User talk:Kbthompson

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Kbthompson/Archive 1. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. =) |}