Talk:Lloyd's of London/Archives/2017

1686 or "approximately 1688"?
The date of the founding of the original coffeehouse has been changed to 1686. This is at odds with the plague unveiled by the Queen in 2014 celebrating the 325th anniversary. Which is correct? --TBM10 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The 1686 comes from a reliable academic source, which specifically notes the date. On balance I'd give this specific source more credibility than the more generalised plaque. But we could also include them both, with a note that sources differ. Views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Various recent copy-edit changes
Hello, Mauls. I've reverted the many copy edits that you just made to the article, because they merit discussion. Several particular issues are: I look forward to hearing your comments. Pinging, who also reverted some of your changes. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Your insistence on bolding the names of laws, which you justify by saying (in edit summaries) that this is called for under WP:MOS.  But that guidance says nothing of the sort.  Is there some other guidance that supports your position?
 * 2) You also say that the Manual of Style requires numbers like 50 or 80 to be written in words.  But, again, there is no such requirement of which I'm aware.  Perhaps you can point us to the section of the Manual that requires this.
 * 3) And similar to the previous point, I am aware of no guidance that requires the use of the percent sign (%) when the percentage is expressed as a numeral.  Here, too, it would be helpful if you would point us to the section of the Manual that requires this.
 * 4) You might also want to justify replacing instances of "per cent" with "percent", given that the latter is more typically the American spelling and the subject of this article is, of course, closely related to Britain.
 * Please see the "Numbers" section of the Manual of Style:
 * "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."
 * "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). Numbers between 21 and 99 are hyphenated (including when part of a larger number): fifty-six or fifty-six thousand but five hundred or five thousand."
 * ...although comparable quantities together should be consistent, e.g. "five cats and thirty-two dogs", "3 winners and 206 losers"
 * "3%, three percent, or three per cent"
 * You are however correct that "per cent" is the correct form for British English articles.


 * The names of the laws were bolded because they are redirects to this in place of dedicated articles (i.e. they are alternate article titles) NOT because they are laws, as my edit summary explained. Refer to MOS:BOLD where this is explained ("Other uses").


 * As you can see, all my copyedits (excepting "percent") were in line with the Manual of Style.

Mauls (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The edit summary numbers such as eighty and ninety should be spelt out is incorrect. The MOS section quoted above is clear that they may be spelt out.


 * Most commonly this misunderstanding works in the opposite direction, where editors wrongly believe that integers greater than 9 must not be spelt out, when this is not the case -- MOS is clear that they can be spelt out if it is possible to do so in one or two words. MPS1992 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for engaging in discussion. Thanks also to MPS1992 for weighing in.  I'll address Mauls' points in the order in which they were raised.
 * There's no dispute that, generally, integers below ten are expressed in words. But there is an exception, and that's when the number appears as part of a technical term.  Under Lloyd's accounting, "Year 1", "Year 2" and "Year 3" are technical terms and, in my experience, the number is always expressed as a numeral.  If you have evidence that my experience in this is abnormal, I'll be happy to take a look at it.  But otherwise, those technical terms should be using the numeral forms of 1, 2, and 3.
 * Regarding numbers expressible as one or two words, and as pointed out by MPS1992, the provision you are citing describes alternatives, each of which is permissible. And this brings into play another provision of the Manual of Style -- MOS:VAR.  As you can see there, insisting on a change from one permissible style to another is extremely discouraged.  And so, when TBM10 reverted your initial change, that should have been the end of it (pending discussion on this Talk page).  I do suspect, however, that this large article might be showing inconsistent treatment on this point.  If so, then let's have a discussion as to which is the better style.  But before then, the status quo should remain.
 * Regarding comparable quantities, I'm unsure which edits/reversions bring this provision into question. If you'd like to point them out, I'll be happy to comment.
 * As for mixing 'numbers as words' and the percentage sign, I think some confusion arises from assuming that the summary on the main MOS page is the complete statement. It isn't, and the additional examples at MOS:PERCENT make that clear.  And so, "80 per cent" is perfectly acceptable and, even if other forms are acceptable, MOS:VAR discourages us from insisting on changing the style.
 * Skipping the "per cent" vs. "percent" question, let's discuss the matter of bolding the name of the law. This disagreement illustrates the perils of trying to communicate via edit summaries.  Your explanation above really helped me see your rationale for wanting to use bold font -- apparently, you are invoking the "no astonishment" principle for re-directs.  I'm not completely convinced that this is a valid concern, because someone who searches for "Lloyd's Law 1871" is not going to be very "astonished" at being taken to "Lloyd's of London".  But even accepting a slight possibility of astonishment, your rationale applies only to the first appearance of the name in the introductory paragraph and does not apply to its reappearance deeper in the text (and, of course, you are intent on bolding all instances of the name).  Perhaps we can agree to a compromise.  There is a section here on "Formation and the first Lloyd's Act".  If the re-direct were re-targeted to go directly to this section, there would be no astonishment at all, because a mention of the Act appears right there in the heading of the section.  And then, we wouldn't need to use bold font in the text itself.  Is this an acceptable compromise?
 * Not raised by you, but I'll add one last issue. At several places, you changed capitalised letters to lower-case letters in situations where the original editor clearly intended the capitalised word to be a shortened form of a proper name.  The one that I recall off-hand was where the article described the founding of the Society of Lloyd's and then, a few sentences later, spoke of "the Society".  Once again, either approach seems acceptable.  But MOS:VAR discourages insisting on a change.
 * Thanks again for engaging in discussion. I look forward to hearing your response.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The two bolded law names were different names, from different redirects.
 * Shortened institution names should never be capitalised. MOS:INSTITUTIONS
 * I disagree that 'year 1' is a technical term - it's use in the article is clearly as the first year. Do you have a source to back your assertion?
 * Mauls (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lloyd's of London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823214929/http://www.camvista.com/england/other/beazley01.php3 to http://www.camvista.com/england/other/beazley01.php3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)