Talk:Norfolk Street, Strand

Letting my improvements stand, then reverting at a whim
@User:Philafrenzy you have let my improvements stand for 26 days, then all of a sudden FULLY REVERTED THEM. At a whim. There has been no reasoning with me. There has been no specific talk to me. There has just been destruction. I would point you to the tool suggested cn and at template:citation needed you will find all of the ways to indicate precise when and to what extent that should be used. You cannot be an utter tyrant when the article is just unspecific and unhelpful. For instance a link to the London thus highly commercial reaches of the Thames has a specific article, what use does the writer want with the social and economic history of the upper reaches for instances which have little if any resonance. It is as though you need a citation for everything. Read some maps and history and other articles, please.- Adam37 Talk  09:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do need a citation for everything. Please add one for every new piece of information you add. Your additions may be correct, they probably are, but how can anyone tell unless you reference them? You must have the reference or you wouldn't be adding new information to the article would you? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I refer you to WP:V. And your own lack of WP:V.  Wikipedia does not need a citation for everything!

Always having a good spirit: collaboration: not destruction either way! I would like to proffer this, new text:

Norfolk Street in the Liberty of the Savoy (between Westminster and the City of London), ran from Strand in the north to the London reaches of the Thames. It then ran to a strand of public gardens after the Victoria Embankment was built (1865–70), what is now Temple Place. It was crossed only by Howard Street. It was demolished in the 1970s.

The Street was built on land once occupied by Arundel House and its gardens, the property of the Howard family{LINK}, Dukes of Norfolk; a dukedom (before which earldom) of medieval root, the head of the male line of the family plays a role in the coronation and each state opening of parliament.[1] Off from its central crossroads are Arundel, Surrey and Howard Streets, nods to the family, built after sprawling Arundel House was demolished by the earl of Arundel in 1678.[2]

A Norfolk Street tube station was planned in 1902, never built.

Norfolk Street and Howard Street were demolished in the 1970s to build Arundel Great Court, or Great Arundel Court, itself demolished in the mid 2010s[3][4] – having been purchased in 2012.[5][6]

Buildings The numbering scheme of latter decades is known.

№ 11 to 12: the south-west corner: Amberley House, office of the Ecclesiastical Association.[4]

№ 10: Hastings House: hosted the Women Writers' Club from 1894.[7] From here the early literary agent A. P. Watt (1834–1914) practised.[8] By the 1900s the Middle Classes Defence Organization shared the building.[9]

Oswaldestre House

Oswaldestre House, 33–35 Norfolk Street. № 33 to 35: Oswaldestre House: was associated with engineering and radio technology. The name is a subsidiary title of the Dukes of Norfolk.{LINK} The Engineer newspaper (est. 1856) was based there[10] and the building was also the registered address of a large number of consulting engineers, such as Henry Metcalfe Hobart. The Western Electric Company had an early radio station (2WP) on the third floor of the building in 1922.[11][12]

Former inhabitants Those taking at least temporary lodgings include:

[what is wrong with the above, if you read their biographies you will see it disproves any notion of family inhabitation there on a multi-year basis for most of the year, being one's pad when visiting the city is not the same as INHABITING somewhere, no?]
 * The word inhabitants is clearly used here fairly loosely and all entries are sourced to Bebbington as indicated, or otherwise sourced in the case of Twining. By all means expand the article, but do it gradually, adding a source in each case. Dropping new information into the middle of a sentence with an existing reference but not adding a new one, is not the way to do it. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With a respectful nod to that approach, that is the approach of a snipper and not a gister, a well-evidenced summariser of geography. A historical rather than geographical approach and furthermore not a real economic one either. Words have to be criticised a critical analysis of inhabit reveals it even at the time to be a piece of arrant peacockery. My approach is one of critical, unbiased reading of sources, which means looking a place in the round, Booth's map of poverty, summarises of the parish and not mis-using words as some pillar of the past is held up as likeable.- Adam37 Talk  13:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)