20:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Vestry authority?

Never heard that term before: I suggest civil parish would be correct: the vestry was the governing authority of the parish.Lozleader 17:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I capitalised Vestry (cap), and used the word authority (non-cap) in the normal sense, of well authority, if it were related to the poor law responsibilities, I would probably have used the word 'board', but Vestry (eh) authority was more the lay responsibilities of the vestry - if you can think of a better term, then please do ... The problem is that in this field, authority is also a term relating to 'legal bodies'. My only excuse, my brain was overheated from converting between acres and km^2 .... Kbthompson 18:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wooooowh! Never, never use parishes in the sense of Finsbury - it's the Vestry that has the civil authority, ecclesiastical authority only is vested in the parish! It's the vestry what does the business, because it's what they call an elected body (in London since 1835) - as opposed to the appointees on the parish! Kbthompson 23:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Shoreditch Town Hall

Hi Kb. I'm sorry if the picture is obscuring the stats on your computer monitor. You can move it again if you like: I didn't realize that wikipedia pages look different when viewed on different machines....Colin4C 20:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

cheers col, doesn't matter unless I look at it again ... just something to bear in mind when editing, not everyone has same screen resolution/settings. God knows what a 'screen talker' would make of it; don't think wiki has ever heard of disability guidelines. Kbthompson 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Vestries in London

Do you think there's mileage in starting a series of pages on the Vestries and District Boards which ran London before the London Government Act 1899? (And if so, how would be best?) I have quite a bit of information which could be put there. Sam Blacketer 14:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are already some pages in existence in wikipedia on the civil parishes of London: run by the Vestry authorities. There is certainly one for Shoreditch. Bearing in mind that technically it (and other authorities) weren't in London at all: but rather in Middlesex. Colin4C 15:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a kinda good idea, Sam; but again one of those rods to beat yourself with. There are what, 32 London boroughs, 80-odd metropolitan, 200-odd vestries and odd things. I got caught out in Finsbury - most of it's constituents weren't even vestries; and there's the Holborn Board of Works to consider (about 1800). It all gets very complicated (Norton Folgate x 200!) ... Some of them will be the same as modern districts, some very different. At what 'time' would they be, there were major reorganisations of the parishes in at least 1835, and 1865, possibly more. In some cases, articles on ecclesiastic organisation exist like Hackney (parish), in others, they just don't.

I think what would probably be better would be to write a brief piece on the constituent parts of each metro boro, under the metro boro - and then if it warrants it, they can be split out into separate articles later.

I had a quick look at some of the other metro boros today, and horrified myself at the copy editing that needs to be done to bring them all into some semblance of similarity. I don't think it's a priority for the Wiki London project, as they're still caught up in trying to handle modern day London! To summarise, I think there's probably too much mileage in it! Kbthompson 15:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What I was thinking of was just one page for each Vestry or District Board from 1855. The District Board pages would refer to each constituent Vestry. The sort of information to be included: population and area (I have got that), description of the area (say from the Charles Booth or Henry Mayhew), its representatives on the Metropolitan Board, and its politics generally. Sam Blacketer 15:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in replying, and brevity - up to ears in sharp snappy things. Should be great, as long as it's not too confusing having an ecclesiastic body and a civil authority with the same name on the same page. At that time, there was much confusion, as they were still absorbing liberties and other historical anomalies into the system. Our old friend Norton Folgate, being a case in point, where some responsibilities were taken away from them for failing to organise anything properly - like being amongst the first to have gaslight, but not having proper paved streets, or sewerage ... It's a difficult job, so good luck to you! I'll try to help with formatting and editing once life returns to normal.

What might ultimately be a good idea is to go back and insert

Main article: flobalot

in some of the historical entries I've done against districts in Hackney to link into the parishes. I'll think about that one, I don't think it's a good idea to bury too much history at that level, rather keep the parish/vestry entries for organisational, population and contemporary politics.

Once free, I'll return to wiki-tabling the pop stats; if that's OK with you. Kbthompson 12:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bearing in mind Occam's Razor on the inadvisability of multiplying essences and/or wikipedia articles beyond human endurance, I'd just like to say that in the particular case of Shoreditch (parish) there is already an article devoted to the civil and ecclesiastical parish of said district as run by aforesaid Vestry + the local vicar respectively. Therefore I think it would be inadvisable to divorce the civil parish authority (the Vestry) from the civil parish itself and give it a seperate article. See also Duns Scotus on how many angels you can dance on the head of a pin whilst lost in the backstreets of Norton Folgate to name but one place... Colin4C 13:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Col, I wasn't thinking of divorce, just suggesting Sam bear in mind that the two authorities don't necessarily share the same territory; I would agree that there should not be a proliferation of unnecessary articles. I thought Sam was proposing extending the parish articles from their (usual) state of stubbiness. I already noted that it's a rather big job, with possibly a small readership (mainly us!).

Again, apologies, but I will be doing some work in 'real life' for at least the next 24 ... Kbthompson 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

unrelated, I know, but a stub has been created for Britannia Theatre, out of Hoxton; Col might wish to keep a watching eye. At the moment, it's very stubby and contains little more than was in the Hoxton article. Kbthompson 13:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw it and even added an extra paragraph...Colin4C 18:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Horror of Dracula

Hello again Kb. I'm getting some flak from the Dracula talk page, about countenancing the existence of the new Count Dracula (fictional character) article, which I have added stuff to (though didn't create). To my mind there is a conceptual distinction to be made between the fictional character 'Count Dracula' and the novel 'Dracula'. What do you think? By the way, all the other major characters in the novel have their own seperate articles: Van Helsing, Harker, Mina, Lucy, Renfield etc etc. Colin4C 14:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't quite share your Gothic fascinations, although recently I've tried being 'the phantom of the opera' over at the Royal Opera House; they had lots about opera and ballet and completely ignored the first 150 years of its existence (ie theatre!). I'll be putting in the clown stuff next, which will probably excite the same degree of 'boffo' that you're encountering.

Always dangerous to ask me what I think ... I'll take a little mosey along. Off hand, I think you're right in that there is now a distinct 'legend of Dracula' in fiction which is quite independent of the original novel. Kbthompson 23:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Burlesque edit

By all means, if you would like to edit the burlesque site in reference to the edit, go for it. --Signaleer 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A conversation I had at a bar many years ago:

Me: 'I heard you had strippers on here?'

Club landlord:'Sir you are mistaken! However we do feature 'go-go' dancers

Me: 'ohhhh - so that's just topless?'

Club landord: 'No sir: full nudity!'

Me: 'ah.....right......I see.....'

A conversation I had last week: Me: 'I heard you had strippers on here?' Club landlord: 'Sir you are mistaken! However we do have a burlesque evening' Me 'ohhhh...so that's just.....etc etc.' Colin4C 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yer pays yer money and takes yer choice ... had something of a communication breakdown? I used to go to a serious film club in Soho, by day it was a strip club. Every now and then, a customer would come to an evening performance, and depart when they found it wasn't up to their expectations. Kbthompson 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I've heard all about those 'Art' films....especially that one with Catherine Deneuve getting mud thrown at her....Colin4C 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Isabelle Huppert, isn't Deneuve a bit before your time? I've been trying to rescue Theatre Workshop from stubbiness, and a merge for no apparent reason with East 15 Acting School; I'd welcome anything you could add. Kbthompson 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bow

Kbtompson,

Thanks for your message about Bow, London. I'll try and explain things a little. Firstly, I am actually a member of the UK geo project - the guidelines you mention are guidelines only and not part of wikipedia's policy. They are also somewhat outdated amd I'll try to update that asap. Given I'm a member of the project (I predominantly work on the Greater Manchester area articles), as an example of my work please see Shaw and Crompton which is bestowed with WP:GA status by UK geo and Wikipedia itself, and thus an example of which to aspire towards.

Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (in combination), standalone years, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (unless the article is about time/dates itself or the date is spelt out in full (DD/MM/YY)). Should you want Bow, London to conform to the strictest and highest of standards, this is a necessety for taking the article further.

Per the lead section (which is too short per WP:LEAD), the 4.6 miles should be spelt out in words rather than numbers, with the metric conversion being scripted with numbers (I can't think of the policy but it is out there!)

I don't remember including a "civic administration" section; I included a "civic history section" - this section is increasingly commonplace for UK geo settlements, as it groups together the "civic/administrative" history within one section, and generally improves the flow of the history section itself, without having to splice the two together. This also aids in conforming Manual of Style, as well as outlining that the settlement had a different administrative history as it does today (a feature common on other encyclopedias). Also some contents of the current administration section you re-instated, relate to a current frame of geo-administration, rather than a historic one.

I hope that helps a little. Do get back to me if need be. Jhamez84 18:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you chose to think about the ammendments - though be mindful not to hold the page to randsom, so to speak; it is considered good practice, as well as good manners to allow others to contribute to, and revamp sections and articles. I would urge a few additional points:

The word "The" should not be used in section titles, (please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)).

Yes time is a continum (!), but categorising everything as history is not helpful to users (and certainly not an approach used in the highest standards of work. As articles mature it is often appropriate to create new sections, to improve copyediting and content prose.

Again, per the dates policy, standalone years/months/etc should not be linked, unless it is about years and dates etc.

I actually have the article's best interests at heart here and would like to see it improved. Jhamez84 21:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(force retirement) replies on other user page Kbthompson 17:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Kennington Road

Just to say that if you are ever on a pub crawl south of the river, in search of Chapliana and music-hall memories that (mostly) I have produced this handy cut-out-and-keep guide: Kennington Road. I would have probably benifited from the appropriate Pevsner guide, but I could tell that those terraces were Regency...even after the effects of the London Pride. Colin4C 12:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ta, I used to hang out in Kennington a lot, but these days, like taxi drivers, I don't go sarth od the river .... Kbthompson 12:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hands of the Ripper

Hello again Kb. I am encountering the ultimate 'dog-in-a-manger' editor at the Jack the Ripper article. He seems to have adopted a policy of serially reverting all my edits and then personally abusing me in the Talk page. I think he (denoted merely by a number) has been unthinkingly reverting new edits there for years. For instance he has just blanked out an entire section on the 'Whitechapel Murders' which I just added and has threatened to serially revert it till doomsday, just out of a fit of pique I think. As Whitechapel murders automatically redirects to Jack the Ripper I thought that people there should have the benifit of knowing what they were: there were eleven Whitechapel murders, of which the 'canonical five' are a subset. Help! Colin4C 11:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Having made an edit at that page, in dim history, it's on my watchlist, so I do the occasional 'rvt vandalism'. I made some suggestions in that talk area, that I hope will allow it to move forward. I'm not sufficiently up on Ripparian matters to make significant contributions to the debate. I would suspect anonymous has been previously banned for pulling such tricks. I would suggest patience, you get too caught up in these things, and ultimately, it's not worth it. People do feel a very personal sense of ownership of these things; no more so, than Ripper-perts! Kbthompson 11:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Kb. As you suggest these things are not good for ones blood pressure. However I think the problem with 'Anon' is that his bullying tactics are a tried and tested way he has been using for ages to scare off other editors from the Ripper page. He is most definately not interested in compromise as in his lights his tactics always work, leaving him the incumbent dog-in-the-manger. Would be nice if people could be nice to one another in this world...Colin4C 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, sorry it carries on. I'm not sure how you bring these things to a moderator's attention, or even if that's worthwhile. I've found the ripper page interesting, and also your changes. As I say, collaboration invariably improves things, dogmatism isn't particularly useful. I don't understand why the other editor is 'all-or-nothing', but you do seem to attract these people.

