Jump to content

Talk:Big Ben/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

St Stephen's Tower

See also Talk:Palace of Westminster/Archive 1#Stephen's Tower

The St. Stephen's Tower / Clock Tower confusion is a personal bugbear. I originally investigated the name of the tower which houses Big Ben, following a bet with a friend of mine. After contacting the Palace of Westminster, I discovered that no-one at the Palace (including the staff that work in the clock tower itself) refer to it as St. Stephen's Tower, and that it is simply referred to as The Clock Tower. This is reflected on the UK Parliament website [1].

There are three towers in the Palace of Westminster - The Clock Tower to the north, Victoria Tower to the south, and the Central Tower above the central corridor between the House of Lords and House of Commons. - MykReeve 01:09, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

According to the Warden of the Clock Tower (a friend of mine), St. Stephen's Tower is what you are calling Central Tower. David Brooks 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Big Ben (Bell)

I'm trying to go through all pages that link to Big Ben at present, avoiding links to disambiguation pages. Most link to this page, as they refer to the clock tower. However, some refer to the bell, which is the correct usage. As the bell itself has no article, I propose to split that section off to form Big Ben (bell). Any comments? — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  09:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to move the page to Big Ben, which is the most common name --Astrokey44 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
A Google book search returns "630 on Big Ben St Stephen's Tower"[2] of the first 10 returned none state that the clock tower is not St Stephen's Tower and several do. Is there a reliable source that states that these sources are wrong because the current source used to support the sentence "The Big Ben clock tower been referred to incorrectly as St Stephen's Tower, which is actually the spired tower towards the middle of the Palace" does not state this instead it only refers to "St Stephen's Hall". --PBS (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
As no one has yet come up with a reliable source, I am going to comment out the sentence. No statement is better than incorrect statement. --PBS (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I use the search facility on at www.publications.parliament.uk seach and put in St. Stephens Tower. There are a number of articles returned that proves that those who work in the Palace describe the central tower as St. Stephens Tower, See:
--PBS (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Once the biggest clock??

What about the clock face of St. Peter, Zürich 28.5 feet in diameter, installed in 1534 ?? Stumps 15:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Messiah

The quarter-bells are supposed to play a tune from Handel's Messiah. This claim is featured in the exhibition within the tower itself. Can anyone actually point to the movement of the oratorio they come from? I'm pretty familiar with the work, and the tune doesn't ring a bell (sorry!). David Brooks 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I just read Westminster Quarters. David Brooks 16:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Its reputed to come from the aria "I know that my Redeemer Liveth". The original chime was used at St Mary in Cambridge. Edmund Beckett Dennsison, the designer of the Great Clock was at Cambridge and would have know the St Mary's chime well; it was almost certainly chosen by him. Chris McKay

Great St. Mary's... there are 2 St Mary's in Cambridge ;) - JVG (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why I can't hear the bell on the radio?

I'm a Chinese and just know little about the Big Ben. Excited when I found the strikes can be heard on BBC, however, I can't hear the strike hours but "Bee, Bee..." on the BBC World Service on the Internet. Is that canceled?--Walter Smith 10:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

6pm on Radio 4 weekdays. Don't know about world service.--Mongreilf 18:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I added an audio file to the article. Share and enjoy. HairyWombat 23:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
And if you listen on digital radio, don't forget that the time is delayed - so making it a little pointless! Phooto 11:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor contradiction: Bell weight?

Well, there seams to be a minor contradiction regarding the big bell in the article. In section "Clock faces", it's stated that "[...] its metal was recast as the 12.5 tonne (13.8 ton) bell which is in use today.", whereas in the section "The main bell" the bell is said it "weighs 13 metric tonnes and is 2.2 metres high.". - So, which statement is correct? MikeZ 10:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

After the weight was given to be 13.5 tonnes by the cited reference, I changed the ton value to 14.9 ton. - Please review, as I'm not at all used to imperial measurements. Thanks, MikeZ 13:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Gare de Lyon

This article claims that the clock tower of the Gare de Lyon in Paris, France is "inspired by" the Palace of Westminster Clock Tower. Unlike the other tower listed as "inspired by" the Westminster Clock Tower, the Peace Tower in Ottawa, the Gare de Lyon clock tower does not look particularly similar at all, other than the fact that they are both turret clock towers. Is there any evidence that the Paris tower was actually inspired by the Westminster one? --thirty-seven 09:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing the time on big ben.

Anyone any idea how they change the time on big ben in the spriong and autumn??

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.184.98 (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Cultural References

Does the animated version used at the start of the "Have I Got News For You" title sequence count? Mittfh 11:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page keeps getting vandalised. I applied for semi protection, as did DrKiernan a day or two later, but it was denied. Does anyone know the best course of action to protect the page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 15:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs) Trixxy

Leaning

that section now... Paulbrock 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

heelo motto Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster → Big Ben — Big Ben redirects to this page anyway, and although the phrase originally only referred to the hour bell, it is now a colloquialism for the clock and/or tower as a whole, as mentioned in the opening. Wikipedia should use the most recognised name for the subject of an article and state the correct name in the opening words. An example of this is the Statue of Liberty being the name of the page but the actual name for the statue is Liberty Enlightening the World. --Philip Stevens 14:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC) —Philip Stevens 14:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - I don't actually like the idea of moving the article to "Big Ben", since that's the bell and not the tower. But policy is policy, and sadly Wikipedia policy is indeed to use the more popular name, even if that name is incorrect. Waggers 14:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I was a little surprised by the policy, as naming discussions of other articles have tended to favour the actual name, not the popular one. But as per WP:NAME,
"article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
Additionally, I would imagine many non-Brits would be as confused by 'Clock Tower' as I would be by Liberty Enlightening the World.

Paulbrock 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Reluctant support - just because a majority of people think it so, doesn't make it so. As long as the moved page reflects the relationship of Big Ben to the Clock Tower, then I don't think it creates a problem. Kbthompson 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Policy is clear. I think many Brits would also have trouble identifying the subject of the article by the current name! Andrewa 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't like how WP:UCN leads to such a monstrocity as Nobel Prize in Economics, but I think this issue is entirely different. If "Big Ben" had been the official name of the bell, then I think it would be incorrect and misleading to have Big Ben be about the tower. But "Big Ben", as it turns out, is not the official name of anything. And as an inofficial name, it most often refers to the tower. If it used to more often refer to the bell in the past, then that's stuff for the article but not an argument for naming it. That usage changes doesn't mean that the old usage is correct and the new one incorrect. -- Jao 20:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see anywhere at all where the official name should conflict with the colloquial name. Reginmund 01:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The Statue of Liberty is a good example why we should use the common name for things lke this. Saikokira 03:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as the common name --Astrokey44 05:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Oppose. Big Ben is the name of the BELL not the clock or clock tower. – Axman (☏) 13:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support "Big Ben" has become the name of the clock tower because that's what virtually everyone calls it. It's irrelevant if they're technically wrong, popular usage is what matters here. Masaruemoto 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Popular usage does not make something right. I've always known 'Big Ben' to be the main bell in the Clock Tower not the Clock Tower itself. – Marco79 12:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per Reginmund, Axman and Marco79. --203.94.135.134 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Are we a tabloid magazine or something? We're an encyclopaedia! We report on facts! Parable1991 06:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I think the policy is clear, and correct. Several comments above seem to suggest that the policy should be to use the official name, rather than the popular name as at present. The current policy reflects the belief that article names are primarily there to help people identify the article they want, rather than to inform them of the "correct" name of the subject. The article itself is the place for information such as that; The article name is there primarily for navigation purposes. Andrewa 14:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Navigation actually has little to do with it provided appropriate redirects are used; as things stand, Big Ben redirects to this article, so anyone typing in "Big Ben" would still find the article with no problem. But this isn't the place for this discussion. Waggers 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with both assertions. Firstly, navigation isn't just about getting to the right place, it's also about knowing where you are when you arrive. That's as much part of being able to identify the article you want as finding a search or link to lead you there is. And that's why Christopher Columbus was such a lousy navigator, and one reason (not the only one) that we try to be particular, and consistent, about article names. Secondly, there seems to me to be both misunderstanding of current policy and disagreement with it above. This (and not the survey section, just BTW) is a very good place to discuss both of these in the first instance. With policy changes, you can validly start at either end: Either from the top down, starting with general principles and attempting to apply them, or from the bottom up, starting with examples (such as, possibly, this one) where the current policy might not be working as well as we'd like, and attempting to generalise from them. Andrewa 06:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I could respond, but as I said, the place to talk about WP:NAME is at WT:NC, not here. Waggers 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to raise the matter there. A link here to the continued discussion would be appreciated. Andrewa 03:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia isn't it? Neither the clock tower or the clock are correctly called Big Ben, but Big Ben is actually the Great Bell housed within the clock tower. Should an encyclopaedia be spreading misinformation like this? According to the UK Parliament website Big Ben is actually the Great Bell not the clock or clock tower. See these links for more info: UK Parliament - The Great Bell (Big Ben) and UK Parliament - The Clock Tower (Big Ben): Facts and figures. In the latter link a question is asked of the Clock Tower:

