Talk:Tower of London

message: The third sentence of "Foundation and early history" mentions the 1066 invasion, but this was when the Norman conquest of England began.  Shouldn't this be mentioned at the start of this section, before "as part of their conquest of England..."? Parrot of Doom 12:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made essentially cosmetic changes, putting the chronology of William's victory and approach towards London at the start, and then moving the stuff about the significance of castles to the end of the paragraph. The next then switches back to chronology. (I think most of your copy edits are intact, although I trimmed a little material). Nev1 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this?  I wasn't sure how many castles he founded so I just put "several".  Is that correct, or would it be more accurate instead to remove that part, since a castle is essentially a fortification?  Or are the "several castles" actually a part of the period 1066–1087? Parrot of Doom 14:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  chronology 

message: Just wanted to say, very good article. Well done to all who contributed! :) BritishWatcher (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This disgraceful posting ^ is in clear breach of Talk page guidelines! Which is just as well, as I came here to say exactly the same thing too - terrific article, nice one! Congrats to all involved - excellent text and some wonderful pictures. Now I am going to beat myself up for posting this, pour encourager les autres. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  lol always follow Wikipedia:IGNORE :). You would think giving praise would be encouraged. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very good article 

message: The name, 'Her Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress' is given in the lead but not mentioned again in the body of the article.  There are no supporting referenced given for this name.  The is the kind of thing that may be argued about and used in quizzes, it therefore seems important to me that we have a reference to support this, relatively unknown, name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought an IP simply added it earlier today so i unddid it but i see they were restoring it to undo vandalism. Plenty of sources on the Tower of London website using the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone needs to add a bit to the body of the article giving the alternative name as the style of the article seems to be not to have references in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a 'fact' tag. I do not doubt that it is true but an important claim about the correct name needs a good reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly all the Tower guidebooks use this term, it shouldn't be hard to ref this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Can I just add what a delight I find it that the "in popular culture" bit is in its own separate article? No disrespect intended to anyone who likes to work on these things, but I sometimes find them a terrible distraction, often irrelevant, and liable to a sort of editorial instability and, er, shiftingness that can make an article frustrating to work on. Shipping this stuff out to its own article is great, and I feel that we should do it more often, where the volume warrants it. Sure, at the other article you can argue all day, if you choose, about what should be in or out and how many episodes of Dr Who or James Bond films or Meg and Mog stories you are going to list, but I think it's much better that this happens in its own space. Good one. DBaK (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an idea borrowed from the article on Guy Fawkes. After a certain point, it's better if the pop culture trivia is hived off in another article so it doesn't unbalanced things. Also, I happen to think that most of it is unimportant in any case. There is plenty to say about how popular culture has effected the public's perception of the Tower –such as Shakespeare perpetuating a myth about the Tower, and William Harrison Ainsworth making the gory side well-known – but something like Johnny English doesn't really tell us much about the Tower. I was quite happy to remove this from the main article and give it its own. Nev1 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, yes! Good stuff, and thanks. DBaK (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: There is no mention of Tower Bridge in the article. Is it completely out of scope?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PS - congratulations by the way. An excellent article.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only connection between the two is that the bridge was named because it was close to the Tower. That's worth mentioning in the article on Tower Bridge, but not on the Tower of London itself. Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fair enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower Bridge 

message: The following sentence
is slightly misleading as it implies that the castle is still used as a prison (which I assume it is not!). The past tense would probably be better.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I've switched it to the past tense rather than the imperfect. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion that the Kray Twins were held in the Tower for refusing to report for National Service is supported by a link to a Channel 4 programme that cannot be accessed. It sounds really unlikely to me - but just the sort of thing that they might have claimed themselves. The slightly more detailed story in the Kray twins article is supported by nothing at all, and in that article they are described as "amongst the last prisoners", ie that such imprisonments weren't uncommon. If that were so I'd expect some citation would be possible. Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It could only have been correct if at the time of their National Service there was a military prison (formally Military Corrective Training Centre)  to which court martialled offenders would be sent  at the Tower, which I am aware was the Regimental Depot of the Royal Fusiliers with whom they were to serve. The barracks would have had guardroom cells in which miscreants would have short term confinement prior to court martial. The Krays were sent on from the Tower to Shepton Mallet detention barracks to serve out their court martial sentence.Cloptonson (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: I have read the same memoir of Milligan's but I understood (through Milligan's comedic turns of phrase) that he was posted there as a home service assignment.Cloptonson (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still in use as a prison? 