There does seem a sense in which wiki editing is a hiding to nothing, what with all the vandalism and people who make changes without actually reading what they're changing ... if I had a penny for everybody who mistakes Hackney Central for LBH, I'd be a rich man ... Never mind, I do it to increase my knowledge ... I can now bore for Britain on Tudor Hackney ... beginning to have trouble finding my way around the modern streets! And as for going to Stepney, now spend all my time looking over my shoulder for Burkers! Keep at it, some agreement is always possible when people stop shaking their dongs at each other. I think your latest friend remains anon because he's already pulled the trick and been pulled before, I think it's probably a he, could be a sock-puppet! Kbthompson 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My new section on the Whitechapel Murders has now been reverted and re-reverted about 4 times in 4 days accompanied by a chorus of vitriolic personal abuse against me in the Talk Page. I am seriously wondering whether it is worth fighting with these bullies. I also wonder whether 'Anon' is the abusive alter ego, who does the dirty work for a 'respectable' editor with a real name. The sort of Jeckyll and Hyde approach to editing. Anyway, I have left a version of my edit on 'The Whitechapel Murders' in the talk page of the Jack the Ripper article, so that some people at least will have a chance of making an informed judgement. Colin4C 11:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

All the more reason to show your maturity by allowing things to die down for a few days, then restart the discussion in the talk pages. Gather your reasons for why the material should be included and avoid being drawn into arguing with anon. Its a distraction and, I suspect, the game anon wants to play. There's a link to a collection of user space templates on my user page that can be used in extremis, but as I say let it lie. People play political games on wiki, and that somehow makes me depressed ... Kbthompson 11:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's sound advice Kb. People are so much nicer at our Gothic horror page. Even the vandals are nicer there...Colin4C 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Vandals and the Goths were always close ... Don't let it get you down. Kbthompson 17:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Road Market

Nice work Kb. Our next task: Ratcliff Highway murders. At the moment this article by some weird oversight names neither the victims or the murderer.....Colin4C 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, needs more work ... See also Hackney Wick for the tale of Muller. Kbthompson 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Now a seperate article at London Burkers, see also Ratcliff Highway murders, also need an article on the River Police Establishment or River Police force - added a link to their history on Ratcliffe ... Kbthompson 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Done Marine Police Force. Kbthompson 17:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot and Gender issues in the British theatre and music hall

Hi, Kb! Actually, I noticed the same issue and marked those two to be reviewed manually. Both of them are in Category:Drag queens, which is how SatyrBot found them and tagged them (with my oversight). But while I'm working in SatyrBot mode, I don't make changes to the categories, just to assess the class of the article. If something catches my attention, I'll bring it up at WP:LGBT and get some input from others.

In this case, I think I agree with you that those two are mis-categorized. If you feel so inclined, delete the category and the tag. If you don't, I'm going to check with the WikiProject, but I suspect we'll agree to do the same.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC) (retirement when ready) q/a on other user's page Kbthompson 08:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Britannia

I'm pretty certain that the Britannia opened as a theatre, with the intention of putting on plays hence the name: 'The Britannia Theatre'. Although to begin with (before the law was changed in 1843) plays were strictly illegal outside the two licenced ones in Convent Garden, that didn't stop people (including the proprietor of the Britannia) breaking the law and putting on such plays. The first proper Music Halls, such as the Middlesex etc belong to a later period: the 1850's. The unusual thing about the Britannia was that it served drinks in the auditorium as per a music hall, but, to re-iterate, it opened as a theatre before the world had ever heard the term 'music hall'. It was a lot later (in the 1880s) that music-hall and theatre got confused under the name of 'variety theatre'. Colin4C 19:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find ANY reference where the Britannia is described as a Music Hall. Every ref I have seen describes it as a theatre, mentioning the plays put on etc:

Mrs . Lane, who was so well beloved of the surrounding districts that she could go alone unmolested where policemen had to go in couples, served up such shockers as " Sweeney Todd, tile Barber Fiend of Fleet Street," "Maria Martin," or "The Murder in the Red Barn," &c. In 1851 James Anderson was engaged at a salary of £ 180 per week to play Shakespearean parts.

Music Halls did not do melodramas and they did not do Shakespeare! Colin4C 19:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, they did ... Kbthompson 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But that's a programme from the Britannia THEATRE - which proves my point...Colin4C 11:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary description of contents of BFI film archive entitled Busy scenes outside an East London music hall. Kbthompson 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, in the 1880's or so theatre and music-hall got confused under the designation 'variety theatre', this mostly involved 'theatres' putting on music-hall acts, never music-halls putting on plays. Music Halls were not licensed to stage plays. The true Music Halls were explicitly called 'Music Halls' in the actual signage on the top of the establishment and in the programmes. Hence you had the 'Middlesex Music Hall' , the 'Oxford Music Hall' etc. Your reference above is not contemporary, but rather a modern confusion. All the 19th century programmes and descriptions call the Britannia theatre a theatre cos that's what it was...Also performing a music-hall act at a venue does not tranform that venue ipso-facto into a 'Music-Hall': in later times Cinemas interpersed the films with music-hall acts - this did not tranform said cinemas into 'Music Halls'. Colin4C 11:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that in the 19th to early 20th century there were many large bona fide theatres (as opposed to Music Halls) in the East End of London, which are now almost all defunct. The present concentration of theatres in the West End in just an historical accident of survival and an indication of a social trend by which theatre going in the twentieth century eventually became confined to the middle class. According to Weightman ('Bright Lights, Big City') in the 19th century up to about 1900 theatre going was a cheap popular entertainment for the working classes. Then came the cumulative decline in taste in which, in turn, music-halls, cinemas and bingo became the preffered option of a night out, as TV meantime transformed them all into a generation of couch-potatos...Colin4C 11:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete list of 19th century East-End THEATRES:

The Pavilion Theatre, Whitechapel (1828)

City of London Theatre, Bishopsgate (1834)

The Standard Theatre, Shoreditch (1835)

The Britannia Theatre, Hoxton (1840)

All these were in existence before the rise of the Music Hall proper (in the 1850's) and all of them (illegally at first!) staged plays. The classic book about such East-End Theatres is 'East End Entertainment' by A.E. Wilson, which lists a whole lot more theatres in the East End which I cannot remember at this moment off the top of my head...I will retrieve said book from our local library and give you more comprehensive info.... Colin4C 11:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to look into it some more, there is a 1903 reference (in British Library) about the Britannia moving from the melodrama to the music hall circuit (owners of the Palace chain); but this conflicts with the current information about its fate between 1900 and 1913 (dark). It all needs much more investigation. I will give you that many of the playbills I've seen say Sarah Lane is licensed by the Lord Chamberlain. Which would place it more under the auspices of the theatre legislation, for that part of its life. Kbthompson 14:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the original premises sold food and drink in the auditorium, had tables, had standing room round the side and galleries above. I'd say it was a music hall of the saloon style! Now, after the introduction of the theatre act, it rebuilt itself pretty quickly - but still appears to have served food and drink in the auditorium, quite unlike any other theatre. It certainly had pretensions, but also knew what its audience wanted. Kbthompson 14:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Things

Thanks for your message Kb. As for me I'm keeping a low profile at the moment, though I did do a bit of 'original research' last week in darkest Hackney, East London at the site of the Sebright Music Hall: gone, but there is a pub opposite called 'The Sebright Arms', which has a notice advertising music-hall acts every Friday....which it seems is an old notice giving out-of-date information...As a student of industrial archaeology and urban dereliction I also found fascinating the railway journey from Liverpool St to Cambridge Heath Road...Colin4C 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear you're still around. That ride has always been strange, particularly the low level track bed underneath. Used to run into Bishopsgate goods yard, and you could walk into there from holes in the fence around Brick Lane. The other way, you could get to Poplar goods yard on the Isle of Dogs. All gone now.

The track below is now going to be used to carry the Crossrail spoil out of central London, a conveyor belt, rattling away 24 hours a day for three years, past the backs of those now expensive, Spitalfields/Brick Lane houses. I guess once it's been used for that, you'll see extensive redevelopment.

I've been in the Sebright, don't think I was impressed enough to go again!

All the best.

ps this page now auto-archives, and I've begun playing with popups, both useful tools. Kbthompson 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Going Down the Strand

The Gaiety Theatre, London looks OK to me, Kb. However, its location, Strand, London leaves a lot to be desired. You'd never guess from this page that the Strand was the centre of Victorian nightlife in all meanings of that term: from theatre to 'ladies of the night' (vide the dubious Walter's infamous 'Secret Life' available from any Soho bookshop). Colin4C 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was actually located on the Aldwych, and they built the new Indian High commission on it (I only ever looked at it because of the Lupinos!) ... I thought the article was a bit US-PoV (Burlesque has never been a UK speciality). Anyway, give the gentleman his head, and have a look when he's finished. His understanding of London theatre may change by the end.

There's a lot of work to be done on London theatres. Kbthompson 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work on the Gaiety Theatre and other articles. You are right in surmising that my understanding of London geography, then and now, is tenuous, so feel free to spruce these up. I have been trying to write about London theatres that were famous for hosting G&S works (Royalty, Gaiety, Opera Comique, Savoy, Sadlers Wells), but it is difficult without having your background, so I appreciate all the help. I've pretty much done what I can, so if you can improve them further, by all means do. I am a big G&S fan (see WP:G&S), but I realize (realise!) that I need some help from the natives! Note the W. S. Gilbert article that we upgraded to FA status. -- Best regards! -- Ssilvers 16:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

... and well done for making the start. I didn't want to interfere too much when you were still in full flow, but all articles benefit from collaborators and the editing process. It's interesting that we all start from such different perspectives and end up bumping into each other ... There is another user who has expressed an interest in London theatre at WP:London talk page. It is a big topic, with lots of sub-topics within it, I'd hesitate to suggest a project, because it ends up knocking with G&S, Elizabethan theatre, Music hall addicts and history projects. I'm still trying to get my head around the difference between Opera Comique and Opera Burlesque.

Anyway, welcome to London, now if you exit the (demolished) theatre through the main door, and head down the Strand for about 500m, you will find the Savoy on your right ... there you can still (sometimes) hear G&S (although it's next production is Porgy & Bess) ... -- User:Kbthompson

Adelphi Theatre

I just expanded the Adelphi Theatre article. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks for all the great work! As to theatres in general, that's not my focus, so I think I'm pretty much done with what I can do on these articles. I'm more interested in the musicals that played there. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Supper time! (Actually, got a meeting), will have a look later. Cheers! Kbthompson 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I went back in to the Adelphi Theatre article and added a link backing up some of your info and couple headings and put the info in more chronological order. The article is looking much better, but it could use a few more references/links if you have any. Thanks, and best regards! -- Ssilvers 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll revisit it when I have more time. One of the problems with active theatres is that there are too many contemporary references on a search to tease out the more interesting stuff. Usually you can dig by looking at peripheral terms, like the architects and managers. I did read somewhere that performance should be listed in reverse chronological order, I don't expect you (or me) to change it, but it's worth thinking about for the future - the logic is that most recent awards/performance are more highly relevant. I don't know about you, but I find that distinctly counter-intuitive. Again, well done for fleshing out some of the neglected areas of London - it's a big city, but someone has to write about it. Kbthompson 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I just tinkered with it a little, in a copyedit. It's beginning to look more like a respectable article, than a stub! Be good to get a few more images (say interior), but looking through my normal sources, I've not seen anything that can be legitimately nicked. Kbthompson 17:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

East London

The original situation was that East London pointed to the South African city. At the end of January, this page was moved to East London, South Africa and a new disambiguation page was made at East London (which is now at East London (disambiguation). The proposal I have made is to redo the move of the South African city from East London to East London, South Africa. Sam Blacketer 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, my disagreement would be on the basis of (a) habitual usage, and (b) consistency with the other sub-regions of London. East London is not an amorphous region, but one with definite boundaries imposed by the GLA and national government.

