Talk:Kingston upon Thames

History

I have removed the assertion that Egbert of Wessex was the first king of all England in the early 9th century. He was the king of the kingdom of Wessex, and England, as a unified kingdom, did not come into existence until the 10th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoggler (talk • contribs) 09:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Politics

As parts of Kingston upon Thames fall in 2 parliamentary contituentcies, I have added 'Richmond Park' (which covers the northernmost wards in the Borough) alongside 'Kingston and Surbiton'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indisciplined (talk • contribs) .

City Contacts

I removed the remark: "It is also twinned with Delft in the Netherlands". This city contact was ended years ago. Jaho 01:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

>All the signposts still claim this fact, though. --82.43.144.131 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Postal districts

I've removed KT3 and KT4 again. They are not even in the Kingston upon Thames post town. MRSC • Talk 10:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

List of notable people

I have just deleted two names from the list and was tempted to zap a few more. Of the two names removed, one was insufficiently notable to yet have a wikipedia article, the other linked to a 'vanity' article proposed for deletion. I know it is subjective but the people on the list should elict some degree of interest among the general populace. I can't think of a simple rule, but somehow obscure murderers should not qualify even if they have articles. One possibility would be to remove anything not immediately put in alphabetical order; that would catch most of them! Any ideas on a policy? JMcC 08:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the redlink/bluelink distinction is the key one. Beyond that, as the list is currently titled, it seems wrong to pick & choose, except perhaps on length of residence. I'm surprised Birch has an article though. The next step could be to up the standard and retitle the list "famous people" , "very notable" "significant...". But all these involve subjectivity & would perhaps shorten the lists too much Johnbod 13:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the list, deleted irrelevances and moved it around making it prose rather than a list. Hope that you feel it is better. SuzanneKn 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Suzanne. It is better, but some of the names in this section are still distinctly odd. No doubt eminent in their own fields, but are Andrew Doughty, Fritha Goodey, the murderers and the two Butlers really worth a mention? I will happily zap them unless someone can justify them. JMcC 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised the film actor Jonny Lee Miller isn't listed. Born in Kingston and educated at Tiffin. Catwizzle 11:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

An anon user has been changing the etymology from the accepted old english derivation of -don, -ton, to indicate a farmstead, to a Welsh derivation meaning hill. This is incorrect, as referenced by the Dickens citation, and also looking at other sources, such as a British Museum worksheet which makes direct reference to it.

On another matter, would be a good source to extend the historical information. Cheers Kbthompson 13:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Just for the record, unlike other placenames like "Henley-upon-Thames", "Stratford-upon-Avon" and "Newcastle-upon-Tyne", "Kingston upon Thames" and "Richmond upon Thames" are unhyphenated. I have removed hyphens from these in the article and added a comment immediately after each one. — Paul G 09:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record also, until 1965 the town was known as "Kingston-upon-Thames", but the form "Kingston-on-Thames" was also widely used. When the Greater London area was created, the name was regularized as "Kingston upon Thames" without hyphens, in order to distinguish the expanded Royal Borough from the old one. LynwoodF (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Newcastle upon Tyne is unhyphenated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.63.92 (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you – interesting point which I did not know. There is a discussion on the Newcastle talk page here and also a query about "on" instead of "upon" here. LynwoodF (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thomson Local

Twice within recent weeks separate people have added the Thomson local to this article. It keeps being reverted on the grounds of Spam. This is not a link to a specific company plugging their own products, but a very useful local directory which contains a considerable amount of info on local topics including hospitals, school, social services. It is delivered free in hard copy to households and has its own Wiki entry. It can also be a useful source for expanding the article. I think there is a strong case for retaining it Motmit (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Culture

A citation has been requested for the Rose Theatre being the most notable arts venue. Not sure why a citation is needed when the Rose is the only arts venue in the town, apart from those attached to schools or the university. It's an obvious truth, therefore, that it is the most notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reesmf (talk • contribs) 10:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

1921 Silent Movie Production Photos

FYI editors (Culture section): I recently uploaded some photos (scans) of a silent movie production at Warren House, Kingston upon Thames, in March 1921. Use as you see fit. KKelvinThompson (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Notation on the back of one photo: “"On location" at Kingston on the Thames. Warren House, Country Estate of Gen. Sir Arthur Paget. March 1921.”

