Talk:The Shard/Archive 1

comments
I'm planning to request a move of this page to London Bridge Tower - which curretly redirects here - because that is its correct name, given by the developers and the planning authority and whioch will in due course will be its formal postal address. Shard of Glass is simply a nickname given by the press (based on a PR campaign by the developer and architect). Any objections? Icundell 22:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. Best to keep the article where most people will search for it. jguk 11:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Moving Shard of Glass to London Bridge Tower was suggested on Requested moves. The discussion on that page follows, the consensus was to move.''

London Bridge Tower is the correct name, but redirects to Shard of Glass, a press nickname. Move in line with 1 Canada Square(Canary Wharf Tower) and 30 St Mary Axe (Erotic Gherkin) -- Icundell 22:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - obviously Icundell 22:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Duh.  ADH (t&m) 00:04, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support: DCEdwards1966 04:57, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support: You can also cite Tower 42 rather than NatWest Tower and several other examples. -- Solipsist 09:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Keep the article where most people will search for it. jguk 10:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Should we use Shard of glass or Shard of Glass :-) ? Icundell 11:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. That's what redirects are for. Rd232 11:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a Londoner who has the other two buildings in his sight nearly every day. The popular name should be the main entry, and you cite some bad precedents.  The Erotic Gherkin is a name by which the building in question is known to millions. A few thousand may know the building as 30 St Mary Axe.  The same goes for Canary Wharf Tower, same goes for Tower 42.  If anything, these articles should be moved, not Shard of Glass. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You appear to be arguing that popular usage should be used as a substitute for accuracy. London Bridge Tower is the name given by its owners, the local authority and will probably be its postal name. Nicknames should be the re-directs, proper names the main article. Icundell 12:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That kind of formal accuracy is a weak argument for the name of an article. We're not going to move Bill Gates to William Henry Gates III for instance, because while the latter is more formally accurate it is not the name by which Bill Gates is known to the public.  The question I ask is: what words would the user be most likely to type into the find box or into Google (which gives precedence to HTML titles of web pages) when searching for information about this building?  If this is a reasonably unique phrase (that is, typing it in shows mostly articles about the subject I'm interested in), I consider it to be a good candidate for the name of an article.
 * Strongly disagree - formal accuracy is a strong argument. Given the ability to redirect, there is little reason for an encylopedia to prefer the informal name to the formal one. (However, precisely this argument was defeated re East Germany.) Also, "shard of glass" has a generic meaning which will be more familiar to most people. Rd232 13:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Stand on any London street and ask passersby to point to "Tower 42", "30 St Mary Axe" and "1 Canada Square". You'll get lots of blanks looks, although the three buildings are seldom out of their sight.  Now ask them to point out the Natwest Tower, the Erotic Gherkin and the Canary Wharf Tower and you'll get smiles and directions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary of slang. If the "Shard of Glass" page has a redirect people will have no problem finding London Bridge Tower. Philip 14:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If we couldn't have redirects, that would be a very strong argument. But we can. And encyclopedias are supposed to tell people things they don't know. Rd232 14:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If we were being consistent with "30 St Mary Axe" and "1 Canada Square" the article would need to be moved to "32 London Bridge Street". jguk 12:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Partly an ontological question. Are we describing entities, which have correct formal names (which should be preferred); or terms (where common usage is much more important)? If we start distinguishing these consistently, it would be logical to describe both "name X" (informal name for Y) and describe other things about Y on page "Y". That, it seems to me, would be logical, consistent and encyclopedic. Rd232 14:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a building. No need to get philosophical; just called it what it is properly called. Philip 14:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think there is a need to get philosophical. This question comes up so often precisely because there is no agreed ontological basis for resolving conflicts between different Wikipedia conventions. Rd232 18:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Support We can't have Wikipedia littered with slang names for articles. Philip 14:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It will be littered with "slang" terms whether you welcome that or not. Wikipedia naming conventions favor the use of such common names for people and things: Naming conventions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * And the next policy along calls for precision and warns against ambiguity. Erotic Gherkin is a stupid nickname applied to the wrong building - it was coined by the Guardian for the old Trafalgar House 1,200 ft design - the Lloyd's Building (1 Lime Street, if your're interested) is an official name, as is the Oxo Tower). Shard of Glass (or is that Shard of glass?) is also a nickname applied to an older design than that to be built. Oh, and an encyclopedia isn't just for Londoners, but for anyone who may need to find information so it should put the most accurate information most prominently. Icundell 01:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support London Bridge Tower is the proper name, and so should be the primary title for the article. This is exactly why we have redirects. TACD 15:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support The policy is self-identification. I'm pretty certain Bill Gates calls himself that, ditto 1 Canada Square, Tower 42, etc. Press/slang nicknames should never be used unless the entity itself starts using them. Dtcdthingy 20:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "Self-identification" is not a Wikipedia policy. Proteus (Talk) 11:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. We use 30 St Mary Axe, 1 Canada Square, so there is clearly a de facto policy of using real names instead of popular nicknames. See also Tall buildings in London and similar articles. Gdr 21:19, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
