Talk:Strand, London/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Note on the use of the definite article

Since the archiving of the discussion page, we seem to have had some drive-by additions of the definite artice, changing "Strand" to "The Strand". I'm changing those back in this edit, and posting this reminder that we agreed that this entry would open with an article-less "Strand", and that "Strand" would appear without the defintie in article in the opening para. There is to remain a sentence or two explaining that modern usage accepts either form, and either can be used elsewhere in the entry. GreenInker (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That is false statement of the case. It was agreed that the name of the article should be "Strand". There was no injunction about using normal English usage of the definite article in the body of the article. I.e. just because the Elephant article does not employ the definite article in the name of the article that is not a logical reason why the definate article should not be used when one is talking "the Elephant I saw walking down the Strand". The references given employ the formulation "the Strand" in discursive usage. Such discursive usage should be distinguished from that employed in labelling or naming an entity. Vide the elephant...Btw do you think Simpson's-in-the-Strand are defying the absolute immutable truth about how to name things - known only to wikipedia editors - and should have the name of their establishment changed to Simpsons-in-Strand? And should the song title Let's All Go Down the Strand be changed by wikipedia fiat to Let's All Go Down Strand? Colin4C (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We covered this in the archived discussion. S-i-t-S have perfect liberty to call their business what they like. It doesn't change the fact that the name of the street is Strand, and, like Piccadilly but unlike the Mall, current common usage for Strand is not for it to gain the definite article, and I find bizarre in the extreme your notion that Wikipedia should as a consequence of reflecting common usage here try to edit historic lyrics, which are what they are. In the light of the vandalism here I have reverted not just the agreed opening paragraph, but all other non-quoting usages. GreenInker (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

See also The Mall, London where the definite article is used for a particular street in London. Colin4C (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I made it perfectly clear in the archived discussion that I am happy for the title and any titled illustrations to be "Strand" (No definite article) whilst "the Strand" is used throughout the body of the article in accordance with normal English. So therefore Colin4C pretty much stands correct.

I don't know whose usigned comment this is, but in "normal English", the usage is "Strand", not "the Strand". GreenInker (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The formal address of the street is Strand, that is what it says on the street signs. From 21 years ago, I worked in this street for nine years and company letterheads, my business card etc. all listed the street address as Strand, no article. I could well believe that historically this also may have been the usage in conversation. I'm still often in the area.

However, I have never, ever, once, in my puff, to my memory, heard anyone in the course of a conversation refer to the street without the article. It is only in written addresses or on street signs that I have seen it without the article. I would accept that there may be (apparently are) some people who do simply say "Strand" but they've all been dodging me for two decades so to claim that "current common usage for Strand is not for it to gain the definite article" is to me what is "bizarre in the extreme".

You may have a case that the recent changes ought to have been discussed on the talk page but to me, as they reflect the common usage of my experience of the name, they are clearly not deliberate sabotage so characterising them as vandalism is not helpful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Whereas my experience differs. While I have heard people say "the Strand", just as one also hears people say "the Edgware Road", "innit" or "sumfink", I find it more common to hear people say "Strand". When we turn to the written word, I don't think I know anyone who would use the definite article, and I hope that Wikipedia is more likely to resemble writing than casual speech. If not, perhaps we should rewrite the opening paragraph to start "Strand iz da street in da turf hof westminsta, london, england. da street iz just ova free cortahs hof da mile long, innit.". GreenInker (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I found that really funny Greeninker! Diamondblade2008 (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

They really do speak strangely in the circles you move in, don't they? I, er, oppose your new proposal as well.

I'm not talking about casual speech. Refresh your memory for notable examples in the archived discussion if you believe you "don't think (you) know anyone who would use the definite article" in the written word. The over 2 million ghits for the phrase "The Strand" are not all in regard to this street but in the first 30 or so there are examples of this usage in the text of sites of the Strand Palace Hotel, various other hotels, restaurants and businesses on or near the street, a theatre history site, King's College, the Independent newspaper and the BBC World Service, who even decided to name their flagship arts programme The Strand, rather thanStrand. Just had a look at the Savoy's web site and its Hotel History page referes to "the Strand". But they're all written by oiks are they? I support the article title being Strand but let's not pretend the definite article is not in common usage in the course of speech and the written word an that it's only the inarticulate who use it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done a bit more digging - The Guardian, the Royal Courts of Justice, Somerset House, the Courtauld Institute. They're all at it. You'll be scandalised. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the note of personal attack and assumption of snobbery you have brought to this discussion. GreenInker (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Likewise puzzled. Where's the personal bit and where's the attack? No assumption of snobbery either.

