Talk:Literary London

Interesting idea-- but it seems like a draft/brainstorm that is maybe better worked on outside of the mainspace... I'm concerned that information that should be in the London article (or one of its distric articles) will only be found here... Could this be more of an itinerary just linking to the areas to visit? Again, I really like the idea, I think it just needs some planning... (WT-en) Majnoona 14:21, 1 Oct 2004 (EDT)

If attractions are going to be listed here (and i really think they belong under their geographical location), please use Project:Attraction listings format... And are sites supposed to be listed under their lit connection? or is it a flat list? (WT-en) Majnoona 14:25, 1 Oct 2004 (EDT)


 * Hi Maj. Worry not.... The only link so far to this page is from mine and Evan's conversation last night in the pub. I've been up in Oxford all day so haven't had chance to knock my late night brainstorming into proper shape. Intention is to list by literary association, e.g. by author, or movement, etc. The info can and will also be duplicated into the relevant London area article pages (i.e. on a geographical basis), though perhaps at a less detailed level for the general guide. On a theme page we could probably go into a little more detail than usual, develop the theme, and meet the more exacting needs of those who, for example in this instance, are interested in the city's literary heritage above all other things..... Obviously this is somewhat uncharted territory, so.... Let's see how we go. (WT-en) Pjamescowie 20:05, 1 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Agreed with Maj here, this is basically an itinerary, and I don't think this should be namespaced as a district. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:14, 2 Oct 2004 (EDT)


 * Well, I'm not sure the page is namespaced as a district, whatever that might mean. It's just an article really, like any other. I think it would only be regarded as a London district if it was listed that way, in that section, on the initial London page - but it isn't! (and won't be....!) I have moved the page to be a subset of London, reflected in the breadcrumb menu at the top, but that's merely so people can better find their way back to the main city article. Moreover, the page manifestly isn't an itinerary, merely a summary of sights and experiences relevant to those interested in visiting London's literary heritage. People will be able to dip in and out, make their selection, or visit every attraction - whatever they choose. In any case, the appearance of the article in this namespace derives from the blank articles projected in Evan's response to my initial suggestion in the Travellers' Pub - I simply took my lead from this.... If people want to debate the pros and cons of theme page namespaces, however, I guess we better get started..... (WT-en) Pjamescowie 04:54, 2 Oct 2004 (EDT)


 * I don't think the term "itinerary" should be interpreted too strictly, it can mean more than a list of "Day 1: Place X, Day 2: Place Y". See Off the beaten track in Japan for another non-itinerary of sorts.


 * And I'd prefer to reserve "subset" pages for districts only, mostly because they're a real hassle to link to. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:34, 2 Oct 2004 (EDT)


 * I agree with Jpatokal-- If we're going to start using "/" for anything besides geographical subdivisions then there should be some Big Talk about it. It seems like it could get real fuzzy real fast leading to Place/SubPlace/Topic/SubTopic and other cataloging nightmares... We've always (and I mean from way back before their was a site) aimed for a flat site, so that link pages could create multiple navigational points of entry across topics, places, etc. This makes for easier navigation and maintenence as the site grows (and boy is it!) We've made an exception for Districts, but I'd have a hard time seeing it go any further. If you're just doing it for the breadcrumb, keep in mind we hope to have more automagical relationships ("is part of" "see also" etc) in the near future... (WT-en) Majnoona 12:15, 2 Oct 2004 (EDT)


 * OK, that's cool. I see what you're saying.... I think we may have been talking past each other on this one. I'll move the page back immediately! (WT-en) Pjamescowie 12:58, 2 Oct 2004 (EDT)


 * Great, I'm glad it makes sense (I don't always ;-)). Anyway, just wanna say again that it's a good article, and new angles on what we're doing always help keep us on our toes... this will be a great test cases for the next step in article-relationship functionality. Really, it's only logical that "Literary London" should have a relationship with "London." Sorry the feature isn't there yet for your logic! (WT-en) Majnoona 13:05, 2 Oct 2004 (EDT)