Talk:145 Piccadilly
Appearance
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from 145 Piccadilly appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 March 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
( )
- ... that Elizabeth II's childhood toys at 145 Piccadilly included 30 toy horses and a farm set collected from Woolworths? Source: At 145 Piccadilly the next generation had not one toy horse - but 30. Stabled on the nursery landing, they were bridled, saddled, groomed and polished according to a strict routine. On a long table nearby was set out Princess Elizabeth's farm, its pieces collected one by one over the years from Woolworth's. McLeod, Kirsty (16 September 1985). "Toys fit for a royal nursery". The Times. No. 62244. p. 13.
Created by No Swan So Fine (talk). Self-nominated at 14:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/145 Piccadilly; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Reviewing... new enough, long enough, interesting hook. Will complete soon. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
... No copyvio issues, QPQ provided. Plenty of decent references. Hook is in the article and followed by a citation to a reference clearly stating hook fact. I really the hook even if most people don't know Woolworths. I got a little lost on what was at the site between the allotment and the hotel, though it is a very good article. Thank you Whispyhistory (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Glitch in ref URL?
[edit]Hi No Swan So Fine, thanks for this interesting article. Ref 20 ("News In Brief". The Times. No. 48202.) seems to have wrong URL? It doesn't talk of rent and is not dated 13 January 1939. URL is same as ref 4 ("Deaths". The Times. No. 25018) (and it should be 1865 not 1845?) Sorry I don't know how to fix. JennyOz (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)