I had thought, that at least at some stage it did point to the real East London (accept no substitutes); but if I was wrong about that, then I apologise, not least for the many edits you've had to DAB. Kbthompson 17:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't know you've arrived until you get vandalised - that's two

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 65.12.162.36 06:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What got your goat, Mr/Ms Anonymous User, some reversion of vandalism? Kbthompson 10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably another disgruntled bilious banned sock-puppet...Colin4C 16:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Music Halls

Thanks for the reference Kb. I'm intrigued that there was a music hall in Leman Street (which still hosts dancing girls at a certain venue...Inspector Abberline's (of Ripper fame) police station is there also (very handy for the opium dens of Limehouse - but I digress...)). Colin4C 16:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm struggling with the idea of creating a category former music halls of London; but it's very twisted in that some fall across the cat theatre and former theatre. Still, now Garrick Theatre (Leman St) is nicely stubbi ... The location and ownership may indicate a link to Yiddish theatre, but maybe not. That's an even more untold tale, than that of music halls (it verges on the dreaded original research). Kbthompson 17:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just been to the library today and forgot to pick up anything on music halls. Doh! Just to reiterate that I'm no great expert on the subject, just that in the Kingdom of the Blind Wikipedians the One-Eyed Man is often King, especially when it comes to general, synthetic or theoretical articles or stuff the Yanks know nothing about (i.e. English culture and the English sensibility). People here are great on detail but often fall down badly when trying to make sense of things in a wider perspective. Colin4C 19:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Burlesque

Good question. I'm not an expert here, but I don't think you're right. W. S. Gilbert, for instance, called many of his plays (both musical and non-musical) "burlesques". I think that, nowadays, British people would call this form Travesty. See the articles for Travesty and Burlesque (genre). Frankly, I think Wikipedia's coverage of the entire subject is a little inconsistent and confused currently. If you can add any clarity, please do so by all means, but I think that many British Victorian authors referred to their low comedy works as burlesque. By the way, there is also some confusion with Victorian melodrama, pantomime and other forms, as well as "variety", "vaudeville", "music hall", etc., and indeed, I believe that in the Victorian era, many stage works mixed elements of the various comic forms. Whew!! I'll stop talking now. -- Ssilvers 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, it goes some way to explaining my confusion. The burlesque page is too caught up in the modern form, so doesn't really go into historic detail. The main problem in the UK was the patent theatre act, this denied 'spoken performance' (except in very limited forms) beyond the patent theatres. This meant that nearly everything had to be accompanied by music, and more generally to include variety in order to distance itself form 'serious theatre'. I still imagine them tap-dancing through Banquo's ghost scene ... I've had this row with Colin4c, as one theatre (of that time) we were talking about clearly included variety in its 'serious' drama.

I need to read more, and preferably not from wiki! Kbthompson 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently (see Surrey Theatre), you could do anything you wanted, so long as it had musical accompaniment of some kind. So, all the theatres had a piano, and a guy played the piano while the play was going on. Melodrama was a sort of play where there was musical underscoring all the time anyway, and I think most "Burlesques" had actual musical numbers, which were, at least in some cases, silly lyrics set to well-known melodies, like "Greensleeves" or something from Mozart. Maybe some of the "external links" will help you. Good luck! -- Ssilvers 04:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Melodrama is another pretty bad wikipedia entry. There is a lot about the highly specialised usage of the term in opera and just a tiny bit about the more usual usage concerning the blood and thunder Victorian melodramas. And just to add that the term 'melodrama' was imported from Germany to England without anybody having any clear understanding of its true etymology, therefore to use the etymology retroactively to explain the characteristics of this genre of plays is to make an error....Colin4C 11:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

... and all we wanted to do was do better justice to some of the theatre articles! Now we have to rewrite the history of the British theatre ... I don't think the external links are that good on the subject. They have a tendency to fudge the issue. You're both right, it's not a coherent narrative, and in fact the articles are sometimes (internally, even) contradictory.

anyone any ideas on getting Keppel & Betty through fair use? Kbthompson 11:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

BAFTA award

I did look to the site, and they list the awards as the 2007 Orange British Academy Film Awards. I also assumed because both the Golden Globes and Oscars, although dealing with films that opened in 2006, were listed under 2007, the BAFTA should also be listed under 2007 since that is when Helen Mirren actually won the award. I won't push the issue, however; just don't assume there isn't two ways of looking at it. María: (habla ~ cosas) 14:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, not least because the awards ceremonies are held in the succeeding year. I think the main principle should be consistency between the various wiki pages. I think everyone's been doing it in good faith, but I really can't bear to see it yo-yo'ing back and forth. Page 25 of bafta list makes it clear that the award is for 2006, presented in 2007. Perhaps it would stop this if that were made clear in the article. Kbthompson 14:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:1939 Wilson, Keppel and Betty.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:1939 Wilson, Keppel and Betty.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Angr 07:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use tags added, with copyright details. Hopefully, that will scrape it through the process. It's for this reason I try to avoid anything published after 1923! Kbthompson 11:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince of Wales's Theatre

It appears that this theatre was built long before the theatre now known as The Prince of Wales Theatre and it is not clear which of the many articles that link to the latter really played at the former. I am afraid that I have confused the issue for several months. Can you do anything to comb out this mess? Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This will probably have to wait til Monday, the sun's out, temperatures a nice spring like 61F, and we're off to the coast! Kbthompson 23:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've made a start. I removed the ambiguity by renaming the former theatre the Scala Theatre; haven't removed any redirects for the moment. All refs to it were changed to Scala Theatre|Prince of Wale's Theatre.

The modern theatre has no mention of G&S at [1] - which I think it would, as it's reasonably substantial. So, left all refs to former theatre intact for moment. I shall endeavour to look into the history of both theatres, but now have to go and do some work (not too much, I hope). Kbthompson 11:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Great job! I added some info to both articles, but particularly the Scala article needs more content. BTW, not G&S, just Gilbert. His play The Palace of Truth is referenced here.[2] Thanks! -- Ssilvers 15:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I had thought there was a confusing overlap, but in fact Scala Theatre->1865 PoW->1886 Sally Army Hostel.

1884 Princes Theatre-> 1886 PoW

So, there should be no problem. Kbthompson 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Kb. Please take a look at Prince of Wales Theatre. I think you'll find it somewhat improved! Any comments/changes welcome. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 00:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to split Fortune Theatre -> Fortune Theatre + Fortune Playhouse (historic). This will leave the modern theatre very stubby, but I can't get any responses as to whether this is a good idea, or not. Just massive disinterest, or the usual wiki crowd thing of waiting until you've actually done it, and then whingeing for the sake of whingeing. There's about fifty links to them both - most of which will have to be changed to the old theatre - so, I'm trying to come to terms with AWB. Kbthompson 09:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That is nice, and so much easier when there's no confusion. I am wondering about how to generally improve the structure of theatre articles. There's a historical progression for the building; there's a history of management; there's performance and then there's the actors. At the moment, there ends up a lot of detail about performance in the article, and that can be somewhat difficult to read. Perhaps we should extend the introduction - make that an executive summary of important events in the life of the theatre; and retain the detail below it? I started out doing a historical section for an inner city suburb recently, and began doing it historically and ended up doing it by topic. 's funny how these things work out ... Kbthompson 10:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Kb. I've added a theatre section to Strand, London, stressing the historical importance of this area to things theatrical, and listed current and defunct theatres on the road. It is a very small section so far - but it's a start...Some of the rest of the article looks dubious and clumsily phrased...and probably needs attention also...Colin4C 12:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I've got to go Nat Trusting in a minute, I'll try to give it some attention later. Kbthompson 12:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, had a quick shufty. Not sure to limit this to Victorian era. The patent theatres were just off it, and also a lot of historic theatres. Fiddled with the page, rather than making any substantive changes before I've slept on it. Somewhere, there's a London Theatre template to go across the bottom of a page. It should go on the bottom of all live theatres, perhaps. It might be someone's pet project, but probably worth trying to persuade them to put it up. Kbthompson 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mosley Mob

Just to inform you that Stephen Dorril's damning new bio of Oswold Mosley: 'Blackshirt' has just been published in paperback (£9.99 from Penguin). Of interest to the study of East-End Fascism of the 'Knees up Eva Braun' variety: as well as the Cable Street fracas, apparantly Mosley stood as a candidate for Shoreditch after the war...(but lost). Colin4C 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Mosley really didn't have a lot to do with the East End. He and his supporters were parachuted into an area where they thought the right social conditions existed to commence the disorder that his particular revolution required. A bit like the BNP marching through Deptford and Lewisham, in the 70s.

I was told, by a family member, that their headquarters were on Cambridge Heath Rd, but they couldn't use it, because people in the surrounding flats saved their nightsoil and deposited it on the head of any passing fascists. As far as I understand, his real power base was in the Midlands.

Most recent East End fascism has been of the envy variety, where the white community felt that everything was being done for BME, and nothing for them. There's now the rise in the BME community of resentment towards new immigrants from Eastern Europe. Basically, you can never win. Kbthompson 11:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read there was a lot of indigenous resentment against the Jews in the East End (which fear Mosley played upon) - which even led to anti-Semitic riots during WW2. This sort of stuff however usually gets air-brushed from history and nobody can quite remember it afterwards...(For instance did you know that during Britain's 'finest hour' (1940) the War Minister Hore-Belisha was replaced, for no apparent reason, except that he was a Jew?). If you do enough digging into the historical records you can find some pretty unsavory stuff which often belies the English self-image of tolerence: I have a photo from 1938 showing a huge urban crowd doing a Fascist salute in the direction of some agitator. Belin? Vienna? No actually its Bermondsey...Colin4C 12:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Southwark

I believe MRSC's edits are right; it's a reorganisation of the London Postcode pages. Cheers Kbthompson 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Show me where the debate is so I can join in. --Henrygb 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

They were part of changes made to support Template talk:Infobox UK place. It would be best for you to make your comments there. Kbthompson 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

London theatres box

I noticed that you added the box, and it looks good. However, the link to Almeida does not take one to the theatre. However, there is a Wiki Almeida Theatre article, so maybe you can adjust the box to get to the correct article. I'm not sure how it is done. All the best, Viva-Verdi 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I checked most of them, and am currently going through checking the contents. Naturally, West End first ... I'll get to it, and correct. As I go through, I'm finding a lot of errors that require correction, so it's quite time consuming. Kbthompson 16:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The box is a nice way to navigate around from theatre to theatre, and there is a similar one for Broadway theatres. I'm not sure you need the "fringe" theatres in the box - maybe you could just show a "hide" button that expands to reveal the fringe theatres if one wishes to see those - whatever you think. You've done yeoman work here. Well done! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite a nice template KB. I prefer the blocky templates to those which trail endlessly down half the right side of the page - often ruining and ripping holes in the original carefully composed format of said page...(that's the aesthete in me....)Colin4C 10:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ta, and now it seems to be locked by an admin ...? Theatre Royal, Drury Lane made FA BTW. Well done them. Kbthompson 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Green Street

Looking at Category:Streets in London there are quite a few streets suffixed ", London" so I guess that is the right dab form to use. MRSC • Talk 10:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd go Green Street, Newham - even that might cause problems; but less dab than Green Street, London. Surely, it should (or also) be Green Street (film). Kbthompson 18:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

West End Theatres

Hi, may I ask why this template is locked from editing? Thanks Kbthompson 17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly how the interface looks, but I believe the protection notice might lead you to User:Tariqabjotu/TOFA templates A, which contains all the templates on today's featured article, Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. The protection should expire at 00:00 (UTC), a little over three hours from this point. -- tariqabjotu 20:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Kb. Have you seen these articles? They may be helpful in a number of entries:

• http://www.victorianweb.org/mt/theaters/pva234.html
• http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/lma_learning/theatrelands/text.asp?ID=335

Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Interesting, when I get a chance. So much to do, so little time.

There is however, a constant improvement, thanks, in part to yourself! Kbthompson 15:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to work on the template that I created. I have had very little time for WP lately, but would be lovely if you could pick up the baton. --Peripatetic 10:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In the end, I just nicked the idea and based it on something pinched from WWII! But it was a good idea, and in the nature of good ideas, it has been used! Kbthompson 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK discussion

Nice article! I've been tweaking the refs and was wondering if you could specify which volume was used from Bentley? I strongly suspect it's vol. 6 (Theaters), but I'd like confirmation. Page numbers would rock my socks, but I won't be pushing it ;-) Circeus 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I only split the article; previously the modern and historic playhouses were confounded on the one page. I was trying to create a nav-box for London theatres, and most were in an appalling state, and I tried to correct some glaring anomalies as I went along. This was one of them, so the article is not my progeny. Like yourself, I have tweaked, and am aware that more tweaking is required. One is chasing down the refs, and putting more in-line from multiple sources. The e-theatre group (link on Fortune Playhouse talk page) specialise in the area; although I did some work on The Theatre, The Curtain and The Red Lion (playhouse); I can't claim to be an expert. (I would bet that User talk:Jlittlet would be a good place to start (from Fortune Theatre history). HTH. Kbthompson 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal. I can probably look them up myself here. I just hoped I wouldn't have to.Circeus 01:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, take care. I passed on your query to the user. (Apart from anything else, he probably wants to know about the DYK entry, so thanks for making me go back and look it up). Kbthompson 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortune Theatre and random query

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the nod on the DYK for the Fortune Theatre article...and, actually, I was wondering if I could ask for a bit of geography help from a native Londoner. I am trying to find the neighborhood where the people who stole Elizabeth Barrett Browning's dog lived; I know that they lived near Wimpole Street at the bottom of Tottenham Court Road, but am otherwise baffled. If you have a chance could you help me specify? Thanks again.Jlittlet 17:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the old rookery at St Giles is slightly to the east of the end of Tottenham Court Road, with Bloomsbury further north. Wimpole Street is to the west, past Fitzrovia and Soho, on the east side of Marylebone, I think. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlittlet (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Nyet ne probleme ... Kbthompson 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fortune Playhouse, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Watchlists

Very sorry about that. I had to go back over them all again and add a reference. I can't think why I didn't add the references when I made the entries. Maybe I'm having a bad day! Could you answer a question for me? Is the Court Theatre the same as the Royal Court in Sloane Square? If so, when did it acquire the 'Royal'? David Lauder 13:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's a habit we all need to acquire.

