Talk:Park Lane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePark Lane has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starPark Lane is part of the List of London Monopoly locations series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 6, 2015Good article nomineeListed
May 17, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Monopoly[edit]

"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 | Talk 02:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Park Lane, London → Park Lane – This looks to me like a primary topic, primarily due to its prominence in London and recognition on the British Monopoly board. In the last 30 days, the article had 1,450 views. The other three articles unquestionably called "Park Lane" that cannot be disambiguated in any other way are Park Lane (stadium) (232), Park Lane (investment bank), (153) and Park Lane (mall) (91). Combined together that gives us 476 views, less than a third of the London Street. If the move carries, the existing Park Lane disambiguation page would move to Park Lane (disambiguation). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Birmingham, West Midlands, Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Gravesend, Kent and Perth, Western Australia are "more precise", yet the primary topic is the shorter name. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Blofeld 20:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see nothing wrong with this idea. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:45, 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 original Monopoly,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? ~~ipuser 94.14.212.141 (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per the nom. - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per Ser. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose multiple Park Lanes, likely to be a mislink magnet In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good reason, PRIMARYTOPIC is however. Based on your argument you could argue that Will Smith should be dabbed as (actor) and Will Smith redirected to William Smith. As a whole, Park Lane in London is by far the best known road globally and this is reflected in sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How well known is this parallel example Will Smith? I never heard of him until I read this move discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: I have a worrying feeling you're serious too. Who is Tom Cruise? Who is Barack Obama? Will Smith is virtually the biggest film star in the world! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 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 :-P Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose that's not the best example as he's a Willard not a William.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only serious contender I found in sources is the Mercury Park Lane automobile (1,300 views / month compared to the London street's 1,450), which has a natural disambiguation in its title. Indeed, if that article was Park Lane (automobile), I wouldn't have thought about filing the RM. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Page view statistics for Park Lane articles in the last 30 days are:
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]
  • Support. As indicated above, the London street is what most people expect to find when searching for Park Lane.--Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notable residents (moved from article)[edit]

Since you're here Blofeld, why not help get this to good article status and sort out the remaining "notable residents" list, add proper sources, and integrate them into the prose. Often (eg: as with Grosvenor House) the building has kind of equal notability to its most famous resident. Anyway....

Past[edit]

*No. 41: Fred Astaire, Adele Astaire, Brother-sister actor/dancing act leased a flat here, along with their mother, Ann Astaire when playing the West End production, 'Stop Flirting,' in 1923. *No. 60: Robert B. Sherman songwriter of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and Mary Poppins worked and resided in a flat here from 2002 until his death in 2012. *No. 99: Moses Montefiore, philanthropist - has a blue plaque image at File:Montefiore blue plaque.jpg *No. 100, Dudley House: Joseph Robinson, mining magnate *No. 140: Keith Clifford Hall, contact lens pioneer *Aldford House: Dame Anna Neagle, actress *Londonderry House: Charles Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 7th Marquess of Londonderry, cabinet minister and very wealthy Irish aristocrat *Somerset House (No. 40): Warren Hastings and the 11th and 12th Dukes of Somerset[1]

  • Hyde Park Residence [1] (No. 55): Chika Sylva-Olejeme, peace crusader, founder International Peace Institute

*Fraudster Sidney Stanley occupied an apartment there during the 1940s.[2]

Present[edit]

*Shirley Porter, Tesco heiress and Tory politician, set up home on Curzon Square in 2006 after 12 years of self-imposed exile in Israel *No. 55 and 60: Mohamed Al-Fayed, owner of Fulham F.C., former owner of Harrods


Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will try to give this a good look over the next few days, definitely worth getting to GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference parklane was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Search Blue Plaques". English Heritage. Retrieved 2008-11-06.

Gentrification[edit]

In the second paragraph of the lead, it says that "gentrification decreased", but was Park Lane becoming 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 apparently Barbara Castle took three hours to travel up Park Lane, to which Baron Davies of Oldham quipped some people might have trouble walking the road in that distance, presumably after a liquid lunch? [2]) but I don't think any of it's relevant. IMHO we just need to give this a good shave 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]
... what? Do I need to apologise for raising an issue? Alakzi (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just my banter that gets me through slogging through articles. Chill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bit tired today, I'll try to have a look at it later on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It usually works better not to respond to feedback with highbrow snark. Alakzi (talk) 12:52, 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]
OK, thanks for clarifying. Alakzi (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Park Lane, London/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I know this road from heart. From Knightsbridge to Old Bond Street everyday, oh good times... JAGUAR  15:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

  • I might be being too cautious but I think per WP: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 what this 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 a trundle 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?
Split Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and runs north from Hyde Park Corner to Marble Arch" - the Marble Arch? The article itself uses "the Marble Arch", which is probably a good barometer
No, it's definitely Marble Arch - in this case, links to that are referring to either the road junction (with Oxford Street and Edgeware Road) or the tube station. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I thought so, at first I thought it was just referring to the Marble Arch itself JAGUAR  11:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the war, Charles Vane-Tempest-Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, and his wife, Edith Helen Chaplin, continued to use the house and entertained extensively" - probably entertained extensively there would sound clearer
I've gone with "entertained there extensively" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 5 September 1975, a Provisional IRA bomb exploded at the hotel, killing 2 people" - two
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence in the 21st century section talks about a gate that was erected in 1993?
Moved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph in the Cultural references section is too short and would benefit from being merged with something else
Merged Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the board, Park Lane forms a pair with Mayfair" WP:OVERLINK, Mayfair is already linked once in the lead and once again in the article
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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
Okay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • No dead links
  • Is ref 68 working for you? It wouldn't load for me and the toolserver labels it as "suspicious"
I have seen it working (it's a search for "Park Lane" in the book series), but I might have messed up the URL. Let me look for a better source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped the source for a better one and added a bit more information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

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. JAGUAR  16:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: - I think I've addressed all the issues; can you take another look? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Jaguar, and addressing the points Ritchie.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:29, 6 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 of The London Encyclopedia which has essential information about all of them (been working off a partially incomplete Google Books copy for the minute). Tim Moore's Do 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. JAGUAR  11:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Yes, I think it would be possible to make it a Good Article topic!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded lists[edit]

Just a reminder to all that good articles should prefer information collected together as prose in paragraphs, rather than lists. See MOS:EMBED for further information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Socks[edit]

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Sagaciousphil: There seems to be an attack of socks on this article - any ideas on how to proceed (other than the "sledgehammer with nut" approach of semi-protecting?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the same person (using different IPs) who was editing in a similar manner on the Regent Street and Bond 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 - Chat 13:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it, a set of Hutchison 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 copyedit Liverpool 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]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle lanes[edit]

Has anyone got a really good (ie: mainstream broadsheet-quality news) source for the cycle lane? If not, I don't think we should include it per WP:NOTNEWS and balance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 (see User: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]
I felt that the two sources combined indicated that it was noteworthy, though I do tend to side with the sentiment that Wikipedia is not news. Willondon (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Park_Lane&oldid=1205787803"