Talk:145 Piccadilly

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Royalty Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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... that Elizabeth II's childhood toys at 145 Piccadilly included 30 toy horses and a farm set collected from Woolworths?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/145 Piccadilly.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... 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.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lottie Williams, actress born 1866

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.Reply

Reviewing... new enough, long enough, interesting hook. Will complete soon. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
... 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)Reply

Glitch in ref URL?

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Add topic