Talk:King William Street tube station

Shouldn't this be at King William Street tube station? If no-one objects, I'll move it. Timrollpickering

Was this really in King William Street? Or was it in what is now Monument Street? --Henrygb 17:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

'Rooves' or 'roofs' as the plural of 'roof'

 * While 'rooves' was traditionally the plural of 'roof' in British English, all the available sources now state that its use is archaic and that 'roofs' is the generally accepted plural. For example and  and a good discussion: .  I have little doubt that this is a product of creeping Americanisation that is contaminating the English language.  I am interested by 's concise OED because my copy does not mention a plural (and neither does the 26 volume full edition).  In fact few dictionaries mention the plural when all you do is add an 's'.  However, my OED does state that the plural of 'hoof' is either 'hoofs' or 'hooves'.  Clearly the American plural that has not crept quite so far.  Personally: I abhor Americanisation, but as history teaches us, one famous king who tried to hold back the tide got his feet wet.  I B Wright (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My was from the spelling "roves" back to "roofs". My OED is
 * and the relevant entries are:
 * roof &bull;n. (pl. roofs) 1 the structure forming the upper covering of a building or vehicle ...
 * rove3 &bull;n. a piece of fibre drawn out and twisted, especially preparatory to spinning ...
 * rove4 &bull;n. a small metal plate or ring for a rivet to pass through, especially in boatbuilding ...
 * Meanings 1 and 2 for rove are verbs. There is nothing on p. 1243 between root vegetable and rope where "rooves" might go. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Meanings 1 and 2 for rove are verbs. There is nothing on p. 1243 between root vegetable and rope where "rooves" might go. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your revert from 'roves' was an entirely correct one as it was clearly the wrong word. However, you appear to not know how to use a dictionary.  A dictionary does not list plurals in themselves, so 'rooves' (if it were still in general use) would not be found between 'root vegetable' and 'rope' but would be listed under its singular 'roof' as its plural.  Similarly, the currently in use word 'hooves' is not to be found between 'Hoover' and 'hop' but is listed under 'hoof' as "hoof ... (pl: hoofs or hooves)".  Similarly, 'mice' would also appear to be a glaring omission from every dictionary until you find it lurking under 'mouse'.  I B Wright (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So why do I find the following entry then?
 * hooves plural form of hoof.
 * And, for that matter, why does it explicitly state "(pl. roofs)" on p. 1242? -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you are using a dictionary that does not follow the normal convention?
 * As for your second question: that you have asked it clearly indicates that you haven't bothered to read the rest of this thread before asking it. The answer is here. I B Wright (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I really am puzzled by your remarks, not just the last two but also "you appear to not know how to use a dictionary". I looked up "roves", didn't find it between "rover" and "roving", but did find "rove" (between "ROV" and "rove beetle"). Then I looked up "roof", and noticed that it says "(pl. roofs)". The irregular plurals that you mention both have separate entries - "hooves" is definitely between "Hoover" and "hop" ; "mice" is between "mica schist" and "micelle" - would you like me to find others? If the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which first appeared 104 years ago, "does not follow the normal convention", where is this convention laid down? If other dictionaries do not give separate entries to irregular plurals, perhaps that's a lacking in those others? -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot comment on your particular choice of dictionary, but the Concise Oxford Dictionary that I regularly use (branded as such and not as Pearsall or anyone else) does not have separate entries for any irregular plurals. However, having said that, it does list 'men' as a separate entry defining it as 'pl of man'.  Why 'men' gets this distinction is a minor mystery - I have not found separate entries for any other irregular plural that I can immediately think of.  Collins dictionary follows the same convention.  From my (admittedly minimal) research, the Concise Oxford dictionary does not have a named editor as such and the author is just shown as "Oxford Dictionaries" .  It is the New Oxford dictionary that is edited by Judy Pearsall (and Patrick Hanks), but this is specifically identified as focussing on contemporary English .  However, this is claimed to have been superseeded by the Oxford Dictionary of English which does not have a named author .   –  Live Rail    &lt; Talk &gt;  10:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This is going off at a tangent. Unless anyone has got an up to date and authoritative reference that roofs is not an acceptable plural for roof (highly unlikely), then this discussion has run its course as far as improving the article is concerned. I B Wright (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry,, but is casting serious doubt upon the way in which I am interpreting a WP:RS that is in my possession. I offer evidence here, in the form of four photographs. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is questioning your interpretation of your sources?  LiveRail originally claimed that rooves was the British English plural of roof, and indeed fifty odd years ago, that was what was being taught in English schools (I remember being taught it).  But since I posted the observation (with references) to the point that rooves was now considered archaic and no longer used, has not opposed the point.  You and I seem to be agreed that roofs is the only (currently) valid plural for roof (with references) so the original point of the thread seems to be resolved.   However our individual dictionaries choose to document the plural, they all seem to support both of us.  I B Wright (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In their post of 10:34, 17 July 2015 they are saying that Judy Pearsall is not the editor of the Concise - I offer proof that she is. They also claim that irregular plurals (other than "men") do not get separate entries - I offer proof that they do, including one (hooves) that was explicitly given earlier. If people are going to say that something is not the case, they cannot expect that they will not be challenged. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article and only improvements to the article. Any discussions about editorial differences between your and anyone else's dictionary is entirely out of place here. 85.255.235.236 (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Former route succession box
In the former route succession box I wonder if it would be better to say City and South London Railway rather than Northern line. While the City and South London was eventually succeeded by the Northern Line, the latter name was never used in this station's existence (coming into use about 37 years after it closed), nor was the section it was on ever operated by the Northern Line. Dunarc (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I should also add that the article for the closed Hounslow Town tube station lists it as being on the District Line, which it was during its existence, although had it survived it would almost certainly now be part of the Piccadilly line given the transfer of the surrounding extant lines from the former to the latter. I admit this is a slightly different case, but it is perhaps a sort of precedent. Dunarc (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)