Jump to content

Talk:Temple, London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox/Westminster

[edit]

I tried everything I could think of to get it to include Westminster, but it won't allow it. MRSC (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. It's because Greater London (i.e. the London boroughs) is one infobox dynamic (as such) and the City of London is another (showing as "sui generis" rather than district or London borough - which is of course only correct). Shame really. Still, the Temple's heart is on the City side of the area, so the City of London should be the one mentioned in the infobox. David (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Templarsign.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Templarsign.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Church

[edit]

The article for Temple Church links to this website as a source for the proposition that it is a royal peculiar: https://www.innertemplelibrary.org.uk/inner-temple/history/temple-church/ The other source we have, Briden, Timothy (2013). Moore's Introduction to English Canon Law: Fourth Edition. A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-4411-6868-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) p. 61, says that it does not "appear to be" a royal peculiar, which sounds like the author is uncertain. I propose to amend the article to say that the Temple is a royal peculiar. After all, they should know. Richard75 (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]