• 
• 
• 
• 

Reorganisation of the article

I've been having a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and it looks as though some of the sections of this article as it stands should be moved about, specifically the 'local government' sub-section into 'Governance', the merging of the 'Notable locations' and 'Economy' sections, and the town twinning into the 'Culture' section. I also think leaving the telephone boxes by themselves as the the only 'landmark' in town looks a bit strange: personally I would add the Coronation Stone, Clattern Bridge and Lovekyn Chapel to the landmarks section. Any views for or against these changes? Richard3120 (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you are probably right, especially on the landmarks. Why not make the changes you propose? I can always tell you if there is anything I do not like! WP tell us to be bold, but I appreciate your asking us first. LynwoodF (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I know Wikipedia says "be bold!", but I've been on here long enough to know that people get put out if you start moving blocks of text around wholesale! I just thought that if I pointed out there was a MoS (which some people may not know existed) for organising articles about towns, the changes would be more acceptable. I accept that there is a good argument for keeping the Coronation Stone under 'history' rather than 'landmarks' ,though. Richard3120 (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kingston upon Thames. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071020003313/http://www.caci.co.uk/msd.asp?url=lsp-retailfootprint.htm to http://www.caci.co.uk/msd.asp?url=lsp-retailfootprint.htm

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: 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

2012 Olympics in kingston

Bradley Wiggins riding towards central Kingston on 1 August 2012.

I have a photo taken during the olympics time trial which maybe of interest to illustrate this section. it was taken on the Portsmouth road Surbiton. Shortly before the town centre where Wiggins said in his autobiography My time "the yells and screams from the crowd were actually deafening to the point where I got ringing in my ears"

teecefamily Teecefamily (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I was there on the Portsmouth road that day and took a similar picture seconds later. Yours is probably better. I think this would fit nicely in the section on the Olympics. I have added a caption to the picture. Would you like me to put it in the article? LynwoodF (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Teecefamily: Nothing more has been added to this discussion, and so before I lose sight of it, I shall add the photo to the article. If anyone objects, it can be removed – that is easier than putting it there in the first place. LynwoodF (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingston upon Thames. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618210926/http://www.caci.co.uk/492.aspx to http://www.caci.co.uk/492.aspx

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) 11:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingston upon Thames. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014091425/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10152902 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10152902

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 19:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kingston upon Thames. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009153120/http://www.kingston.gov.uk/browse/leisure/museum/kingston_history/kingstons_royal_connections/borough_seal_rc.htm to http://www.kingston.gov.uk/browse/leisure/museum/kingston_history/kingstons_royal_connections/borough_seal_rc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404094920/http://www.kingston.gov.uk/browse/community_people_and_living/international/oldenburg.htm to http://www.kingston.gov.uk/browse/community_people_and_living/international/oldenburg.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 00:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Richard3120 (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Were kings really crowned here?

The paragraph in the Wiki article that discusses this has no direct citation to support it. A couple of sources suggest there is some uncertainty.

• Crown, Orb and Sceptre: The True Stories of English Coronations, By David Hilliam contains the most detailed discussion I've found. It cites the Anglo Saxon Chronicle as evidence for Athelstan and Ethelred, but claims the evidence for the remainder is based solely on a thirteenth century source that "seems to have added the names of the others to the list without any evidence at all."
• Bord, Janet & Colin, Ancient Mysteries of Britain, Diamond Books, 1991: "“It is claimed that seven kings were crowned at this stone during the tenth century, but this is disputed in some quarters."
• Encyclopedia Britannica: "Tradition holds that seven Anglo-Saxon kings were crowned in Kingston in the 10th century..."