"Isn't that Big Ben?"

And their answer:

"Yes. Although often referred to as Big Ben, this is actually the nickname of the bell housed within the Clock Tower and Big Ben's official name is the Great Bell."

I think that is a clear indication that Big Ben is the Great Bell not the clock tower or clock. – Axman (☏) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the official name of either. But whether it is the correct name is another thing again. In the 19th century, linguists did attempt to enforce rules of correct usage in all respects of language, including grammar, semantics and lexicography. This approach is now I think thoroughly discredited, both in linguistics and in the underlying philosophy. The current approach follows Wittgenstein's famous dictum look to the sense, not the meaning. Interestingly, the grandfather of all modern compendiums, the Oxford English Dictionary, always took this approach. And so does Wikipedia.
So I'd say, if people understand Big Ben to be the clock tower, then that's what it is. And yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. But we're a 21st century encyclopedia! Andrewa 23:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Although there is a majority of opinion in favour of the move, it is not overwhelming, and much of the support was admittedly reluctant. Many contributors are adamant that the tern "Big Ben" should only be used for the bell itself. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Counter Proposal

How about naming the page either Clock Tower (Big Ben) or Big Ben Clock Tower, including both names in the title?
I'm proposing this because even though Big Ben is actually the main bell I do concede that many people do mistakenly call the Clock Tower "Big Ben". The first proposed name — Clock Tower (Big Ben) — is similar to that used in some of the pages on the UK parliament's website, and of those pages that include both names they detail both the Clock Tower and Big Ben. The same with this article, as it also includes details on both the Clock Tower and Big Ben. – Marco79 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting proposals, and either would be far better than the current situation, where a pedantic and obscure official name is being used in preference to a well-established common name. But they would still be in violation of WP:UCN.

The above debate was closed as no consensus because, while a majority supported a decision that is in accordance to the guidelines, a substantial minority expressed a strong opinion that is counter to the guidelines. I'm not sure where to go from here. Andrewa 16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that regardless of the fact that "Saint Stephen's Tower" is the official name, the clocktower is known globally as Big Ben and to use the correct name could provoke confusion for those who have always known it to be referred to as "Big Ben". I think it would be worthy to hold another decision on the matter.-Kingpin1055 13:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how it could cause confusion. It clearly says in the article introduction that the tower is often mistakenly referred to as Big Ben, with that name bold. So any reader with half a brain would know they're reading the article they're after. I also don't see any value in repeating the discussion/vote at this stage, so soon after the above one - presumably the same people would make the same contributions and therefore it would end the same way. There is, however, an ongoing discussion on the wider topic of giving more weight to official names at WT:NC#Incorrect name. Hopefully we can get a change made to reflect factual accuracy rather than popularity. After all, - supposedly at least - Wikipedia is not a democracy/-- Waggers 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to be picky, "Saint Stephen's Tower" is an entirely different tower, see this, which is also referenced from the article. And to get back on track, I like the fact that WT:NC#Incorrect name is being under centralized discussion. -- Jao 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should've clarified that I doubt as many people search for "Saint Stephen's Tower" compared to "Big Ben".
I'd agree with either of these. I don't think the official name is as clear cut as some in this discussion have claimed; for example, the Images of England (listed buildings register) site seems to refer to the tower as both 'Big Ben' & 'the clock tower of Big Ben': [3] Espresso Addict 11:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This debate is grown cold, but I still wanted to add my view. It would really be absurd to me, if I came to an article called "Big Ben" which then told me "Ben Ben is not actually the name of the thing". What am I to think of an encyclopedia that tells me it's own categorization is wrong? In a related note, I wonder what's in print encyclopedias on this? I'll bet its a "redirect" there, too. Eaglizard 00:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC) NB: On the other hand, Eric Blair is a redirect to a pseudonym, George Orwell, so go figure. Eaglizard 05:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect from Big Ben

I note that, despite the majority above being in favour of moving the article to Big Ben, the redirect there has now been pointed to Big Ben (disambiguation).

ISTM that there's a deeper issue here. Andrewa 16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been pointed back to this article now. Eaglizard 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Query over size

The article contains two statements which I should like someone to check for me

The Clock Tower is the world's largest four-faced, chiming turret clock

and

A clock tower similar to Big Ben is the Joseph Chamberlain Memorial Clock Tower of the University of Birmingham, England. Often referred to as "Old Tom" or "Old Joe", it is around three quarters of the size of Big Ben. Its four faces are each seventeen feet in diameter.

Firstly, from where is the claim that the clock is the world's largest turret clock sourced. The Joseph Chamberlain Memorial Clock Tower (100m) is actually taller than the clock tower (96.3m), so both statements are thus incorrect. I will correct them unless someone provides me with some evidence to the contrary. Are we perhaps referring to the size of the clock face; Clock Tower has diameter of 23ft against JCMCT's diameter of 17ft. If this is the cause of the statement, then it really needs tidying up! Also, where did the "Old Tom" reference to the JCMCT come from; my experience at the University and from Wikipedia is that there is no such nickname. --PWakeley 09:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The first statement is definitely misleading. A casual reader may conclude the Clock Tower is the tallest in the world when this is acknowledged to be the JCMT. I'll edit it to emphasise that it is the clock itself which is the largest (is this correct?) sixball (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please correct the cast year of Big Ben

see: At 9'-0" diameter, 7'-6" high, and weighing in at 13 tons 10 cwts 3 qtrs 15lbs (13,760 Kg), the hour bell of the Great Clock of Westminster - known worldwide as 'Big Ben' - is the most famous bell ever cast at Whitechapel. Big Ben was cast on Saturday 10th April 1858. http://www.whitechapelbellfoundry.co.uk/bigben.htm --Wdew (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste damage made to article repaired

I have attempted to repair the damage done to this article by 74.67.4.45 when s/he did a cut-and-paste move on 6 January 2008.