You seemed to be comparing, apparently negatively, usage of the Strand with usage of speech in the fashion you employed in your suggested rewrite for the opening paragraph (a representation of 'street talk' I had guessed). My point was that this mode of speech was hardly likely to be being employed in the web sites mentioned. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mutt Lunker here. What he said was hardly a personal attack yet YOU have the audacity to call everyone else a 'Vandal' and remove each and every trace of the definite article which was agreed to remain as per the agreed consensus! To me, pot and kettle springs to mind. Before you lay into me, please see my comment below and hopefully this will put and end to this editing silliness. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate also what I said in the archived discussion, plenty of other roads have the definite article mentioned before them in everyday conversation, for example "the Harrow Road", "the Edgware Road", "the Angel, Islington" and "the Aldwych" to name but a few. So I see no reason whatsoever why the Strand should be exempt from the use of everyday English. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think its time to settle this matter once and for all because i'm getting rather sick and tired of this see-saw battle over the use of the definite article. So keep the article title as 'Strand, London', keep the first paragraph as 'Strand is a street in the...' (no 'The') to keep GreenInker happy and to make no further changes to the use of the definite article to keep everyone else happy. Hopefully you will all accept this proposal I put forward. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As that's what I believed we agreed to last time this was discussed, I am willing to settle for it again this time. GreenInker (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case are we happy that, in this regard, no further action need be taken with the article? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

On this matter, we seem to be agreed again. I may, though, removed what I feel is the superfluous "onto" from "abuts onto" GreenInker (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think it more elegant without but on no real basis; both are valid uses. As you please though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm really happy that we have reached a consensus that we all agree on at long last! Thank you GreenInker and Mutt Lunker for your time in helping resolve this matter. I'll post a new section reminding other editors consensus has been reached. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just one final thought, I have never ever heard anyone say "The Strand Station" instead of "Strand Station", or "The Strand Bridge" instead of "Strand Bridge" (the old name for Waterloo Bridge). Both are related to the Strand. So in fairness to GreenInker he does have a point there. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes this is largely the usage I have heard regarding the station (not that it is mentioned much these days) but the station is the station and the street is the street. They're two diferent kettles of fish in regard to the use, or not, of the article. Why, I don't know. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know either. It was only a mere thought that came into my head when I was browsing this discussion page and the archived discussion. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is particularly indicative of anything either way. People say "Monument Station" but "the Monument", "Barbican Station" but "the Barbican", "Cutty Sark Station" but "the Cutty Sark", and "Temple Station" but "the Temple". The definite article in such names is (almost?) always dropped in the station name. Proteus (Talk) 22:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of the definite article: Consensus reached - Polite reminder.

I am posting this as a polite reminder. We have all finally agreed that the title of the article will be Strand, the first paragraph will be 'Strand is a street...' and there will be no further changes to the use of the definite article elsewhere. Please do not make any unnecessary changes in respect to the above. It will be most appreciated if this message is followed. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Matt Lunker has never mentioned anything to me. The fact that the definite article has been dropped by some clearly indicates that we all haven't agreed, finally or otherwise. The name of the street is Strand not The Strand. Merely because something is in "common speech" doesn't make it correct. The correct name of the ex-wife of the Prince of Wales was "Diana, Princess of Wales" not "Princess Diana" no matter how many people called her that. If something is correct, it's correct no matter how many people think the contrary.--Shylocksboy (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to my edit summary on reversion of your edits on 22 September: "please see copious discussion on talk page re definite article". It may be time consuming and tedious but I ask you to carefully read all of the discussion on the talk page, including the archives as a) the arguments you raise, and responses to them, have been covered before, argued thoroughly by both sides b) both viewpoints came to a compromise, which you should familiarise yourself with. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's no good saying "we have a consensus" when editors disagree. It's like creditworthiness - if you're having to argue about it, then you no longer have it. Me, I'm new to this issue and would like to see the definite article used in the opening sentence, just as we have in the article River Thames. Warden (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, we have quite a few number of editors who have agreed to the consensus, myself included. Unfortunatly the use of the definite article in the Strand article is very subjective, so not everybody is going to agree. As both sides of the argument have been raised and discussed, eventually the consensus was agreed to by the said editors. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Breach of consensus

GreenInker, whatever the merits of your recent edit it is clearly in breach of the above consensus regarding the use of articles. Please have the courtesy to bring any changes in this regard to the talk page first. I'm afraid I can't yet get past my annoyance at the way you have flouted this to be able to think about the merits or otherwise of your edit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm refraining from instigating an edit war, but I thought we all agreed on what I proposed above. Any thoughts on this matter? Diamondblade2008 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The definite article, PLEASE read the agreed consensus.

