There are a variety of different Monopoly board sets, but the London one is second only to the Atlantic City original, and every place is independently notable. Yes, even the miniscule Vine Street has seen bizarre tales of erotic asphyxiation and libel charges against Oscar Wilde - what more do you want? It's been played all around Britain and the Commonwealth as far away as Australia and New Zealand, and tourists still come to London to find where the locations on the board really are. For about the past 18 months, I've been going round all of our articles on the real-life London places on the Monopoly board and improving them to good article status. Most of them have now passed a GA review, so to give the final push to a good topic status, we need a suitable list article linking them all together. And that's where this comes in. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Quick comment There needs to be more clarification that the Monopoly board lists "Marlborough Street", but the real place is "Great Marlborough Street". The list is sort of there, but I think it just needs to be spelt out a little more. Harriastalk 16:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean in the lead, or in the list entry itself? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The list entry. Perhaps something like "Great Marlborough Street (listed as "Marlborough Street" on playing board)" in the name column. I don't know, I'm probably being overpicky, but it threw me at first when looking down the list. Harriastalk 16:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've tweaked that; is that what you mean? I did read that Victor Watson later admitted he made a mistake in transcription, but I can only source it to a blog. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the lead and the list disagree with each other: the lead says "Whitechapel Road is the cheapest (as opposed to Old Kent Road) and Mayfair the most expensive; in 2016 the average house price on each was £590,000 and £3,150,000 respectively." But the table lists Old Kent Road as £590,000 and Whitechapel Road as £813,000. Harriastalk 16:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the source. The lead is correct, the list is wrong, so I've fixed that. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soz, got distracted. My mistake. Thanks for noticing it and thanks for fixing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #7 needs author details; seems to be Matt Brown, under the 'M@' moniker. Harriastalk 14:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent about whether you include an accessdate for newspaper sources: refs #8, #9, #10, #27 include them, but #12 doesn't. As they are online, without page numbers, I'd suggest using them throughout, so add one to #12. Harriastalk 14:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph doesn't seem to work very well.. The board locations are discussed at the end of the first paragraph, then the success of the board is the first sentence of the second paragraph. The next sentence changes the topic, but then the third sentence goes back to talking about the board. Possibly the second sentence needs moving, and the first one reworking to let the third sentence fit in better? Harriastalk 14:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The basic structure of the lead (in my head at least) is : 1st paragraph - what the list is about and who made it, 2nd paragraph - why it's notable 3rd - any peripherally related stuff. I think the disconnect here is probably that I assume Waddingtons wouldn't have bothered with real-life Monopoly contests if the board wasn't popular, on the grounds that not enough people would have turned up. The Rambling Man, any thoughts on this one? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I've dropped a bit more context into the second sentence to make it clear how things flow together - how does that grab you? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thanks. Harriastalk 20:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, more than happy to support this great list. (If someone wants to find the code, and cap my comments, feel free. I can't find it right now, and have other things to do!!) Harriastalk 20:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This list is fascinating, and really well-written and researched. Great work for all the editors involved! --haha169 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is probably one of the most interesting, comprehensive and well put-together FLCs I've encountered during my last decade on Wikipedia. I had no idea about the vast majority of the facts before I visited the article. If you could take a little time to add to my FLC at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, it would be greatly appreciated-- we're just about passed, as well! :) DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 05:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could the table be sortable? I wanted to list the properties by their 2016 the average house price, just to see how the board might be different today, and was kind of disappointed that I wasn't able to.
That would require the 2016 prices to be in a separate column. Which is possible. Are you adamant? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not personally adamant, but I think it would be nice. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've left the "page move" and the "sortability" issues outstanding, for Ritchie and you to respond. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well shoot. I don't understand why it doesn't sort at all let alone wrong right now... anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Fixed it. The Dark Blue colour group had a rowspan of 3, not 2, so it would span outside the list, which obviously makes the sort script throw a wobbly. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my fault. Poor coding, I'll presently sack myself, or desysop myself or something. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors thanks for your comments. Besides the "colour wars" going on, I think we've addressed all your other points, would you be good enough to check we've covered them to your satisfaction please? Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How set are you on that title? Because they're not called "Places" or "Locations" in the game, they're "Properties", aren't they? I'd propose moving the article to "List of London Monopoly properties" and similarly changing the level 2 header to "Properties".