 * As noted above, this would mean the article should be called 32 London Bridge Street. jguk 23:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The suggestion is to use the (or at least, a) official name, not the street address. 30 St Mary Axe is called that, as is One Canada Square. --Dtcdthingy 00:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why the "official" name when the naming conventions clearly recommend the popular name? The Shard of Glass is what Londoners call it, same with Canary Wharf Tower, the Natwest Building, the Erotic Gherkin, the Oxo Tower and the Lloyd's building (which all presumably also have obscure names that nobody actually uses in real life). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Because an encylopaedia doesn't put things under nicknames; it either puts "See under" (the equivalent of a redirect), and/or has a separate entry on the nickname itself (eg who coined it) if warranted. Rd232 10:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You've already been shown that the naming convention does recommend the popular usage, not the "official" one, for people and objects. the conventions could not be more plain. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The convention is fairly plain, but appears to have been developed originally more with subject topics in mind than proper names. Proper names now follow the same format for consistency. Using common terms rather than technical ones for subject topics makes sense, because subjects should be described in laymen's terms first, and technical terms second, and this approach encourages that. This logic does not apply to proper names, especially given the existence of redirects. Which may be why the move is (currently) supported about 9:1 (maybe 9:2 counting Proteus against). Also, a convention is merely what everybody agrees to do. If everytime a convention is challenged, such challenges are shouted down on a "look at the convention" basis (instead of saying "well, conventions are subject to potential revision, which is under semi-permanent discussion here, but in the mean time stick to the current convention"), it isn't a convention any more, it's a rule. Rd232 18:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What you say above simply is not true.  The part of the naming convention I cite is specifically developed with proper names in mind.  Certainly feel free to challenge the convention, but you have to recognise that the convention has advantages that are difficult to gainsay.  Place the main article and all internal links at the popular name of the object or person, and Google's crawlers and the like will see that popular name in the title of many pages that are linked to--Google grants ranking points to such articles.  Place the article in something obscure and people will be less likely to find it.  An example is if you search on canary-wharf-tower in Google.  The first occurrence of this Wikipedia article in the list returned by that query is on page 63 of the results.  In German!  A search on 1-canada-square puts the exact same article on page 2.  The redirects don't help, you have to put the article at the most likely name to get a good Google ranking. This is why it's a good idea to choose sensible names, and not obscure ones that few people will ever know, let alone use. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I take your general point about Google rankings, but (a) how important should that be (especially as we seem to be struggling to keep up with traffic anyway); and (b) your particular example isn't entirely persuasive, because the "1-canada-square" Wikiref on page 2 is also to the German one; I haven't the patience to see how far down the list the English one ranks, but it's beyond page 11. The point is that if the German one is that much higher than the English, other considerations beside the article name must be important for the rankings. In any case, I would have thought that one of the advantages of being a non-commercial project is that we don't have to prostitute ourselves on an hourly basis to get the highest Google rankings. Their methodology changes all the time, so I would just focus on creating good content (which is the most important thing in the long run, for search engines and for users) and let them worry about their search engine. Rd232 11:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, everyone I know refers to it simply as "the Gherkin", not the "Erotic Gherkin". Popular usage is a fickle mistress. Rd232 10:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Its an article about a (proposed) building and so should follow the rules for naming buildings. It looks like Wikipedia hasn't really gotten around to formulating the guidelines yet, but they already exist in the world of architecture. To put it simply a building is usually refered to by 'the name of the building'. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how these names are determined, but most often they are the name given by the owner's of the building - for older buildings its the name which has become the norm. It is not the address of the building, although many property companies are unimaginative enough to name their buildings after the address, or possibly it is the default if a building isn't given its own name. The name can also change as the building changes ownership, as is the case with the NatWest Tower becoming Tower 42 and the Post Office Tower becoming the BT Tower. I can also think of a couple of cases where houses are known by the name of the person they were built for (for example the Farnsworth House).
 * During planning and construction, a building might be known by a working title which is changed when the owner's take possession. This can be confusing, as frequently, editorial coverage of a building is highest whilst a building is nearing completion. So a significant number of column inches may not use the final name of the building.
 * 30 St Mary Axe has never been named the Erotic Gherkin, that's just a tabloid nickname when they wanted to knock the plans - now the building is popular they mostly use the Glass Gherkin or simply the Gherkin. The building was originally to be called the Swiss Re Tower, but as I understand it, before completion Swiss Re ran into mild financial difficulties. Although they are still the owner and principle occupant, they decided to let out many of the floors, so in order not to discourage other tenants too much, the name was changed to be more neutral. These alternative names are discussed in the article.
 * Some more useful sources to help determine a building's name are http://www.emporis.com/ (for example their list of skyscrapers in London, and http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings.html . Other good sources are the web sites of the architects involved.
 * Emporis' rules for naming buildings can be found here. -- Solipsist 10:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Current Wikipedia convention is essentially that names are irrelevant - what matters is common usage, correct or otherwise, as long as it is unambiguous. So if this time next week Bill Gates becomes universally known as "The Man Who Gets Four Million Spam A Day", presumably his article will be moved there. Rd232 11:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Current location is in line with Naming conventions (common names). Proteus (Talk) 16:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I think that it would be best to use the official name in this case. Read the last part of Naming conventions (common names). I presonally think that having Shard of Glass as title is overdoing it. Shard of Glass is ambigious in by oppinion. - Jeltz talk  14:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly which part are you referring to? Shard of Glass is neither "misleading" nor "offensive", so I fail to see how that section applies. Proteus (Talk) 14:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I was going to move it myself when I made the London Bridge Tower redirect, but decided against it. I get the impression that Shard of Glass will be more commonly used once the building's finished, but it isn't at the moment. Xezbeth  14:47, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support since it's the proper name of it, redirect slang and common names to proper name. Cburnett 23:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Speaking from an expert view point it should work as LBT, the shard of glass, and london bridge tower. all names are currently correct. gothicform (UTC)