Given all of the above I think we need to be a little less definitive. At least we should reduce the list to the two who are mentioned in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle. Who agrees? Disagrees? I grew up in Kingston in the 1960s and have heard differing versions of this story over the years. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I lived in Kingston for many years so I am familiar with the town, the Stone and the story. I would be happy to see wording along the lines of "it is claimed that seven Saxon kings were crowned in Kingston" and the citations above to support this – I can't see why anyone would seriously object. Richard3120 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have lived in Kingston for many years, in fact for most of my adult life, and I am well aware that the evidence is rather thin. As for the authenticity of the Coronation Stone, I have long suspected that the story is wishful thinking. So I think we need something like "It is claimed that..." or "Tradition holds that...". LynwoodF (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The present text in the article is actually a close paraphrase of what is said by Simon Keynes in the source cited at the end of the section (but not at the end of the paragraph) – a pretty authoritative source. (I've just checked it and added the page number.) So it looks as if there's a discrepancy between him and Hilliam over whether there's evidence for Eadred or not. I agree we should sort that point out, and add citations, but I don't think the section needs major alteration. The three points that need to be made clear are (a) there are certain kings who were crowned (or consecrated) in Kingston; (b) there are certain other kings who are said by later tradition to have been crowned there, but for whom the evidence is flimsier; and (c) they are said to have been crowned on the Coronation Stone, but this is a much later tradition, and highly dubious. GrindtXX (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I've now looked a bit further into this. First, here (first paragraph) is what the Victoria County History (1911) has to say on the subject. There's also a fairly detailed (and more recent) discussion in Shaan Butters, The Book of Kingston (1995), pp. 29–30 and 184. Based on those, here is a list of the supposed consecrations, with indications of how reliable the evidence is. Hilliam mentions a thirteenth-century source, but I think he must be referring to Ralph de Diceto, who actually wrote in the twelfth century (he died c.1202).

• Reliably sourced: Æthelstan in 925; Æthelred the Unready in 978: both consecrations reported in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
• Less well sourced, but still probable: Eadred in 946 (reported by "Florence of Worcester", writing c.1100, and possibly drawing on a variant text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; also apparently supported by the text of a lost charter dated 946).
• Also probable: Eadwig in 956 (again reported by "Florence of Worcester"; and in a life of St Dunstan written in c.1000).
• More dubious, though not impossible: Edward the Elder in 902; Edmund I in 939; Edward the Martyr in 975 (all first reported by Ralph de Diceto, late C12).

Our text also currently mentions Edgar the Peaceful in about 960, but I can't see a Kingston coronation/consecration mentioned in relation to him anywhere – either in reliable sources or in popular tradition – and I think his name should certainly be deleted. [Postscript: I've just rechecked Keynes, and he does include Edgar among his possibles ("there is some evidence ..."): I haven't found his name anywhere else, but Keynes is a respected historian, so the name should probably remain.]

The Coronation Stone is first mentioned in 1793, so is of extremely dubious authenticity. GrindtXX (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Good feedback. I suggest we wait a few more days to see if anyone else speaks up. Then I'll craft something that addresses all these points for your review. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It took me a while to come back to this, but here's my re-write for your review. You'll note that I've retained the existing references. I'd also add a reference to Hilliam. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, two tenth-century kings were crowned in Kingston: Æthelstan (925), and Æthelred the Unready (978). There are certain other kings who are said to have been crowned there, but for whom the evidence (including the writings of Florence of Worcester and Ralph de Diceto) is less substantial: Edward the Elder (902), Edmund I (939),Eadred (946), Eadwig (956), Edgar the Peaceful (circa 960) and Edward the Martyr (975). It was later thought that the coronations were conducted in the chapel of St Mary, which collapsed in 1730. Tradition dating to the 18th century holds that a large stone recovered from the ruins played a part in the coronations. It was initially used as a mounting block, but in 1850 it was moved to a more dignified place in the market before finally being moved to its current location in the grounds of the guildhall."'' BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Thank you for your efforts. 16:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm also very happy with that form of words – apart from one minor technical point, which is that I think you should say "consecrated" rather than "crowned" (the only distinction, I think, being whether a physical crown actually played a part in the ceremony). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and reliable secondary sources like Keynes, say "consecrated"; whereas "coronation" is, of course, a major part of the later myth. GrindtXX (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone. I'll make the "consecrated" change and put this into effect. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Learned Wikipedians: I finally made all the changes! Huzzah! Now we have an extensive list of references on the king coronation matter. Thanks to all. You are indeed Kingstonian scholars, entitled to all rights, privileges and emoluments (???) pertaining thereto. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this, BuzzWeiser196. I wish there were some emoluments pertaining thereto! We just do it out of love for our home town. LynwoodF (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that looks great – although I've just made the minor adjustment of linking to the specific Kingston Guildhall. Many thanks. GrindtXX (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