Yep, that's been needling me a little bit since we started on this path... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man:@A Thousand Doors: I've ummed and ahhed over this, but I can't come up with a convincing counter-argument beyond Park Lane, Euston Road and Pentonville Road are technically strips of tarmac with white and double yellow (or red?) lines on them, better known for traffic jams, congestion and red lights than buildings. That's not really enough in my view, so TRM - can you make the change as I fear if I did it I would bugger something up (it involves changing the title of this review, for one thing). Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you went with "locations" rather than "properties"? This isn't exactly a dealbreaker for me, although I would note that Tim Moore uses "properties" more than twice as often as he uses "locations". If one looks at the sources that Ritchie provided below, this one uses "property cards" rather than "location cards", and this one calls them "properties" as well. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I refer the honourable gentlemen to User:Maunus, point 2 - fundamentally we have to stick a line in the sand and say "right, let's go with this". The salient point for me is, can everybody find the information and does it make sense in context? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I just wanted to link to something you'd written rather than actually ping you - I was basically endorsing your point that "Article titles are largely irrelevant because of redirects: Moving an article rarely constitutes an actual improvement of the encyclopedia." which I think is relevant in this case. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Indeed, it seems relevant. Thanks for reading my rules of thumb.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree that article titles are "irrelevant" – WP:TITLE is Wikipedia policy, and one of the FL criteria. But, as I've said, the current title isn't one that I would oppose over. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's relevant up to a degree (it wouldn't make sense to call the article "List of London Monopoly parsnips", for example), but when people can't agree on the specifics, and there's no clear and obvious choice out of several reasonable ones, then at some point you've just got to pick one before you start exhibiting Parkinson's Bicycle Shed Effect. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Pall Mall/Whitehall/N. Avenue set really "purple"? When you expand the London Monopoly board layout they look more pink to me. Which colour do the sources use to refer to the set?
Is it? [citation needed] Tim Moore's book calls it "The Purples" [2]. Here is another source calling it purple and here is another and here is another (also used here to cite the pub crawl). Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "used by the board" I mean the board graphic. We should at least have consistency... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to change the RGB value to match the board graphic but still call it "purple"? I'm just a little uncomfortable calling it "pink" when three reliable sources don't! (I realise I am technically edit-warring over the colour of templates, for which I apologise....) Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the Pall Mall group have always seemed to be magenta rather than pink (and probably is a pure magenta, given the ease of producing that shade in CMYK printing).
It might interest you to know that I own a pre-war set, with several differences from more modern sets (and not just the use of "L.N.E.R." instead of "BRITISH RAILWAYS"). Most of the property group colours are the same, but a noticeable difference is in the Old Kent Road group, which are not brown but a deep purple-violet. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder (to meet FLC criteria 3a) we should drop that information in as a footnote somewhere. There is a website here which, although not what we traditionally consider a reliable source, is acceptable in my view as I don't think anyone seriously thinks the pictures on the website (which is what we are verifying against) are not genuine. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is all getting somewhat silly. If it continues, I suggest we drop the naming of the colours altogether, because pink/magenta/purple and brown/deep purple-violet can be argued subjectively forever. This is an endless and fruitless argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not subjective. The modern board clearly uses brown, nobody disagrees with that. The pre-war board in my possession (and the associated title deed cards) have the same colours that are used in Ritchie333 (talk·contribs)'s link (here they are in close-up) - a colour that is approximately in the vicinity of #6f2467 or #761e68. You can call it violet or purple, but it's nothing like brown. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source for that? Or are you exercising original research to determine the name of the colour? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source for that photograph? For the fact that brown and violet are different? Or for the board that I've got right in front of me? Perhaps you'd like to see it for yourself. Can you get to London this coming Sunday? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think you've misunderstood. My proposal is basically a rough compromise of everything that's been said, which is : the RGB is basically dark pink like the modern boards and like the board template we use elsewhere, for consistency if nothing else. The colour name is "purple" because reliable sources use it. Then we pop a footnote to the browns along the lines of "by the way, original boards didn't have the browns as browns", they were something else. Everyone's a winner, and this time next year we could be millionaires, Rodney. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about a reliable source for this list. We can't add "Redrose64's board" as an RS, I think you already know that. Please try to helpfully come to a solution here, rather than add such strange ideas. I have a pre-war Monopoly set too, the point is we're arguing the toss over the nuances of a colour, none of which appears to be reliably sourced. Perhaps we should remove colours altogether if this is such a problem. After all, that would really benefit our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one claiming that I can't tell the difference between brown and deep purple-violet. Try putting the Old Kent Road/Whitechapel squares of your pre-war board against the same squares of a modern board. They're not even close: this is not a "nuance" but completely different colours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"You are the one claiming that I can't tell the difference between brown and deep purple-violet. " that's completely untrue, a bare-faced lie. Please don't make things up. And actually, as you're an admin, please exercise extra special caution when lying about my edits. As an admin you also ought to understand our requirement for WP:RS, and your opinions on colours, rightly or wrongly, do not count as reliable sources. If you have an alternative, workable solution, please do let me know. But in any case, please do not lie about my edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please calm down and take a breath? I have been trying to find a reliable source for just that for the last 20 minutes, looking in Moore's book and also in other books online. I proposed the http://monopoly.cdbpdx.com/GB_PAF_1/ as a potential link to a source, because theoretically anyone can purchase a Monopoly board from that vintage if they have the money (which per WP:SOURCEACCESS is okay) and verify that what is on the website (and, one presumes, what is on Redrose's board) is factually accurate. However, this should only be a footnote, for the average Monopoly player, Old Kent Road is the colour of poo. I don't think I can put it any simpler than that. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calm, I don't appreciate admins lying about my edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That diff is not equivalent to "You are the one claiming that I can't tell the difference between brown and deep purple-violet. " so stop lying please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article with a footnote against "Brown" that mentions it was purple on the original boards. I personally think this is a nice little tidbit to tuck away in a footnote. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@A Thousand Doors: I think everything's you've raised has been addressed one way or another, is there anything else? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