It appears we are still getting those ignoring the consensus that was agreed upon a long time ago and we are still getting the definite article removed here and there. So I would like to post a reminder what the agreed consensus is.

Strand (no 'The') will appear in the article title, the first sentence of the opening paragraph and the description of any illustrations, while 'the Strand' will appear throughout the main body of the article as per normal English usage. It will be most appreciated if this consensus is not breached. If you have something to mention, please feel free to mention it here. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does the "consensus" think they know better than the local council? The name on the street signs reads "Strand" not "The Strand".--Shylocksboy (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The street signs say "Strand". They are just what they are, road signs. They are not the absolute truth in how English is used. For example, I may not say The Piccadilly Circus but I may well say The Hammersmith Flyover. Such usage does not mean that the street is named The Strand, the definite article is just being used in the course of everyday speech. Removing all traces of the definite article in order to enforce pendatic technicality just makes the article read in a rather clunky manner. While we are on this subject, should Simpson's-in-the-Strand be changed to Simpson's-in-Strand? And should the song "Lets All Go Down The Strand" be changed by the anti-The brigade to "Lets All Go Down Strand?" Diamondblade2008 (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

See the numerous sources Mutt Lunker has quoted earlier in this discussion regarding use of the definite article. Please don't let your pride dictate on how the article should be written. Thank you. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Covered above and in the archived talk pages. Common usage essentially, both in common speech and by the organisations based there, including BBC World Service and one of its flagship programmes for example. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

References

The definite article: to anyone new to the debate

For the benefit of those new to the debate, there have been extensive discussions regarding the use or otherwise of the definite article, by numerous editors and over some period of time. This of course should not prohibit further discussion of the issue but any new contributor ought to familiarise themself with the discussion (above and in the archives) as there's a good chance their rationale for one viewpoint or the other has been discussed already, with supporting and opposing views. Changes in regard to the use of the definite article without discussion are thus likely to be reverted with a request to view the talk page. Likewise, posing questions on the talk page which have been covered earlier are likely to lead to being directed to the discussion above.

These discussions have been both in regard to the article name and to the text of the article and these have been regarded by some as being different cases; some editors supporting its use in one case but not the other. The consensus referred to, or compromise possibly, was reached by editors with a variety of viewpoints and was, as summed up by Diamondblade2008 above, "Strand (no 'The') will appear in the article title, the first sentence of the opening paragraph and the description of any illustrations, while 'the Strand' will appear throughout the main body of the article as per normal English usage".

Shylocksboy posted in the section "The use of the definite article: Consensus reached - Polite reminder." but this section was from ten months earlier, regarding breach of consensus and directed towards an editor who had agreed to it, and not directed to Shylocksboy, an editor new to the issue.

The compromise may not satisfy everyone (unsure if it satisfies me) but if you are advocating a move from it, please discuss it and be aware of existing positions pro and con. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am new to this page, and I'd like to thank Mutt for his note alerting me to the history.

Put simply, if 'the Strand' is correct throughout the article, how can it be wrong in the first sentence?

'Look at the street signs or indeed a map' says the latest edit summary. Well, I grew up in London and loved the A to Z street atlas as a child, indeed have my copy on the shelf right here, so I know the map. My grandfather was a fireman at the British Museum and he and my grandmother lived in Montague Place just off Russell Square, so my family talked about the Strand. Wikipedia is not a street sign or a map, and its prose should reflect the best prose usage (O Strand! thou canst in Poesie apostrophize...). As it does indeed here - except for that awful jarring first sentence. Rothorpe (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No one has replied, so in the name of proper English, I’ve restored it. Rothorpe (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said before, the use of the definite article in the Strand article is subjective. Not everybody agrees with it (unsure if I agree with it myself) as there are some people who prefer it with the definite article and others without. Therefore in order to put a stop to the numerous edit wars taking place on the Strand article, a consensus was discussed and reached. Please take time to read it. Thank you. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What is it about the word "the" and the concept of "name"? Some people want to capitalise the T all over the place (it's part of the name!), others want to suppress the word altogether (it's not part of the name!) The Buzzcocks want us to stop putting 'the' before their name; we don't have the Strand's opinion. Anyway, I have one last suggestion for the first sentence here (yes, I did read the Talk, and saw how the unsatisfactory fudge emerged): "Strand is the name of a street..." That is both true and (just about) acceptable English. Rothorpe (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is our policy that consensus can change: "matters that have been discussed in the past can be raised again ... 'according to consensus' or 'violates consensus' are weak reasons for rejecting a proposal".

