Talk:The Bishops Avenue

Not strictly a residential street

Someone that has the will and time to learn to edit, should add that The Bishops Avenue is not just for the rich, as it also has a care home for the elderly, just google "bishops avenue 50a" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.183.44 (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Silly statement & Tabloid style

Curiously, north of Lyttelton Road, The Bishop´s Avenue becomes much less exclusive and desirable.

What's curious about that? On the north end of Lyttelton Road the houses become much smaller, and more importantly that's the East Finchley end of The Bishop's Avenue so obviously it's going to be less desirable than the other end which is near Hampstead Heath.

Yes, property near Hampstead Heath is more desirable than property near East Finchley tube station. I'm glad I could clear that one up.

While I'm here, much of the article resembles a tabloid story with phrases like "ultra-rich", "snap up large grand homes, only to flatten them", "strictly under wraps", "come under fire", etc. This is Wikipedia, not The Sun. 172.144.212.204 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Keeping in "The Sun mode" he forgot to mention the posh totty that lives there- corrr

No point. What have they to do with your sort? 2A00:23EE:1388:A05A:B055:832:D1F2:2 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Missing references and untidy refernces

I've tried to tidy this, but may have made it even more of a mess by mistake! Never been very good at wikifying references. Every time I do get it right, I forget how I did it straight afterwards. The way it was standing before I touched it, there were two identical entries in a notes section and a full and correct listing of the publication in the references section. I've removed the "notes" section altogether. The two referenced parts now say 1 and 2 but don't point anywhere. Both are from the first reference. I also found an 'Observer' article that contained all the information with "citation needed tags", so I've added it to the references and removed the tags. Nothing now points to the references but at least everything in the article is now referenced. If someone wants to tidy this properly, I'd be grateful. Fork me 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

blah

I agree with the thrust of the article, and the opening quote, "Millionaire's row" but it is still a moniker used by a journalist, the use of the exclamation mark looks so tacky. We should have the formal introduction to the article, as it IS an article about a road. Whether the image or the road came first is irrelevant, articles like 5th Avenue and Bond Street reflect this. Should we really be listing current residents? Are there privacy issues here? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• With respect, I altered the paras to make it readable from the previous collection of nonsequiturs. To say that you had "deleted some puff", well don't shoot the messenger! Its there in the sources and to say that "this is an article about the road, not the image" if you read the sources fully, you will see that the image IS the road. It’s like writing that Buckingham Palace is built on a roundabout without mentioning who lives there. And as for who does lives in the Avenue, it is VERY well documented, but I have not mentioned which houses they live in, unlike some of the sources. Also, I STRONGLY feel that perhaps a discussion should take place before you repeatedly undo edits. Captainclegg (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please could you respond to my above points? I think the article should have a formal introduction. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wiki is an encyclopaedia. The facts used are accurately sourced and quoted and give weight to the value and image of the article and go some way to explaining the desirability and price of the houses on the street. The quotes are in existence in acceptable source material, such as The Times and I do not remember a Wiki rule about formal introductions, which could be subjective anyway. This reads better, does it not?! I hope that I have answered your questions. May I also state here, before this moves in the wrong direction, that I am not in any way making a personal attack on your writing skills, merely that I am attempting to argue that it now reads better. As regards the naming of residents, I hope that I answered that in the 1st para, but they are all very well documented and in the public domain in a way that I hope Wiki would never publish, which is why I have been very careful here, as I am sure you will appreciate. Captainclegg (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should "go some way to explaining the cost of the house". It isn't our role to do that. This isn't a lifestyle magazine. MOS guards against using an exclamation mark. It is "an expression of surprise or emotion", it compromises the neutral style of our prose. Please read WP:PEACOCK. I don't think it does read better. I would prefer the first line to be a description of the roads location, rather than what the road is. Imagine it! "Monaco, the most exclusive place to live in the world ever!" or "Monaco is a small sovereign city-state located in South Western Europe on the northern central coast of the Mediterranean Sea, having a land border on three sides only with France, and being about 16 km (9.9 mi) away from Italy". Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well I know which I prefer to read! And I agree with you about overuse(!) and unnecessary use(!) of exclamation marks! I have however, in the spirit of compromise, re-laid out the article in such a way that (I hope) satisfies all. Captainclegg (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is SO much better, but I still don't think the first line needs to be bout property prices. Also, it can't be that exclusive if anyone can buy a house. I can't be bothered to persue this anymore. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, anyone who has £5mil+ can buy a house! I call that exclusive! Pax Vobiscum. Captainclegg (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet more false claims from user CaptainClegg re Mark Sinden

Have removed more Captainclegg false puffery of Marc Sinden. Little grape (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

NOT "Yet more false claims from user CaptainClegg re Mark Sinden" or "false puffery". I quoted a sourced reference:http://realestalker.blogspot.com/2009/09/heather-mills-is-flipping-out-on.html I did not make it up. Blame the author for getting it wrong. I only posted it. Captainclegg (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As I suspect you well know as an avid student and self-professed 'fan' of the man, Sinden lives in a little semi-detached two-up two-down off the Finchley Road and has lived there for at least the last ten years. Little grape (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Updating the article

Perhaps the article needs rewriting slightly in a more encyclopedic style - and the statement made in 2006 may not be valid in 2017 (and some of the other statements are of a certain age). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)