Jump to content

Talk:Kew

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

Recent edits

[edit]

Can anyone explain why the inclusion of this information [1] improves the article? I have left a message on the talk page of the user in question but have yet to receive a reply. Badgerpatrol 16:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London, as far as I'm concerned the edits by the anoymous user violate pretty much every Wikipedia policy and guideline I can think of... WP:NOR is a major one that wasn't mentioned in my edit summary. In situations such as these, WP:3RR should not be relevant given that the edits being reverted are simply irrelevant speculation. DJR (T) 23:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope's verse

[edit]

Is it "I am his Majesty's dog at Kew" or "I am his Highness's dog at Kew"? I learned the latter as a child. Majesty's gets more Google hits (642) than Highness's (only 97), but Highness' trumps them both with 683. (I'd have used "Highness's" instead of "Highness' " because it works better with the galloping dactylic meter, but that's less important than which word is correct.) Does anyone know for certain how it was originally inscribed on the relevant collar? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My old copy of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Second edition, reprinted 1974, page382) uses "Highness' ", not "Highness's" or "Majesty's". I will change it in the article. Patche99z 15:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I have just found the Project Gutenberg version of the actual words at [2]. It comes about half way down a long plain text version of vol 2 of his poems. This confirms the word as Highness'. It uses the word "Engraved" at the start of the name (as did the person who included the quote in the first place) which is omitted from the Oxford version. The title is shown in all caps, not caps and lower case as in the Oxford version. I will put back the "engraved" but can't bring myself to bother about capitalisation or not. Patche99z 15:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the fact that the title is in all caps in the Gutenberg edition is particularly important — that text seems to use capital letters for all titles. However, what may (or may not) be significant is the capitalization of "His" in "His Highness' dog". Is that standard for posessive pronouns used with royal titles? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Gutenberg uses the capital 'His' within the poem, Oxford uses lower case 'his', which surprised me a bit. I am happy with the capital version, and will make no more changes.Patche99z 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village?

[edit]

With a population of more than 10,000, Kew can hardly lay claim to be a village. Only Richmond Council calls it that. It's also nonsensical for the village of Kew to have at its heart an area called Kew Village. Headhitter (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "district". Headhitter (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable inhabitants

[edit]

I've deleted Thomas Gainsborough. Although he is buried at Kew, he never lived there, except on occasional visits to his sister – see http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45378 Headhitter (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Lancelot "Capability" Brown lived at Wilderness House, Hampton Court Palace, rather than Kew. See: http://www.hrp.org.uk/NewsAndMedia/hcpresources/BluePlaqueforCapabilityBrownatHamptonCourtPalace Headhitter (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Kew Gardens station

[edit]

Does anyone have a new image of Kew Gardens station that could be uploaded to this article? The current one is out of date as the signage now conforms to Transport for London branding. Headhitter (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kew. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kew. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now replaced the archived url with an updated link. Headhitter (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kew. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local govt wording

[edit]

@user:Headhitter, here is my reply to today's edit spat, and thank for for saying please. The original sloppy and uncited text said this: In 1965, under the London Government Act 1963, the boundaries of Greater London were expanded to include Kew which, with Richmond, transferred from Surrey to the new London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. I therefore changed it to reflect more closely what actually happened. You put back a large part of what I changed, in particular, In 1965, under the London Government Act 1963, London's boundaries were expanded. Kew, with Richmond, transferred from Surrey to the new London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, which simply replaces the old sloppy wording with new sloppy wording. Where did the act expand London's boundaries? Expand means something in existance becomes bigger. What did the act do? It abolished the local govt structure within the county of London and immediately surrounding areas, such as that covered by the Municipal Borough of Richmond, and this included abolishing that county of London, and then it created a new local govt structure and a new local govt areas. What has been transferred and from what to what? Even if we assume that London's bounaries were clearly deliniated by the boundaries of the county of London and the later Greater London county, which is an assumption, where does it say anywhere that what was in place (ie the county of London) was expanded, or stretched out, and renamed Greater London? This casual use of wording amounts to pure uncited invention and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia where readers should be able to assume a certain level of accuracy in what they read. All that is required here, and elsewhere in countless similar articles, is a little care in how we phrase things. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roger 8 Roger (talk). I see your point. Does the rewording I have done just now address the issue? Headhitter (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'transfer' should not be used, but I won't push the point. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kew&oldid=1207957207"