I have checked three books published in the last year to see how they treat the matter: The Times Atlas of London; Dicken's Victorian London; I never knew that about London. They invariably use the definite article in their prose. Here are some examples:

• The Strand derives its name from the Old English word for shore or river bank.
• The Strand begins at Temple Bar where ...
• This image shows a broad view of the Strand looking west...
• The Strand: 'the bank (of the Thames)'...
• ...along the Strand and ...
• The Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand...

So, following normal practice, we should use the definite article in our prose too and that would include the lead. Note that, in any case, the lead requires a fair amount of work to conform to our ideals as it should be a summary of the body of the article, not simply an introduction. See WP:LEAD for more on this and note that it contains several examples where the title of the article is prefixed with the definite article in the first sentence:

• The electron is a subatomic particle...
• The inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre were held in AD 80...
• The Gemara is the component of the Talmud...

So, as we must expect more editing of the lead to improve it, we should not be surprised if such usage appears in new drafts.

Warden (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon and thank you for your latest contribution Rothorpe and Warden.

First of all I stand by the current consensus (no 'The' in the opening sentence and 'the Strand' being mentioned throughout the main body of the article. I do respect your points though. A couple of years or so ago there was a severe edit war involving a certain editor who was adament that the definite article should not be present anywhere in the article; something that I strongly disagreed with and I'm sure you would as well (See the earlier revisions, circa 2010 as well as the archived discussions). The point of the current consensus was to keep those who prefer 'Strand' happy (no 'The' in the opening paragraph) and to keep those who prefered 'the Strand' happy as well (being mentioned in the main body of the article). Feel free to reply back and once again thank you for your contribution on the matter. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

'ave a banana

The lyrics to the popular music hall song "Let's All Go Down the Strand" (words and music by Harry Castling and C. W. Murphy), are given as:

Let's all go down the Strand – Have a banana!

Let's all go down the Strand!

But can anyone please explain what is the significance of the seemingly quite incongrous edible fruit produced by several kinds of large herbaceous flowering plants in the genus Musa, to a street in central London. In short ...why? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 1 July 014 (UTC) ... N.B. "In Popular Culture"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs)

This throws no light on the matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This link? This thread? This article? This reply? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Strand, London/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Will review tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Part of its length was known in the 13th century" -do we know which part?

Another source says it was a name of the whole street generally, so I've copyedited this Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Link Civil War in first instance, remove in modern times section?

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• In the Somserset House paragraph can you reword a few examples of "house", it is repeated quite a lot.

Try that Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Watch rep of "popular" in second paragraph of Modern era

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• " King's College Hospital opened in 1840, and the college became a constituent college of the University of London in 1908. " -shouldn't the latter part of this follow on from where you mention the college rather than the hospital?

I think the confusion here is where "college" refers to the term generally, and of the formation of an integrated University of London, reworded. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Can see little wrong with it, will pass once addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Doubtless the masses will descend and copyedit it if it hits DYK, but that's not actually a bad thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Format of year ranges

@Ritchie333: The MoS (MOS:DATERANGE) states clearly that for the last 3 years WP has had "a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges" ... "but never 1881–882 or 1881–2". I simply changed the format of year ranges to conform to the MoS and to be consistent throughout the article. "1608–9" is right out. Chris the speller ^yack 15:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure The Rambling Man said different at one point, but I could be wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The Rambling Man is not the MoS. Please correct the article. Chris the speller ^yack 16:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Neither is Chris the Speeler. But four digits is preferred unless space is a premium or if it’s consecutive years, in which case two digits. So neither of you are right, but I am. Good for me! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I think you are mischaracterizing the MoS, which prefers four digits in all cases but says that two digits "may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years; ...". Two-digit years are never preferred. Even if they were preferred, the ranges I corrected were not of consecutive years. Does one of you have a plan to correct these, as I had done? Chris the speller ^yack 23:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, what I said was just fine. And no, I'm not changing the article, thanks for the offer, but it's of no interest to me. I just popped by to demonstrate my ongoing brilliance. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2