I repaired it by doing a cut-and-paste move myself (I know that's bad), but most of the changes made to the article since the cut-and-paste were either vandalism or to suit the article title, and so I don't think the histories needed merging, but make-up your own mind, see here. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Common usage

We need to callt eh clock by its common use name which is Big Ben. can we request a move or will that stir things up. We cannot claim that common usage is mistaken, that is not our function, looks like some wierd stuff going on. Can anyone clarify. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The clock is *NOT* Big Ben, Big Ben is the nickname of the Great Bell. "Common" usage can be considered a mistake if used in the wrong way, if the meaning is not understood or interpret correctly. Requesting another move would definitely stir things up again. As quoted from UK Parliament – History of the Clock Tower (Big Ben):

"Isn't that Big Ben?"... "Yes. Although the Clock Tower is often referred to as Big Ben, this is actually the nickname of the bell housed within the Clock Tower – and Big Ben's official name is the Great Bell."

I have interpreted this statement to mean that it is a "mistake" to call the clock tower "Big Ben". Obviously there are some that take offence at the use of the word "mistakenly", so in the interest of understanding, I've removed "mistakenly" from the text and replaced it with "referred to" as used in the statement above. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

Original image
Newer, replacement image
Updated version of original image

Recently the featured picture Image:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006.jpg was removed from the article and replaced with Image:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - May 2007.jpg (a current featured picture candidate). Whilst they both show terrific artistic and technical merit personally I prefer the original photo for the following reasons:

  • The colour of the sky in the new image appears quite harsh, especially around the area of the clock face.
  • The angle in the new picture makes the body of the tower look quite flat and 2D.
  • It is possible to see greater detailing of the exterior of the tower in the old kkkkkpicture (because of the angle and shadowing)
  • The previous picture is a better representation of the normal weather conditions around the tower.
  • The previous picture is of a (marginly) higher resolution.

Any thoughts? Guest9999 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No doubts: the original is better, for all the reasons offered by User:Guest9999. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the original, the slanted lighting angle makes the relief of the masonry stand out, thus higher enc. --Janke | Talk 08:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A new version of the original image has now been uploaded (Image:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg). It's brightened up a bit (don't know the technical stuff) but otherwise is pretty much identical. Guest9999 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Following the closing of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Big Ben on blue sky I've reinserted the original image - it's featured it should be in an article and I think it has greater encyclopaedic value. Guest9999 (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Thanks. I do think though that there was potential consensus for the updated version of that image in the FPC nomination, but given how late it was introduced, a lot of the people who prefered the one with blue sky did not have the opportunity to change their vote to the updated version. I'll renominate but it is my preference to replace the old version as I think it is a bit dull and not as representative of the conditions that day. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This section had devolved into a list of sightings rather than any kind of analysis of Big Ben's role as an iconic symbol in popular culture. Popular culture sections do not exist to list every single last solitary reference to an object--they exist to describe that object's importance as a cultural symbol. This section was out of control and beyond repair and should be rewritten from scratch (as prose) if it is to be included in the future. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the long overdue pruning. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Culture/Cultural Significance

I'll be merging these sections. I don't see any reason for them to be separate. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Date 1st Bell

New Palace of Westminster - HISTORY 1856, 6th Aug. - The Great Bell was cast at Norton. It later came (by sea, on a ship which nearly sank) to London, and was “brought to Westminster on a great trolley drawn by sixteen gaily bedecked horses before the gaze of such a crowd as normally turns out for a public execution”. It was indeed duly hung on a scaffold and subjected to daily testing with a hammer weighing over 10 cwt, which drove MP’s mad and the locals to drink. http://westminster.lovesguide.com/palace_of_westminster.htm THE STORY OF BIG BEN - … In 1844, Parliament decided that the new buildings for the Houses of Parliament, by then under construction, should incorporate a tower and clock. … The largest bell ever cast in Britain up to that time had been 'Great Peter' at York Minster. This weighed just 10¾ tons, so it is not surprising the bellfounders were wary of bidding for the contract to produce the new bell, particularly since Denison insisted on his own design for the shape of the bell as well as his own recipe for the bellmetal. In both respects his requirements varied significantly from traditional custom and practice. Eventually, a bell was made to his specification, albeit somewhat oversize at 16 tons, by John Warner & Sons at Stockton-on-Tees on 6th August 1856, but this cracked irreparably while under test in the Palace Yard at Westminster. … http://www.whitechapelbellfoundry.co.uk/bigben.htm

Wdew (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Stopped during first world war ?

In 1917 there was a hit popular song "When Big Ben Chimes again". (words by Ralph Roberts). Was this because it had stopped ? Does anyone know? Johncmullen1960 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:ItvNEWS bigben clockface.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Move to "Big Ben, London"

The idea of moving this article has been discussed many times; last time there was no consensus to make such a move - that debate is clearly displayed here on the talk page. But someone has chosen to move the article, apparently without discussion or consultation. Should it be moved back, or are we happy with the new location? Personally I don't like the name "Big Ben, London" - it makes it sound like a geography article. If we have to have the article named "Big Ben" (and I don't think we should - that article should be about the bell, this one is about the clock and tower) then I would prefer something like Big Ben (clock). I've never heard it referred to as "Big Ben, London" - I've heard it referred to as "Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster" more times than that. Waggers (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, I agree. The move should be reversed. --Bonadea (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 Done. Waggers (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MOMUMENT

IS IT A MONUMENT? IS THERE ANOTHER NAME FOR IT? OR IS IT AN AMERICAN THING TO MAKE EVERYTHING A MONUMENT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.100.173 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bell weights

These are now harmonized at the metric tonne and imperial ton only. Unless I've overlooked one, there shouldn't be any short tons left; these were never used by UK bell foundries and weren't really appropriate to the topic. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to Big Ben. See the end of this section for my reasons. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster → Big Ben Big Ben is most common name as per policy guideline. All reliable sources use the form Big Ben, or at least acknowledge that Big Ben is the most common usage. Ghits are 7,910,000 for Big Ben, compared to 96,500 for Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster. Wikipedia searches are over four times more in favour of Big Ben than Clock Tower. This is second request - the first request was 9 in favour of Big Ben, 5 against. Attempts keep being made or suggested that the article be renamed, making the article unstable. --SilkTork *YES! 13:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines and policy, such as Wikipedia:Name#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name, indicate we should name articles as the most common name as the encyclopedia is set up for common readers to find information on various topics. The most common search for this article is Big Ben 48,203 searches compared to 10,534 searches for Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster - a stat which includes people being redirected to the page via redirects. Ghits are 7,910,000 for Big Ben compared to 96,500 for Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster. The main sources used in the article used the form "Big Ben", and where they do use "Clock Tower" they make reference to "Big Ben" being the most common term. Books on the topic use the title Big Ben as that is the most readily identifiable to the common reader. Within the book (or indeed the title) reference is made to the Clock Tower and an explanation given - however for identification purposes the name Big Ben is preferred - [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc.

