Jump to content

Talk:Fitzrovia

Origins of name

I'm not convinced it is named after the Fitzroy Tavern - presumably the tavern is named after the family and the district likewise. Wincoote 14:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was. I will provide sources when I have the time (unless someone else has the time first. Terwilliger 22:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe there's info on the pub walls to that effect (not a great source admittedly!) Paulbrock 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been checking recent updates and note that an anonymous editor has changed the text to state that the area is named after the Fitzroy family and not the tavern. I was suspicious of this change, especially as the IP address has been used for vandalism. However http://www.yourlondontourguide.com/whattosee.html essentially supports what is currently written: "FITZROVIA - Named after Henry Fitzroy, bastard son of Charles II. Drinking haunts of Dylan Thomas, George Orwell, and George Bernard Shaw with political edge of Marx and Hitler and Political Cartoon Gallery. Highlights: restaurants in Charlotte Street." Ros0709 15:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely without reference, and using my poor mind's remembrance.
  1. I remember the area to become Fitzrovia in the 70s with the formation of the Fitzrovia association. Before that I don't think it had a particular identity, although it may well have had a prior one that came to be resurrected.
  2. It's as likely that the area is named after the pub, and the pub is named after Henry Fitzroy ....., etc

Kbthompson 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have removed some business about Darwin's Beagle. Fascinating though it was, it was about the wrong generation of the family. As stated by others above, the area is name after the pub which was named after the family. I have added a link to a sadly out of print history. I will endeavour to find further, more easily accessible sources.Terwilliger 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that the history you reference was written by the daughter of the landlord who changed the name to the Fitzroy Tavern in 1919, at least according to the wiki article regarding the pub. Doesn't that call into question the impartiality of the source? Having not read the book, I can't be certain, but I'm under the impression that the name is thought to have been coined by members of the bloomsbury group. Several of them lived in Fitzroy square a good decade before the pub changed its name, though I don't know any sources which would contradict the claims in that book. Wik.ipedia.Pro referencing policies aside, common sense would dictate that the area was named after Henry Fitzroy (and the street and square that the pub was named after), and you shouldn't take the word of a personal history as proof enough to categorically state otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.110.118 (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Nick Bailey (1981) in his book Fitzrovia "the area never received a commonly accepted name until the 1940s when it flowered briefly as the haunt of artists and writers who congregated in the Fitzroy tavern and surrounding pubs. Before then it was referred to as Fitzroy Square — the social apex of the area which itself fell on hard times — or the less attractive, North Soho. E B Chancellor, the only author of a book specifically on the area, was reduced to calling it 'London's Old Latin Quarter'" (Nick Bailey. Fitzrovia Historical Publications Ltd in association with the Camden Historical Society, 1981, page 8). The book he refers to E. Beresford Chancellor. London's Old Latin Quarter. Jonathan Cape, 1939. Early editions of the local community newspaper (The Tower) in the early 1970s referred to the area as Towerland. Then in 1973 the first Fitzrovia Festival was held (which was reported in The Tower) and name has been in constant use since. I have access to the The Tower archives and old Fitzrovia News (which is still being published) and will try to scan in some stuff as it may be of interest. --Thegiantrodent (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noho

"There have been repeated failed attempts to rename the area in the New York fashion, Noho (north of Soho)."

That's pretty interesting - but when, and by whom? There is certainly a Japanese restaurant called "Soho Japan in Noho". Lfh 12:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to comment on this too. I've seen it on the Japanese restaurant and that's it. Never heard it mentioned at all and it doesn't exist on gumtree London today. 217.13.145.77 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited out a bit from the introduction which said it was 'known as Noho' - this is a very contentious issue with various vested interests involved. See http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23449594-details/Noho+No+way,+this+is+Fitzrovia/article.do 12:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.235.67 (talk)

Geographic area

The geographic boundaries of Fitzrovia are often incorrectly recorded (including in the Wik.ipedia.Pro entry). Often the area east of Tottenham Court Road is not included (the Gower Peninsular as some locals call it). Many estate agents do not include the Gower Peninsular when they should do. Although the south eastern area around Bedford Square was not usually included. The western boundary is usually felt to be Great Portland Street. Fitzrovia News, the community newspaper, was for many years distributed as far west as Great Portland Street and as far east as Gower Street but with the exception of streets east of Tottenham Court Road south of Store Street. I would call this the "minimum boundary". The south eastern area is in the Bedford Estate and so had a different historical development.

