Talk:Strand, London/Archive 1

The Strand
I don't think there is any need to be so pedantic over whether it is called "Strand" or "The Strand". Both are recognised by virtually all Londoners and the postal services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondblade2008 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better served at The Strand, currently a redirect? James F. (talk) 00:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I am currently sitting on the Strand, and I think no! It is actually just "Strand"; no the! That makes it special and mysterious and look cool on business cards. Aforrest 11:05, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, agreed, but sadly Strand is already taken as a disambiguation page (and I don't think that The Strand is quite internationally important enough to place there and move the disambiguation page elsewhere); The Strand would be the next-best location, perhaps?
 * James F. (talk) 16:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page has been moved, and then back. This is... tiresome. Whatever the 'correct' name for the road, the most commonly used name (*cough*policy*cough*) is most definitely "The Strand", not "Strand". Also, editing move-redirects so that they have to be deleted to effect a page move is... argumentative. James F. (talk) 14:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Strand is Strand - That's what it says on the roadsigns, that's the address businesses located there use, that's what is in the A to Z, that's what is on the Monopoly board. I agree with the current title of the page, but every reference to 'The Strand' should be expurgated aside from an explanation.The Yowser (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Isle of Wight is Isle of Wight - that's the address businesses located there use, that is the name of the local authority (Isle of Wight Council), that's what is shown in atlases. So all references to 'The Isle of Wight' should be expurgated apart from an explanation. 217.155.72.22 (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The confusion seems to be that this is a noun used as a proper noun (?). We would not normally say the Trafalgar Square; but would say the Hogarth Roundabout. I think the definite article should be used where it assists the normal flow of English, but not, as you say, to create the impression that it is called The Strand. Kbthompson (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Every descriptive book on London I own calls it 'the Strand' and eveybody I know calls it 'the Strand'. Road signs are just what they are: road signs, not direct communications of absolute uncontested truth. The Monopoly board also is not infallible as regards London. See for Tim Moore's amusing 'Do Not Pass Go' on this latter point. And as Kb writes above, using the definate article is normal English. For instance if you look at the Elephant article you will often see the beast referred to as 'the Elephant' in the body of the article. The wikipedia should reflect normal usage, not get originate new, pedantic formulations. Colin4C (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did anyone inform Simpson's-in-the-Strand (surely, the correct usage should be Simpson-upon-Strand)? Of course, the music to the song will have to be rewritten, now we're a syllable short - "Have a banana" and a Happy New Year 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the urge to be technically correct, but the resulting article is completely strangulated English. No native English speaker who has lived in London would ever say 'Strand is a street in the City of Westminster' or 'Strand derives its name from...'.  In fact, despite the weird Monopoly-board justification paragraph, calling it 'the Strand' is much more common in the later article text.  Even Westminster council's own website refers to the street as 'the Strand'.  Can we fix this silliness please? Ed Avis (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Got this response from Westminster City Council: Dear Mr Avis, Thank you for your recent email. The sign is correct, the official name is Strand without the 'The'. Should you require further assistance please contact the Highways Department 02076412000. Regards, Westminster City Council . So it looks like The Yowser is correct! Ed Avis (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The church of St Mary-le-Strand (12th century) uses the definate article. This church was built centuries before Westminster Council was even dreamed of. As indicated before, Westminster Council is not the repository of absolute truth. All they are are a bunch of councillors, not divine oracles or guides to normal English usage. Colin4C (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * {outdent] Hi, the current 'the'-revert cycle must stop. It is merely disruptive. If you have any point to make, make it here; and stop the edit war. Blocks will be awarded for 'edit warring'! Do please sort it out, but without acrimony to make a WP:POINT. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I (and others above) have adduced cogent reasons for the using the definate article several times here over the years and most recently about three weeks ago. See above for evidence that this is common English usage and is the usage in reference books on London streets such as Weinreb and Hibbert. That the postal address and street sign is "Strand" is not contested. Such a fact however does not entail a deformation of the English language or ignoring common usage. The wikipedia is not in the business of grammatical or usage innovations, that would be original research, which is strictly verboten here. Note that the "The" in the intro is not put in block capitals - as a concession to the pedants. We can only sort this out if the anti-definate article editor puts his point here on the talk page. I hope he feel free to do so. Colin4C (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the nub of our disagreement is that you believe that the "Strand" usage is a new form and in some way deforms the language, while I don't. I genuinely don't see the "original research" in keeping to the "Strand" form that I have known for the last 30+ years. (GreenInker (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