There has been a discussion on this previously where there was a survey of 9 in favour of using Big Ben and 5 in opposition. The matter has been raised since then, and attempts made at renaming the article which is making it unstable. Given that policy, guideline, common usage, majority desire, reliable sources, etc all indicate that this article should be named Big Ben, isn't it time we made that move - or have a serious discussion on changing our naming policy. SilkTork *YES! 12:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Despite being inaccurate, the the Clock Tower is almost exclusively referred to as "Big Ben"; in my experience, it does not matter how many times a person is corrected, the error is persistent. The article should reflect this per WP:COMMONNAME. --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not only is this a colloquial name, but it is a misnomer. 71.106.172.173 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It is indeed a misnomer, but I think it is used too much in writing to be called a colloquialism. As far as I am aware, both these facts are irrelevant as far as the article naming policy goes, which instead says: "when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" It seems to me hard to argue this is anything but Big Ben. --Rogerb67 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Emphatic OPPOSE - Just like on Longcase clock, let's use the more technically accurate term instead of the colloquial misnomer. I searched on Wikipedia for 'big ben'. In my mind, the search result did not look confusing and the user should be able to understand that that was the correct article to go to. In my opinion, the more technically correct and none colloquial/misnomer term is more professional and accurate than the colloquial term. To me, renaming this article Big Ben would be as bad as renaming Longcase clock to "Grandfather clock". And yes, it is very very sad that Wikipedia's naming policy is to use the common name instead of the accurate name, this is an encyclopedia we should go with what is more accurate not what is a misnomer! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, but a grandfather clock is only one sort of long case clock, so perhaps it's not a good analogy. Andrewa (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
      • There are several reasons why the naming policy is for the common name. 1) It is the name readers would readily identify with the topic, making navigation and identification easier 2)It is the name people put into a search both on Google and on Wikipedia, so easing pressure on the servers by taking people direct to the article rather than via a redirect 3)It makes writing articles which reference the topic easier as people can write [[Big Ben]] rather than [[Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster|Big Ben]] 4)It makes creating navigation aids and templates easier 5)It puts the article higher on Google ranking as most searches and links would use the common name. Once people are in the article information can be given as to all the alternative names - however, if an uncommon alternative name is used as the title, people may turn away believing they have arrived at the wrong article. The reasoning behind this has been gone into several times, and wide consensus sought to create the naming policy as it stands. I've not heard an adequate argument as to why less commonly used or made up names should be used in preference to the common name. SilkTork *YES! 07:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - there is definitely scope for a Big Ben article, which should be about Big Ben - ie, the bell. This article is not about Big Ben, it is about the tower that contains Big Ben. Waggers (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    Besides, what alternative name is actually being proposed - the introduction above doesn't say? Waggers (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    Big Ben is the proposed new name (see move template at the top of this page). If and when the bell (properly called the Great Bell) gets its own article – and I think it is sufficiently notable – part of the split discussion would be what to keep at the current name. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose We should not be pandering to dogmatists who insist on applying the letter of the law. Implicit in WP:Names is that the two names under consideration should at the very least both be correct. Big Ben is the name for a small part of this structure, not the structure as a whole. Retaining the current name is certainly consistent with the spirit of WP: Names Chillysnow (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    Please try to demonstrate you are assuming good faith when posting; what reason do you have to suppose "support" voters are dogmatists who should not be pandered to? Regarding the substantive part of your post, I respectfully disagree. Using "correct" names is not implicit in WP:Names; indeed one would first have to come up with a consistently applicable definition of "correct". I think the examples at WP:COMMONNAMES#Examples demonstrate the opposite. In any case, Big Ben is not the correct name of any part of this structure, nor its contents; the bell to which the nickname "Big Ben" was initially applied is correctly named the Great Bell. --Rogerb67 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    This is not the first place that the originator of this thread has had this argument over trying to rename articles with incorrect names. By quoting WP:AGF you are inferring an insult in my comments where none was made, and being rather over sensitive IMO. The term dogma simply refers to blindly applying rules, so I would be grateful if you would not add extra meaning to my comments.Chillysnow (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    Regarding the substantive part of your post, there is a difference between the examples you quote in WP:COMMONNAMES#Examples and this one, which is that in the examples all of the more commonly used names are correct alternatives to the more technically accurate ones. That would also apply to your example of Big Ben, which I would support as the the title to use instead of the more accurate Great Bell. However, to use Big Ben as the common name for the entire tower is just plain wrong. Chillysnow (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    Having checked by looking up the definitions of "pander" and "dogmatist" at dictionary.com, I believe my comments were justified; both clearly have derogatory connotations. I really don't see how you can maintain the position that a nickname widely used for both is objectively "correct" for one and "wrong" for another. How do you determine which nicknames fall into which category? --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    According to my OED, both "dogma" and "pander" can have non pejorative meanings. I have already stated that no insult should be read into my comments, so it turns out to actually be you who is failing to assume good faith. As far as the use of the nickname is concerned, it is clear from the very article itself which is the correct use. The article states "It is often colloquially referred to as Big Ben, which is actually the nickname of the main bell housed within the tower". Hopefully this should now be clear. Chillysnow (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    I'm happy to let the exchange speak for itself. Please feel free to initiate dispute resolution. Wikipedia text citing an website infobox on a permissible self-published reference is hardly authoritative. The entries of all except one of the references at onelook.com make no distinction in the name as used for the bell, clock or tower; each one of these three uses is omitted by some. I would view these references as at least equally reliable. Britannica.com has an article entitled "Big Ben"; while this does note the name "more properly" refers to the bell, the article is about the clock tower. Clearly referring to the tower as Big Ben is still sufficiently "proper" to be correct for Britannica.com. --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    Of course I'm not going to take this to dispute resolution, that would be a preposterous escalation of a storm in a teacup. I've clearly stated my case, which is more than sufficient. For authoritative clarification that Big Ben is the correct nickname for the bell and the incorrect nickname for the tower, see [12], [13], both of which state it explicitly. Chillysnow (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    Rather than authoritative, these are "sources very close to the origin of a particular topic" and thus considered primary sources by Wikipedia; reliable secondary and tertiary sources, which include the dictionaries and encyclopaedias cited above, are preferred. They also appear to be self-published as defined in policy. The first source you mention does demonstrate that the Palace of Westminster and Parliament (or at least their educational unit) regard the nickname Big Ben as correct only when referring to the Great Bell. The second source does not make any claims about the applicability of the nickname to the tower as far as I can see; that the nickname may be applied to the bell is not in dispute. As far as I am aware, neither the Palace of Westminster nor Parliament are regarded as experts on nicknames, nor am I aware that their work in the field has previously been published in reliable third-party sources. Thus any self-published statements they make on the issue cannot be applied to the correctness or otherwise of a nickname, outside the Palace and its immediate sphere of influence on such matters, per WP:SELFPUB. This restriction does not apply to reliable tertiary sources such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, which appear in the majority to regard the nickname as valid for the bell, the tower and the clock, in most cases equally so. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    Again you are applying the letter of the law without taking a broader view of what the policy is designed to counter. Both WP:PRIMARY and particularly WP:SPS are designed to protect against using sources that contain exaggeration, self aggrandisement, self promotion or spin. The sources I have cited contain uncontentious unpromotional statements of fact by the curators of a national monument on a state owned website. To imply that that could be the case with these sources is simply not credible. Chillysnow (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    I can assure you I am happy to ignore policy where it is justified. In this case, I believe I am applying policy precisely as it was intended. The cases you cite are merely the most egregious and obvious consequences of giving undue weight to primary sources; it would be harsh to call insisting that a nickname may only correctly be applied to a bell in the face of overwhelming common usage for its tower "self-aggrandisement" – perhaps it could be regarded as mild presumption – but the motives and consequences, while less severe, are undoubtedly related and will ultimately affect the quality of articles if not kept in check by a consistent and unbiased application of policy. The experts in the meaning of words in common use are people such as lexicographers; it is to them that Wikipedia should turn for such information. --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support as we need to use common names and not this obscure name which is blatant confusing our readers. Some of you may want Big Ben to be called Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster but that is your POV. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    This is not about POV, this is about whether assigning the bell's name to the entire tower is correct or not. For those that are confused, that is what redirects and disambig statements are for. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia is it not? If we can't get this right then what's the point of maintaining accuracy anywhere? Chillysnow (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support I live in the UK and am British but I have never heard of it being refferred to as the "Westiminster Clock Tower" Everyone just calls it Big Ben! And that is what people are more likely to search for and recognise Chloe2kaii7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC).
  • Strong oppose. Big Ben is the name of one of the bells, so the move would be highly inaccurate. If WP aspires to be encyclopedic it must challenge misconceptions and not entrench them. The search engine issue is moot because if you Google 'Big Ben', this article is the second hit anyway. --Harumphy (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
More accurately what you get is a series of "Big Ben" hits and one called "Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster" which happens to be the Wikipedia article, but could be overlooked as it doesn't say "Big Ben" in the headline. That is the point we are trying to make. If somebody puts in a search for a topic, such as "Big Ben", and then casts their eye over the headlines, looking for which website to go to, they may skip over one saying "Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster" because that is not what they were looking for. The intention of the common name policy is to assist people as much as possible in finding the article they are looking for. Having found the article they are looking for, they can then be informed that the topic has alternative names, some of these names are "common" or "popular" names by which the topic is mostly known, while some are "official" or "scientific" or "technically correct" or used by experts / enthusiasts / hobbyists. Giving the lesser used alternative names is helpful, but using a lesser used alternative name as the main title is not. The encyclopedic aspect of this, is that we assist the majority of people to arrive at the right place, and then inform them. SilkTork *YES! 22:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
But it also says on the first line of the Google entry for the WP article "The Clock Tower, often referred to as Big Ben", with the term Big Ben highlighted twice in bold. I don't think it realistic to claim that the article could be overlooked by anyone searching for Big Ben. In regards your second point, we already assist the majority of people to arrive at the right place with the judicious use of redirects and disambig statements. That is the whole point of having such mechanisms. The proposed retitling, which is to the detriment of the accuracy of the article, is therefore unnecessary and totally counter productive. Chillysnow (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why renaming this page Big Ben is so pointless. I did a search on Google some time ago too, same result as above. If someone types "Big Ben" into the search box on Wikipedia, they're most likely gonna hit the "go" button instead of the "search" button to go to the page on the Clock Tower. In that case they will be redirected to this page, and with the pictures, the reference that it's often colloquially referred to as Big Ben, they most likely will know that this is the correct page. Moving this page is just totally redundant. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 05:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. When it comes to naming Wikipedia articles, the official or technically correct name is irrelevant when there is a name that is clearly most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in question. In this case that name is Big Ben, without a doubt. Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster??? Please. That's ridiculous. --Serge (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Well then, if we have to rename this page Big Ben under the rationale that any article about something should be named with the most commonly used term, then how about we rename Longcase clock to Grandfather clock, Telephone number to Phone number, etc.? Read the post above: if the search engines can find it, with the redirects and disambiguation pages pointing people to the right place, what's the use of renaming this page? [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 04:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
As noted above, some reliable sources say that Grandfather clock is used to refer only to a proportion of all longcase clocks; others are called Grandmother clocks and, according to the article at least, Granddaughter clocks [14]. Thus the use of Grandfather clock to refer to all these clocks is at least disputed, while longcase clock is not. Telephone rather than phone can be justified by the rule be precise when necessary; the word phone has other notable uses, so using telephone assists disambiguation. It follows then that subsidiary articles might also use telephone in their names for consistency. Note however phone fraud and phone cloning, which could just as well be telephone fraud and telephone cloning. In any case, in your examples both terms are equally understood. While more precise, Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster is not as well understood by English speakers in general as Big Ben. --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What's the offical name for this clock tower anyway? This article needs to at least have it's introduction rewritten a little bit. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 04:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Oppose. Big Ben is the common name for the Great Bell, not the clock or the structure (of which this article is about). Only one section is about Big Ben, but there is enough information about the bell that it could be expanded into a separate article. Besides, Big Ben redirects here, so anyone looking for the clock tower — which they mistakenly refer to as "Big Ben" — will come to this article. If this article was renamed Big Ben then we would be perpetuating the myth that the clock tower is called Big Ben, when in fact Big Ben is the main bell. – Axman (☏) 15:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - You say "Big Ben", you think "big ass clock". Answer to the question: "What's that?" "Oh, it's Big Ben". And, "We saw Big Ben today", not "We saw the large Clock Tower located next to the Houses of Parliament today". Correctly or incorrectly, that's what it's called. --Joowwww (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If I might apply some legal thought to the issue: When a law (or rule) creates an absurd outcome, it is the duty of the judge (in this case us) to interpret the law so as to avoid an absurd outcome (for we cannot assume the community means for an absurd or unjust outcome when it comes up with the policies). Failing that, we have WP:IAR. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Ever since I was little, I've always known 'Big Ben' to be the main bell in the clock tower not the clock tower itself. An encyclopaedia should not be encouraging inaccuracies, such as calling this article about the clock tower 'Big Ben', when Big Ben is actually the main bell. – Marco79 11:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


