This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Darts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Darts-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DartsWikipedia:WikiProject DartsTemplate:WikiProject DartsDarts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
How can remarkable be described as "Sounds like hyperbole rather than descriptive"? I replaced historic, which is ambivalent, with remarkable; the dates within the Lead section explain the actual history. If you don't understand, look it up in a dictionary ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑JonesThe Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 11:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that 'remarkable' suggests someone is remarking on its significance, which suggests subjectivity, whilst 'historic' is merely factual. However to avoid this becoming a battle of opinions or temperaments I have removed either and hope that is an amicable solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWhiteJamEdits (talk • contribs) 08:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion 'historic' and 'remarkable' should both be avoided. Saying it's 'historic' is saying it's of historical importance, which is subjective. The same with 'remarkable', which means it's worthy of note or remark. While both these things may well be true, the opening descriptions should nevertheless be merely descriptive and factual (e.g. 'The Eiffel Tower is a wrought iron lattice tower', or 'The Great Pyramid of Giza is the oldest and largest of the three pyramids in the Giza pyramid complex'). Dubmill (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My eye was caught by mention of Jones in this article. I have a v. soft spot for his work, having worked for many years at 16 Carlton House Terrace, which he redesigned (inside) in a wonderfully OTT style. I am not certain why he is listed in the info-box as one of the architects of the Ally Pally. The only mention of him in the text just says that he conceived the idea of a people's palace on the site, and there is no indication in the article that he contributed any designs to the actual building. Could someone who knows the historical facts clarify this, perhaps? Tim riley talk10:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Series 60 of Later… with Jools Holland is being recorded in the Alexandra Palace Theatre. First show on Saturday 14th May 2022 at 21:55 on BBC2. 82.14.68.181 (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the palace being after the name of the park is implied within the article, but isn't clear. It would be good to add this information somewhere so that people know that it inherits it's name from Edward VII's wife. 31.94.4.230 (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornfud:. Please revert your rephrasing of the header of this article. Your edit was a needless American-English revision of good-quality, elegant, British English. "Ally Pally", for example, is not an equivalent or equal-weight alternative name for Alexandra Palace. It is a nickname which would not be used on formal documents, or for the use of people unfamiliar with British culture, who might be misled into using "Ally Pally" as an alternative formal name. The rest of your edit does not remove verbiage; it inserts verbiage and awkward, inelegant language. British English is a sensitive form of English with which, presumably, you are not familiar, and needs to be handled carefully. If a sentence contains clauses, please read it through carefully, before thoughtlessly deleting the clauses. So please revert, and do not start an edit war. Note: I was not able to add an edit summary to my revert of your original edit, because the system does not permit that. Storye book (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm sure at least some of the changes I've made should be uncontroversial and don't warrant a wholesale revert. Here's some explanation:
I'm not sure what use of American English you're referring to. If you point that out, I'll fix it.
British English sentences can be more convoluted than American English, and we get Americans trying to remove clauses for that reason. But in British English you do not need to do that. Storye book (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where the subject of an article has a notable alternative name, such as "Ally Pally" here, it's standard to include that in the first sentence. The previous version of the article said it was "often referred to" by this name. Is it? If not, maybe it's not that notable, and it may not be worth including in the lead at all.
If you are not aware of how often and in what way the term "Ally Pally" is used, you should not be the one to decide how the nickname is used in the article. For your information, it is used often, as is "The Donald", "DT", "No. 45/47" etc. Those terms are used for Donald Trump in the UK and no doubt elsewhere, but because they are nicknames (and therefore not interchangeable with his formal name) we don't put those on the top line of his article's header. The same rule goes for Ally Pally, which is also a frequently-used nickname. However, the nickname Ally Pally is probably as old as the building itself, so it is fitting that it should be in the header - just not on the top line. Storye book (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The People's Palace" should be "the People's Palace", lowercase "the", per MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Depending on how sources use this name, it may not need to be capitalised at all, per MOS:CAPS.
We don't need to write "it was originally built". Readers will assume it was built for the first time the first time we tell them it was built. Yes it was rebuilt later, but readers won't wonder, at this point in the story, if we're talking about the time it was rebuilt.
We say in the first sentence that the palace is in North London. We don't need to mention that again later in the paragraph.
In fact, we do need to reiterate that fact, in the context of being the North London counterpart, because there are infinite possible senses to the idea of a counterpart, and we need to clarify - otherwise, why use the word, "counterpart"? Storye book (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"its purpose was to serve as" is just a wordier way of saying "It was designed to". See WP:AREYOUBEINGSERVED.
Yes, you could substitute "to serve as" with "designed to", but the second phrase is weaker. The intention is about serving the people - the qualities listed are gifts to the populace. Rules require common sense, and this is an example of that. Storye book (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The system does indeed allow editors to write edit summaries for reverts, and this is encouraged. See WP:REVEXP. If you're unable to add edit summaries to reverts for some reason, that's concerning and we should try to fix that for you. Popcornfud (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried your suggestioo, but it resulted in a revert of your own last edit, which I did not intend (I don't do edit wars - like you, I prefer to discuss). Storye book (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: The main issue here is making the nickname look like a valid equivalent of the formal name, which it is not. The nickname needs to go a few lines further down, where it was in the first place. That point is nothing to do with being clear and readable. Storye book (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, not like Big Ben, which is a misnomer for the tower, not a nickname. The choice has been made, regarding that article, to give precedence to the misnomer over the current official name, because when that choice was made it was understood that "Big Ben" had gained such a large international usage that the new official name could not compete. So in that case, it's a reasonable decision. However, in the case of Alexandra Palace, the nickname Ally Pally is very popular in London, and popular in England, but less popular the further away from London you go. We cannot ignore "Ally Pally", but we cannot give it a validity equal with the official name in this case. Storye book (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, I think it would be OK to put "Ally Pally" in the first line of the header if we make it clear that it is a nickname. then we are not misleading our readers. Storye book (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