What's to discuss? The name of the road is Strand. (GreenInker (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Why? Both "Strand" and "The Strand" are in use. Both refer to the same road. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The name of the road is "Strand". I suppose we can allow standards to decay, and write any old nonsense if we choose to, but I'd rather nor. (GreenInker (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Weinreb and Hibbert use "Strand" as head of article but thereafter - as per normal usage - refer to it as "the Strand". On Greeninker's reasoning the definate article should not be used with the word elephant as "the" is not used before it in the dictionary. Please note that situated on the Strand are Simpson's in the Strand and St Mary-le-Strand etc. Are these not "local" usages? See also usage in the Tower of London article. The title of the article does not use the definate article but the body of the article, reflecting normal usage, refers to "the Tower of London". Colin4C (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you follow that line and refer to "the Oxford Street", "the Aldgate", "the Bevis Marks", "the Houndsditch", and so on? (GreenInker (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Also, the use of -le- in a name is not an application of the definite article to the following modifier, but a short hand for "the one on/at/by/with", as in St Mary-le-Bow, Mareham-le-Fen, St Peter-le-Bailey, etc. (GreenInker (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
 * It is not about how editors use language it is about normal spoken and written usage. In normal discursive usage, as reflected in references such as the London encyclopedia by Weinreb and Hibbert, the Strand is referred to as "the Strand". Thanks for your point above, but you have not addressed the question of why "Simpsons in the Strand" includes the definate article? Please feel free do so. The wikipedia is not the place to experiment with new English usages which are not reflected in the sources. That is original research, which is forbidden. Look at your copy of Weinreb and Hibbert if you don't believe that the definate article is normal usage. If you don't have one I could quote it for you. Colin4C (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors? I don't follow your line of thinking there.  "Simpsons in the Stand" is the name of the restaurant - they are free to call it what they like.  What new English usages are being experimented with? (GreenInker (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Here's some short extracts from Weinreb and Hibbert's London Encyclopedia:
 * "in 1532 the Strand...streets which read off the Strand...this part of the Strand...the Strand, and the alleys leading off it...the Strand was renowned for its restaurants...walked up the Strand with his gloves in his hands...theatres in the Strand..." etc etc.
 * See also British History On-Line Site for use of definate article: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45134Colin4C (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because Weinreb & Hibbert get it wrong, I don't think we should follow. I am dubious about taking guidance on the definite article from someone who can't spell definite, to be honest. (GreenInker (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
 * OK, I agree, the official name for the street is 'Strand' - no more, no less. As I think I said ages ago, that doesn't mean we create crimes against the English language to omit the 'the' where it makes the flow of English work. The point about the use of the definite article is contained in the text; so, I think it is possible to come to a 'form of words' which really should be acceptable to all ... and thank you for taking the time to discuss the matter. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to move forward. Greenlinker seems to be in a minority of one about the usage - although I think we should make clear that 'Strand' is the official name; and there is clear evidence for common usage of 'the Strand'. The argument is beginning to become circular, and as we're now at the end of the pantomime season ("Oh no, we're not ...") either we look for a form which is acceptable to GL, and everyone else; or, we open a more general request for comments. Can I ask the straightforward question: "if it is made clear in the article that the official name is 'Strand', is it acceptable to use 'the Strand' in those places where it helps the flow of natural English?". Kbthompson (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Being in a minority of the limited sample here doesn't make wrong. However, there are clearly some here who feel this article is their own personal toy to play, and I think I can't afford the time to keep correcting them.  I may pop back from time to time to correct it, but I regret I'll no longer be able to do it as frequently as I have been doing.  I disagree that "the Strand" flows better than "Strand", any more than "the Aldgate" flows better than "Aldgate".  Both sound equally wrong to me, as a local. (GreenInker (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
 * This place operates by consensus - that's why I suggested an RFC if you remain dissatisfied. Many of us are locals, and (for instance) my mother's generation would actually refer to it as 'the Aldgate' - she worked there - which does sound unnatural to my ears. English usage is not static. The point of this discussion is to stop edit warring to make a WP:POINT; not to gang up, or drive you away, but to reach some kind of accommodation between the editors. Personally, I don't think anybody is 'wrong' here; but we do need to reach an acceptable accommodation between the viewpoints. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I still (strongly) believe that "the Strand" anywhere in the article's own text is just downright wrong. However, I will sit on my hands and not revert to this proper form any of the "the Strand" catachreses anywhere except in the article's title and the opening paragraph, because I just don't have the energy any more.  To be clear, then - keep the article title as "Strand" and the opening sentence as "Strand is a street in the City of Westminster, London, England.", and I'll not change the other instances of "the Strand" that existed in the version I most recently undid.  I'll just grind my teeth and verbally curse the editors. (GreenInker (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
