Talk:10 Downing Street

message: ...but I read in the article on the Prime Minister that Mr Blair actually lives in NO. 11 as it is larger, while Mr. Brown occupies the residence in No 10. Any truth in this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.108.15.24 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that the Blairs live in the flat above No. 11 and Gordon Brown lives at No. 10, although, of coure, the offices "downstairs" are still in the usual places. Blair needed a bigger flat to house his larger family. This is actually already in the current version of the article. It goes on to say that Blair now occupies both flats and Brown lives elsewhere, which I haven't heard before. JRawle (Talk) 18:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Posibly another Urban myth...

message: Can anyone explain that what do the "*" and "***" indicate in the "Residents of Ten Downing Street & the House at the Back (1650-present)" section? Thanks.--218.103.209.61 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Question

message: At the moment, the article's a bit heavy on the history of the house. This section at least should be moved further down the page. How about moving the sections under "History" to a new article, History of 10 Downing Street. The 10 Downing Street article could then be a shorter one similar to the June version, with a Main article: History of 10 Downing Street toplink in the history section. JRawle (Talk) 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: I was going to suggest myself, as JRawle has, that the article may need to be divided into two parts or two articles: 1. 10 Downing st - the history of the house and 2. 10 Downing st - the office (inner workings etc. PM, Ministers, etc). My impression a month or so ago was that the article was about the house itself - just as there is an article about the White House and the Taj Mahal and many other buildings - describing the interior and exterior, special features, who lived there, its history etc. I have been trying lately to find non-copyrighted pictures that will support that kind of narrative - pictures of the entrance staircase (before and after 1960), the Cabinet Room at different times showing different PM's seated at the table, Soane's State Room, the Reconstruction in Progress 1960-1964, and so forth. (With no luck so far!!)
However. . . if it was never the intention to have an article about the house itself then by all means
PLEASE delete everything I have contributed because it is completely inappropriate.
As for the other comments made about my contributions. . . .
1. I agree the material I have contributed is not in the appropriate style. I have written it more in a narrative style suitable for a monthly popular history magazine NOT for an encyclopedia. I realized this several weeks ago and have been thinking of ways of changing the existing narrative accordingly. The encyclopedia style is not an easy one to adopt and it is taking me a while. I am reading through other articles to get a better feel for it. Obviously, if any of you want to do that ... again by all means feel free!!
2. I also agree the material I have contributed is far to long - there is even a message from Wikipedia to that effect now. I have been reading through the narrative and thinking of how to cut it down. Perhaps doing #1 will achieve this goal as well.
3. As for the spelling and word choices . . . well what can I say? I tend to be a little split-brained about American vs British spellings, wording etc since I am half American and half British. And, spelling has never been a strong suit with me in any case - I was always the first to sit down in class spelling bees.
However, I'm not sure that the spelling and word choices should necessarily be British just because this article is about a British subject. After all, most of the people reading it are NOT likely to be British. By that agrument, anything about Canada should use Canadian spellings and idioms, anything about the United States should use . . . anything about Australia ..... etc etc  There are obviously some words that MUST have British spelling/common usage such as people and place names. But other than that, it would be better to use a standard that is found throughout the English version of Wikipedia (if there is one). Given my lifelong problem with spelling I am certainly NOT the one to do that part of this project.
Perhaps I have said enough for now. (Now I will brace myself for more scathing comments from all the highly offended and indignant Brits out there.)
: The guidelines on when to use British or American English are at Manual of Style#National varieties of English, the two most relevant points being:
:* Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
:* If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
:As you say, place names certainly must be written according to British conventions (e.g. River Thames not Thames River) – that holds true even if writing in American English. But as you can see, the guideline also states that, indeed, you should use the variety of English that is used in the region the article refers to.
:Wikipedia's servers may be based in the USA, but its contributers are from all over the world, many even from countries where English is not the first language, but where people have learnt English as a second language – often Commonwealth English. It would be impossible ever to get everyone agreeing on a standard for English throughout Wikipedia, so I think the current guidelines are sensible. JRawle (Talk) 19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are, I'm sure, already plenty pages describing the civil service and the British government as a whole. This is certainly not the article to go into that level of detail. – Smyth\talk 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comments

message: The article says that Tony Blair has lived at 10 Downing Street since 1997. I seem to recall that in fact Gordon Brown lived at No. 10, at least during the first few years of this period, because the private apartments were too small for the Blair family. Can anyone confirm this please. Gadsby West 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Blair.

message: In an episode of the 2005 season of Doctor Who (World War Three (Doctor Who)), the Cabinet Room is shown to have a several-foot-thick metal shell hidden by the woodwork, with panels that slam closed over the doors and windows on cue to protect the occupants against attack.  It is explained that this was installed in 1991.
Is this for real, or did they make this up out of whole cloth?
--Nomad Of Norad 23:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the Cabinet Room really have a thick metal failsafe doors?

