Talk:Earl's Court

message: Does "Earls Court" have an apostrophe in it? --Christopher Denman 18:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I've checked maps and websites for businesses and attractions based there. It's "Earls Court" and not "Earl's Court". The page was recently moved to "Earl's Court" but I have reverted this change. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian style guide, however, recommends with an apostrophe. Possibly it's something that would benefit from research and investigation, and noting explicitly in the article that there are differing opinions. —me_and 14:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry - the 'Guardian style'? It's easy to see with any web search that almost no one uses it. Their official site (at 'eco.co.uk') doesn't. Londontown doesn't. Booking dot com doesn't, and Hotels dot com doesn't. Perhaps a suggestion - that you stop searching for exotic references to support your preconceptions. Because it's embarrassing for WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.233.41.89 (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

text: A tube map is an exception, and Google is the last instance of corroboration to be cited. And a reference from 1827 is just that - a reference from 1827. A lot has happened in 190 years. Or perhaps we should go back even further? There is no apostrophe. Full stop.
Back to the apostrophe: the place name has a long track record with an apostrophe. See for instance, Greenwoods 1827 map of the area: http://users.bathspa.ac.uk/greenwood/map_g1h.html. Where it drops the apostrophe is when attached to buildings as in the late exhibition venues, where the Art moderne style was to omit the sign. This has led to much confusion and has been reinforced by texting and latterly by the new owners of the venues who are insisting on dropping the apostrophe, to show 'its' more contemporary that way.--Po Kadzieli (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Apostrophe

message: I was disappointed to see that this article had no references.  I therefore posted the unreferenced template on the page automatically.  However, I found the "History" section particularly troublesome.  It currently seems as though someone walked through a section of Earl's Court, counted the number and types of vehicles that he or she saw, and wrote about the demographics of Earl's Court based on that assessment.  Wikipedia articles should not be written that way.  I may also add another warning to indicate that the language needs to be formalized.  Dr. Submillimeter 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious you don't come from London or, indeed, Earls Court. Most of what is written on the article page is common knowledge. I know that is not regarded as an acceptable source, but it would be ludicrous to delete it. Otherwise you would have to go through other towns and cities doing the same thing because most of what appears on the New York page, for instance, is unattributed and probably unattributable. In the meantime I will try and locate some sources for you. It is good that we have standards on Wikipedia but I feel this sort of nit-picking is silly. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced and Original Research warnings 

message: Presumably the name is because some Earl held his court here, do we know for sure after which Earl's court it got its name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgriot (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name