 * That is certainly what I'd like. No objection at all the the title being Strand, or to it being made clear that the official name and postal address is Strand. "Correcting" accepted usage is a step too far, though. Should we also go back to referring to the fruit as "norange"? "Orange" was once an error too. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the initial "The" in the first sentence is deliberately not put in block capitals, because it is accepted that the name of the street is "Strand". The "The" is put there in accordance with the normal discursive usage of how the English language is used when referring to this street. I know that the wikipedia is a great revolutionary force in human history, but I don't think it should be the testing ground of Newspeak, but that rather we should humbly look at what the written sources show us as to how the English language is used in certain circumstances. We should also attend to Aristotelian logic. Just because we don't use the definite article with some roads, this does not logically entail that the definite article is not used with any roads. English language is not an exact science based on immutable principles brought down from some ethereal realm, but based on usage. Colin4C (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, so much for the spirit of compromise. I can see now that for you that just means "do it Colin's way".  I am now deciding whether to just walk away from this in disgust, or to mirror your "it must be my way attitude.  (GreenInker (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Come on guys. As I said before, I don't think either of you are wrong. Westminster council's own usage is a strong source; but then so are the many sources C4C has quothed ... Wikipedia is not about 'existential truth'; it's about what we find in verifiable and reliable sources. In this instance, both cases are well supported - so, let's just settle down to the 'agreed form of words'; and be prepared to 'take one for the project' for the sake of reducing disruption and acrimony. Then we can get down to real differences, like are you a Bigendian or a Littlendian?
 * Of more concern, is the 'drive by' commenter who contributes no evidence, but reverts GL and then starts a pointy campaign though all the articles that link to this one ... that is just disruptive! Kbthompson (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I ask who or what the "pointy" thing refers to? Is it the same person who today posted some abuse on my own talk page, after I reverted their changes here that went against the spirit of compromise I thought we were agreeing to? I thought we had reached a compromise - No "The" in the title or the the opening sentence, and no further changes to the wrong use of "the" elsewhere in the article.  I'll put the article back to that now. (GreenInker (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Probably ... although if you consider that abuse, you haven't been around here for long! It would be nice if everyone kept their manners, but maybe I'm just old and cynical. The 'pointy thing' is about disrupting wikipedia just to make a point - a bit like the article see-sawing between 'bigendian' and 'little-endian' versions. I hope we've banged out a compromise that gives voice to both positions without perpetuating crimes against the English language. However, in the long term I think it will continue to be a recurring theme here, because both positions have evidence to support them. Kbthompson (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify that my view that we should say "the Strand", in the body of the article, is a compromise between those editors who prefer "Strand" and those who prefer "The Strand". And accepting "The Strand" as the opening words of the article is a compromise between those who prefer The Strand and those who prefer Strand. Will editors accept this compromise?  Colin4C (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand where the compromise in your second condition is - that sounds to me like "The only compromoise the non-the camp will accept is that the title of the article be the proper, official name of the street". Or am I missing something here? How do you feel about the concessionary edit I have just made to the start of the etymology paragraph? (GreenInker (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC))
 * A further thought - if you are irrevocably uncomfortable with an unarticled "Strand" as the opening of the first paragraph, how about "The street officially named Strand ..." or similar? (GreenInker (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

To GreenInker, I feel I should say my bit here. Regardless of what the 'correct' name of the street is, its always referred to as 'the Strand' It is even referred to as 'the Strand' on the Westminster Council website: http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/environment/planning/conservationlistedbuildings/areaprofiles/strand/ A few shops in the Strand even have 'the Strand' on their fronts. I drive through the Strand almost every day on my bus route and can confirm this. If you don't believe me, go on Google Streetview and see for yourself. Even TfL refer to it as 'The Strand' (see this link here) http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/livetravelnews/realtime/coaches/?search=&textinfo=places&showmap=True I stand by everything I have said here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondblade2008 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just not true that it is always referred to as "the Strand". There are many occasions when the "Strand" is used, and I know many people (myself included) for whom it is just "Strand". My business used to rent office space on Strand, and when we did our address was "Strand", not "the Strand". I'm not sure what you mean when you say you stand by "everything" you have said here - I think your only contribution has been the comment on January 8th. I'm sure we could find at least as many samples from TfL of the use "Strand" - the first bus map I looked at seems quite persistent in the correct usage: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaround/maps/buses/pdf/waterloodr-2289.pdf