message: This page claims Disraeli occupied Number 10, but on Downing Street#Who lives where it states it was his Chancellor, Sir Stafford Northcote - under a similar arrangement to today. Which is right? Timrollpickering 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Late 1870s residents

message: The article says that "People are still allowed access to the street, providing prior security checks are run and they adhere to certain protocol." This is incredibly vague, and appears to be unreferenced. Which people? When? What sort of protocol? Etc etc etc. 86.149.0.139 00:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Access to Downing St

message: I was just reading the opening paragraph, and it does not seem very useful that it states that '10 Downing Street is the residence of the Prime Minister etc.' and then, a few sentences later 'Actually it is the residence of the First Lord of the Secretary.' Shouldn't this be changed? MadJaxter 13:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Residence of the Prime Minister

message: Anyone know why the zero in the number "10" on the front door looks so askew? It's been like that for as long as I can remember. 195.188.208.250 10:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zero

message: According to the Reuters and BBC references listed at Talk:Chief_Mouser_to_the_Cabinet_Office, Gordon Brown is now living at 11 Downing Street, and Alistair Darling at 10 Downing Street, but this article disagrees.  Could someone with some actual knowledge of British government residences (or at least a better grasp of what sources are reliable in this area) please check on this and correct whichever articles need correcting? John Darrow (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling?

message: Under the same heading above, an anon editor (which might or might not have been me; I can't remember) complains that the sentence (in the "Security at Number 10 After the 1991 Bombing" section) saying "People are still allowed access to the street, providing prior security checks are run and they adhere to certain protocol" is vague and unreferenced. This complaint was made in June 2007. Fifteen months later, the only change is from "People" to "Tourists", and the current  tag dates from March this year. The sentence is still incredibly vague, and still unreferenced. As such, I've taken it out entirely. Loganberry (Talk) 20:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Access to Downing St - sentence removed

message: It was suggested some time ago - about two years - that the chart (Residents of Number 10 . . . .") be removed and put in a separate article with a link in this article to it.  That seemed like an excellent idea, so that is what I have done.
There is now a link to the new page in the "See Also" section of this article.
I think the change is good myself . . . it makes this article shorter and more readable.  Obviously, if everyone objects, it can be reverted.
Sir Cloudesley Shovel II (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Chart and created new article for chart

message: The article twice suggests that Downing Street is on (the former) Thorney Island
: Thorney Island is the site of the Abbey and the Palace of Westminster, not Whitehall, and I understand went no further north than Westminster Bridge. Does anyone have a reference for this, or it should be deleted?
This talk page itself contains too much out-of-date material (pre-Brown)to be useful. How should that be edited, please?  Jezza (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not on Thorney Island;

message: This section says this, un-cited statement;
More covert security measures exist. For example, plain-clothed armed police patrol along the roof line of the street and in the vicinity of Whitehall itself.[citation needed]
I know they are supposed to be covert, but I have stood at the end of Downing Street and never seen anybody on the roof line. Why would they need to be plain clothes, surely this wouldn't matter if they are being "covert" on a roof line, if they are wearing uniform or not wont affect if they are spotted?! If this can't be cited soon or verified by others, I'll delete it. KlickingKarl (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Security at No 10 since the 1991 Bombing

message: Under this section the second paragraph says
"Walpole did not want to accept the gift for himself perhaps because he knew the houses would be expensive to maintain. See letter, dated, "Downing Street, June 30, 1742," from Horace Walpole to Sir Horace Mann: "I am writing to you in one of the charming rooms towards the Park: it is a delightful evening, and I am willing to enjoy this sweet corner while I may, for we are soon to quit it. Mrs. Sandys came yesterday to give us warning; Lord Wilmington has lent it to them. Sir Robert might have had it for his own at first: but would only take it as First Lord of the Treasury. He goes into a small house of his own in Arlington Street, opposite to where we formerly lived." (Horace Walpole's Letters, ed. Cunningham, 1857, I, p. 246.) British History Online, From: 'No. 10, Downing Street', Survey of London: volume 14: St Margaret, Westminster, part III: Whitehall II (1931), pp. 113-141. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=67934. Date accessed: 21 July 2008."
When reading the referenced text, it is actually a note about when he was leaving the house, nowhere does it state that he didn't want to accept the gift because it may be expensive. This seems an odd point of view for him to have, only to then expand the building taking over Mr Chickens house, and to stay for 7 years!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KlickingKarl (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: First Lord's House 1733 - 1735

message: Before tinkering with a prominient page I thought I'd mention that I propose to add the image below. Do investigate the image map. Victuallers (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: moved Victuallers (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New Image

message: :moved Victuallers (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: refs

message: What is the size (in square footage/square meters) of the house?  How many rooms does it contain? Funnyhat (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of the house

message: Does anybody have any information on the symbol directly above the door within the fanlight? (188.220.180.251 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sun rays symbol above the front door

message: Right now the first three of four photographs of [recent UK politician being diplomatic in some way] are with American politicians.  I wouldn't suspect much of that except the lack of title or country in front of their names (with Dick Cheney, with Barack Obama, with First Lady Nancy Reagan, but with German Chancellor Angela Merkel - and also saying former PM Thatcher/Brown) implies that they the Americans are the best known figures here, moreso than the British politicians.  I'm putting the titles on them right now, but I just wanted to put this out there. 76.124.106.26 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: American politicians