message: In 1517, during the Evil May Day riots, the then Lieutenant of the Tower, Sir Richard Cholmeley, furiously ordered the firing of some of the Tower's artillery at the City as gangs of young Londoners attacked foreigners, especially the wealthy foreign merchants and bankers of Lombard Street, London, and took control of London for several days.   Is this incident significant enough to mention?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Evil May Day riots of 1517

message: There doesn't seem to be an internal link to the Royal Armouries; the world's oldest museum and an important part of the life of the Tower since the middle-ages. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The royal armouries are mentioned in their role as a successor to the Privy Wardrobe. Feel free to add a wikilink. Otherwise, do you have a source that says it was the world's oldest museum? Although the crown jewels were on disply from the 17th century onwards and the armouries could be accessed, calling it a museum might be stretching it. Nev1 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Armouries

message: The chapel's current bare and unadorned appearance is reminiscent of how it would have been in the Norman period. In the 13th century, during Henry III's reign, the chapel was decorated with such ornamentation as a gold-painted cross, and stained glass windows that depicted the Virgin Mary and Holy Trinity. 
There are two things that I want to question here. 
*The chapel's current bare and unadorned appearance is reminiscent of how it would have been in the Norman period. 
:Is this what Parnell says? It seems very odd to me! I would expect that the expanse of ceiling, particularly the apse, would have been decorated, after the manner of St Gabriel's Chapel (early 1100s) in Canterbury Cathedral. 
*gold-painted cross 
:"Gilded", or "painted and gilded" are both far more likely than "gold-painted". 
Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: "In the 20th century tourism the Tower's primary role, the remaining routine military activities, under the Royal Logistics Corps, having wound down in the latter half of the century and moved out of the castle.[125]" 
:"In the twentieth century" are my addition. 
:The question is: do the words "latter half of the century" pertain to the 19th or the 20th century? I am not sure from the context, and may have inadvertently caused an error. Could you please correct this if necessary? 
:Oh Dear! I have just noticed a verb missing! Will fix! Amandajm (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Please check

message: A great article to have on the front page! 
Amandajm (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations!

message: Is there any way, without this Talk page becoming a ranting battlefield, that we can peacefully resolve the "an historic"/"a historic" thing? Or given that everyone knows that they are right, is it doomed to just continue indefinitely as a slow-motion edit war? And if so, does it matter? Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Or ... has it not maybe been discussed to death and/or consensus reached in some more general forum elsewhere, perhaps? DBaK (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh dear, this is very much what I didn't want to do here but, no, per WP:Engvar it should be nothing of the kind unless you can show me where WP:Engvar says "always use 'an' in BrE in these cases". It's a form of synthesis to say 1. Engvar says use BrE here so 2. this should say "an historic", because it requires me to accept the unspoken step 1a. the correct BrE usage is "an historic". This I do not accept: I know it is used by some BrE speakers but others, including me, find it archaic and frankly embarrassing. So I see no justification for changing it, and I feel it is important to assert that people who want to say "an historic" cannot simply hide it behind EngVar and BrE. But this is what I mean about trying to avoid the I know I am right about this bit because of course we both know that we are and we can both - well, if we could be bothered - go on asserting that I am right and you are wrong ad infinitum. I was hoping for something a bit more, er, policyish than this. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy aside, its long been my understanding that "an" is used to make the pronunciation of a following word easier - hence "an elephant" is easier than "a elephant".  "An historic" is only needed if one uses the hard "a!", rather than "ey...", or if one pronounces the following word with a silent h.  Of course this is all my own research and based on nothing in particular. Parrot of Doom 15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "this is all my own research" Get the heretic! Prepare the stake!!!! :) DBaK (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I have checked a bit and it appears that both usages are widespread and neither is regarded as uniquely correct. By analogy with the instructions about different variants of English I would stick with the original author's choice unless there is a reason and consensus for change. In this case I would say do exactly that: retain, or restore, the original author's choice of words. Mirokado (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not 100% sure I buy this, but it is a very interesting approach and at least is better, to my way of thinking, than I'm right you're wrong. If I did buy it - and it would certainly be interesting to know what others think - then this would I think suggest that it ought to be "an historic". Of course this just makes me go sassle frassle because I think it's, er, wrong ... but I am not sure if evidence exists to back my prejudice, or maybe it does but I can't be $%^&ed to go and look for it! :) Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

text: "An historic.." is a throwback to 19th century pronounciation where initial h's were barely pronounced. Anyone claiming it's (exclusively) correct, a British English convention, or widespread, is wrong. It is very rare indeed in modern English and will soon expire. No new writing should use it although it shouldn't be corrected in older works.TheMathemagician (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  An historic and a historic 

message: Why is the article semi-protected? Because it has been a featured article? Because it is on a CD used for schools? Perhaps because it's been repoeatedly vandalised (but surely not)?
There should be an explanation. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation can be seen in the protection log here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The reason given when the article was semi-protected towards the end of October was that there was too much vandalism; it expires on 27 November, but it's likely the vandalism will resume as the article is one of the most popular on Wikipedia. The version of this article that's been selected for school release is based on a version of this article from June 2008. Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected? 