I'd have to see it in context ... Arthur Lloyd is a good resource on theatre history, but a quick look doesn't show any listing for the Royal Court/Court Theatre. If you can't immediately see the way something works, it's probably best to leave it and come back to it later when you are sure. Searches tend to be of no help, as they bring up too much about the modern productions (they pay people to do that for them); the significance of the modern theatre obscures its origins. The Royal epithet is normally associated with patent theatres, but after about 1880, it occurs when one of the royals adopts a favourite theatre. PeoplePlay is the website of the Theatre museum, but I'm having trouble accessing it at the moment. Kbthompson 13:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have numerous references for actors and actresses appearing at the Court Theatre, London, up until about 1930. David Lauder 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Court Theatre at Sloan Square was opened in 1871 and closed in 1887. A new theatre with that name was built on a different site in Sloan Square in 1888 and survives today. I'm pretty sure there were no other significant theatres with that name since then. The Theatre Museum in London has a major collection of information about this theatre. I just beefed up the article, but it still needs more work. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Globe Theatre

Hello. I just wanted to clarify that Gielgud was not the only theatre called "Globe", so I thought that pointing to the disambig page would give people some useful info. BTW, I plan to put up an article for the slightly earlier "Globe Theatre" that was, along with the Opera Comique, one of the Rickety Twins, unless someone beats me to it. That Globe presented a number of important productions in its relatively short career. Also BTW, check out the new article on Olympic Theatre. Can you add an image into it? I'm afraid I'm a little technologically challenged. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, when a middle-olding Globe goes up, it can just point to that! If you want to mention it for the moment, use one of those ref things to put in a footnote. The whole of London theatre, old and new needed a good shake up. By starting to make the changes, it's drawing more people in - so, that's a good thing!

Adding an image is no problem, it's finding one that some over enthusiastic guardian of copyright won't take down again 8^). Thanks for the star - its kinda cute, but I'm sure totally undeserved. I want to thank my mother and father, my agent, of course .... my wife for the long hours we spend on separate computers, and not complaining when her dinner's late ... <blush>. I'd better remember not to reply to it, so it doesn't get archived! Kbthompson 23:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the images. BTW, I asked before, but I did not understand: What is the function of the < cite> tag, which you add when after < ref> tags? I can't figure it out. Also, I expanded St James's Theatre and Gielgud Theatre. See if you have any comments/corrections. -- Best regards, -- Ssilvers 02:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at for bibliographic references. If you cite works that collect as a selected bibliography, at the bottom, it doesn't help an online reader to find the original text. By citing inline, using the ref tag you can immediately direct the reader to the correct source (esp. if online); since the same system is used for notes, and the correct citation style would probably be "Fred Blogs Yada-yada-yada, in International Journal of Blah-Blah 6 (may 1902)", it's easier to use the cite tag to put the whole thing in italics and use normal font for notes, footnotes and breakouts. That makes your refs section automatically, and the biblio for further reading. It may be wrong, but it's the way I do it! HTH Kbthompson 10:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am still confused, but I think the answer to my question may be that the < cite> tag puts the text that comes after it in *italics*? Is that right? If so, that is all I was trying to understand!  :-) -- Ssilvers 12:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry, perhaps I'm too academic, and not enough encyclopaedic! Kbthompson 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Three Mills

Hi - I have merged Three Mills and Three Mills Island by a simple REDIRECT. Gordo 10:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I always ask because someone somewhere might be emotionally attached to it! Kbthompson 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am emotionally attached to Three Mills - but not that page!! Gordo 10:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Royalty theatre

Would you kindly put images of the Royalty theatre and St. James theatre up from one of the images in the Lloyd external links? Thanks for helping the incompetent! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Images on PeoplePlay are from the theatre museum, put on the internet at public expense to be shared for educational purposes. So, I don't have a problem with sticking them up. Arthur Lloyd site is actually a private collection, and they retain the copyright in respect of their images. Loading from the Lloyd site would be dodgy! Might look to see if I can find something that is non-CR. It's a grey area, the ephemera the images were produced from are normally out of copyright. It's why there was such a kerfuphal over the Watson, Keppel & Betty image (from the BBC), in the end it was adjudicated fair use. Sorry. Kbthompson 23:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If there are any images of these theatres that we can use, that would be great! -- Ssilvers 04:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a stub for the Sans Souci Theatre, at the weekend. There's more from the same article, but if you have anything in your sources .... Kbthompson 09:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bow and bromley by Bow

What's the problem with the link to the History of Bromley by Bow on the Bromly page? It includes references to Bow as well as Bromly by Bow and is therefore relevant (notwithstanding there's a whole debate which probably needs to continue about how one comments on an area which used to be larger than the two modern day wards)? I didn't understand the self-reverential comment. Did you think I'm the author? In which case you're mistaken - I just know how to Google! ;) Cosmopolitancats 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed two links; one was a mislabelled self reference to the page (i.e. if had been in wiki format, it would have been enboldened - The history of Bromley by Bow) (sic). In any case, the style would be Bromley-by-Bow for an internal link, which is already there. The second was a website that is not accessible unless you are registered with a subscribing library [3] Neither were the link you quote here, this would be appropriate for Bromley-by-Bow, the neighbouring district.

- but then you're confused about your coverage, in any case. The original text was careful to make the distinction between Bow and surrounding districts. You've decided that the modern Bow is the E3 postal district - which includes Bromley-by-Bow, Old Ford, Mile End, Three Mills (in Newham) and perversely the London Gas Museum. If you got on a bus, to take you to Bow, it would still drop you at the same place, i.e. Bow High Street, by Bow Church - which stubbornly remains by Bow Bridge. You're also attempting to apply an inappropriate schemata to a London area, which has had no formal boundaries since 1865 - except for a short lived informal existence as a neighbourhood during the 1990s - that was based on the postcode.

The Regent's Canal runs through Mile End, actually Mile End Park (must be a clue there ...) and is in the E2 postal district. The Hertford Union Canal joins the River Lee at Old Ford lock (that's a hint too).

Yes, I agree that all London articles could do with improvement, I don't think it particularly useful to conflate location with postcode, or to blur the boundaries of these informal districts more than they are already. Kbthompson 09:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Savoy Theatre

Great images! Thanks! -- Ssilvers 20:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nyet ne probleme, if they're not copyright they can be used. There's also a postcard of Iolanthe on wikicommons, but I ran out of room. We need more text! Kbthompson 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How about adding the postcard image to the Iolanthe article? BTW, I did some editing at Savoy Theatre just now. I'm not sure who owned the theatre after Rupert died. It may be that the Savoy group owned it. Bridget was a major shareholder, but not the sole owner of that group. By the 1960's, Bridget had given the opera company to a trust that she ran for a time (the company closed in 1982), but I'm not sure what happened to the theatre's ownership. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[4] shows what happened to it about 2004 ... ATG management from 2005 [5] ... Bridget died in 1985, but left £1M to restart the opera company, but by 2003 it was again in dire financial straits - no talk of the theatre. I think it was on a lease from the hotel - ah! [6] shows it changed hands with the hotel. No date - not even in the source code - that must be the sale prior to 2004, no same story in Irish Examiner 13/10/2005. The hotel was sold again in 2007, to Prince Alwaleed.

I think the evidence does point to the lease being with the hotel, but confirming it would be a bugger! Kbthompson 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny enough: The theatre's own website supplied the missing info, except for the purchase by the prince in 2007. Would you kindly add a cite for that? Best regards! -- Ssilvers 03:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

They were all trade websites, one [7]. Sorry I left this question hanging for so long. Kbthompson 23:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vaudeville Theatre

This needs expansion desperately. Unfortunately, it's 2:30 in the morning, and I have to get up in 4-1/2 hours. Plus, I have to work tomorrow so I don't get fired! -- Ssilvers 06:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I stole wholesale (what pay retail!) from the theatre website, which is a good article - it's referenced. It's largely précis, so there may be nuggets that I didn't discover. It needs your own estimable arts of identifying performance and probably a pass, or two, to clean up my desperate prose. We may want to add the details of the Covent Garden threat to the other theatres, since it involved the destruction of FIVE theatres. I'm glad we're not writing about former theatres in ....

I have to get invoices out, identify at least two competing software products that meet some specialist requirements (public authority procurement), and write a legal document about a cello (don't ask) ... so, don't expect to hear too much til late. Kbthompson 10:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I, too, will not get to this until late (NY time). -- Ssilvers 12:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am about all theatred out. Unless a theatre has a connection to Gilbert or Sullivan, I think I shall leave it to others. If you have a project to make an article a Featured Article, I would be happy to help out with proofreading, but I think I am finished with theatre research. Tim did a big expansion to the Haymarket Theatre. You may wish to fool around with the format, but that theatre has a lot of history, and even more could be written, particularly about the 19th century. The Samuel Foote article would be one place to look, since it has a lot of info and footnotes. It has been a pleasure working with you on these articles, and I think we and the others have collectively made a tremendous amount of progress in a relatively short time. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But I just found a picture of the Empire Theatre Leicester Square - now Empire (cinema); looks like there was a theatre stub, but it got merged (as one sentence) into the later cinema - enjoy the thrills, the spills, the cries of rage from cinemaophiles as two-thirds of the article turns to theatre ... No, as you say, its been a pleasure. A tremendous amount achieved in a short time and a lot of justice done to London's Victorian theatre history. There's more, somewhere like Mile End Road had over 300 theatres and music halls between Aldgate and Mile End - there's the area's Yiddish theatre (verging on original research ... tempted?). No this month I've clocked as many edits as in the previous three months, so you're right to give it a rest. It's good to hit these things in a rush, with all the references to hand, but ultimately better to get back to real life! Good luck with everything. Kbthompson 08:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Lost in London

Hard to believe that I have walked up and down Whitechapel High Street several hundred times without realizing where I was...But then again ask the average London resident about any directions and they won't have a clue: 'Dunno guv I'm from Tajikistan' being the usual reply. Colin4C 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I lived on the MER and walked to work on the WCR; at 8:30am, you used to have to step over the drunks ... The area now has 'patisseries' and 'gastropubs' ... hard to believe. Cycling I once did a triple twisting somersault, over a car, by Barclays bank. Spotted the landing on the bonnet, wrapped it round the engine block and cracked it. Unfortunately, screwed up the dismount and ended up with my glasses in my eye. An ambulance reversed 200 m from the London, with its siren on to scrap up my bits ... Kbthompson 23:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A sunny and reasonably productive day, but the Theatre and Curtain heritage plaques seem to have disappeared - and I looked in Curtain Road and Holywell Place. Drove past Gainsborough, didn't seem to have a plaque any more. Hit Britannia plaque (finally, it's on a modern block of flats - suddenly), Hoxton Hall, detoured into Bunhill fields, but Finn got there first. Shoreditch church, Bell, memorial and vicar snapped. Left Columbia Road for another day. Photos up, if you want to check. Had to climb over furniture to get the memorial, so it's a bit of an odd shot. It's upstairs - so you need permission, but the vicars a gem, said there was a memorial window in St James, Curtain Rd, but it took a blighty one for Winnie. Kbthompson 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice photo. I blagged my way into see the memorial at St Leonards courtesy of the vicar about a year ago. Other times however the staff get a bit shirty, unless you are a bone fide down-and-out trying to get into the hostel there... Did you notice the stocks and whipping post in the porch? The Curtain plaque is in Hewitt St, a cul-de-sac leading off Curtain Road, by the way...And there is a Shakespeare memorial window in St Helen's, Bishopgate: the ONLY window not destroyed by the two adjacent IRA bomb blasts of the early 90's. Also there used to be an original Shoreditch borough arms metal plaque tacked on to the outside of the massage parlour in Gt Eastern St, but that has since been removed by some unknown person. I do have a photo of it in my Shoreditch scrapbook though... Colin4C 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Listed buildings in London

Well done, kudos, though I will not dwell on the specific reason. And also, thanks for reinforcing my conviction that every district needs a Listed Buildings section - appropriately referenced, of course, which is part of the fun*. And these can, of course, migrate selectively upwards to borough** level. I may just take this mission on board and run with it, it'll keep me out of trouble and I can go on a mission to get pix where they're missing too...