south-west London

@Murgatroyd49 you have to see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Standardisation_for_all_London_Neigbourhood_/_Area_Pages Thank you Justgravy (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems to have been rejected. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo montage

Notwithstanding the unfortunate attempt to edit war a change back in after it was reverted, I do find that this edit: [1] might be worth talk page discussion. The image layout displayed with captions is quite neat, and I don't think the fact that other pages don't do this can be reason not to do it, or else nothing could ever change. Neither do I have strong opinions on the subject, but perhaps other editors could take a look and reach a quick consensus. The edit should not be re-asserted until a consensus is reached. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

While there may be no absolute requirement for consistency of presentation of settlement articles, following a basic set of rules makes Wikipedia more reader friendly. A major change like this should have been proposed and discussed first. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no set of rules to follow here. And the old way to display the captions is definitely not reader friendly (you need to count the number of images and do it in clockwise to find the corresponding caption). Xeror (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Strange that that never seems to have been a problem before for the many hundreds of articles that use that convention. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wikipedia does not have a feedback or review system by the readers. Even if it had one, few people would say anything about the confusion. And you seem to have a status quo bias. Xeror (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There are many editors who would have commented (or complained) in the past if it was thought there was a problem. I have no problem with changing the status quo but if you want to change it then there has to be a good reason. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Those who are more likely to be confused are less likely to be editors themselves. And if someone had complained a year ago, you would have asked the same question: why did no one complain two years ago? Instead of asking why no one has raised this question before, why not just compare the old and new layouts and say which one is less confusing? And I have also stated, in the very beginning, the reason for the change and you have yet to give any counter-arguments on why it is not a good reason to change it. Xeror (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly I think the new layout doesn't look good, it is bitty and disjointed. Secondly, I don't find the original layout in the slightest bit confusing. I think it is time we let someone else express an opinion. And please don't try putting words into my mouth. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I would not have needed to say all these things if you have just focused on the discussion on the layouts at the very beginning instead of bringing up all these questions.

In response to your arguments: 1) I believe functionality or readability should have a higher priority than look, since it is what is more important to the readers. 2) I myself do not have difficulties on counting images and differentiate clockwise from counter-clockwise, but many people do. We should always try our best to accommodate those who have more reading disadvantages than we do. Xeror (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, let's let others have a say, rather than descend into personal abuse. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The new placement is to improve the readability and to eliminate the need to associate the image with the caption in an unnecessary and confusing way.

Note 1: Neither Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure has any uniformity requirement on the caption placement.

Note 2: It has been discussed on Talk:New York City/Archive 19#Photo montage captions. Xeror (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Re Note 1, I had already acknowledged that.

Re Note 2, That could have been referred to before the change was made Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

So we have established there is no general policy on these, and counter argument is that such a change should be proposed. One possibility would be to actually get a general agreement at WP:CITYSTRUCT which would avoid the blatant edit warring seen on articles like San Jose, California where they don't seem to be aware of WP:3RR. That might need an RFC, but as Xeror seems to want to roll this out on multiple pages, it would be a sensible way to avoid edit wars on each page in turn. Xeror, if you wish to follow that route, please say so, and we can close this discussion and await the outcome there.