message: It the most haunted place of London, with seven famous assessination of the century. Its been said that all those people are seen there living there final moments again and again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Most haunted" is a bold claim, do you have a source to back that up? Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower Of London 

message: I'd like to suggest putting a link to the interesting article Ravens of the Tower of London in the See Also section. A link to Princes in the Tower would also be appropriate there, I think. Thanks. --ImizuCIR (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Both articles are linked in the article. Parrot of Doom 08:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ravens 

message: In the Outer ward section, it says; "archaeological investigations suggest that Legge's Mount is Edwardian". The usual British usage of "Edwardian" refers to the reign of Edward VII in the 20th century - see our Edwardian era article. I think it means Edward I, but as it has just mentioned the Tudors, it could be Edward VI. Could somebody clarify please? Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "A third ward was created during Edward I's extension to the Tower, as the narrow enclosure completely surrounded the castle. At the same time a bastion known as Legge's Mount was built at the castle's north-west corner." Parrot of Doom 17:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Changed to "archaeological investigations suggest that Legge's Mount dates from the reign of Edward I", hopefully that doesn't make it too repetitive. Nev1 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a hatnote at the top of the Edwardian era article, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks everyone. Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwardian? 

message: I'm surprised to see no reference to Little Ease, the infamous tiny cell that is perhaps the most famous instrument of torture at the Tower.  John M Baker (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Ease 

message: The BBC " Coast" series mentioned that the stone came from a quarry in Normandy.. a huge undertaking, one would think ....this is not yet mentioned in the article...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feroshki (talk • contribs) 03:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article, the stone from Normandy was only used to provide details in the facing.  There is also some discussion of the stone used here, which appears to be RS.  John M Baker (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Importing all the stone from Normandy would have been excessive, but using it for architectural details was a powerful statement, as was the case with the White Tower (the first bit of the castle to be built in stone). The bulk of the material used to build the White Tower was sourced from closer to home, for example Kentish Ragstone. Nev1 (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: David Knowles' history of English Monastic Orders says somewhere (sorry for the vagueness) that many monasteries etc which were located on rivers accessible from the sea found it cheaper to import stone from France (often where their parent houses were located) than to source it in the UK. Moving stone by boat a long way was easier than moving it by cart on the then roads over much shorter distances. The same would be true of London - and Caen stone was used to build both Norwich and Canterbury Cathedrals. Caen is on the Orne near the coast and the extensive quarries themselves lay along the river Orne. Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: location of stone quarry source

message: I removed from this article the impossible to substantiate claim that the privy council had to sanction torture in the Tower of London.  No source whatever could conceivably prove the meaning of this claim: that torture never occurred in the Tower of London without approval from the privy council.  This would be like saying that beatings are "not allowed" in prisons, and therefore don't happen. I think anybody on cold reflection would see that no historical source could evidence such a proposition.
Nevertheless, somebody reverted my edit, without explanation.  So perhaps this could be discussed before it is reverted again. Bluehotel (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your edit and, contrary to your claim, I did give an edit summary for the reason. You altered detail that was followed by a supporting reference. Your change was not supported by that reference and therefore incorrect. Note that in order to have achieved the 'Featured Article' status the article has been given the supplied references were checked and verified by several editors, to achieve consensus for the award of the 'Featured Article'. Regardless of what you personally feel regarding the statement the consensus is that the reference and therefore the statement is correct. Accordingly I have reverted your changes back to the original wording submitted. If you believe the reference is incorrect then please first supply proof of that before altering the article. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Privy council had to sanction torture 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Tower of London viewed from the River Thames.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 29, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-11-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Tower of London viewed from the River Thames.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Everything seems to say the white tower is "87 feet excluding its' projecting corner towers". How tall are the projecting corner towers? 80.42.38.131 (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  height 