message: What is with the word "former" littering this article (as well as others)?   Is it really quite necessary to label people in the manner such as "former Prime Minister"?  Isn't it quite obvious from the date and/or period of the photo?   Are we to label George Washington "former President of the United States, George Washington" every time we encounter his name?  The word seems superfluous, especially in light of the fact that former presidents continue to be referred to as President throughout their lives, even after leaving office. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree with you more. The photos are generally over-captioned. I'm sure it was with good intent but as you say they have become needlessly complicated. to be honest, more of the captioning could also be removed as the definition of who someone is is only ever one click away behind their name. The current situation is horribly wordy. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is routine in the USA to refer to former holders of Prestigious offices by the title of the former office.  But it is uncommon to do so in Commonwelth countries.  Geo Swan (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Former this and former that

message: Searching for 'society' I can't immediately find any reference to the oft-misapplied extract from her speech which included. 'There is no such thing as society...'
I wonder that it might be appropriate to include the text from which this was inappropriately cut.
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families... And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." Davy p (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No government can do anything except through people 

message: The line about "Downing, a notorious mi5 worker for Oliver Cromwell" is confusing. mi5 was established in 1909. Does this mean he was involved in some sort of intelligence?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.29.144 (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downing an mi5 worker? 

message: I replaced the primary image (in the infobox) with the official picture of the famous door itself, without the distraction of one or more individuals. However, I was reverted and told that the people are "better", so I thought I should seek some consensus as to what best illustrates the piece. Personally I think the article covers the use and fame of the building well in both prose and pictures as it is, and that the start should be "unadorned" as much as possible. What do others think? Perhaps a cropped version of the plain picture?
James F. (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The people, placed so prominently, are a distraction as a lead image in an article which is about a _place_. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, a picture of the door, or building generally is timeless, one with the PM in will need changing after any change of PM. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Also agree. Sir Cloudesley Shovel II (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree also. Additionally, the official picture shows more of the actual building itself, which shows of the relatively distinctive combination of brickwork and the famous doorway itself.--Topperfalkon (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary image 

message: Adding ref to BBC story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13364121 MikeBeckett (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of staff

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/organogram/co-organogram.pdf
** In Jeremy Heywood on 2011-05-08 02:48:43, 404 Not Found
** In 10 Downing Street on 2011-05-23 02:07:56, 404 Not Found
** In 10 Downing Street on 2011-05-31 22:27:59, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/about-cabinet-office/cabinet-office-structure.aspx
** In 10 Downing Street on 2011-05-23 02:08:01, 404 Not Found
** In 10 Downing Street on 2011-05-31 22:27:59, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Manifestacioncontralaguerrademalvinas1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 10 Downing Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yxiOK7hUvU
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316233330/https://qftarchitects.com:80/projects/pages/interiors/10downingstreet.php to http://www.qftarchitects.com/projects/pages/interiors/10downingstreet.php#
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.silvertrust.co.uk/about2.html
*Added  tag to http://www.profimedia.si/photo/the-state-dining-room-at-no-10/profimedia-0010622957.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 10 Downing Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yxiOK7hUvU
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5hSMz4tSE?url=http://www.silvertrust.co.uk/about2.html to http://www.silvertrust.co.uk/about2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How many bedrooms does Number 10 and Number 11 have? Are there any live-in staff? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  bedrooms 

message: How long do we have to wearing face masks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:290F:7B00:A5FB:4843:A418:1671 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wearing face masks  

message: Dear prime minister,
Please don’t put us in lockdown again, I don’t think it will do any good anyway people won’t listen this time everyone is fed up.
I missed my sisters wedding last year in Australia and if you put us in lockdown I will miss my daughters in Ireland and she has planned this for four years. She gets married in New Year’s Eve.
I understand that more important things are at stake but we have to learn to live with this you can’t keep putting us In lockdown all the time, we spent the majority of a year In lockdown 
Yours sincerely 
Annette langley 2A02:C7E:6CB:B700:681A:409A:F0BD:56B9 (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pandemic 

message: The SVG image in the sidebar shows the City of Westminster, but the image itself does not indicate where 10 Downing Street is on it. There is a small red dot superimposed on the image when it is displayed in the sidebar, but it all of 7 pixels square and quite difficult to see. A user clicking on the map to get a better look at it will not see the dot on the resulting image. 75.222.136.41 (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Westminster image does not satisfactorily indicate the location of Number 10 

message: Should the Office of the Prime Minister section become its own article? The Office of the Prime Minister has its own permanent secretary and functions similarly to a government department. If this article is the article for the building, surely the Office of the Prime Minister should have its own article (similar to the distinction between The White House and the Executive Office of the President). Asrieltheoracle (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting Office of the Prime Minister into a separate article? 

message: According to Jan von Flocken, a journalist for Welt.de, the original number of 10 Downing Street was 5, and it was the residence of Imperial Count Hans Caspar von Bothmer, the First Minister for German Affairs of George I ("German Chancellery"), until 1732. (Ref.  Jan von Flocken: Der britische König, der nicht Englisch sprach, welt.de dated 10. August 2014). TraceyR (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A German