However, recently Fitzrovia News has also been distributed in and around Bedford Square.

There are two references I can cite for the boundaries. The first is Bailey, Nick. (1981) Fitzrovia. Historical Publications, Camden History Society. Bailey's book gives the boundaries as Great Portland Street in the west and Gower Street in the east and excludes the Bedford Square area (page 10). The second source of note is Pentelow, Mike and Rowe, Marsha (2001) Characters of Fitzrovia. Pimlico. Here the authors include the area between Great Portland Street and Portland Place -- the Portland Peninsular, if you like. Portland Place was actually constructed as a boundary (though for different reasons to my discussion here). Mike Pentelow wrote the following in an email to me:

Page 14 of "Characters of Fitzrovia" states John Nash said Portland Place (completed in 1820) was meant to be "a boundary and complete separation between the streets and squares occupied by the nobility and gentry, and the narrow streets and meaner houses occupied by merchants and the trading part of the community." The source is given as John Nash quoted in "Georgian London" by John Summerson. I also got the same quote from page 108 of "Judith Summers, Soho, A History of London's Most Colourful Neighbourhood" published by Bloomsbury in 1989. -- email Monday, 8 December, 2008 9:10 PM

So we could now describe a "maximum boundary" which in the west, and running north-south, would be: Park Crescent, Portland Place, Langham Place and Regent Street; and the east would include the area around Bedford Square. --Thegiantrodent (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I would disagree with the above. The Gower Peninsular is generally considered Bloomsbury and I think anyone who has attended UCL would attest to this. Most local residents definitely consider the area to be bounded by Euston / Marylebone Road to the North, Tottenham Court Road to the East, Oxford Street to the South and Regent Street / Portland Place to the West.

Anyone using Noho as a term is being quite silly, particularly as NoHo refers to North of Houston and last time I checked, there was no such street is Houston in London. I suggest you get your facts straight before publishing that as a potential name for our local area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.112.233 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are right about the name Noho. However, you are wrong about the Gower Peninsular. This stretch of residential streets is definitely in Fitzrovia. The University of London buildings which stretch north-south mark a distinct boundary between Bloomsbury and Fitzrovia. Many members of the Fitzroiva Neighbourhood Association (FNA) live in the mansion blocks between TCR and Gower St. The secretary of the FNA lives in Gordon Mansions as does another trustee of the FNA. Also members of the campaign group The Charlotte Street Association live in these streets. Camden Council also recognise these streets as being in Fitzrovia.

Some people living in these streets do consider themselves to be part of Bloomsbury and not Fitzrovia (or consider themselves to be part of both). Some of them (I can think of one) are active in the Bloomsbury Association. But the overwhelming majority consider it to be part of Fitzrovia and take exception to it being excluded.

The eastern part of Fitzrovia occupies part of the Bloomsbury council ward. But this ward stretches from Cleveland St in the west to Marchmont St in the east and so straddles two distinct areas.

In Nick Bailey's (1981) book he states: "Fitzrovia ... is normally assumed to extend from Great Portland Street in the west to Gower Street in the east". And that's what most people consider it to be. If you can cite evidence to the contrary, then please do. Thegiantrodent (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegiantrodent (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree completely with your comments and I know many local residents would agree me with not to mention your change to the article not to include the area up to Portland Place. Considering even people in Marylebone consider their boarder goes up to only Portland Place, where does this leave people in that little slither of land between Great Portland Street and Portland Place?

Well, you don't "disagree completely" with my comments, just about the area between Portland Place and Great Portland Street, it seems, because that was what you revised. You cite no reference to your revisions to the article. So I reverted your comments. I don't know people living in Hallam Street who say they are in Fitzrovia. The residents in these streets are represented by the Marylebone Association (see [Marylebone Association], and not the Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association. Both the Marylebone Association and Fitzrovia neighbourhood Association are recognised as amenity societies by Westminster City Council. This recognition as local support. The Wik.ipedia.Pro entry for Marylebone is incorrect and should declare the eastern border at Great Portland Street (I should edit it). Fitzrovia is more defined by its mixed-use, whereas Marylebone has a quite different character. Hallam Street is more Marylebone than Fitzrovia. I have delivered Fitzrovia News in Hallam Street on occasion when it contains articles perhaps of interest to those residents. But it is not on the Fitzrovia News distribution map which has been used since the early 1980s. To be quite honest, the border is not rigid, but it has been established over the last three decades. --Thegiantrodent (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The London Encyclopaedia