• OK, I will properly check those Stokie figures we had a mild disagreement about. Might be best if I just drop the damn claim, though.

• • Assuming it's not a cross-borough district, but that can be handled in its way. Tarquin Binary 09:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I can live with that, adds to the local colour - just getting uppity about Hackney Central's claim 8^). Personally, I would like to see all Grade I listed buildings with - at least a picture - if not an article. Equal coverage on Grade II*, and significant groups of Grade II (individuals are ten a penny). Not too sure about lists in local articles, I think text descriptions of notables with a breakout to individual articles, where significant. It's kinda wot got me started on theatres - now I'm writing on music halls, trying to help out on the gap in Victorian theatre history, and still managing to put my oar in where it's not wanted ... actually the Open House list would be a good start!

You were going to give my tortured prose at Islington a look-see, and add anything I overlooked. There were some more huge music halls there, but ultimately, I think we have to be selective. Kbthompson 10:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, stuck on work stuff for now. Agree with all the significant aims above, though. Agreed, every Grade I at least should have a pic (actually I have some for St Matthias N16, I guess I don't like the building much, sigh, I'll add one). And them being Grade Is, I suppose articles may be easy enough too. Grade II* pics, fair enough, but articles not always quite so easy. Grade II - varies, exactly as you say, ten a penny sometimes, but while few of those housing terraces are worth an article of their own, even the early Georgian ones, I feel that Grade II in general is still where some of the gems are hidden.

But on the whole it's a project to get one's teeth around, a noble aim (while EH may have partly achieved it, their database really sucks). As you say, indeed, Islington is supposed to be my ongoing thing too - but I have been rudely interrupted...

And hey, I'm like an industrial architecture dude - dunno bout music halls, great as they were, but I haven't written my vital piece about the Limehouse Hydraulic Accumulator Tower yet - with pix.

Oh - the Open House Day list is very selective. But it could be argued that if a structure is on Open House it must be notable, so maybe it is worth nominating buildings for their own articles simply on that basis Tarquin Binary 10:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

funny you should mention the Limehouse Hydraulic Accumulator Tower - there's a tunnel under the Thames, near Tower Bridge (to carry the Hydraulic power) that everyone forgets about, too. I was there (LHAT) only a couple of weeks ago ... took a pic. I think we could loosen the rules to Grade I if we like them ... no point in beating ourselves up! Kbthompson 10:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

there's a lot of places that need the treatment too ... I still think a WPLondon borough of the month would be a good idea. Kbthompson 11:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there is a stub already on the Wapping Hydraulic Power Station. With my pic, tho I didn't write the piece. I think the whole thing - as a system - deserves better treatment. And the little-known but very visible Limehouse Tower was the earliest generating component of it as far as I know. GLIAS (Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society) have much more, will put something together soon. Tarquin Binary 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to say, pulling together those two threads, that the Limehouse Tower was one of the places I in fact went on the last open day, so I have a couple of interior pix (not great but illustrative) too. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/albedo/sets/72157594290071908/ (A mixed bag, but you blag what you can...) Tarquin Binary 12:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Tower

There was another accumulator tower, at Limehouse Basin. It was used to power the locks, it might pre-date the other - it's still there, but used as a sales office for the project - I think. You can go up the top if you say you're buying a riverside appt. Kbthompson 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thumb right from Open House. I think (see discussions elsewhere), I'm going to concentrate on Listed Buildings (referenced, uncontroversial), and hopefully add an LB section to each district (assuming that our beloved London districts don't end up as AfDs under some new and totally bizarre schema thought up by three woodsmen and a dog in the wilds of Cheshire). Yeah, I know I'm chicken-shit and I should be edit-arguing, but it takes up so much time - and I'm into content provision...Tarquin Binary 02:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Standards of articles about places

It's always easier to aim if you know what you're aiming at. I don't know whether you've ever looked at any other articles about places from elsewhere in the UK but this is the one that was quoted to me when I first started as being a "good article" Shaw and Crompton. Now this place is similar to one of the areas within Tower Hamlets so this maybe conveys to you a bit better why I'm banging on about needing to bring articles up to standard. Or to put it another way, somebody had a go at dinning it into me and I'm now evangelising!

I don't see any particular need for speed so much as being clear about what sort of quality standard we're aiming for - and what it takes to get it. We can leave them at 'stub' or 'start' quality level - but I think that ought to be a conscious decision rather than an unconscious one. Personally - I'm for doing the best we can do without undue effort for starters and getting into good habits.

Hope you don't me putting this on your talk page. It just suddenly struck me that there was a way of showing you why I've been going on and on and on about standards and quality. Cosmopolitancats 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mind, I can give you a sense of where I'm coming from.

There has been a continuing drive to improve the quality of articles in London, much of it has been appalling in the past. Most areas were stubs, and if you look at west London, or the 'burbs, you will find that situation hardly improved. We've also been trying to adapt a schemata, to give the historic places their full due.

You have shown me that article before and I'm sorry if my attitude about it has come across as confrontational, but I still don't think that all of the guideline is applicable to these places. Some of it certainly is, others less so. It's a guideline, not a policy. I would regard improvement as a continuing aspiration. I remember when I started editing on wiki, Whitechapel was a standard to which we aspired to! Mostly I've concentrated on writing well referenced history sections to locations that I thought deserved it, that tends to be more selective than blatting an entire area - although with three others, we recently did a number on London theatre - and earned two DYK and that barnthing - whatever that is. While we were doing that, Drury Lane got FA, but I only tinkered with that, so again a collaboration. The theatre drive worked very well, collaborators came forward and worked on their interests within a subject. Many theatres have been rescued from stubbiness.

The key to wiki is dragging people in, to share the work, and inform your own product. You've been a bit noisy, and certainly some regular contributors have moved on - they might be busy in WP:reallife, but equally, they could be tired of being hectored and seeing their precious bytes being threatened, if not recycled. Collaboration always improves articles, and that's achieved largely by softpedal. Following your interests is good too and there's a time to fact and a time to live with it.

What I would like to see are articles as good as Whitechapel across the board; with others of much higher quality with good referenced history sections; rather than the informal read it in a pub somewhere that tends to characterise a lot of the articles. I would like to see editing - i.e. an active choice about what makes an area special, rather than check listing. Most of these (modern) places are just dormitories, they have no industry, its pretty sad when the local landmark is a small stone ... I'd like to see each article being written in clear unambiguous English that gets the reader interested and makes them want to find out more by clicking those wiki and external links. That's what I want, your mileage may differ, but I can live with that.

I also devote about 10mins in the hour to vandal patrol. No-one thanks you for it, they come and vandalise your page, but again, it's part of the give and take of wiki. Kbthompson 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if recent actions came across as noisy - but the reality is that people have different windows to operate in - mine tend to come in chunks so I try to get quite a bit done when I can. Others do their bit day after day. I think the give and take which you refer to involves being tolerant of different ways of operating.

My experience from elsewhere has been that if you show people what can be done and get the basic structure in place then ordinary people (ie not the 'usual suspects') can actually start contributing - sort of the reverse of what you were suggesting before. What is really really difficult for a lot of ordinary people with something to offer is that there is no 'template' set up where they can see where their bit of knowledge fits in. They then stick it in the wrong place - get treated as an intruder by people who have been around for a bit, have their stuff deleted and never ever come back.

I remember reading when I first joined editing that you should never ever participate in Wikipedia if you don't want to see another member making bold changes to your area of expertise. I've been feeling like I've been in the midst of a group of people who had forgotten about that bit, who've been doing their bit around places in the East End - and think that anybody coming along and contributing is getting in the way / doesn't know what they're doing / thinks they know it all. Not very nice. Some of the comments made to me have been plain downright rude - despite the wiki injunctions about behaviour. But nobody owns Wiki. There are no personal territories and people do come and go - and write/contribute - within the constraints of time and expertise. I entirely agree that the way to move forward is to co-operate - but surely that that has to include welcoming new people and asking them what they have to offer and how they think articles can be improved. Especially if they've been working in areas which are a lot further along than London.

Re. Whitechapel - get it quality assessed / subject it to peers working outside London - see what other people think about it.

Re the history bit - it struck me that one option might be to create an 'overview history article' for Tower Hamlets. It could take the best bits of what exists in different areas and turn it into something that stands as an article in its own right. That way, if it met all the criteria, you have the potential for something which could become a featured article. Now that is something to aspire too. Cosmopolitancats 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

People are naturally prickly, particularly me ... Some changes you've made I do regard as 'damage'; but one of the strengths of wikis is that they do repair themselves over time - long after you, I and everyone else around here have passed on to other interests. I think if you discussed things over on the talk pages, and I mean discuss, listen too ... people would accept what benefits you bring, and also make improvements to the way in which you present your information. As always, I will help where I can, I will challenge where I feel it necessary and concede defeat gracefully where I am downright wrong.

Perhaps you could start by taking down notices where you have met opposition, and think about meeting people half-way. Ultimately, it's not about winning, it's about improving articles - they improve through genuine consultation, not by wasting time on long procedural arguments. Above all, assume good faith - and be prepared to look up your own references where you feel they are necessary! Lansbury took a while of searching to find something worth referencing (and I found a couple of things I didn't know about Lansbury on the way), but Whistler and the other artists, seconds to find some of the works online.

Have a look at the history section on East End, don't fiddle! I wrote most of it, but it is the result of consultation and co-operation by many people. That is something I think could go through the process - notice that it tells a tale, but not detailed. The details are in the supporting articles - where they should be. Draw the reader in, let them make up their mind what is relevant and what is not. Everything doesn't have to be in the article - it's a wiki - the links are what are important. OK, be bold - I nominated it, let's see what happens. Kbthompson 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in a competition and I have no personal need to win anything at all. I'm picky about procedure - generally working on the principle that if it exists it does so for a reason and that's generally good enough for me - unless it's causing problems. I guess we can agree that sometimes people interpret it differently.

The unrefenced notice on the Spitalfields article has already been taken down by the objector so nothing I can do about that. Are any others causing problems so far as you are aware? I wonder whether unpleasant personal attacks on my character now seen in a number of places will also be taken down? I'm not sure how they reinforce 'assume good faith' and 'be welcoming'.

I want to get on and develop the TH articles beyond the history sections. That will involve pushing the history sections down as the convention is for the geography and administration to come first - and I'm proposing that convention should be followed - mainly because people first need to know what and where is being discussed. I wonder whether if places have a very substantial history section then maybe that history should enjoy a page and article all to itself and be linked to the main article which covers all the rest of the standard contents of an article about a place?

I'd appreciate any suggestion you may have as to how I go about doing this. I was minded to state what I was doing on the talk page (as I've already done in a number of pages by posting the standard for writing about settlements) and then start to pull existing material into the standard categories - as I have already started to do on one or two articles. Then I shall be pulling in information about councillors and their websites and schools and their websites. Any problem with that? Do we need some sort of category page to discuss treatment of TH articles as a group - as opposed to each one individually. I looked for one of these when I started and simply couldn't find one. And it's a bit difficult to communicate with people across the piece when there isn't anywhere to do it. Cosmopolitancats 17:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would put specific ward information on a separate page, as it's been done at Stokie, which I ref'd before. That decouples the political map from the real map, and for reasons I've stated before, the political map is regularly redrawn. Categorise them, I think the form is something like wards in Tower Hamlets. That page can then link to individual councillors profiles (external websites). The locales can then reference which wards cover them, without trying to bend the locales to fit the political map. Which seems to change more often than my socks.