On the basis of arguments presented above, I don't see an evidenced rationale for the change, just a preference. I am thus not yet prepared to commit to one view or the other, so we will have to wait for more editor input. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: This has also been tried before: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Selection of a specific montage style. However, the conclusion is that it is not the right place to do it and having a uniformity requirement "just to look the same" is not a good reason for that either. I personally would wish to have this discussion done once and for all but it seems that editing is not easy here. Please also take the comments on the New York City talk page and other comments made on edit histories into account. Xeror (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If you're not convinced that the new layout improve readability, try this little experiment: Go to [2], start a timer and figure out how long it takes to find out what caption the lower right image in the montage is. Repeat the same for [3] (you may pick a different image this time) and time it. Imagine people like this try to read the captions. Not to mention that it takes more than 6 months until I found out that the captions here were totally messed up. Xeror (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Imagine people like this I don't have to imagine. I was still looking for some evidence, or else all I am giving is my preference, as a dyspraxic reader. You might like to consider looking at accessibility guidelines when seeking such evidence. As to the RFC, well that is an answer. The community believes that there is no uniformity requirement. This is both good and bad for your case. It is good, because it means the argument that other pages don't do it this way can be settled with reference to that RFC. It is bad because it means you will need to discuss on each page - but that is the way Wikipedia is, for better or for worse. You will need to choose the pages you are interested in, because you cannot impose a unity on the layout either. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: If you're looking for evidence regarding accessibility guidelines, here is what they say:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images:

7. Avoid referring in text to images as being on the left or right. Image placement may be different for viewers of the mobile site, and is meaningless to people having pages read to them by assistive software. Instead, use captions to identify images.

I believe that the same principle applies to clockwise and anti-clockwise and in the infobox in this case, since they are both referred to the practice of describing multiple images with a single caption, or placing the text description far away from the images. And I do not think that assistive software could describe the image placements either.

I hope this settle the accessibility argument. Xeror (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't apply here, we are talking about one compound image rather than a set of discrete images. Clockwise is clockwise, it doesn't change. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you could call it one compound image if all you do is to put them in proximity. There is no real connection between the images. The principle here still applies for the assistive software. Xeror (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

From infobox mark up <nowicki>{{image frame|content={{Photomontage</nowicki> Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What are you trying to say with this code fragment?

Anyway, let me give you an analogy if you do not get what I said. Any template you use is like a bookshelf. It is a container for contents. If you put 5 fairy tale books on the bookshelf, they are still 5 books. If you put the 7 books of Harry Potter, it's a book series. If you put Advanced Physics with 2 volumes, it is one book with 2 volumes. So it all depends on the connection between the items in it. You can create a "montage" by putting any images in it but it does not make it a single compound image.

This actually brings up another point. This should be treated as a gallery instead, as per Wikipedia:Image use policy:

If a gallery would serve as well as a collage or montage, the gallery should be preferred, as galleries are easier to maintain and adjust better to user preferences.

Compare this to File:Phoebian Explorers 2 PIA06118.jpg, you can tell the difference. You should be able to describe a montage by a single caption, e.g. "Saturn's moon Phoebe", instead of individual caption for each image like the current one in the infobox. Xeror (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

A book is made up of several chapters, take them apart and you don't have a book. Your refernce to the use of galleries is irrelevant to the use of a compound image in the infobox which is designed to be, like the chapters in a book, a single represenation of the subject of the article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You still do not get it. You're comparing apples to oranges here. Different chapters of the book were written for the sole purpose to be part of the book and are connected to each other. The pictures were not meant to be taken to be a part of this "montage". They are merely picked by different editors. A book has one and only one title. This "montage" has multiple captions, one for each image in it, which is exactly what a gallery should be. Hence, this "montage" is not a single representation of the subject of the article. It is a selection of images relevant to the article. And it should be a gallery instead. Xeror (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought we were going to let other people have a say? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Notes

I have addressed the accessibilty concerns by adding alt text to the image descriptions. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Jacqueline Wilson

Does Jackie still live in KoT? Her Wikipedia page suggests she's now in Alfriston. 146.200.2.214 (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You are right about this too. I knew JW years ago, because I worked with her mother, "Biddy" Aitken, before she went into the antiques trade. LynwoodF (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)