This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofhighways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofLondon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofTransport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport
"Park Lane owes much of its fame to the fact that it is the second most valuable property in the London edition of Monopoly." Much of its fame? Really? I would think that Park Lane had already acquired most of its fame long before Monopoly™ even existed. Uncited, in any case. -Jmabel |Talk02:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support I think London's Park Lane is so globally renowned and has so many hits about it in reliable sources that by default this should be the London road and all others moved to a dab page. The vast majority of users typing in Park Lane will be looking for this.♦Dr. Blofeld20:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are many Park Lanes, what makes this the primary topic? Also, there is no Park Lane in the originalMonopoly,rather a Park Place. Perhaps you are thinking of a johnny-come-lately british version of Monopoly, as opposed to the original version from 1903 in America? So, other than the refuted point that it is known from Monopoly (as, well, the vast majority of the world doesn't play ::shudder:: london-based monopoly) what other reasons are there to believe that this park lane is the in fact primary topic? What about Park Lane in Boston, Or Dallas? ~~ipuser94.14.212.141 (talk)22:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good reason, PRIMARYTOPIC is however. Based on your argument you could argue thatWill Smith should be dabbed as (actor) and Will Smith redirected toWilliam Smith. As a whole, Park Lane in London is byfar the best known road globally and this is reflected in sources.♦Dr. Blofeld05:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a nasty feeling you're showing your age there I'm afraid, Anthony, my ten year old stepson goes on about wanting a haircut like him to look "cool" all the time. BTW Blofeld, your example is flawed because Will Smith's real name isn't William :-PRitchie333(talk)(cont)15:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The other articles (not the street) get 2,510 hits altogether, but the reader looking for them would be unlikely to enter "Park Lane" alone. They would more likely enter "park lane bank", "park lane mall" etc. If the non-street numbers are adjusted down by 50% to allow for that, the street is clearly the primary topic in terms of usage and long-term significance: a more likely meaning than all the others combined and a street that will remain long after the banks and shopping malls have gone.Aymatth2 (talk)15:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Since you're hereBlofeld, why not help get this togood article status and sort out the remaining "notable residents" list, add proper sources, and integrate them into the prose. Often (eg: as withGrosvenor House) the building has kind of equal notability to its most famous resident. Anyway....
*Shirley Porter, Tesco heiress and Tory politician, set up home on Curzon Square in 2006 after 12 years of self-imposed exile inIsrael*No. 55 and 60:Mohamed Al-Fayed, owner of Fulham F.C., former owner of Harrods
In the second paragraph of the lead, it says that "gentrification decreased", but was Park Lanebecoming middle class until then? Surely not.Alakzi (talk)10:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah,Confucius he say editor making first draft of new lead make mistake and howler lot to need copyedit. Say,Blofeld, how do you feel about the article generally now? I could add bits and bobs of trivia (DYK that apparentlyBarbara Castle took three hours to travel up Park Lane, to whichBaron Davies of Oldham quipped some people might have troublewalking the road in that distance, presumably after aliquid lunch?[2]) but I don't think any of it's relevant. IMHO we just need to give this a goodshave and a haircut copyedit, wait for the RM to finish, and we'll be good for a GAN. What do you think?Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a pattern today. But it's not snark there, either. I think if you do serious article work, say 100+ edits on an article and pull in 20+ sources, you can seem a bit frazzled at times. Just human nature and the difficulties of text communication, I think. Anyway, have a look through the article and if you spot any mistakes (and there's bound to be some),dive in.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I prefer to leave a note about any errors I find when I'm not familiar with the topic. I thought you were annoyed with me, but it seems not.Alakzi (talk)14:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all! The first sentence of my initial response really means something like "Oh yes, good point. I've just rewritten the lead so there will be mistakes. Fixed." The rest is for Dr. Blofeld. And your infobox work was very much appreciated.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might be being too cautious but I think perWP:MOSBEGIN, the first paragraph in the lead is slightly too short and might benefit from a small expansion (a sentence ought to do it) or some shifting of the content around to make it longer
I've added a few sentences, that summarise the rest of the lead, like a "meta-lead". That ought to work quite well for somebody who was looking for a different Park Lane and quickly wants to work out whatthis one is.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)07:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The road, 1.2 kilometres (0.75 mi) in length" - why is it metric before imperial in this instance? It's in the infobox too
Google Maps suggests one end to the other on foot is 0.7 miles, and that's good enough to me. Do we need a source too? It can be verified by taking atrundle wheel up the street and it really doesn't strike me as "information challenged or likely to be challenged".Ritchie333(talk)(cont)07:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli at No. 93, Dorchester House, Brook House and Dudley House" - unclear, did Benjamin Disraeli live at all of these houses or was it just No. 93 at Dorchester House?