The political information can often cause people to be much more prickly than you've seen so far! (BTW: I wouldn't expect comments to be withdrawn, if you listen to people and respect their boundaries, you might eventually get an apology). With the political stuff people often have a particular agenda, and any mention of politics tends to drag them out of the woodwork - you know the kind of thing, if you've got Respect there, why don't you list UK independents, or the Scots Nats! Put political parties represented in the boro' on the boro' page, make it their local party site and don't duplicate them throughout the area articles. Put the main parties and any who have councillors - so Respect, but I think no Greens in TH. Put their full official title, in alphabetical order. Anticipate severe anon vandalism, from all the other parties ...

For schools, I really think just a title on locale pages, with a link to the boro' article. It is needless duplication, and in London schools are run by the boroughs and allocated by an arcane system that no-one has ever got to grips with - some aspects are still dictated by ILEA, and that was abolished 20 years ago. There is an aspiration to have an article on every school, and if you really wanted to go to town, that would be a useful area where nobody would bite back.

I think there was a WPLondon informal policy to avoid needless duplication, one of the aims of wiki is to achieve coverage and brevity. Someone, somewhere has to store all these bytes. I think Finn tidied up Hackney, as well as creating stubs for all districts in E.London; he also takes masses of photos. It's not such a problem in TH, but other boro's are often named after a central district, and all sorts of crap gets put there that is actually about the boro'. Your good friend Colin has done a lot of good work, you may not like the way he does, but he is within wiki guidelines and finds useful material in books, so not easily appropriate to in-line refs to websites.

I had a meeting in Leeds, just got back - time to sleep. Kbthompson 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a think about your suggestions - but it would make London completely out of step with the rest of the country and the Wikipedia guideline. Personally I look at it from the point of view of what would Joe Public want to see there if they were to look up their area.

Rigid adherence to NPOV and objectivity goes a long way with the political sections. Straight facts, links to relevant websites and no superfluous commentary seems to me to be pretty unobjectionable. Start including comments and people start answering back. If people want to make comments on political change then it's much more appropriate to do so in relation to a larger area (like Tower Hamlets) than individual locales. In relation to the wards, I think you'll find it surprising to see how many of the wards do in fact fit exactly (or pretty close) to the localities. See Bow for example. Bromely by Bow ditto.

As for referencing see Tyrenius's comment on Spitalfields. Plus why doesn't friend Colin just reference the books like everybody else does? It doesn't have to be a website. I really am genuinely mystified about what all the fuss is about.

I don't know anything about an informal policy - if it's something people need to adhere to then it really does need to be a bit more obvious and also up for comment by people with alternative experiences (like me). I'm all for avoiding needless duplication but tell me what the problem is with referencing the council's website re lists of primary and secondary schools on the LBTH page - and then identifying all relevant schools on the locality page - plus their websites - plus their OFSTED reports. This is locally relevant information - which should be made as accessible as possible to Joe Public!!! It also reduces the current tendency for articles about locales to look a bit like history essays. (Very good history essays I have no doubt - but history essays for all that!) The locale articles need to produce a rounded perspective on the present. If you produce a list of schools on the LBTH page then it's not very helpful as it's difficult to see which ones are located where - pretty much in the same way as has been my experince while trying to get the **&&^%% map to focus correctly at the right level so I can sort out where they are all located. Why on earth should we expect users of wikipedia to go through that if we can make it simpler for them? You will note a recurring theme in pretty much everything I do - which is that I'm very, very focused on the reader and making it simpler for them to access reliable information.

Hope you get a good night's sleep after the journey (I remember it well - Quarry House by any chance?) I've got a meeting tomorrow and probably won't be around much over the weekend. Thanks for talking Cosmopolitancats 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Palace Theatre

Hello! Blue links exist so that the reader can click on them to get additional info about a subject if he/she desires. To describe what each of the past productions at this or any venue was is to provide unnecessary data that clutters the article. If you click on the link for Me and My Gal, you'll find who starred in the original production. I'm trying to streamline Wiki articles by removing redundant facts that are included in the blue-linked articles. If there was no way to reference additional info (due to lack of a blue-linked source), then it would be appropriate to include the details. I hope that explanation clarifies my intent. Thanks for your input! SFTVLGUY2 17:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, in many ways I find that an admirable project. This page has recently turned into an argument for much the same thing, on a geographical level. Kbthompson 17:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A Question

I'm curious, why would you choose to get involved in a discussion I'm having with another editor? Since I would never consider responding to a note left on someone else's discussion page that had nothing to do with me, I don't understand what possessed you to reply to a message I left for Ssilvers. It seems very odd. Given he seems to think he controls the musical theatre project when, in fact, I'm the only one who has contributed new articles to it on a daily basis for the past few months, I think I was quite civil in the way I addressed him. But that's beside the point. What interests me is why you would be so interested. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Everything in wiki is open to everyone. Everybody has something to contribute, sometimes we disagree. You seemed to come on more than a little strong there. I noticed you made some edits recently to articles that I had an interest in, that might appear to a casual observer to be destructive. You had your reasons, I assumed good faith. Kbthompson 08:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Working Man's Barnstar to recognize your tireless contributions large and small to WikiProject London and elsewhere in Wikipedia, many of which are of a repetitive or tedious nature. Contributors like you increase Wikipedia's quality. =) Ssilvers 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

move to front page, this will archive now Kbthompson 18:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 2 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Playhouse Theatre, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit dispute

Would you please weigh in with your opinion at Buddy - The Buddy Holly Story? Thanks for your opinion either way. -- Ssilvers 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive Kbthompson 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Borough templates

Yes. I think these are good. We should have one for every borough. I think Newham and Richmond are the only other two. I started them ages ago and forogt about them (as you do). MRSC • Talk 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ta, I'll get on with it, when I get a mo. There seem to be an awful lot of geo-cords to fill in - with the usual spurious accuracy. Kbthompson 17:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Neighbourhoods of Haringey

Wouldn't it make more sense to call it "Districts of Haringey"? Simply south 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I just took the style from the Camden area, where they'd already started on this. If there's any kind of decision made on the WPLondon pages, I'd be glad to change it. Cheers Kbthompson 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wendy Hiller

Someone added about half a dozen mentions of Wendy Hiller to the Haymarket Theatre article. Please take a look and see if you think they are all notable appearances. I'll rely on your excellent judgment and will support your decision to either leave them in or cut one or more repetitions. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Was away for a few daze, meant to check in when I got back. Will take a look. She was a DBE and a friend of GBS, so not insignificant. Kbthompson 08:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

She seems to have been the Peggy Ashcroft, or Judy Dench of her day. It's believable and notable - would be nice to see refs though ... Kbthompson 08:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. Do you think that this list of productions is too long? Unless there is some reason why a production was particularly notable, I don't see why we are listing it. The fact that Hiller or Daniell appeared in it, I think, does not make it notable unless it either had a rather substantial run or had some other historical importance, which we should mention. Thanks. -- Ssilvers 13:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Who's Who in the Theatre has a section on notable plays and revivals. I am inclined to think if a famous actor has appeared in a production that makes it notable in itself. At least, that is how the general public/average reader would view it, because TV and film have made many who started out on the stage famous. I also think it gives the theatre a certain amount of distinction having had such people tread their boards. Lets face it, there must be thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of actors and actresses who are not notable for any reason. The alternative suggestion could be a list of productions at a theatre over the years adding "with Lawrence Olivier as Henry V" (or whatever) after it. David Lauder 17:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, as a non-notable actor, I'd say the list is too long. Premières are notable, for important plays, directors and actors. A good/featured article will achieve coverage of the subject, but it would also be edited for brevity - providing the reader with where to get that complete information. I think you'd want to know of Judi Dench's first west end performance, but wouldn't want an account of a wet Wednesday afternoon in rep at the Portsmouth Empire. The same goes for a notable actor, in a lack lustre play that closes after the previews - although, that in itself might be notable. Perhaps the sections should be relabelled performance; and a text section added covering the periods that summarises important events in the theatre - like the ceiling coming down, or the management changing. Certainly, in more recent years, the theatre has been a receiving house, so productions change regularly, so it becomes a very long list indeed!

I wouldn't know where to start trimming that list - I keep finding little gems; I'd suggest we worry about it if and when the article goes forward for review. Kbthompson 17:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Noted, but I still think important actors who trod their boards enhances the theatre. It is important for us to keep in mind that encyclopaedias contain articles that the general reader can comprehend in several respects. They're not written for specialists or affectionados. In the case of many actors and actresses who were in films, people have forgotten that they were firstly (and some would argue foremost) stage performers. Absolute brevity (built, opened, had a few musicals, closed) in the articles on theatres makes them fairly boring. David Lauder 18:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm arguing for complete brevity. As you say, that can be telegraphic. It's a part of the editing process to decide on notability. Let it stew for a while and see how you feel about it, coming to it fresh - as it were. Kbthompson 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to cut it down too much. But I agree that the mere fact that a notable actor appeared in a ho-hum play does not make that play notable - it is only one factor. The play must either catch on with the public and have a good run, with the critics and be nominated for "Best Play" or have some other indicia of notability. It may be significant to an actor's career that he stepped into a role in a dull play for a few performances -- he might have been noticed by a casting director and soon hired for a really significant role. It should then be mentioned in the actor's bio article; but I don't think it means that that work ought to be listed in the *theatre's* article. I disagree that people want to see too much detail about less notable productions in an article about a theatre. I'm content to leave it in for now, but the Haymarket is an important theatre, and if we want to upgrade it to Good Article, we will need to do some editing. For one thing, I don't think the "list" approach will wash. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah! But we are not talking about a ho-hum play. We are talking about articles on theatres and notables who passed through them giving the establishment cred. David Lauder 20:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we might just have to agree to disagree, but let me try to explain more clearly what I am saying: If a theatre is a crappy little theatre, and the best boast that it can make is that a well-known actor of the early 1900s once passed through there, then yes, I agree that is very notable in that article. However, if a theatre is a major venue, in which hundreds or thousands of notable actors have appeared, such as the Haymarket, then it only unbalances and clutters up the article to mention particular appearances by actors, except for the ones that are particularly notable, because there are lots of really notable things to say about that theatre, and we should be focusing on those and not just throwing in information because we happen to come accross it. I am sure that there is more to say about the Haymarket that is far more notable than that Hiller or Daniell played in yet another play there, unless that play is of enough importance that we can write more than a stub about it. If they played in an important play, then yes, definitely say so. But let's be a little selective in putting the most notable information in the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you're both right - but it's a question of balance. It may be that what the theatre ends up with will be too thin for David, and too rich for Ssilvers. I saw what that other fella did to the Victoria Palace - and it doesn't need to go like that (list of plays/musicals, with no details of prominent cast). There are aspects of that list that make me go - I didn't know that. That's worthwhile, but equally editing is about cutting back to what's important - and as with any performance, leave the audience wanting more! Kbthompson 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Manor House

Hi ya I note that you've changed the text of the Manor House article from indicating that it straddles the border of Haringey and Hackney to being solely in Hackney. The article states that the area is centred on the tube station - which (I believe has one exit in the LBH, but no part of the tube station). Of the area surrounding the crossroads, I believe 3/4 lies in Haringey, and 1/4 within LBH. I note the tube station has also mysteriously moved to Hackney - despite Hackney being able to proudly boast that it is the one borough north of the river not to have a tube station.

The stuff I added relied on the information that was already there, and I didn't change any of it - apart from changing Hackney -> Neighbourhood of Hackney and Haringey -> Neighbourhood of Haringey; and adding the two borough nav bars.

I know the border goes through there, and the junctions are quite complex (in fact, it's probably more true to say that Manor House is covered by tarmac!), but I think between us, we can work out what's going on geographically.

Cheers Kbthompson 23:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.