The London Encyclopaedia (ISBN 9781405049245) describes Fitzrovia as "[The] area stretching north from Oxford Street to Euston Road and bounded on the east by Gower Street and on the west by Great Portland Street." I've added this as a citation for the current wording. Grim23★ 10:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Grim23. That's a useful reference to add. --Thegiantrodent (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent developments

This section reads a bit like a blog. At points it contains speculation, gives undue weight to some topics and has unencyclopedic language. Grim23★ 23:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grim23, you could well be right. But would you like to elaborate in a more constructive way so that people contributing to the content could be better guided. Much of the section is well referenced and does not speculate because it uses newspaper reports as a reference. What do you think is speculation and what topics are given undue weight? --Thegiantrodent (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it sounds much like a cross between a local newsletter, a community campaign against recent building plans and a blog. Spanglej (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spangle and Grim 23, could you please be more specific? You seem to be suggesting that the section is not giving a NPOV as well as speculation. Yet the text provides references to news reports. There is a community campaign against local developers that has ebbed and flowed over the last 40 years, that's part of the life of many inner city neighbourhoods. This has been discussed and referenced on the page. Is that not relevant in an encyclopedia entry? Your criticisms read more like a blog. Be more specific and helpful and I'll attempt a clean up. Perhaps you could show an example of good practice with reference to another entry on a city neighbourhood? --Thegiantrodent (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'll try to help. I think possibly the objections are to the 'chattiness' of the style; and the article (perhaps) also requires a more concise style - for instance there seem to be a number of single/two sentence paras. Paras should be used to indicate a change of topic; and there might be a bit of WP:UNDUE about developments - particularly ones that have fallen by the wayside. You possibly need to present the case for development, as well as against. But be brutal in culling your sentences. Have a look at Homerton - although I wouldn't present it as a template. Romford made it to WP:GA status, but it's more of a 'settlement' than an 'estate'. Smithfield, London might be more helpful. You might want to add something on the bombing of the Post Office Tower - about 1974(?); and letter bombs at the Newman Street PO (about 1972) - which also rates a mention for the (now defunct) post office railway. You shouldn't include comments about estate agents - it tends to be regarded as 'un-encyclopaedic'. Be specific, such as location; and refer to sources in refs, not so much in text.
How to write about settlements may offer some ideas - although care needs to be taken with these 'district within London' articles, as some topics should clearly be dealt with at the borough level. There's a lot of good local information in there. It needs to be delivered concisely and without bias. Reliable sources should be historical texts and national newspapers, rather than local blogs, developers and campaign groups - although I appreciate it can be difficult to get down to the level of granularity required with national stuff. Have a go with those pointers - if there's still criticism of the approach; then I think it should go to {{Peer review}}; although often you get no feedback there. Maybe push it to WP:GA; that can be a source of useful feedback, but you should aim to knock it into shape before submitting. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
kbt thanks. That is helpful. Thanks for taking the time to do this critique. --Thegiantrodent (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I would agree with Kbt. I wonder if some of it has been lifted from a Fitzrovia local history booklet. I wouldn't feel the need to mention go into great detail about 'Recent developments' (what the brochures were called, what developers said at meetings etc). Mentioning often the Fitzrovia News, the Charlotte Street Association and the christmas lights also make it sound like a local newsletter. I think the issue is 'register' as much as content. Maybe think of cutting the current text by a third and imagining it as an entry in the Britannica. Hope that helps. Spanglej (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a major clean up of the recent developments section taking on board the criticisms and suggetions made above. Comments pleaseThegiantrodent (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giantrodent, sorry your efforts on the article haven't been acknowledged. You did a great clean up. I'm sure editing can feel like a thankless task sometimes. Perhaps at WP we tend to leap on what isn't working more than what is. You've put a lot of time in here. Fitzrovia thanks you (at least my bit of it does!). Spanglej (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a mess here