Closing Administrator Comment considering this issue in relation to WP:NC and in particular the sections Use the most easily recognized name The common name criteria should be qualified with the prevision "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."

I have read the comments above and the arguments are finally balanced and there is clearly a divide in the community over this issue. However, in considering what User:Narson wrote "If I might apply some legal thought to the issue: When a law (or rule) creates an absurd outcome, it is the duty of the judge (in this case us) to interpret the law so as to avoid an absurd outcome (for we cannot assume the community means for an absurd or unjust outcome when it comes up with the policies)"

Other tertiary sources, Britannica has the article under Big Ben,[15] and Encarta has the Clock and tower as the primary meaning.[16][17]

A search of Google Books returns

  • "703 on "Big Ben" Clock Tower."[18].
  • "130 on "Big Ben Clock Tower""[19].
  • As search on ["Clock Tower", "Palace of Westminster"][20] returns "624 on "Clock Tower", "Palace of Westminster""
  • removing Big Ben returns "457 on "Clock Tower", "Palace of Westminster" -"Big Ben"."[21] but some of those will be references to the Bell (how many I have not bothered to sample).

This shows that Big Ben is probably the most common name in WP:SOURCES (using Google books as a sample), but it is not as overwhelming as User:SilkTork searches at the start of this requested move suggests. However given that "Big Ben" is the common name in unreliable sources and that there is no clear common name among reliable sources. I am of the opinion that we move it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Questioning the move - abuse of admin power?

I am a strong supporter in favor of moving this article to Big Ben, but clearly the consensus among those involved in the discussion is not there. This appears to be an abuse of admin power to me, and very bad precedent. Decisions in Wikipedia are supposed to be made by achieving consensus through discussion, and not even by polling, much less by authoritarian fiat. --Serge (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Having your cake and eating it

I suggest that there is an easy way to create an article with the name "Big Ben" which can please everyone, Iif the first version of this article is used as a template. That is put an explanation of the bell first and then add in the details of the clock tower after that. That should satisfy those who think that the name Big Ben should only be used for the bell and it would still allow "WP:NC#Use the most easily recognized name" to be followed: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickname controversy

I have edited the article to explicitly include a discussion of the naming controversy. I have tried to make the edit as NPOV as possible. I followed the following principles:

  1. Only use the nickname directly for the bell within the main article; its use for the bell is undisputed.
  2. Avoid taking a position on use of the nickname for anything but the bell in the rest of the article; only note the nickname is used where necessary, without considering "accuracy".
  3. Create a new section discussing the various viewpoints on the nickname.
  4. Keep all current references. Where assertions of accuracy have been removed, all references used have been transferred to the new section.

I hope that this change is viewed as improving the article by both "sides" in the recent move request, by giving a centralised discussion of the issues, based on our recent debate. Personally I think this is a big win for the article, and something that everyone can agree is a positive result of the move request.