As far as I can make out, the Haringey -> Hackney border follows the Finsbury Park Border along the north side of Seven Sisters Road to the Manor House Junction. It then proceeds along the west side of Green Lanes to a point just past the Hermitage Road junction where Green Lanes "submerges" totally into Haringey. This would mean that the situation is actully the reverse of what you state (3/4 lies in Hackney, and 1/4 within LBHgy, with only one entrance of the Underground Station falling into Haringey "territory". --IsarSteve 08:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree for my immediate purposes that Manor House should be both a Neighbourhood of Haringey and Hackney; and I'll add both boro' nav-bars?

Looking at a ward map of Hackney (Haringey's website appears to be down); I thought the boundary was Green Lanes, it's actually 7SR (I forgot Brownswood). The boundary is the bottom of the steep hill following Eade Road. The park and all but one exit of the tube lie in Haringey though ... I might have a go at the text - please correct me if I go wrong. Kbthompson 09:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

St. George's Hall (London)

This theatre could use some beefing up if you have any time. I'll try to do some too. -- Ssilvers 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not too sure it was a theatre, but I'll take a look if I have time tomorrow - oh damn, here, it's already tomorrow .... Kbthompson 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Great work! It's a pretty respectable little article now. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

City of Westminster

I've just started a template on the City of Westminster. However, i know nothing on the constituencies and i feel the list attractions may be rather large. Can you finish it? Template:City of Westminster. Simply south 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I might have to leave it for tomorrow, but will look at it. Cheers. Kbthompson 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe i will finish it when i have free time. Simply south 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

With the city and westminster, essentially being the most complex, I was going to leave them til last!

There's a West End theatre page, better than that list. Kbthompson 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a shortcut on the attractions. Is this okay? Simply south 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure City of London can be tackled. Simply south 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's (City) complex, but not impossible. Attractions shortcut, fine while we think about it; the main template's been added, doesn't mean we can't change it later. There's actually lots of room. If we made it too big, I'm sure someone would come along and knock it back. Editing is about choosing the right stuff. Five, six ... what's your most important stuff in Westminster? Kbthompson 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, Covent Garden Market, Trafalgar Square, Horse Guards, National Gallery, Londn Transport Museum, London Zoo etc etc etc

Simply south 09:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought they'd closed the LT museum, maybe that was the theatre one. Tate Britain? National Portrait Gallery ...? Yeah, where is the cut? I'll do a provisional. No Covent Garden, too touristy! Kbthompson 10:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just giving examples. There are so many world famous attractions and landmarks to name. Btw, City of London doesn't seem to count as a borough and i'm not sure it includes any other districts. Simply south 10:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't have to name them all, that's editing, enough to give a flavour of the area - they can punch the 'other' button for the long list.

City is divided into wards, which equates to districts. There are templates for wards and gates of the city - not sure how useful, or whether they could be more usefully combined. It doesn't hurt to mull it over.

One of the main points of this exercise is to look at the appalling state of the outer boroughs. There's too much to say about Westminster, not enough landmarks shared out for the rest! Kbthompson 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a weird article Museum Mile, London. Never heard it referred to as that before ... seems to derive from the New York equivalent. For Southwark and Lambeth, I think I included bridges. Less notable in this context, perhaps. Kbthompson 10:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now got it collapsible, it's supposed to autocollapse when there's a number of templates on the page, but not doing so on City of Westminster. If you know a quick fix, pls do. Otherwise, I will spend some time in contemplation. Kbthompson 11:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Had to change a few things but i've done it. Simply south 11:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I was trying to avoid using the nav template, and just leave these boxes floating in template space, reasonably easy to get to, but safe from vandals. It adds the v/d/e marker, but I guess it can't be avoided. (I'm having a bad day with vandals ...). Maybe I'll go back and change the others, some areas are in multiple boro's. Kbthompson 11:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal block

Hi there; you just inserted a comment into an anon-user's page telling him that he was blocked. You are, I believe, not an admin; if I am wrong here tell me, and I will go and hide. Only an admin can impose a block, and to tell an editor that he is blocked when he is not is regarded as serious vandalism; whether he deserves to be blocked is, as far as this is concerned, irrelevant. Reported vandalism is, of course, correct. But please do not attempt to abrogate sysop functions.--Anthony.bradbury 11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just came to apologise at your page, then spotted the new message tag. The user was repeatedly vandalising Pop Music and I had just repaired another page he/she had also been vandalising (following the contributions tag). I had no where else to go with the warnings, and was escalating beyond my meagre powers. Having seen MerC's page, I now think I understand the proper process to follow. Apologies, again. Kbthompson 11:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

K & C

Well i've just done Template:LB Kensington and Chelsea. Have a loook. Do you think i should change the name to RB Kensington and Chealsea? Simply south 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I rem'd the Commonwealth Institute, it's being allowed to fall down. The idea of having LB in front of all the template names was to keep them together in the NavBoxesofEngland category - we could declare UDI and create a NavBoxesofLondon category - but thats going over the top, perhaps. Otherwise really good work, another list its difficult to cut. Have you rolled it out? I use AWB it makes it a tad easier. It's also a good time to do a quick review of each page and ensure they roughly follow a format, and there are no glaring errors. Kbthompson 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What format would that be? I suppose when you say rolled it out, you mean placed it on the appropriate pages. No i haven't yet. Shame about the Commonwealth. I've been there a while ago and thought it was interesting. Simply south 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no defined format (so far), just general consistency, try to sort out redlinks, rem advertising, that sort of thing. Maybe K & C won't be so bad. The 'burbs all need serious TLC. Anyway, time for my cocoa ... Kbthompson 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will add more tomorrow. (btw, see my reply for Regent's Park) Simply south 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the other change is Category:Kensington & Chelsea -> Category:Neighbourhood of Kensington & Chelsea (if it's appropriate); and add Category:Kensington & Chelsea to that cat. Kbthompson 23:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BAC

They seem a little more confident than they were in January; can see their way to March 2008, and hope to have a trust in place to pay for the building by then. We'll see. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Thanks for the update, I've had more good times - and bad times (exams of all things!) - in there than I can count. Cheers. Kbthompson 15:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

5000 Today

Congratulations Kb. I applaud your devotion to Truth - a good looking woman, and bold with it, as I can see from your user page. Colin4C 09:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just got out of the bath when that was taken .... Kbthompson 12:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

hOUNSLOW

Oddly now, i decided to add a few and stopped at Hanoworth. I however did not add the neighbourhoods cat. The template is appearing twice on the pages and finally the title of this discussion is a typo. Simply south 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding Cat:Neighbourhoods; unfortunately I did not realise you were also working on those pages, so some LB Hounslows have been added twice ... the districts also need a bit of a cleanup (so I'm not wasting my time) 8^). The title is known as cAPS LOCK case ... Kbthompson 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just try to be thorough when doing the templates and so that means looking at a multimap er... map as well as the Whatlinkshere and include all the places in thr borough that i can. Why would you say some articles get mid and others get low? Simply south 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If a place appears on the list of principal places in London, then it should be mid, or higher. If a London Boro, it should be high. Principal places in boro's are mid->high. I think that's how it works ... MSRC knows the scoop, and I'm sure will correct me if I go wrong. Kbthompson 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Most places are start class, since few of them have achieved quality necessary to go any higher! Kbthompson 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Literary London

I'm thinking of creating an article on literary London, or London in literature. What do you think? There is already a London in fiction article, but it is just an (inaccurate) list, and anyway 'fiction' is not synonymous with 'literature'. A better article would mention the activities and locales of the London literati and such people as Shakespeare, Pepys, Johnson, Keats and Betjeman whose contribution to London literature was not necessarily in the form of pulp fiction...Or maybe the emphasis should be on how London itself has been constructed through literature: Dickensian London, Holmsian London, Sax Rohmer's East End, 'Metroland', etc etc. Colin4C 12:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. There are two immediate concerns. Firstly, it would attract the English Major essayists (so could end up being hijacked to disappearing too far up it's own posterior antonym); secondly, the focus, how would it differ from an extension to an article on (say) Holmes? The Limehouse of Holmes is only a short cab ride from Baker Street, but we know that there was so much traffic that it would take hours and participants would all be knee deep in horse shit ...

Somewhere, can't remember, I made the suggestion (ah, it was about British history), that we should write something brief on what contemporary life was like for ordinary people, rather than restricting it to big events. It kinda got poo-poo'd and lost down the cracks. So, what would a literary London article do? Would it be an examination of the contemporary reality, or revisit the fiction? There is a big gap between those aspirations.

Modes of communication are all a bit flakey here, I seem to have exceeded my ISP's arbitrary bit limit, and they seem to be turning the screw on what can be achieved. So, if I drop out, it's them! Kbthompson 12:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I WAS thinking that the reality of London is actually to a certain extent constructed out of fantasy and myth. For instance the East End is a place where certain transgressive fantasies concerning opium dens, sailors and loose women etc (as seen in Dorian Grey and Jeckyll and Hyde and the novels of Sax Rohmer for instance) are realized. Or when the London smog descended as of yore one could imagine all kinds of mysterious things (Idea for a film: 'THE SMOG'). I'm sort of thinking aloud here...Let's just test a link and see if it turns red or black: London smog, London fog....Hmmmmmmm.....maybe a London in popular culture article would be a good idea...though I can see myself going off the post-modern deep end with this one... Colin4C 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As for 'ordinary people', maybe an examination of the lyrics of certain music-hall songs by Marie-Lloyd etc could tell us a lot about working class life in the Big City. Just a thought... Colin4C 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No I have every agreement, merely urge you to identify where you're going with it. There are multiple directions - some could even be undertaken at the same time. I think it's a useful article because it's under-represented, hell, it's even important! Kbthompson 22:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you need to join the London Psychogeographical Association. Kbthompson 12:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Review

Thanks for the quick review around 11^1/2 days ago!. I will see how i can improve Simply south 10:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Let me know if I can help in anyway. Kbthompson 10:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Menier Chocolate Factory?

for your Theatres in London Template? -- Peripatetic 13:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably; but needs a wiki-article first, seats 190 ... Some of these things come and go faster than we can change them, but then some turn into the next Almeida theatre. Not obvious from their website who's behind them, if it's publicly funded I think it could quickly go to the wall - remembering a £2m (public money) Half Moon theatre that is now a large pub!

I have no 'ownership' of templates, merely that they help people get around things they might not otherwise find - that turns out to be a bit of a curate's egg. Cheers Kbthompson 13:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Does have an article I think - Menier Chocolate Factory - and important in the current scenario since they were the ones to first stage Little Shop of Horrors. --Peripatetic 16:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article needs work, and heavy editing to highlight that the spoof was, a well, spoof ... Little Shop wasn't a first, it was a revival - was it a London première? I'll get around to it when I can, but in the meantime, feel free. All the best. Kbthompson 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, I performed my first-ever merger at George Formby and came here to thank you for your support. --Futurano 11:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Where it makes sense, it makes sense. I'm glad you enjoyed the process. Maybe we should start a new category:Champion clogdancers of England .... take care. Kbthompson 12:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies also for insertion under Stock Photography. SarahEMBH

Marie Lloyd

Kb, there is a play on BBC4 about Marie Lloyd, on Wednesday, if you are interested...Colin4C 10:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ta for that, I shall set the box up to watch it for me ... eventually I'll run out of disk space and actually have to watch television. Kbthompson 10:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

georgemelly.com

Where did you get the information that this is the artist's official website? Obiskobilob 17:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, read it, it's put up by his music management company (Jack L Higgins). I admit it contains sales information, but since it's the official site, I'd let that slide. I'm as anxious as you to prevent WP:SPAM, but in this case, I would argue for its appropriateness. Kbthompson 17:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read the site and can find nothing on it to indicate that it is George Melly's official site. Indeed Tomandlu who is GM's son states on the Talk:George Melly page that he does not believe it is officially endorsed. Jack L Higgins has a site [8] but it does not seem to have been updated with respect to GM since 2004. Can you provide a reliable source for your information about [9] georgemelly.com? Obiskobilob 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

La Strada, etc.