"After the war, Charles Vane-Tempest-Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, and his wife, Edith Helen Chaplin, continued to use the house and entertained extensively" - probablyentertained extensively there would sound clearer
"Since the original publication, prices on Park Lane have held their value, though average rent costs have been overtaken by Bond Street" - is this still referring to Monopoly here? If not it doesn't sound like it should belong in a Culture section?
I've copyedited this a little to make it clear. The source is specifically referring to the relationship between Monopoly board prices and real life, and speculating if Park Lane and Mayfair really are the most valuable places in London.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)07:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Testament to the forces of globalization" - UK Spelling, I've changed this one myself
This is a very well written article, hence why I couldn't find many prose issues with it! The concerns I noted above were all minor, so it shouldn't take long to address them. Are you aiming to bring up every street on the Monopoly board to GA? It's very doable as the sources for every place in London is quite extensive.JAGUAR16:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for bringing every Monopoly square to GA, inspired by the Rambling Man's Boat Race extravaganza last year,I've started a chart. Bring it on!Whitechapel Road is the next target, I think. I need to get a full hard copy ofThe London Encyclopedia which has essential information about all of them (been working off a partially incomplete Google Books copy for the minute). Tim Moore'sDo Not Pass Go, which I have a paper copy of, is dedicated to the streets and properties on the Monopoly board.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing them! I've had another look through the article and it now meets the GA criteria. I wish you two luck on brining every Monopoly square up to GA - definitely achievable and it would make an excellent Good Topic.JAGUAR11:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the same person (using different IPs) who was editing in a similar manner on theRegent Street andBond Street articles? Some changes might be okay but when they're done in a swathe of big chunks like that, it's very difficult to pick out the good from the not so good. On one of the other articles, didn't it just re-start as soon as the protection was lifted? If the IP won't discuss I'm not sure what else to suggest.SagaciousPhil -Chat13:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it, a set ofHutchison 3G IPs (ranges 92.40.0.0/16 and 188.28.0.0/16), no edit summaries, some good, some factually incorrect, some to taste. I did get something approaching a conversation on Bond Street's talk, then they ignored the conversation and reverted about ten minutes after protection expired. I told him to go and copyeditLiverpool Street station which still needs a lot of work to get to GA, but that fell on deaf ears.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link onPark Lane. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
I originally reverted the addition[3] because the existing source didn't mention any controversy. The original editor reinstated it with a source, though the edit was improperly formatted. I stand by any revert based on lack of explanation (seeUser:Willondon#unsourced, unexplained), but I thought the source was reasonable enough that it could stand, so I added it again myself, properly formatted. I really don't have any skin in this game, so I'm happy to stand by and see how things develop.Willondon (talk)13:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onlondon is described as "On London is run by Dave Hill, formerly the Guardian's award-winning London commentator, and written by him and an array of fellow Londoncentrics. It aims to improve the quality of coverage of London politics, development and culture.", so I would consider it reliable for basic facts, such as the fact the cycle lane exists and what date it was installed. However, I can't find anything beyond that (for example,this BBC source mentions it exists in a photo caption and that's it) so I'm not sure of its relevance compared to the centuries of history documented elsewhere in the article.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
JAGUAR 16:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JAGUAR 11:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]