Official Name Change
London Bridge Tower has now officially changed it's name to Shard London Bridge (check the official website if you don't believe me) I think this article entry should be renamed to show this change. (Jamandell (d69) 16:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

Pre-Letting
"The developers are also hoping to obtain a pre-let for a large section of the office space." - Apparently Transport for London are moving in. Can anyone confirm? --Jamesedmo 11:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Source? Icundell 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is Local London --Jamesedmo 23:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, they won't be taking 300 sq feet (that's barely a one person private office) - 300,000 would be nearer. But the story cites stuff said by the Mayor and a story from Estates Gazette which is the largest circulation property journal in the UK and pretty respected (Personal interest note: I've done work for EG and worked for its principle rival). But it also states "He said TfL only had a "verbal agreement" with the owner." so the deal is certainly not done yet. Probably worth a note along the lines of 'in 2006 the Mayor of London held talks with a view to consolidating TfL's activities in the tower' - and then monitor it. Icundell 00:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean "principal rival". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.161.81.209 (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Project in trouble
Could someone update the article in light of the recent funding problems. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aaVT2z2Djk4U&refer=uk

"Status: Proposed"?
The Shard of Glass has been given planning permission, proposed suggests that it has yet to be given consent. Therefore, I suggest you alter the status.87.112.224.124 23:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Funding may fall through so it is still proposed until construction starts. When construction starts the status will change to under construction.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Construction is underway but it appears to be impossible to change the status of the building in the "infobox." Bizzare! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.167.227 (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Article name changing now moot
I have moved the article to the postal address and the other names of the building are in the first line of the article. This should prevent future disputes as the postal address will not change and any other names the building may be called can be added to the first line of the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is most certainly not "moot". As is being discussed on antoher of the articles you renamed, other people do not see this the same as you and didn't appreciate your unilateral action in renaming articles without prior discussion and concensus.  There was no dispute regarding the name on this article.  The last rename happend over a year ago and represents the official name of the project.  Even if there was a dispute, you took an article from one of two or more known names to a name which nobody uses. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have ignored the previous discussion on this page. Please also read WP:BOLD. Also are you suggesting renaming 8 Canada Square and 0ne Churchill place etc to thier "common names"? Names need to be standardised one way or the other it cannot be a half-way house hodgpodg like it was. Also what is wrong with having the postal address as the article title and all other names in the first line of the article?--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move back to Shard London Bridge. Rai - me 18:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 32 London Bridge → Shard London Bridge — Request move back to previous name. There was no ongoing naming dispute when renamed a bunch of articles including this one to street addresses. Shard London Bridge is the official name of this project as listed on the project's website. —StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support. As stated in reason for renaming nomination. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Shard London Bridge, besides being the official name, is recognisable and in common use; the address, by contrast, gives no indication of anything beyond its location. David Arthur (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Shard London Bridge is both the official and most common name. Rai - me  20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose on two grounds first this was disucussed to death previously and no out come could be reached and secondly there is no real "common name" as demonstarted by the previous discussion. This means that the postal address removes the arguments as neither side can argue over the title of the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion is obsolete: it took place three years ago, before the building was given the name by which it is now known. Even if there were still a dispute, though, giving the article a name that no one will recognise would be the worst possible solution. David Arthur (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Street addresses are very rarely the common names of such buildings, and there's no evidence that this is an exception. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In this case there a wide range of common names which could be argued and public opinion cannot be gained as very few memebrs of the public are aware of the proposed building.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article reads also known as Shard London bridge, London Bridge Tower and the Shard of Glass — is a supertall skyscraper planned for construction in London. The article appears to be about a specific building proposal rather than a specific block of land. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article goes on to talk about previous buildings on the site "It would replace Southwark Towers, a 24-storey office building which was completed in 1976." I would go as far as to say merge the two in to the one article and thein it would truly be about the site.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See below under Merger, or feel free to continue in the Discussion section if you feel it's relevant to the move. Andrewa (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. As per nom. --203.220.171.83 (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. See my comments on the Tower 42 talk page, same reasons. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Closure