Thanks for your La Strada edits. Weigh in on the discussion here if you care to. IMO, we don't need everyone to say "play nice", we need someone to really look at the problem and see the extent and seriousness of it. It is a systematic destruction of information on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers 13:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I got caught up trying to find references to Lionel Bart's involvement in Unity Theatre, London but came up zilch, so twiddled with some omissions I found on the way. On the other matter, I'll take a look-see, but as always will make my own mind up. Kbthompson 15:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree about the RfC. Can you start the process? I can add my examples/experience to it, and so would SandyGeorgia. The more editors review this, the better. -- Ssilvers 17:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to give him a chance to reply first - hopefully agree, it's not a hanging. Editing is a balancing process, but I do think he errs on the side of brevity and some of his edits have been disruptive. He is so prolific that his changes affect a wide swathe of articles. Kbthompson 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unity Theatre

I added some info. Feel free to trim out anything you think is unnecessary. I think the article could be even clearer that the Unity theatre was presenting works that were quite different from the mainstream works of the day, that only the Unity theatre did this, and how the movement spread throughout Britain (anywhere else)? I know there was something like it in the U.S.) The movement was a key artistic and political outlet for working people during WW II.... Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ta for that. I was interested in it, in that it was a movement that the Theatre Workshop leapt from, Joan Littlewood is my personal heroine, in that she first got me involved in the theatre by inviting a young lad to climb amongst the lights (literally, I was 40 before I stood in front of them).

As for the history of left theatre in the US, they're worse than Stalin when it comes to airbrushing communists and such like out of history. Brecht is fine, as long as it remains a financial transaction, as soon as it involves rational thought, or heaven forbid dissent then hold the horses ... (not that communists are the be all and end all, merely that people should exercise some kinda choice). Anyway, it's nearly the witching hour, so toodle-pip! Kbthompson 22:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Marylebone

Hi, Marylebone is not a borough but is very much a specific area of London famous in history which many famous people, places and organizations have been associated with. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No arguments with its historical importance, merely does it deserve an entire category separate from Westminster? I think this verges on an obsession, when will you be demanding independence? 8^) Kbthompson 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, its not obsessive at all and I don't see why smaller parts of London can't have their own categories. Note the Marylebone category is not even in the London borough category anyway. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I shall most definitely sleep on it. Kbthompson 23:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image:1755 Stow Shoreditch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1755 Stow Shoreditch.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, good to have more information about the author and that, of course confirms the copyright status. However, the image still needs a source - i.e. where the digital image came from - a scan from a book, a website etc. Sorry to be a pain. Madmedea 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I can probably match it to several websites, but this scan came from an academic source. I've faced complications with modern images, but I never thought I'd face problems with 400 year old artwork. Kbthompson 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you scanned it, just put that! Yes, I know I'm being a pedant - but I've come to think an image without a source is like a fact without a reference - no way of checking it out. Thanks for being understanding. Madmedea 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Vesta Tilley.

Unity Theatre

KB, I was really pleased to see someone had made Unity Theatre, London a proper entry of its own - it deserves it (especially on a wiki projects - after all it was "Theatre by the people for the people". I've just made a few edits to it. I've got an amount of info on this subject. Besides Colin Chambers' invalueable book I've got various theatre programmes and other odds and ends, so can try and look bits up if there's more we want to add on it. Skekayuk 10:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the shared interest, and thanks for the additions and corrections - I think the Robeson snippet came from the theatre museum site, or the unity theatre site that's referenced. There's nothing to say they're right - particularly if you have the programmes for the performances. It would be great to add more, but we have to avoid the dread original research!

You may also be interested in the Theatre Workshop (a 'professional' company), but one who grew out the Unity Theatre movement and whose ethos still informs the Theatre Royal Stratford East's community work.

Left theatre often gets ignored, mainly because it gathers together a few talented people for a while, who then drift off to earn money. Before Edward Bond, Steven Berkoff and the like were premièring at the National they premièred all their work at the Half Moon Theatre in Stepney - now a major pub!

There's a lot of theatre history missing here, because ultimately, it is a populist project. That can be both a strength and a weakness. Kbthompson 20:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I couldn't resist ... Half Moon Theatre. Kbthompson 10:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Burlington Bertie

Am shocked to discover that there is absolutely nothing about Burlington Bertie (who rose at 10.30) in the wikipedia. He was from Bow, I believe, and was possibly a transvestite. That's about all I know...Colin4C 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Champagne Charlie? A strange way to cut heroin, I know ... Kbthompson 00:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Burlington Bertie by William Hargreaves, husband of Ella Shields. - or was it Harry B Norris? Kbthompson 00:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

jewellery→jewelry

Thank you (CmdrObot) for introducing spelling mistakes into British-English articles, as you did to Chelsea, London. I would hope this could be stopped before it goes to far. The Irish spelling is the same, CmdrO'bot. Thanks Kbthompson 20:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for that. I've (a) updated my bot so that it doesn't make that miscorrection any more, and (b) added it to my list of national spelling variants so my bot will warn me if I accidentally try to add it to its corrections rules again and (c) am going to have a look over the last few days of edits to see if I made any other miscorrections like that.

However, I feel a comment is in order here: you might like to consider being less sarcastic in matters like this in future. I don't see how it can achieve anything other than to get people's backs up, and make them less inclined to listen to your (entirely legitimate in this case) criticism.

Cheers, CmdrObot 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

... and I replied with apologies for any misunderstanding at your bot page .... Kbthompson 10:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up

Someday I'll get the hang of this Default sorting thing. Thanks for taking care of it on so many of the articles I catted. What's new in KB world? In mine, someone put the Gilbert and Sullivan article, as well as the Malcolm Sargent article up for GA review. Feel like commenting on those? Be well, -- Ssilvers 02:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers SS. Whenever I go in for one of these AWB sessions, I always dread receiving a message - it usually indicates I messed up! So, it's pleasant to hear from you. I apologise for lighting up your watchlist. I wrote a brief article the other day, began looking at some of the people linked with that theatre - tidied up a bit of too obvious plagiarism and then found that the entire cat:English dramatists and playwrights was in a bit of a mess, so started going through them with the AWB tool - looking for obvious blunders, omissions (not yours of course) and things that can tidied up - like the defaultsort (the tool does most of that for you, so is worth using. The annoying thing is when someone made a mistake with the name in one entry, then it makes you do the whole list manually). Trouble is, I think I'm still only half way through.

I'm off shortly to the West End, but will have lunch with an old friend, who has genuine talent, but scrapes a living as a professional musician (with no pension plan! - so I'm glad I didn't go that way). I probably won't get around to looking at those articles today (or indeed finishing the AWB edits). Generally been neglecting wiki this month - got too much on in real life. Kbthompson 08:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lunch got can'd, which is just as well. Had a look at both articles and seems difficult to see they'd fail GA. I think they're both on the way to FA. Kbthompson 17:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. My sense is that they're GA. Of course, I would value any specific improvements you can suggest. I think, if I understand the process, that you can promote them to GA now, since you did not edit them. Oh, BTW, got some new info in St. George's Hall. Please take a look. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if anyone completely independent takes a look and makes comments. While I've been through GA on East End, I'm not sure I feel totally competent to review. I don't see a reason why they shouldn't pass - at the moment. I'd like to submit some more articles to the process before doing a review on my own. Kbthompson 13:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Greenwich

Thanks for having a go at the history section- those histories are public domain due to their age, I don't suggest we should copy the whole thing though as they're vast! Also we need to find other sources for 1800-present day, Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for noticing the omission, it's an important article - and many more minor places have quite extensive history sections. I generally ravage BritHistory for important tidbits, rephrase - the copyright is by no means clear, as the digital version was published between 2002-present - they've now begun putting copyright notices on their maps (which is a bugger, 'cos they're generally good!). I think the more recent history can actually be dealt with through the 'objects' that remain - as you say, there's a lot of of them. Kbthompson 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi I don't think there's any doubt the text is public domain (I believe the same applies to 1911 Britannica, the Jewish encyclopedia etc.). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ossultone Hundred

KB, if you check original sources, you will find that Harringay and Hornsey were used interchangeably. In referring to the manor, the normal appelation was Harringay or Harringhay. The Hornsey version came later, Can you not live with this being represented on the Hundreds page? It is verifiable through ancient documents rather than 19th century history books.

Your comment on the Miidlesex page suggests that you deleted harringay because it was not a historic parish. You are right in that it was never a parish. But you are wrong because hundreds were never based on parishes. They predated them. See the Wiki page on "hundred" for easy reference on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjuk (talk • contribs)

In 'Ossulstone Hundred', A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 6: Friern Barnet, Finchley, Hornsey with Highgate (1980), pp. 1-5, Hornsey rates a mention, but no form of Harringay. Generally, the Victoria County History is regarded as the definitive account of the history of London, because the project is the most heavily peer reviewed historical publication. In respect of the manor of Harringay, I would think (but don't know!) that this is probably a sub-manor of Hornsey. Since the ancient documents aren't to hand, I'd probably go with the Victoria History. There are two criteria on writing history on wikipedia: the first is verifiability (WP:VER) (of which there are many arguments) and the second is no original research (WP:NOR).

Also, you've been editing Haringay and the boro' page - no argument with that, some of it is a definite improvement and I'm glad to see someone having a go at it. I would urge you to look at other writings on settlements in London to a). try to keep to much the same style, b}. endeavour to reference your work in the same style as them, c). not quote websites verbatim, and d). write prose, rather than disconnected sections - it looks like notes at the moment. If you need to experiment, or work something out, then please use your Sandbox - with Wiki you're publishing immediately and that should be at least partially complete. Use the Sign your username button to sign your comments. And if there's anyway I can help, pls feel free to ask. Good luck

Kbthompson 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ilford

I've copied the conversation to Talk:Ilford and replied there. This account seems to have been set up for a single purpose and I notice almost every edit by that account has been reverted by a wide range of editors. MRSC • Talk 13:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Doncha just luv it. Much the same thing happened with the late lamented East Canonbury. Everybody wants to live somewhere else, and if they can't move houses, they'll move its political location. Maybe I show too much patience, but (above) I've been accused of not showing enough.

I think I'm going to move history - since its essentially administrative and try to find something historical to say about Ilford - although with only 60 dwellings there in 1650, that might be difficult. Kbthompson 13:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has written anything good about the effect of postal geography on perceptions of location... MRSC • Talk 14:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ROFL-bomp ... I seriously doubt it, then it again, it's no worse than the historic county debate ... I'm interested in history, but even I don't go for them. Which silly uniform turned up at the council's AGM. Kbthompson 14:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember getting seriously big-headed about residing in SW1. Is that good enough? Or should I send my cranial measurements? Colin4C 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

... see a doctor! I used to live in 10025, but I'm much better now. Which reminds me. I once had to go to pick up my post in NYC. They had a timed ticket system. I knew it was going to take a while, so I turned up soon after 9am. The ticket said that my estimated wait to service time was 3.5 hours; some little old ladies confirmed this to be the case. I went off, did stuff and came back after lunch in good time to be called for my appointment. (I used to renew my driving licence in Poughkeepsie, in order to avoid the queues in Manhattan). Kbthompson 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Postcodes

In this vein, I have a plan for dealing with these stubs. See Talk:London postal district. Your input would be appreciated. MRSC • Talk 06:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, particularly after the entrenched attitudes you faced on the last occasion. It seems a good way forward and a good compromise. Kbthompson 11:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

re Talk:London postal district - I give up! MRSC • Talk 07:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to see why someone would want a collection of one-line stubs. If I could understand it, it might be possible to talk them out of it - but it's not just the stubbornness of one person. Kbthompson 08:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand how the one-liners are preferred to articles such as SE postcode area. I thought this way forward offerred real compromise and a chance for improvement. I see now that some editors have no desire to do any work to the articles, but at the same time are not prepared to let go. MRSC • Talk 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It beats me! The wiki ideal is a sort of practical Maoism (Let a thousand flowers bloom), their solution to the problem was to shoot a few and re-educate the rest - so, perhaps best not go there! I think of article development as moving it in the direction of 'some ideal notion of quality'; the reality of wiki is you push in one direction and five push in the opposite. If you don't develop a healthy sense of live and let live, it will quickly drive you mad. Sometimes you get a chance to do something which gives a few people satisfaction, other times you just have to watch it all fall apart. Move on. Kbthompson 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My faith is restored. Runcorn and his army of sockpuppets have been blocked. Horah. MRSC • Talk 07:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)