Talk:Bloomsbury

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bloomsbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bloomsbury. 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) 02:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bloomsbury. 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) 09:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Domesday[edit]

I’ve removed the reference to Domesday. The text said the area was part of an area mentioned in Domesday, though noting that the first mention of the name Bloomsbury came later. The reference was to the London Encyclopaedia, I checked the LE and the reference is accurate, the generally useful Lon. Encyclopaedia does make that statement – but, I believe, in error, for reasons I set out below. There is no manor of Bloomsbury in the Domesday book https://opendomesday.org/map/ So if the LE is accurate, what neighbouring manor is it part of. The LE doesn’t say, so I examined the details of neighbouring manors (Holborn – of which there is an argument that the area was a part, Lisson, Tottenham Court etc) and none of these had vineyards or wood for 100 pigs). The text already states the name is first used in the 1200’s, I can’t access the online reference, but the statement is also supported by the Oxford Dictionary of English place Names It seems to me that the best course of action is to remove the reference, unless and until someone can identify which Domesday manor the area was a part of. AlasdairDaw (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation & Heritage Addition to Lede[edit]

@Cristiano Tomás:

In response to your complete deletion of the lede section I have added, with reason: '[this is] a common trope in London neighbourhoods':

I have added a fairly substantial section on the conservation and heritage of Bloomsbury in the present day. I debated whether or not to include a summary of this in the lede. However I decided in favour, quoting from Wikipedia's guidance on good ledes:

"The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article. It should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article, get them interested in the content, and inspire them to read the whole article.# The lead should be one to four paragraphs in length, and should answer most or all of the 5 Ws.# If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead."

Evidently the section on conservation and heritage deserves a mention in the lede, especially as the Bloomsbury lede is actually rather short, and as unfortunately the Bloomsbury article is not entirely developed at the moment. Your comment that this is 'a common trope' I don't really understand. It's just a summary of what appears in the article.

Oward98 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection the lead summary focuses too much on the latter part of the conservation article, and takes up too much space as compared to the rest of the lede. I have accordingly condensed the section into two sentences. I think this is more reflective of the article's content.

"Bloomsbury's built heritage is currently protected by the designation of a conservation area and a locally based conservation committee. Despite this, there is increasing concern about a trend towards larger and less sensitive development, and the associated demolition of Victorian and Georgian buildings."

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bloomsbury&oldid=1206340376"