Close this survey as a previous exhaustative survey could not agree on the title of the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the previous survey was three years ago. Sorry, but you are standing alone here and trying to bully the conversation is not likely to work.  --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to bully the conversation i am simply stating my reasoned logic. If a previous exhastative survey has allready failed to agree on the name of the article why should we dig up the past ourelves. The least we should be doing is adding to thier survey rather than statring our own in conflict with theirs.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The only reason for closing this discussion early would be if the result was beyond doubt, and I think you're saying that the article should stay where you've put it. There's every reason to doubt that will be the decision here. Let's see. Andrewa (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I say we should add to the previous discussion rather thgn start our own, as we are debating virtualy the same just the other way round.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that the previous discussion wasn't closed more neatly, but it is closed, and should I think be regarded as an archive. Andrewa (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved back to Shard London Bridge per the above discussion. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Building or building site
From the Survey section: ''The article goes on to talk about previous buildings on the site "It would replace Southwark Towers, a 24-storey office building which was completed in 1976." I would go as far as to say merge the two in to the one article and thein it would truly be about the site.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)'' This seems to be the core issue... is this article about the specific building, or about the site on which it is proposed to build it? My feeling is still that it's primarily about the building, which is notable, not the site, which may be notable too but there's been no case put for this. The site seems only notable because of this building, or perhaps also because of the previous building as well, again that hasn't really been decided. But if the previous building is non-notable as suggested, then the proposed merger doesn't affect the primary topic of this article, which would remain the notable building, see Merger below. Andrewa (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An article about a building seems much more intuitively obvious to me than an article about a building site or street address. David Arthur (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Many buildings may be on the same site over time and many different occupants of a building may occur over time. If a single building is truly notable on it own the best example are the Empire state building and the Eiffel Tower then an article on the building it self is more appropriate. If however just a new office building is being built and is one of a number going to be built and building have been demolished on a site to make way. Then the building itself is not truly notable and historic buildings which used to be on the site may be lost. If the building does become notable down the line link off to a main article but as it is just another one of many buildings being built with the potential for many different names in the future. I say the site name should be used and the article can still primarily be about the building just preventing the name of the article changing every time a new tenant renames the building.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger
I suggest merging with the building which currently stands at 32 London Bridge to remove a disparity of informatgion and give a complete history of the site, in one place. Also the other article is of poor quality and will soon not meet notability criteria when it is demolished.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea, if Southwark Towers really is non-notable. The article here would still be about the notable building known as Shard London Bridge. Merging in some information about a non-notable building previously on the site wouldn't affect any of the arguments for moving it to that name.


 * But is the previous building really non-notable? This seems speculation. Wait until it happens is my advice. Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It is going the be demolished and currently stands at the site so merging makes sense or information disparity will be created. Also doesn't shard of glass also mean a piece of broken glass, which people could actually be searching for? thus creating ambiguity in searching.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Southwark Towers is the tallest building ever to be demolished in the UK, and it stands over one of the busiest transport hubs in London, so it's definitely "notable" IMHO. Merging it with the Shard article might be a good idea. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the articles should be merged, especially if Southwark Towers is tallest UK building ever to be demolished (thereby making it very notable). They should remain as separate articles, at least until Southwark Towers is demolished. For example, New York City's Singer Building article was never merged with One Liberty Plaza, although the former was demolished to make room for the latter. Cheers, Rai - me  18:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you're right, wait until it's completely demolished before considering a merge. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That will be in a few weeks (Late April ), time too merge Rockybiggs (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea. The articles are largely about the buildings, with only the site in common. Different buildings should have different articles. Perhaps the site itself should have an article too: two significant buildings have been on it. This proposal appears to have died (last post March 2008), and I will remove the merge template from the article. If there is still interest to consider this, add the template back. --Oldak Quill 04:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Oldak's reasoning. The buildings are individually notable, so I see no reason to merge. Cheers, Rai • me  17:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

False claim about views to Channel
According to the Evening Standard it is claimed by the developer that the English Channel can be seen from the top. The claim is false, see the computer generated panorama, which shows that even the South Downs are not visible. But as I created the panorama myself, I am not able to add the claim to the main article. Viewfinder (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)