--Rogerb67 (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant move

Congratulations on a brilliant move by admin Philip Baird Shearer. Despite no clear consensus he has gone ahead with the page move, with only a bunch of specious reasoning to back the move up with. FTR if there had been a clear consensus I personally would have entirely accepted the outcome, but there wasn't, yet the change was done anyway. The result? Another valuable editor has left. See: User talk:Harumphy. The above attempts to wallpaper over the cracks entirely fail to mitigate what is a clear and flagrant breach of due process. Shame on you. Chillysnow (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we have this decision reversed? What's the procedure for doing that, surely it cannot be another WP:RM?
As far as I was aware, I thought the policies were only guides not rules, so there are exceptions that could be made wrt the policies. Also, I find this move — made without consensus — quite troubling. As it takes away any consensus made by the community, or lack thereof, by saying that if a certain policy says "something" therefore it must be followed in accordance with that policy, even though it goes against consensus, or lack thereof. The Admin who moved this page says in his closing statement that "Big Ben is probably the most common name", through reliable sources, but by using the word "probably" this indicates to me the move should not have been made, even if more "unreliable" sources prefer Big Ben, they should be ignored, because they are just that, unreliable. Therefore the move was unjustified and against any consensus (or lack of). – Axman (☏) 04:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I have filed this case with the Mediation Cabal as I feel this issue needs proper resolution.
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-07 Big Ben
Chillysnow (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Mediation cabal case has now been closed per PBS's request. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-07 Big Ben for more details. Mononomic (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted duplicate article

Can we have the correct title please ?

Why on earth is this article called Big Ben? I've searched under the correct name (Palace of Westminster Clock Tower, Great Clock of Westminster) looking for information and finding nothing - eventually resorting to searching for the NICKname of the blinking bell...

Many people refer to the "chimes of Big Ben" which seems to me to be fairly clear that name means the bell - for pity's sake if this entire website is to be usable please classify things under the correct name for them and direct people typing in the popular names to the correctly labelled name. 12.155.201.147 (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you use Google, and search on [ "Palace of Westminster Clock Tower" ] then the Wikipedia article is the first one returned, as it is if you miss out the double quotes. If you put the whole quote into Google search ["Palace of Westminster Clock Tower, Great Clock of Westminster"] then no pages are returned under that string but Google returns "the Results for Palace of Westminster Clock Tower, Great Clock of Westminster (without quotes):" So which search engine did you use? If you used the internal search there was already a redirect on "Palace of Westminster Clock Tower" and "Great Clock of Westminster" but to "fixed" your search I have added the full name "Palace of Westminster Clock Tower, Great Clock of Westminster" as another redirect. --PBS (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I used Google.CO.UK which doesn't return it. Heaven help that I'd dare use the US search engine for a UK based search. The UK localised Wikipedia doesn't return the results you reference above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.79.35 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

full stop --PBS (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you must but try reading my point above. Regardless it's nice to see a "definitive" work present falsehood as truth when it clearly isn't. Lowers the value and worth of the entire body of "knowledge" if such mediocrity is allowed to continue12.155.201.147 (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move by Philip Baird Shearer

I have reported this issue to the Administrators' Incident board WP:ANI and have been clearly informed that the actions of PBS were not an abuse of admin power. In other words, the page move was one that could have been made by any editor. The move can therefore be undone by any editor under normal rules. Since the move was made without any consensus, in breach of established policy and guidelines, I am therefore reverting it. Chillysnow (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You neglected to mention that it was a Requested Move. The way to undo a Requested Move is to file another one; if you are right that the move was wrongly decided, the same consensus will support you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
But what on earth would be the point of that? If this guy can just ignore the lack of consensus on the first RM, what is the point of having a second one that he can just ignore again in favour of his own views? Chillysnow (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Because there are many admins who close Requested Moves. I would object myself if PBS closed again after a protest; one should avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. Although I'm sure that PBS would in fact close as you wish if there were unambiguous consensus for it, which I don't see in the previous RM. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
But therein lies the problem: there was no clear consensus in the RM in question. The rules clearly state that if there is no consensus after an RM, the status quo should be preserved, but despite that PBS moved it anyway. If we have another RM it is likely that there will be no clear consensus again, as was the case in the first two RMs. So any Admin applying the rules properly on the new RM would keep the current status quo, which was only got to after PBS's flawed conclusion of the last one. So we're in a bit of a bind aren't we? Are you suggesting that if there was another RM which had no clear consensus then the article would still be moved back? Chillysnow (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
PBS's action was within the limits of admin discretion - as your efforts to have it reversed have shown. If you can now show consensus for the title that you prefer, it will be moved back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I actually already has been moved back. --70.24.177.35 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
What a ridiculous situation. So basically as an admin you can do what the hell you like. An RM has been held, and the results have been ignored, PBS has just done what he wanted to do all along without consensus. Now, when I point it out, I am told that a consensus is now required to move it back. This makes a mockery of the entire process (not to mention Wikipedia itself) and an insult to all those who it now appears wasted their valuable time in taking part in the original RM. Mugabe would be proud. Chillysnow (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you in every way. I, too, am totally disgusted with the move and really want the article moved back. (Haven't you noticed? The article has totally deteriorated since the move! The move wasn't bad enough, but the introduction's terrible! And the fact that PBS made the move without consensus and is using the excuse he's an admin to make it as hard as possible to move the article just because of his own opinion?!?!? That is abuse of admin power to me! Shame on him!) [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 05:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that it's time to move the article back. I checked the requested move that PBS made without consensus and made a startling discovery: If you count the votes, excluding PBS's closing comment, and the crossed-out votes by the anonymous users, the consensus opposes the move 7 to 6!!! Even if you add in the anonymous users, the consensus is still the same: Oppose wins 9 to 8! If you add the only remaining excluded comment, PBS's closing comment, then the consensus is even 9 to 9! PBS carrying the move out anyways, even with the consensus preferring keeping the (then) current name, means that a move back without a RM should be legal, because the admin (PBS) who made the move was not playing fair! If the consensus for that move opposed the move, and the admin did the move anyway just because of his own opinion, the move should be reverted! He was violating WP:CONSENSUS and commiting WP:OWNERSHIP!!!!! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 03:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

