Contents

Talk:84, Charing Cross Road

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Bookshop's site today

[edit]

I cross-referenced both my own personal photos from a September 1991 visit and information and photos from the Marks & Co. enthusiast website to determine that the building in which the actual bookshop was located is still marked as 84 Charing Cross Road; the Med Restaurant shown in the 2008 Google Street View is now listed as having moved a few blocks away, and I cannot locate a current business listing for the address. See also http://freespace.virgin.net/angela.garry/Plaque.htm LNER4472 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the boilerplates reads This article about a historical fiction book is a stub.... - I'm pretty sure the book is non-fiction, or is at least "based on a true story"", fwiw. Lee M 02:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "film stub" template, as this article is about a book and its television, stage, and screen adaptations, not just a film. SFTVLGUY2 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox tag has been removed as article already has one. If you have any problems with this please post a message on my talk page. RWardy 22:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I split the book/film article into two, i forgot to move the tags and pertinent posts. I have done so now. EraserGirl (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think speculation about why some people (only Americans per the writer) believe the site of the shop to have been demolished is unnecessary. It is also faulty in its analysis, as numbering of addresses is variant all throughout the (quite large and diverse) United States. A clear explanation of the numbering system used on the section of Charing Cross Road (and possibly why evidently intelligent and literate people confuse it) would be helpful. The current explanation is confused and contentious. Liam (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- I removed the inessentials and speculation and POV. I tried to make it make some sense but since I don't live there there's only so much I could do. Softlavender (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the bookshop, the persons and the correspondance are authentic? The article doesn't seem to provide any information about these pretty basic facts regarding the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the book labeled a "novel", i.e., fiction, in the article, when the rest of the article seems to indicate the events actually occurred, the letters really exchanged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.241.240 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]