Regarding the 1804 map, "north of Tootenham CR" should be corrected to "west of Tottenham CR" 200.72.68.146 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)rodcontr[reply]


As a result of the disagreements documented on this talk page, the article in its present form states that Fitzrovia is a clearly defined area.. before going on to record disagreements about how it is defined both eastward and westwards. I understand that people feel strongly about these things but personal preferences should be left out of Wik.ipedia.Pro articles. Given that Fitzrovia is a neighbourhood rather than an administrative entity, its nature is entirely defined by popular use. It is therefore nonsensical to say - as the article presently says - that people are wrong to not include this or that bit. These things change over time and an encyclopedia article has to reflect that. I am going to try and rewrite the section in a more neutral and coherent way. Mezigue (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic area defined

It's interesting you state the Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association as many people don't really have much in common with that lot, nor agree that just because they put out Fitzrovia News, that gives them the right to define the area. It should be noted that I did not alter the boundary for Marylebone. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.194.198 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that a single book does not constitute an agreed definition either! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.194.198 (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's much easier to have a discussion here rather than in edit summaries and even easier if you sign in. The boundaries question is long standing (see above). It's possibly worth having a section discussing the varying definitions of the edges of Fitzrovia as there are different ideas of it. Different strong sources say different things. It's worth restating that Wik.ipedia.Pro is not interested in 'truth' so much as reliable sources. See WP:VNT. Best wishes Span (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about we remove all the uncited text and simply state what the different sources say? Grim23★ 04:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two important references are Nick Bailey's 1981 book which is referenced in the text and states the boundary as Gower Street in the east and Great Portland Street in the west. The other important reference is The London Encyclopaedia which states the borders as the same. Camden Council and City of Westminster also recognise these boundaries (so the borders are actually formal). Fitzrovia News is delivered to all streets within this area because the Fizrovia Neighbourhood Association receives funding from both Westminster and Camden. It is some estate agents and some of the entertainment listings sites that describe the borders incorrectly.
The rationale for the borders is formed from the distribution of residential property and a particular mix of these properties. East of Gower Street there is no residential for several streets because of the University of London and British Museum. West of Great Portland Street the residential is not mixed: it is entirely private (and reasonably affluent) housing between Great Portland Street and Portland Place. But Fitzrovia as defined above is mix of a lot of social housing (much of it compulsory purchased by Camden and Westminster), intermediate housing, sheltered housing and private-owned and private rented; as well as a large amount of retail, cafes, restaurants, clothing workshops, film industry and offices. It is this mix that defines Fitzrovia and this is formally recognised by City of Westminster and Camden Council in their planning and conservation statements, and which is why Nick Bailey's book (Bailey is a professor of town planning) and The London Encyclopaedia cite these borders. I would agree with Grim23 and state these borders as formal as there are two firm references for these borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegiantrodent (talk • contribs) 13:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Grim. Discuss it in the article openly. No need to bicker. Span (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've checked another source Streets of Bloomsbury and Fitzrovia: A survey of buildings and former residents, Camden History Society (1997). This states the east-west borders as Gower Street to Great Portland Street. So there are three sources according with this. I'll follow Grim23 and Spangle's lead. I'll do a re-write of the geography section citing Bailey, The London Encyclopaedia and Camden History Society. I'll leave some of the entry about Nash's intentions with Portland Place cited in Pentelow and Rowe as it is interesting, and I'll leave a small entry about the University of London and British Museum buildings on the eastern border. I'll remove discussion about disputes over the borders as these have no place in the article and there is no proper reference for them(disputes should just be confined to discussions on this discussion page as is the norm).--Thegiantrodent (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again I log in to find the page contentious and it framed definitely to meet the requirements of the Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association. I have neutralised it again and showed both positions. Rather than continuously changing the page to meet your needs, listen and present both. That is only fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.203.247 (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would sign in when you edit. I'm curious about the "both positions" you mention. My view is that your edits are introducing discussion into what is an encyclopaedic entry. You've lifted sentences from this discussion page and put them into the article. There are references for the geographical area: Bailey's book, the London Encyclopaedia, and Camden History Society's book. The descriptions "Gower peninsula" and "Portland peninsula" should not be in the article. You have lifted them from my discussion above and put them in the main page. That is not appropriate editing. There is no reliable source for these geographical descriptions so you shouldn't use them. I also note that you then went on to edit the Marylebone page and change the boundary from Great Portland Street to Portland Place; but left the original reference in place. That reference is from the Marylebone Association which is a long-established organisation. But that now reads like nonsense because you have changed the entry but left the original reference! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegiantrodent (talk • contribs) 18:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Gower Peninsula" above and "Portland Peninsula". I must apologise. I said that the anonymous editor had lifted these names when in fact it was Mezigue who added these. Again, there are no verifiable references for these names, they are used by some locals. --Thegiantrodent (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late with this discussion as I only just noticed it. For the record, I didn't add anything to this article in my January 6 edit - the only one I made to this article. I just moved things around and tried to knock them into something that made more sense, as explained higher up on this talk page. Mezigue (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again I see this has been changed to meet one users specific definition rather than showing two. It's a shame Marylebone was also changed. Fortunately I have put everything back and where possible referenced the two schools of thought on both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.202.181 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you would log in... The Geography section reads more like a discussion. The reference to Pentelow and Rowe was originally added to this discussion page by myself and should have remained on the discussion page. It should never have been lifted and put into the article page by Mezigue. In his book Mike Pentelow is referring to the 1820s and Portland Place being built as a divide. This was long before Fitzrovia was named as such and many of the buildings between Portland Place and Great Portland Street form the 19C have been replaced by 20C ones. Marylebone in the 1820s extended right up to Cleveland Street. Modern day Marylebone extends to Great Portland Street as recognised by the Marylebone Association. This is where modern Fitzrovia begins as recognised by Nick Bailey's book, the London Encyclopaedia, and Camden History Society. These are all appropriate references. Your sources of reference are "interesting". For Marylebone you inserted a reference from a website called wordiq.com - a site that derives its source from the Marylebone Wik.ipedia.Pro article. That's a circular reference. You also used as a reference the website ViewLondon.co.uk but you did so incorrectly because the reference does not back up your text. You then used as a reference an estate agents site greaterlondonproperties.co.uk which also appears to be lifted from the Marylebone Wik.ipedia.Pro article. Again a circular reference. Besides all three of these references are not good enough sources for a Wik.ipedia.Pro article. The Marylebone Association website I would consider to be an acceptable reference as it is a long-standing association and recognised by the local planning authority.
I'm not going to revert what you have done. I'll leave it to others to do it as this is getting silly. But this page needs a clean up as I've said below. It's got to the stage where it needs some proper editing and proper referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegiantrodent (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to get personal and accusatory. As adults we can discuss proposed changes. There is no political agenda - just a wish for the article to the best that it can be. Giant Rodent has put a lot of work into the article over the years and sounds open to discussion. This is not his article, nor anyone's. I would note that this isn't about our personal opinions or what people we know locally might say. This is about solid encyclopaedic sourcing see WP:RS. Again, I suggest that different books offer different boundaries because they were never set in stone. I don't see this is a problem. If we can manage to offer differing critiques in other articles, we can manage it here. This may well be a work over time as GR suggests below, there is no deadline. Wik.ipedia.Pro is about respectful collaboration. I would recommend making no further edits until and way of progress is found. Span (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up needed

There's a lot of un-referenced stuff in the article. Historical development has no references, Business needs more references, and so does Arts and Education and research institutions. Some bold editing needed I think. Any views? --Thegiantrodent (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbourhood Statistics

There have been a number of recent edits by an anonymous user who removed the reference to neighbourhood stats. I reverted these as the user did not reference or follow wp policy and made some strange remark in the edit summary. More recently (talk) removed the stats saying "most of the stats are out of date". The reference to the stats are the latest available 2010. There is always a delay between info being collected, then analysed before being verified before publication. Hence they are not out of date. I am reverting back as the references are good and follow wp policy about "verifiable content". No offence I hope to (talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegiantrodent (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an explanation of the Neighbourhood Statistics which are published usually every three years here.--Thegiantrodent (talk) 11:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fitzrovia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fitzrovia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fitzrovia&oldid=1196495628"

See what we do next...

OR

By submitting your email or phone number, you're giving mschf permission to send you email and/or recurring marketing texts. Data rates may apply. Text stop to cancel, help for help.

Success: You're subscribed now !