Talk:Shooter's Hill

message: Regardless of whether one is right and the other wrong, two spellings are used in published material. and both should therefor be mentioned.
I have found many maps, books and other places using apostrophe and many not; and some using both, such as here look at place name, road name and golf course name on this map. I have found on Google searches there are more with. Greenwich Council does not use one. Different Collins Road Atlases use either spelling but usually with apostrophe, OS maps have used both but usually without one. I don't know if one is right and the other is wrong, so cannot say what the title of the article should be. But as a loose rule all times it is mentioned in the article should be the same. I am changing all in text to "Shooter's Hill" for this reason, but mentioning the other. I have only chosen Shooter's Hill as it is the present title and has more links to it. I have left the Samuel Pepys thing as the spelling maybe a direct quotation. If anyone can provide a source one is right and the other is wrong please do. Or in fact any source discussing the fact there are different spellings of the name. If Someone feels that strongly it should be Shooters Hill with no apostrophe they should move the article to that title and change all in text appearances to match, but still mention there is another spelling as well as changing other links and templates in other articles. 
Carlwev (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The roadsign in the area has it as "Shooters Hill" -- RND  T  C  18:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've lived in Shooters Hill my whole life, and I've never seen it spelt with an apostrophe - the main road running through the area is called "Shooters Hill Road", minus the apostrophe for one, and it is spelt without the apostrophe on all official signs as far as I know. I don't doubt that some has referred to it as "Shooter's Hill", but I think that "Shooters Hill" must be the officially-recognised name, and it is what those from Shooters Hill refer to the area as. --BADavid (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Apostrophe? - Shooter's Hill vs Shooters Hill

message: I'm sorry to have to bring this up too. It does not matter whether I or another person would like a name to be a place or not, but what published and reliable material/sources state. Shooter's Hill may be the name of a hill or geographical feature, but it is also a place/district. Every map and atlas I look at for this area treat it as a place see here, as they have the name Shooter's Hill written on it, in the same font and the same way the other places are, such as Eltham, Kidbrooke, Welling, Falconwood etc. Many places are named after geographical features and exist as districts and geographical features at the same time, like Greenwich Penninsula, Petts Wood, Kidbrooke, Bexleyheath, Forest Hill. The fact that the name is used on road signs and buses etc suggest it's a place/district. Secondly here on Wikipedia the long running consensus of many editors treat this as a place, the groups of articles, lists and templates about the area treat it as a place. Shooter's Hill is on the "districts of Greenwich" template, List of places in London, List of districts of London, List of United Kingdom locations: Sg-Sh, and List of districts in Greenwich articles. Although I might add it soon, Shooter's Hill is not presently in :Category:Hills of London or :Category:Geography of Greenwich like you'd expect if it was only a hill and nothing more, but it is in :Category:Districts of Greenwich and :Category:Districts of London. If Shooter's Hill were thought of as just a hill all of this would have to be reversed to make it consistant with this article. If you are not sure of anything, or want to change a long running consensus please discus on Shooter's Hill talk page or even my talk page first Carlwev (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Place/district vs geographical feature

message: Why is a history section missing from this article. Apart from a brief statement about the origin of its name it has a lot of history and would have played a vital part in the defence of London in World War II. -- RND  T  C  18:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No History? 

message: the geographical feature that is shooters hill is not and never has been a locality name such as woolwich, plumstead, eltham, kidbrooke and welling that surround it   
  
there is no mention of shooters hill in any national address gazetteer current or historical ( PAF NAG etc. )   
it is on OS mapping products as it is a visible feature - OS has never had the authority to name areas which does sometimes cause confussion 
  
the correct designation of this area is plumstead, the postcode is SE18 which contains woolwich and plumstead - no mention of shooters hill. 
if you look at the ward map on the page the locality of plumstead contains Glyndon, Plumstead and Shooters hill wards 
 
the main reason why shooters hill ( no apostrophe as per BS 7666 ) can not be an area name is that the road from the former police station to the welling boundary is called "shooters hill" so this road would need to be renamed in order to have the area name as "shooters hill"  
  
the royal mail has now dropped the requirement to use locality names on addresses due to the amount of "address snobbery" it encounters - the use of shooters hill as a locality name falls into this category 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.51.243 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  area name or locality 

message: We need to fix this apostrophe issue, I'll fix it myself if and after I learn what consensus is. Apostrophe or not, regarding article spelling and article title?
Can I have some other people's opinions, I don't have a preference on whether the apostrophe should be in or not. All I think is that this article and other's should match, including the title, and links from other articles and infoboxes. It appears both spellings are used by published materials, maps and local council, so both should be mentioned in the lead, then all other mentions after should use one spelling. It appears users are also divided on which spelling to use also; every now and then someone changes some or all spellings back and forward, but the title remains unchanged. After a recent edit all in text mentions of the name are now changed to no apostrophe, but the title of the article still has one, so it looks silly. Most infoboxes and other links still use the apostrophe, which is also silly. I don't mind spending the time, when I have it changing all this, to one spelling, but I want to know which spelling is consensus, which is preferred by most people, before I change anything, so I don't waste my time, make things worse, go against consensus as it were, or start an edit war. If we choose No Apostrophe, the article will need to be moved, probably with the help of an admin as that title already exists as a redirect, which causes slight complications for this for normal users, but this is OK. I am a little surprised something like an apostrophe can be such an issue but we can't fix it unless we have discussion to find consensus.
After mentioning both spellings in the article lead, I will make sure myself all spellings with regard to the apostrophe match, in this article including the title, and that other articles' mentions, links and infoboxes match too. Before I do this I ask people to tell me which they think it should be. Although I want to fix it, I'm not even sure if I have preference myself.
Should this article title and all spellings within it be Shooter's Hill or Shooters Hill? please let me know below {[User:Carlwev| Carl]]wev  18:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Apostophe or not?... Article title and spelling