 * However, this discussion does seem to have found a compromise with which everyone is equally unhappy, so there seems little point in re-opening the acrimony. (GreenInker 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

Ok, I understand there are those who refer to it as Strand (like yourself) as well as The Strand (like myself). What I meant what I said above is that I stand by what I made in my comment towards you, not the actual contributions to the Strand article. Sorry for any confusion. Anyway as the saying goes 'you can't please everyone' so from now on it no longer bothers me whatever term the Strand is referred to. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Direction
I didn't want to interfere, but surely Strand begins at Temple Bar and follows the curve of the river... It was the river road to Westminster originally, was it not?Wetman 09:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * How did anyone ever get back? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludenwick
I thought that the idea that Londinium was abandoned at the end of the Roman era was now trashed. Maybe an archaeologist might comment? Ludenwick was roughly at the site of Aldwych, so how can this connect city and that ...


 * changed lineage to explicitly say City of London and Palace of Westminster
 * still no mention either of the Temple, or of the Royal Courts of Justice. Both worth a mention.
 * Oh, San Souci Theatre was in Leicester Place, owner had previous 'rooms' here used for musical entertainments.

No time now, I shall return .... Kbthompson 15:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"On" or "In"?
Would you say "on the Strand" or "in the Strand"? Google has more hits for "in" but this article seems to prefer "on." I ask because it was just changed on the Savoy Hotel article. Rees11 (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi - see the discussion above - the confusion appears to arise because 'strand' is a noun in its own right. My inclination would be to use what ever flows naturally in the particular sentence, rather than apply a consistent (but artificial) style that may occasionally trip up the reader. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Historically, it was "in the Strand." But your confusion comes from the fact most addresses don't have the origin that the Strand does (i.e., as Kbthompson says, that it is a noun in its own right). One would never say a building is "in Smith Street" (say), but "on the Strand" is traditional (but never "on the Strand Street"). zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Erstwhile neighbourhood
What this article does not mention is that Strand was, and according the A-Z still is, a district of London. MRSC (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Article name

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Move. Moved The Strand to Strand, London. No change to Strand. Orlady (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Strand → — Official name of street is "Strand", though discursive usage is "the Strand". Discussion in place regarding if article title should be "The Strand" per WP:Common name or "Strand, London" per WP:Definite.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Section moved from User talk:MRSC

"The Strand" is the common name. Our policy - WP:Common name - indicates that is what articles should be named. It can be explained in the article that the official name is "Strand", but we do not aim to astonish or confuse our reader by presenting them with articles that are named in a manner which is unfamiliar to them. See Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster → Big Ben and Liberty Enlightening the World → Statue of Liberty for other well known examples of where we use the common name instead of the official name. Further to that I have removed London from the name, as The Strand is the WP:Primary topic for a search for "The Strand", and put in a dablink to Strand. Please get in touch if you'd like to discuss this further. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 18:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the title of 'Strand' should be 'Strand' and not 'The Strand'. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * These examples are misleading. They are completely different names for things. What you have done is enforced a style change to use the definite article. Not the same thing at all. MRSC (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * End of section moved from User talk:MRSC

All the documentary evidence points the street and district being known as "Strand". The district is never referred to as "The Strand" and it is only occasional use of "The Strand" for the street. If it truly is the primary topic it should be located at Strand (which I don't oppose). If you are insistent that it should remain here, do you have any evidence for "The Strand" as common name? It sounds like your own point of view and in that case I request the article put back, per WP:BRD and, if necessary, the WP:RM process used. MRSC (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Every day I drive my bus route through the Strand and I have noticed; although the ROAD SIGNS says 'Strand', several shops in that street have 'The Strand' prominent in their addresses. I am not naming any shops that use 'The Strand' in their addresses but feel free to use Google Streetview and see for yourself. I feel the article should be reworded to cater for those who prefer 'Strand' and those who prefer 'The Strand'. At the end of the day this edit war/argument can go on forever but I feel I should point out that 'The Strand', although being technically incorrect is never ever going to go away. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weinreb and Hibbert, in their London Encyclopedia, list it as "Strand", though in the body of the article they use the definite article, denoting it "the Strand". I think that would be the wisest policy to adopt here - as referenced to Weinreb and Hibbert's book: which is the most up-to-date and comprehensive London encyclopedia I know of. Colin4C (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Mills, (2001), Dictionary of London Place Names, lists it as "Strand". It is clear that the maintenance deletion of The Strand by under CSD was not uncontroversial and should not have taken place. MRSC (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence basis: MRSC (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above list is a collection of maps so they would show it as "Strand" as that is the map name for the place. However, when sources talk about the place it tends to be "the Strand". See . So an address would be "47 Strand", not "47 The Strand". But a comment would be "The Strand is a street in London" rather than "Strand is a street in London". If the article were simply a map reference, then yes, "Strand" would be appropriate. However, as we are talking about the place, then "the Strand" is more appropriate, and what people are used to. In the London Encyclopaedia it says: "In 1532 the Strand..."; "...which lead off the Strand..."; etc. Westminster City Council say "bus routes run along the Strand and it is a short walk from there via Villiers Street". If we used the phrase "'The strand is a street' London - wiki" we get 13,000 results, if we take away the definite article we get 18,100 results, as that search includes those hits which use "the strand" we need to just look at the difference 18,100 - 15,000 = 3,100. So it appears that in common usage you'd get "The Strand is a street" 15,000 times, while "Strand is a street" 3,100 times. My research above may be a bit rough and ready, but I hope it bears out that "the strand" is more common usage in discussion and discursive writing about the place than "Strand", even though that is the appropriate name when used on maps. As "the Strand" is common usage, then WP:Common name applies.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the Ordnance Survey website uses "The Strand" as part of an address for advice on Digimap - . I assume that is a mistake! 17:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Since maps use the correct name 'Strand', then I think the title of the article should be 'Strand' in order to reflect the true name of the road. I am fully aware that 'the Strand' is usually used in everyday conversation as mentioned above. I don't have an issue with 'the Strand' being used throughout the body of the article. So to summarise, the correct name 'Strand' should be the title of the article, with 'the Strand' in the main body of it. A lot of roads are preceded by the 'The' in normal conversation, for example "the Edgware Road, the Harrow Road, the Angel, Islington and so forth. Something that I feel is worthy of mention is that in other articles that refer to the Strand, e.g "Strand Station" or "Strand Bridge" (the old name of Waterloo Bridge) are NOT referred to as "The Strand Station" or "The Strand Bridge". So in a way SilkTorx is right that "the Strand" is simply everyday English and NOT implying that the true name of the road is "The Strand". I am interested in the replys to this comment. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @ SilkTork We also say and write The Victoria Embankment not Victoria Embankment and The Albert Embankment not Albert Embankment. In fact we Londoners quite often put "The" in front of things, like "The Monument". The point is this is not an application of common name, it is the application of the definite article by preference. Checking with WP:NAME: avoid definite and indefinite articles: Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or will otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown). All the evidence points to "Strand" not "The Strand". Don't let your personal preference dictate how the article is named. MRSC (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is suggestion on how the article could look. The correct name should be in the title and the use of the definite article in the body of it to reflect usual spoken English. What are your thoughts on this? Diamondblade2008 (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this wholeheartedly. It reflects real-world practice. MRSC (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @ MRSC Im glad you agree. Hopefully my suggestion can be implemented and hopefully put an end to the editing silliness. I tried moving it back to 'Strand, London' myself but it wouldn't allow it. Would it be possible for you to move it back please? Diamondblade2008 (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Strand (disambiguation) needs to be deleted so Strand can move there. Then Strand needs to be deleted so The Strand can move there. If SilkTork won't do this the correct thing to do is list this at WP:RM and start a new discussion section on this page. MRSC (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ MRSC I'll do that now. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Diamondblade2008 Your move request was not properly filed and was overwritten by a bot. Let's give SilkTork a chance to respond. MRSC (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now filed the move request. WP:Definite is a good point, and one I had overlooked.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @ SilkTork that is great. Thanks for your understanding. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have thought more about WP:Definite. While there are examples of "The Strand", it is mainly "the Strand", so "Strand" would meet WP:Definite as MRSC points out. While there is no clear guideline on which has priority - WP:Common name or WP:Definite - there is the sense that even without WP:Definite there has been some dispute over the appropriate title for this article, and WP:Definite gives a more, um, definite guideline. WP:Definite is a precise guideline, while WP:Common name is more fudgy, and requires supporting evidence and consensus.