message: Auto writes.  There is a photo link to 'Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red'; could/should mention be made within the article proper?  I would like to see such a link, quite honestly.  The installation had a terrific emotional effect on many people who attended [including the present writer!].  Auto wrote - 20160725 2022Z.  109.155.108.69 (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Installation

message: Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? Btw, a lot of the hrp.org.uk links are dead. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFA rerun 

message: Hi all,
Just a quick note to let you know that I would like to voice and add this article to WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia). --TomKocjan (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia 

message: A suggested 'room for improvement' (after reading through the article within a half hour) to this Featured Article would be more on the Royal Mint's presence in the Tower, for example where its activities would have been in relation to the premises visible today. Its presence was long-term from the reign of Edward I until its move to Tower Hill in 1805 and later East Smithfield as borne out in the account in the wiki article on the Royal Mint. The Tower is mentioned in the summary paragraphs as having been the home of the Royal Mint among other institutions and purposes, but there is no illuminating detail in the succeeding sections. I have copied in from the RM article the detail about centralisation of the mint within the Tower in 1279.Cloptonson (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Mint

message: I wonder is there a concise account of how the integrated system was designed to operate in the event of attack. I think I've seen it briefly treated in a TV documentary. Shtove (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defensive system 

message: Given this is a Featured Article it's somewhat surprising to find an error in the caption to this image.
The caption read "Edward I" when it should state "Edward IV". I've now fixed.
--Rupples (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption to scale model of the Tower

message: While reading through The Tower of London article here I noticed that the individual towers that partly comprise the site are not wikilinked to separate pages, e.g. Bell Tower in the Inner Ward section. I found this surprising. I searched Google for an image of Bell Tower and tracked one photo through to the German language version of Wikipedia which does have a separate page, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Tower_(London)). The German Wikipedia Tower of London page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_London also has wikilinks to separate pages for Salt Tower, Wakefield Tower, Byward Tower and others. I thought that maybe just the wikilinks were missing here so searched for some of the individual towers on English Wikipedia. No separate pages came up other than for the White Tower. Why doesn't the English Wikipedia have separate pages for the individual towers? Is it just the obvious or am I missing something? I'm mystified.  --Rupples (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's primarily a case of no one having got round to writing them yet! There would be a case for forking the content off to keep the main article from becoming too long. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

text: As the text is available under an open licence, you can translate it as long as you give attribution to the source, eg: in an edit summary. It's a bit like when copying text within Wikipedia. As you have made more than 500 edits and your account is more than 30 days old, it might be worth trying the Content Translation Tool. You'll have to activate it in your preferences. One important tip is to be careful with machine translations. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks so much for your advice. I'll go and read the attribution article and take a look at the translation tool. Just one further question, should I still be stuck at some point (after trying self-help through Wikipedia pages), is there a point of contact to get tailored help with an article's creation? Rupples (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Teahouse is always a good place to ask; I'd volunteer myself, but there's not guarantee I'll be around at any given point! Richard Nevell (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I've got a query on another matter so will give The Teahouse a try. Muchas gracias. Rupples (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower of London article on the German Wikipedia  

message: I'm finding this section a bit confusing.
It begins with "The Yeomen Warders provided the permanent garrison of the Tower" - but they still do, don't they? Also, from what date did the Yeoman Warders provide the garrison? --Rupples (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garrison section 

message: Attempt to merge this back here. And did they tell you about it? No, of course not. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rather telling that you think those who watch this page would be alarmed by that prospect. Perhaps content like "in the 2005 Christmas special "The Christmas Invasion", it was the secret headquarters of the fictional military organization UNIT. The UNIT base also reappeared in the 2012 episode The Power of Three." is content that can safely be deleted? AusLondonder (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the dross on that page will have to be culled per WP:Verify, this being a featured article... Firebrace (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note we now have a great new section successfully and skillfully added by  at Tower of London#In popular culture. A vast improvement on the mess we had at the seperate article. AusLondonder (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't - it just covers what one might call folk legends. Nothing on literary, artistic, film etc portrayals. Poor show. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Poems, comics and Shakespeare. But nevertheless if you feel something has been missed, add it. AusLondonder (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

text: But with secondary, not primary, sources, please. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not going to, because I'm too busy stopping you two further degrading WP, and writing my own stuff. Plus there is so much to add it would unbalance the article. But it is a very poor effort, managing to omit by far the biggest folklore elements around the Tower (ravens, Princes in the Tower) though they are mentioned elsewhere. This fully confirms my concerns about the way Afd is being used by a crowd of deletionist drive-bys to foist inferior stuff onto FAs. Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower of London in popular culture]]