outdent] Come on, guys/gals: PBS is getting a lot of stick for his action, but it may have been a genuine mistake! Easily resolved by reverting the decision. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I will try to move the article back. Let's just be careful we don't start an edit war. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 22:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Why that naughty admin PBS!!!!! He had to make an edit to the Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster page by adding a comment to the page just to prevent any non-admin user from moving the page!!!!! @#$%^&*`~!!!!! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 23:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I seemed a little fanatic on the above comment I just got very frustrated I couldn't do the move back because of (you know who). [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing naughty about it. Retro00064 as you are a relatively new editor you may not have come across a page which was moved using WP:RM. It is customary after the outcome of a WP:RM move that a move back to the same name is not requested for six months -- it saves all the interested editors time being wasted in an endless debate. In this case after a WP:RM move on 26 October, the page was unilaterally moved to Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster on 2 December by Chillysnow, after Pmanderson moved it back, I had three choices. One leave it alone, but as there was already a move war over it and two WP:RMs that was not acceptable. Two use admin powers to prevent moves, or three simply leave a message in the history to explain to anyone who looked that a WP:RM move should be used, as the closing admin of a future WP:RM can easily move the page to CT,PoW if that is the outcome of another debate, this was the action I decided to take. --PBS (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't you know how much bickering you have caused? [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 22:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
PBS - it's a bit rich you going on about unilateral page moves and wasting everyone's time when it was you who unilaterally moved the page against consensus in the first place, which has now caused the most monumental waste of a great many editors' that time I have ever witnessed. You should examine your own affairs a bit more closely before criticising others. Chillysnow (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone needs to remove his admin powers, he's to much of a j*** to have them. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 09:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I am calling this dispute resolved per my last entry at User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#Big Ben move despite lack of consensus. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record I do not regard this dispute as settled. It has been made clear from policy statements that have been written up in the last few weeks that a consensus amongst a small group of editors cannot override broader policy consensus. I agree with that, it is a logical position to take. However it remains that two fundamental problems with this affair have not been adequately addressed.
1) Admin Philip Baird Shearer acted wrongly in making the page move on 26 October. No consensus was reached concerning appropriate application of the policy of WP:Use Common Names as there was no common name found to be used by reliable sources. Furthermore, the methodology used for determining name use amongst unreliable sources by both PBS and SilkTork was seriously flawed; in any case unreliable sources are just that and should not be given much weight in a contentious matter such as this, let alone the deciding vote. In this instance, it is clear that the move should not have taken place, yet PBS moved it anyway. He then refused point blank to get involved in any mediation procedures. This has caused months of argument and wasted time for which he should be ashamed.
2) No attempt has been made to address the issue of what to do in the event that the suggested move name is fundamentally wrong. It is easy to see why all the examples in WP:Naming conventions (common names) should be used instead of the more technically accurate ones. However, in none of the examples is the preferred name actually wrong. This was clearly the case here and the admin should have interpreted the policy in this instance and rejected the use of the term Big Ben as a misleading title for this article.
Subsequently the cracks have been wallpapered over, with the article's main thrust now being about the bell rather than the tower in an effort to post-justify this poor decision. The worst part of it is that such a hash was made of the whole process that a number of editors (such as Harumphy and myself) have either left altogether in disgust or indefinitely suspended their valuable contributions. Chillysnow (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Before you call one name "wrong" and another name "correct", you need to have a universally accepted and objective set of criteria by which to judge what name is wrong and what is right. I am not aware of any such set of criteria accepted by the Wikipedia community; indeed Wikipedia explicitly declines to judge such things in general, deferring to reliable sources (see e.g. WP:YESPOV). At least some reliable sources (e.g. COD) assert Big Ben is "correct" for the Clock Tower and Great Clock. Thus to suggest that there has been a failure to address something when it is not in fact universally agreed is specious. It is hard to see how an article title that was in any case a redirect to the article and generally accepted to be in widespread usage can be "misleading" in the sense meant by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names); the example there is where people might be sent to the "wrong" article (about a "tidal wave" instead of a "tsunami" or vice versa). There is no such concern here. I submit that this article is like the article steam or carbon copy, where more than one possible meaning of the same term is discussed (some of them "wrong"), and no more misleading than vibrato unit, tremolo arm, on-base percentage, White chocolate or Interstate Highway System (not an exhaustive list) --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your reasoning. To suggest that the only time that anything can be declared as wrong is in the presence of a universally accepted and objective set of criteria (which clearly will never exist) is patent rubbish. As you well know, the plain fact of the matter is that the name has been misapplied to mean the tower by some of the population, as clearly stated in the majority of the reliable sources and also the primary sources that you and I had an argument over previously. This should be as much evidence as is required to retain the status quo before the page move was made: that is the overarching point here and is all I am attempting to get across. With regards the redirect, the whole point in a situation like this is to have the article correctly named with a redirect in place to point those still labouring under the misconception to the right place. To have the incorrect name as the proper article title therefore is misleading and only serves to compound the fallacy. Chillysnow (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well ChillySnow, if the common name policy strictly says that the common name must be determined by reliable sources, then it would make sense for me to return to the fight. I will gladly if that is the case. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 07:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Retro, a clause referring to "reliable sources" was added to the common name guideline within the last year, unfortunately (ironically by the admin who closed the above discussion and moved this article). The idea of holding the process of determining the most common name to the same standard of "reliable sources" as that necessary for establishing facts for article content is absurd, but it is currently there. It is the source of endless confusion and excuses. There is no way to determine what it means, and so everyone interprets it as they please. It has to go. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Language evolves, ChillySnow. Meanings of names change over time. Meanings that were true yesterday are not necessarily true today. Meanings today will not necessarily be true tomorrow. We don't define usage here, we reflect it. It's a dynamic process. Not only will WP never be "done", but even the naming of all the articles that exist today will never be done. None of it is written in stone. Originally Big Ben referred to just the bell. Today, when people say, write, read and hear "Big Ben", they are likely, perhaps more likely, to think of the clock tower. That's a fact. That's not wrong. And there is nothing wrong with WP reflecting that fact in an article title. Language evolves. Get used to it. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not some die hard who is anachronistically sticking to an outmoded concept as you appear to be suggesting. The fact is that there is clear evidence from "reliable" sources that, to quote the Palace of Westminster's own website, the use of the term Big Ben to describe the tower is "incorrect". So there is nothing to "get used to". Chillysnow (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm making a slightly different point here. I'm glad you think that a completely objective set of criteria to determine "right" and "wrong" is an absurd idea. I completely agree, and that is my point. Where such criteria don't exist (and this is the case in general), then all we can use are subjective criteria. This is quite normal and reasonable. It's quite normal and reasonable for someone to hold the view that calling the Palace of Westminster Clock Tower or Great Clock Big Ben is wrong, while acknowledging its common usage, including in some reliable sources. However, in the absence of an agreed objective set of criteria and given that the term is in significant use for that purpose, it is unreasonable to expect everyone else to share that opinion. This is the essence of WP:NPOV. While I think that the closing administrator's decision was correct in the sense that his decision was sympathetic to my view in the debate, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the rules to be certain it was procedurally correct. Certainly it would have been less controversial to close as "no consensus". However, to suggest others have failed to act on the basis the decision clearly gave the article the wrong name is inappropriate when there is no agreed objective way of determining that it is wrong. In your opinion, the name is fundamentally wrong. A significant number of other contributors to the debate believe along with you it is not the most appropriate article name (possibly varying in the extent to which they believe the current name to be wrong). In a significant number of other contributors' opinions (a group which happens to include myself), it is sufficiently correct to be the best title for this article. One significant group must always be dissatisfied. That is the nature of human existence on this planet and we have to find ways of dealing with it, preferably amicably. --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This discussion isn't about the title of the article. It's quite clear that opinion about that is split down the middle and it's unlikely we can reach a consensus. Rather, this discussion is about what PBS did in response to that absence of consensus. He moved the page, when he should have left it alone. This could only be done by an admin, because the existing redirect prevented an ordinary user from doing a simple page move. Therefore this was a straightforward abuse of admin power. There appears to be no effective process for an editor to challenge an admin's decision. That is the issue, not the title of the article. And that is why I am staying on the sidelines, nursing a huge sense of injustice, until this wrong is put right. I hope it can be put right, because I would like to be able to contribute again, but unless Jimbo Himself grabs the thing by the scruff of its miserable neck I don't expect it to happen. --Harumphy (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
And my point is that ChillySnow's justification for his grievance in point (2) of his response above: "No attempt has been made to address the issue of what to do in the event that the suggested move name is fundamentally wrong" is meaningless because there are no objective criteria on which to judge whether an article name is "fundamentally wrong". The correct name is therefore a matter of opinion, which as you say is split. It is the spirit of Wikipedia to acknowledge all significantly held viewpoints as valid, per WP:NPOV. PBS's decision to move may or may not have been an abuse of process, I have no opinion on that except that it would be hard to prove. Actually closing the debate required no admin powers, indeed many times debates have been closed by non-admins who have subsequently requested administrative help in completing the move. Before 2008-10-26 20:34, PBS had not edited Big Ben (checked at [22]]); that was his original page move after closing the RM [23]. Once the debate was closed with a conclusion of "move", actually moving the page was not an abuse of admin powers, indeed the move has been reinforced and confirmed by other admins. Had PBS made such a decision against a large majority camp who proffered reasonable arguments, or in favour of a camp who offered no justification at all, then I'm sure other admins would have been only too glad to reverse the requested move decision, and enforce it subsequently.
In summary, PBS's original decision in closing the debate may or may not have been "wrong" according to the processes in place at the time; with a split debate this is hard to prove; effectively in such cases it's up to the closer to weigh the arguments and come to a decision (it's not a vote). Really what happened was that the "no move" camp were unlucky to get a debate closer who was not previously involved in the article but favoured the arguments of the "move" camp sufficiently to decide to move despite the split. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me repeat after Harumphy: This disscusion is not about which name is correct or incorrect. It's about where PBS breached the policy when he moved the page. Forget the correct/incorrect name thing. Let's just talk about the decision/policy thing. He (PBS) had me fooled for a while, me thinking that policy actually supported his decision per WP:Consensus#Purpose of Consensus, but ChillySnow's comment about it made me check...and actually policy doesn't support the move, with the words of WP:COMMONAME (emphasis added): "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things", the name "Big Ben" referring to the tower would conflict with "Big Ben" referring to the bell. More words from the policy (emphasis added): "...Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject...", There may be, as you said, some reliable sources that call the name Big Ben "correct" for the tower, but I think what ChillySnow was trying to say is that the great majority of reliable sources out there call the name "Big Ben" referring to the tower incorrect. You're just trying to dispute over the name because you are in favor of the move, and therefore want to defend the move (and therefore PBS's decision) to keep the article to your liking. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 07:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing about whether it's the correct name; read our two posts above. Mine offers absolutely no justification for either point of view; it simply points out that each camp's view is subjective and opinion is almost equally split, and that to prove a breach of policy in such a case is virtually impossible. Your post on the other hand makes unsupported allegations about the split of reliable sources in their support of either camp. I discussed process and voting patterns. You quote naming policy and discuss its application to the naming of this article. Your interpretation of policy and your complaint against PBS is based on the premise that the name Big Ben is fundamentally incorrect when applied to the clock or tower. This is your subjective opinion and does not match with a significant number of other people's equally valid subjective opinions. Your complaint against PBS fails at that point, before PBS's behaviour or interpretation of policy is even taken into account. This is the only point I've been trying to make. You are correct, my opinion during the vote was to move, but you are totally incorrect about both my motivation for entering this debate and about my opinion of PBS's actions. --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I quote you from above: "Really what happened was that the "no move" camp were unlucky to get a debate closer who was not previously involved in the article but favoured the arguments of the "move" camp sufficiently to decide to move despite the split.", and I totally agree. What do we do when policy is breached? We undo the breach of policy if possible, so that we can return things to plain old fair-and-square normal! Do we make a decision on what's right based on our own opinion? If we were a jury, trying to bring a criminal to justice, would we decide guilty or not guilty based on our own opinion instead of the evidence? No way! We know one thing: that PBS moved the page based on his own opinion, not the consensus. I don't care what the article is called as long as policy is properly followed! We just need to revert PBS's selfish decision, then the "move" camp can file another RM for their opinion of move to Big Ben and I won't care! Because the policy wouldn't be breached! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

