Talk:Temple Bar, London

This page lost its history when somebody moved it from Temple Bar: as I understand it, if he / she had used the "Move this page" function, the history would have been preserved; but instead he/she simply cut and pasted the text between the two pages. Does anybody know how to get back the history? (It is currently stored under Temple Bar). Thanks Doops 17:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Fixed - Hephaestos|§ 17:50, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks -- but unfortunately, you brought over two post-move edits from Temple Bar. Basically, of the three edits by that anonymous poster, the first was the move, and the two subsequent ones were tweaks to his/her NEW page; so they didn't need to get brought across. Thanks Doops 20:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I looked at some other pages which had been moved, and while their history was brought across successfully, I couldn't find any reference, at the point of moving itself, to the old and new addresses of the page. (This seems like part of the page's "history" too, in a sense.) Am I just overlooking something? Doops 20:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure there's no way to get the snippets you refer to out of the history, it's an artifact of the improper move (although it's still possible to to a proper diff by adding the version numbers to the URL manually). Some could have been left out but I thought we should keep the edits by Decumanus, Itai, and 212. Likewise there's no real "moved from" indicator (yet anyway) but the old article shows a "moved to" in its history. - Hephaestos|§ 21:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm really confused. At first I thought you used some special administrator privileges to move the history over. But then, after looking at the Temple Bar history, I discovered that it looks there as though you just copied and pasted the Temple Bar London text in, then moved the whole thingummy over, thus simulating what should have done in the first place. (At that point I felt silly for not doing it myself.) But then, on the third hand, looking at the Temple Bar London history, I realized that you got the updates from Decumanus and Itai (etc) in the history -- which wouldn't have occured if you had just used the simulated method I just described (so I stopped feeling so silly). So now, once again, it seems to me that you used administrator privileges of one kind or another.

But to summarize: you've successfully merged two pages' histories, which has the virtue of including all edits to the current Temple Bar London text, the ones which occurred at both its old and new addresses. However, two items of history which properly belong to the current Temple Bar article (namely the posts of 06:37, 18 May 2004 by 82.161.63.185; and 06:35, 18 May 2004 also by 82.161.63.185) are unfortunately listed as history on the wrong page; and, from the history of Temple Bar, it looks like it was you (and not 82.161.63.185) who created the disambig page. Which is the most trivial loss to history ever, I suppose. :) And at least it's documented here on this talk page. Doops 21:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

The griffin

Whether or not a dragon would have been more desirable, the animal atop the Memorial simply is a griffin, no mistaking. I've inserted the sculptors' names.--Wetman (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely mistaken - I walk past it daily as a member of Lincoln's Inn and banking at Child & Co. It is clearly a dragon having a lizards head and scaly body with four legs and two Leathery wings like a bat with a spear tail - not a beak, nor a feather nor a lion's claw or tail in sight. TonyS 85.210.1.223 (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Temple Bar, London. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225120723/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/history-and-heritage/our-buildings-in-the-city/Pages/Temple-Bar.aspx to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/history-and-heritage/our-buildings-in-the-city/Pages/Temple-Bar.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Query about 1938 sale statement

In the "Present location" section it states that "In March 1938 Theobalds Park was sold by Sir Hedworth Meux to Middlesex County Council, but the Temple Bar Gatehouse was excluded from the sale and retained by the Meux trustees." the source given for this is the website http://www.thetemplebar.info/theobalds-park.html. I was skeptical about this date as Hedworth Meux died in 1929 as his article confirms. Looking at the source it actually confirms that Meux died in 1929 and mentions an attempted sale by his trustees in 1937. It also would seem to suggest that the property was "disposed of" (which may or may not mean sold) in March 1938, but the sold again in April 1938 to Middlesex Council. It is also not clear from this article that the Temple Bar Gatehouse was excluded from the 1938 sale, only that it was excluded from the proposed 1937 sale. Thus, my reading is that the statement as it stands currently is wrong on more than one count and at odds with the cited source (which in fairness may have been altered since it was originally cited). However I am hesitant to chance as I am still not entirely clear on the sequence of what happened in 1938. Dunarc (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Separate page for Temple Bar memorial

I think that the memorial is significant enough to have a page of its' own. Any thoughts. Gusfriend (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)