Talk:Angel Recording Studios

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

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is still being added to. It is of importance as it pertains to a building of historical significance in London, which has had a number of uses over the last 100 years. It's current use is as a recording studio, which has been used by internationally recognised talent for commercial music, as well as award winning film and television programmes. Changes have been made to address partiality issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibuck89 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said it. I've just found ten existing articles that namecheck Angel Studios in their text, and that's from two minutes' searching. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the whole article now has sources and is tag free, so it's off to DYK, I think - anyone got any good hooks? Now, don't go adding anything else with a
reliable source otherwise I'll a) have to track one down and b) moan at you for having to do the hard work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK that ..... "a former
the best-selling album of the 21st century?" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Paull and Bonella

There's a link to the architects Paull and Bonella here. Might be worthy its own article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I came across the name in
The London Encyclopedia, I thought "what's that"? A search seems to be made really difficult by Google thinking I want to search for people called Paul and Bonella - stupid thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Henry Speechly & Sons

Information on the organ builder Henry Speechly & Sons seems to be in short supply. There is a source here. There's also a letter in the National Archives here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Historic England source namechecks it, but that's all I've got. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Maps

Google Maps is absolutely a reliable source for showing where something is. The phrase "'x' is a reliable source" is meaningless, a reliable source for what claim exactly? You can't use it to show notability of a subject, but to verify simple observation (in this case that I can walk from Angel Tube to 311 Upper Street without breaking a sweat) is fine. I used it extensively for the 25+ GAs documented in

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/List of London Monopoly locations/archive1
for basic facts like "the nearest tube is 'blah'" or "this road is part of the A1234, a major road between Central London and Little Snoring", and nobody died.

PS: using {{

harvnb}}. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

But what is the use of this? How does the reader benefit from an article saying that some house is located near some random subway station? Per my given example, you could also state the nearest train station, bus stop or airport with the same source and in the same context, just like you could add "neighbouring buidlings are Upper Street 113, Upper Street 114, etc." or "Paris is about 1.5 countries away", but none of these are important to the article or notable in a general sense. Such things should usually only be stated as part of some higher context (such as the namesake), but that would be combined with a reliable source saying where the name came from and you would have enough reason to include it anyway, and Google Maps would not occur in the article at all. Then I'll also add that the link provided does not show that Angel is the next one, I just get a marker somehwere on Gaskin.
Furthermore, you cannot say that Google Maps is reliable in any way, since it is, just like Wikipedia,
✉) 23:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If you're suggesting Google Maps has no place on Wikipedia, you have a lot of clearing up to do. But I tend to agree with you about mentioning the Tube. I guess it's just a suitable landmark. Maybe there's a better one? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The
verifiability policies were not designed to prevent simple observation. If you don't believe what Google Maps tells you, you can "verify" it by taking the tube to Angel, walking along Upper Street, and seeing that Angel Studios is indeed at number 311. I don't believe it is user-generated like OpenStreetMap as Google has a final veto on any corrections submitted, to ensure its factual accuracy. To claim this is an "unreliable source" would mean that you don't believe the studios are at the location specified, and must be on Denmark Street
and Google Maps is just yanking your chain. Come on.
As for the tube, just something I tend to throw into articles to stop the "location" sections being small and bitty really. At least I didn't go crazy on the bus routes like some of the station articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the said offending map source now. And I see that it's almost opposite the King's Head Theatre (where my cousin was manager for many years, I might add). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

London

Exactly what value is added by linking England immediately after London, even in the info box? I thought there might be some peculiar convention for this type of infobox. But I can't find one. Please could you point out where there is advice to support the claim that: "Infoboxes generally encourage linking country, state, city"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angel_Recording_Studios&oldid=1204864345"