 * I now support the view put forward by Diamondblade2008 that the article title is Strand, while in running prose it is referred to as "the Strand".
 * Where I feel there is still room for discussion, is in the disambiguation issues. This article gets the most views. 220 a day is average. The disambiguation page "Strand" gets 70 a day. "The Strand" gets 20 a day (that has now risen because it's currently the location title of this article). Of the other articles listed on Strand only three gets 40 or more views a day - Strand Bookstore, The Strand Magazine, and Annie (Norwegian singer) (Anne Lilia Berge Strand is a redirect). Annie (Norwegian singer) gets 150 a day. Given that it appears that this article is the primary topic, and the most likely target for a search query of either "Strand" or "The Strand", I think that Strand should be the title of this article, with The Strand redirecting here. There should be a disamb hat note pointing to Strand (disambiguation).  SilkTork  *YES! 19:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Strand >> Strand (disambiguation) and The Strand >> Strand. The Strand redirect to Strand. MRSC (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose moving Strand to Strand (disambiguation). The numbers above clearly show that there is no primary use.  Having more reads that any other article does not confirm primary status especially when the subject of this move may not even have 50% of the reads.  Moving a dab page requires clear and convincing proof that there is a primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose the original requested move of The Strand to Strand, London. Given the content of the article, it would appear the page name should be Strand (London street). 64.105.65.28 (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No other London street is disambiguated that way. ", London" or occasionally " (London)" is used. Then there is the separate matter of the article describing both a street and a district, which would render such a title incorrect. MRSC (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Move summary I don't see any consensus for the move of 31 July, page should return to original name. There isn't a clear consensus on moving Strand to Strand (disambiguation) and if anyone wants to take that forward it would probably be a good idea to start a separate WP:RM on the Strand disambiguation page to get wider input. MRSC (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 31 July 2010 Strand, London >> The Strand
 * 4 August 2010 The Strand >> Strand, London
 * 13 August 2010 Strand, London >> The Strand


 * Some London streets are qualified with " (street)", which recommends Strand (street). Concerning the claim that the article covers also a district of the same name encompassing this street, that is not supported by the article. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know the Strand is a street in the City Of Westminster borough; it is NOT a seperate borough in its own right. Just to let you know there is a small side road off Temple place (which in turn is off Victoria Embankment) is called "Strand Lane" and I have NEVER heard anybody call it 'The Strand Lane' nor have ever heard anyone call 'Strand Station' 'The Strand Station'. At the end of the day its not just the Strand which has the definate article said before it in everyday English, (the Haymarket, the Aldwych, the Edgware Road, the Harrow Road to name but a few). Don't forget the street signs labelling the road have Strand and not The Strand on them. So having said all this. I support moving the article to 'Strand, Central London' (no 'The' in it) and the definate article used in the main context of it. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Having looked through all that, I'm most persuaded by Strand, London as the article title. I don't see that it's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (even if it's the most popular topic) for "Strand", but I don't see that it needs the definite article (postal addresses and other references are frequently given without "The", so we can happily follow our normal practice of omitting "the").--Kotniski (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)