outdent] I never said this was a breach of policy! In my opinion it can't be proved to be one. If a move request is not a vote (and it is not) then the debate closer must use his judgement to decide which side wins. Inevitably this will be at least partly subjective. To look at your analogy of a jury, juries ought to decide based on their opinion of the evidence presented. This inevitably involves subjectivity; which witnesses are most credible, which lawyer's arguments are most convincing etc.; these things do not necessarily have objective answers. This is how juries become "hung". Inevitably where opinion enters the equation, luck becomes involved. You present a different argument for claiming wrongdoing, and one that has more merit than an allegation the current name is "fundamentally wrong" in my opinion, however when closing, PBS explicitly stated he read and considered the arguments presented. It would be perfectly reasonable to interpret his subsequent statements as efforts to determine which argument presented has the better case. Unless there are specific restrictions in policy on what a closer may or may not do in considering the arguments put forward (as there are for juries), I don't see how the fact he conducted a few Googles of his own demonstrates a breach of policy. Why do judgements sometimes get overturned in subsequent appeals to higher courts? At least sometimes, because judges' opinions on how to apply law vary. Luck comes in here in terms of which judge a particular case gets. Similarly different RM closers will have different opinions on the interpretation of Wikipedia policy and whether the arguments in a RM debate apply it properly. In this case, luck favoured the movers. This does not constitute a breach of policy. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The breach of policy was a very simple one. There's a general WP principle that in the absence of consensus, the status quo wins. This policy was breached by PBS, who simply ignored the 'jury' of editors who are just as smart as he is and who had discussed relevant policies and sources in depth and still hadn't reached consensus. It is not the job of an admin to ignore that lack of consensus and set up a Diplock court in its place. It is essential that this blatant, bad-faith abuse of admin power by PBS is undone. The issue at stake is much more important than the article title: it is about whether or not admins can ignore the rules, shit all over editors and get away with it.--Harumphy (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Once again, closing the debate cannot possibly be called an abuse of admin powers: There is no requirement that an admin close a debate! Frequently in the past experienced non-admin editors in good standing have closed debates and called on third party admins to remove any blocking redirects with short histories so that they can complete the move. Neither is a move request discussion a vote; it is a debate proposing the various arguments. It is closed by an independent editor, whose job it is to interpret the validity of the arguments presented in light of current consensus as reflected in policy (and not as reflected by the state of the discussion itself), as independently as they can and to the best of their ability. I don't think it's possible in this case to demonstrate that PBS did not do this. I think you've stretched any legal analogy way too far in suggesting a Diplock Court scenario; Wikipedia's processes are based on the idea of reaching consensus by persuasion and compromise, while the kind of court system you draw the analogy to is adversarial. Who precisely is the jury here? Debate contributors? I don't think so. In a divided case like this, they are more like defendant and prosecutor. A debate closer might be analogous to a judge, but in a bench trial rather than a jury trial. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, prosecutor and defendant, we're the prosecutor for the case of the policy breaching move, PBS is the defendant, but you now. You are like the defendant's lawyer, in how you are responding to us. You go on and on about how this is not "an abuse of admin powers", and you are right about that, but it isn't the point of this disscusion. The point of this disscusion is about, as Harumphy just said, whether or not admins (or non-admins) can ignore the rules, shit all over editors and get away with it. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 06:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Retro00064, you've lost me there. How can using admin powers to move a page, which could not be moved without admin powers because of the redirect, and which should not have been moved because in the absence of consensus it is WP policy that the status quo should prevail, not be an abuse of admin power?--Harumphy (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching me there, Harumphy. You were right, your comment brought back a long lost memory, some time before this move we've been talking about, I remember finding the Big Ben article as an exact duplicate of CT,POW. So I changed it to a redirect. Moving an article over a redirect does not require admin help as long as the target page has no more than one entry in the edit summary. However with Big Ben because of that story I just told there was quite an edit history there, so therefore PBS's action was an abuse of admin power. I should've remembered... ;-) [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this argument is more or less half for policy and half for opinion. Some people appear to be for policy (like me), and some people appear to be for their own opinion. I think that the point that Colonel Warden was trying to make is that, that page, meta:The Wrong Version, represents what people may feel about having the opposing side's preferred version being the one to be protected by an admin during an edit war. And the perspective is very similar. The only thing I have been trying to do in this argument is to try to get this article to where it follows established policy. It just seemes to me that you, Rogerb67, at first glance you act like a lawyer for PBS. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Ben/Archive_2&oldid=1194368674"