Talk:Battersea Power Station

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battersea Power Station article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 90 days

Battersea Power Station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 13, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

London Mid‑importance

	London portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

River Thames (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Stephen Foley (3 February 2009). "So is Wikipedia cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Wikipedia is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web?". The Independent.

British Rail Class 447 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 July 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Battersea Power Station. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

The area

Battersea Power Station has been confirmed as the name of the new area from the redevelopment of the old power station. Therefore, a new article is needed on the area. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 20:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Battersea Power Station, London / Battersea Power Station (housing) etc has significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, feel free to start an article. If it has trivial coverage and / or coverage in a small number of sources, append it to this article. If it has no coverage in reliable sources (unlikely, I feel), no change. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth-largest brick building in Europe

The second paragraph of the article begins

The station is the fourth largest brick building in Europe

but the source cited is not at all reliable. It is a blog post at http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/features/list/largest-brick-buildings-around-the-world-infograph , which does not discuss the topic at all. Instead, it announces an infographic published by another source, brickhunter.com, which appears to have been a commercial brick-procurement service, and which is now defunct. It provides an illegible, reduced-size version of the infographic. (A complete version is available from http://visual.ly/largest-brick-buildings-world .)

The original source was http://www.brickhunter.com/blog/largest-brick-buildings-in-the-world.html would surely not have been considered reliable even if it was still online. The infographic is described as follows:

Using a combination of Google Earth and an area calculator, Brick Hunter has painstakingly measured the ground size of the largest buildings around the world

which does not instil confidence: What if they measured wrong? What if they forgot about some brick buildings? http://www.catholic.org/travel/story.php?id=41790 , a source at least as reliable as the one cited, claims that the largest brick building in the world is the Cathédrale Ste-Cécile in Albi; this structure is not in the infographic's top ten.

I suggest we remove this extremely questionable claim from the article. —Mark Dominus (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this a few months back and tried to find a reliable source. What I found were several contradictory sources of questionable reliability. In addition to the problems you note, I don't think ground footprint is a reasonable measure of brick building size. They obviously used this measure just because it was convenient. I think we could safely say Battersea is "one of the largest" brick buildings in Europe. I could go along with either saying that or simply removing this claim. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Google Books this morning I found many claims that Battersea was variously the largest brick building in Britain, in Western Europe, in Europe, and in the world. I did not find any discussion of what this would mean exactly (By square footage? By number of bricks?) nor anything I would consider really reliable, such as a specific comparison of Battersea with Malbork Castle, the Cathédrale Ste-Cécile, etc. I am going to change the wording to “one of the largest brick buildings in the world”, which seems well-supported. It is probably true, and even if not, it can be well-cited. —Mark Dominus (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I visited the power station as a young school boy from the near by Latchmere School in circa 1950 and after visiting the generator room with the its big green generators we were told that 73 million bricks was used to build Battersea Power Station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.77.88 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

Is there a reason why this article's lead section now reads like a development company's new project pamphlet? This article, I note, passed as a good article ten years ago and sadly, it has been left to rot. I've not bothered with the rest of the article, but I would lay money on it that it is just as bad. Cassianto^Talk 18:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing heard, so I've been bold and rewritten it. Cassianto^Talk 13:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a split?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not split. Wgullyn (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bttersea Power Station has been a landmark of south west London. It was a power station up until 1983 when the last part of it was decommissioned. Whilst it has sat around derelict for decades, it wasn't until the early 21st century with the listed status and the development by a consortium of different companies that it has become its own neighbourhood as a mixed residential, commercial and entertainment complex. Now that the area has even gained its own tube station and the name not only refers to the power station but the surrounding buildings as well, it feels like this would be the right time to discuss some form of a split for the page. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 15:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t think it is really necessary, the article appears fine as it is. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in future - the article could do with having its recent history substantially expanded! Turini2 (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beatles' Help!

How come there is no mention of the Battersea Power Station appearing in the Beatles' film Help! with the caption "A Famous Power Station"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:49, 14 May 2023 (talk • contribs) 2601:283:8301:820:5073:2e22:484e:809b (UTC)

That's easy. Nobody has added it with a supporting reference. Assuming the appearance is notable then feel free to find a reference and add it to the article. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about a website from The Guardian, a significant British newspaper? Does that count? Certainly the Beatles are more culturally significant than Pink Floyd. Here's the link to The Guardian story. It is about six images down on the website.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2016/jun/22/monty-python-children-of-men-battersea-power-station-films 2601:283:8301:820:E978:71F2:9D00:9FB6 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's really good, yes. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]