Talk:Tower of London

Moat
I wonder if its worth mentioning 1928 Thames flood, and the tentative plans to refill the moat for the Olympics? Although I wonder why they don't refill the moat anyway, the reasons for its emptying no longer exist. Parrot of Doom 09:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, it might be but I don't know how often the Thames floods. If it's a regular occurrence it might be worth including. It's not surprising the moat gets filled during a flood but 1928 wasn't the only time the River overflowed. I've not seen flooding mentioned in the books about the Tower (probably because there's so much else going on) but if the 1947 Thames flood was really the worst recorded in the 20th century (according to Wikipedia) I would expect the moat to have flooded then too. The floods are possibly worth a mention if I can scrape something together. It would be a hell of a sight; if there were any photos taken at the time it would be great for the article. It's a shame they haven't deliberately filled the moat, it shouldn't be too hard to sort out drainage to keep the water clear in the 21st century. Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that you could add something in like "moat was drained in 18xx, since when, barring the occasional flood, it has remained dry"? Not a huge mention.  I bet there are photographs, I might have a look at the Times archive to see if the river flooding was covered in there.  What's the rationale behind not flooding the moat?  I can't think of a downside.  You could even charge tourists for passing through Traitor's Gate :) Parrot of Doom 13:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly
 * 2A00:23C8:3984:C101:4428:B5CA:7A15:8583 (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

chronology
The third sentence of "Foundation and early history" mentions the 1066 invasion, but this was when the Norman conquest of England began. Shouldn't this be mentioned at the start of this section, before "as part of their conquest of England..."? Parrot of Doom 12:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made essentially cosmetic changes, putting the chronology of William's victory and approach towards London at the start, and then moving the stuff about the significance of castles to the end of the paragraph. The next then switches back to chronology. (I think most of your copy edits are intact, although I trimmed a little material). Nev1 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this? I wasn't sure how many castles he founded so I just put "several".  Is that correct, or would it be more accurate instead to remove that part, since a castle is essentially a fortification?  Or are the "several castles" actually a part of the period 1066–1087? Parrot of Doom 14:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good article
Just wanted to say, very good article. Well done to all who contributed! :) BritishWatcher (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This disgraceful posting ^ is in clear breach of Talk page guidelines! Which is just as well, as I came here to say exactly the same thing too - terrific article, nice one! Congrats to all involved - excellent text and some wonderful pictures. Now I am going to beat myself up for posting this, pour encourager les autres. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * lol always follow IGNORE :). You would think giving praise would be encouraged. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Name
The name, 'Her Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress' is given in the lead but not mentioned again in the body of the article. There are no supporting referenced given for this name. The is the kind of thing that may be argued about and used in quizzes, it therefore seems important to me that we have a reference to support this, relatively unknown, name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought an IP simply added it earlier today so i unddid it but i see they were restoring it to undo vandalism. Plenty of sources on the Tower of London website using the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to add a bit to the body of the article giving the alternative name as the style of the article seems to be not to have references in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a 'fact' tag. I do not doubt that it is true but an important claim about the correct name needs a good reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nearly all the Tower guidebooks use this term, it shouldn't be hard to ref this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture
Can I just add what a delight I find it that the "in popular culture" bit is in its own separate article? No disrespect intended to anyone who likes to work on these things, but I sometimes find them a terrible distraction, often irrelevant, and liable to a sort of editorial instability and, er, shiftingness that can make an article frustrating to work on. Shipping this stuff out to its own article is great, and I feel that we should do it more often, where the volume warrants it. Sure, at the other article you can argue all day, if you choose, about what should be in or out and how many episodes of Dr Who or James Bond films or Meg and Mog stories you are going to list, but I think it's much better that this happens in its own space. Good one. DBaK (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's an idea borrowed from the article on Guy Fawkes. After a certain point, it's better if the pop culture trivia is hived off in another article so it doesn't unbalanced things. Also, I happen to think that most of it is unimportant in any case. There is plenty to say about how popular culture has effected the public's perception of the Tower –such as Shakespeare perpetuating a myth about the Tower, and William Harrison Ainsworth making the gory side well-known – but something like Johnny English doesn't really tell us much about the Tower. I was quite happy to remove this from the main article and give it its own. Nev1 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, yes! Good stuff, and thanks. DBaK (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Tower Bridge
There is no mention of Tower Bridge in the article. Is it completely out of scope? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * PS - congratulations by the way. An excellent article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The only connection between the two is that the bridge was named because it was close to the Tower. That's worth mentioning in the article on Tower Bridge, but not on the Tower of London itself. Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Still in use as a prison?
The following sentence

is slightly misleading as it implies that the castle is still used as a prison (which I assume it is not!). The past tense would probably be better. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point, I've switched it to the past tense rather than the imperfect. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The assertion that the Kray Twins were held in the Tower for refusing to report for National Service is supported by a link to a Channel 4 programme that cannot be accessed. It sounds really unlikely to me - but just the sort of thing that they might have claimed themselves. The slightly more detailed story in the Kray twins article is supported by nothing at all, and in that article they are described as "amongst the last prisoners", ie that such imprisonments weren't uncommon. If that were so I'd expect some citation would be possible. Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It could only have been correct if at the time of their National Service there was a military prison (formally Military Corrective Training Centre) to which court martialled offenders would be sent  at the Tower, which I am aware was the Regimental Depot of the Royal Fusiliers with whom they were to serve. The barracks would have had guardroom cells in which miscreants would have short term confinement prior to court martial. The Krays were sent on from the Tower to Shepton Mallet detention barracks to serve out their court martial sentence.Cloptonson (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

In Spike Milligan's (first) wartime memoir, Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall, he mentions - page 60 of the Penguin edition - that one of his fellow Gunners in the 56th Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery, a London Regt, was confined in the Tower Armoury in 1942 after repeatedly going AWOL. Thomas Peardew (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read the same memoir of Milligan's but I understood (through Milligan's comedic turns of phrase) that he was posted there as a home service assignment.Cloptonson (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Evil May Day riots of 1517
In 1517, during the Evil May Day riots, the then Lieutenant of the Tower, Sir Richard Cholmeley, furiously ordered the firing of some of the Tower's artillery at the City as gangs of young Londoners attacked foreigners, especially the wealthy foreign merchants and bankers of Lombard Street, London, and took control of London for several days. Is this incident significant enough to mention? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Royal Armouries
There doesn't seem to be an internal link to the Royal Armouries; the world's oldest museum and an important part of the life of the Tower since the middle-ages. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The royal armouries are mentioned in their role as a successor to the Privy Wardrobe. Feel free to add a wikilink. Otherwise, do you have a source that says it was the world's oldest museum? Although the crown jewels were on disply from the 17th century onwards and the armouries could be accessed, calling it a museum might be stretching it. Nev1 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Query
''The chapel's current bare and unadorned appearance is reminiscent of how it would have been in the Norman period. In the 13th century, during Henry III's reign, the chapel was decorated with such ornamentation as a gold-painted cross, and stained glass windows that depicted the Virgin Mary and Holy Trinity. ''

There are two things that I want to question here.


 * The chapel's current bare and unadorned appearance is reminiscent of how it would have been in the Norman period.
 * Is this what Parnell says? It seems very odd to me! I would expect that the expanse of ceiling, particularly the apse, would have been decorated, after the manner of St Gabriel's Chapel (early 1100s) in Canterbury Cathedral.


 * gold-painted cross
 * "Gilded", or "painted and gilded" are both far more likely than "gold-painted".

Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please check
"In the 20th century tourism the Tower's primary role, the remaining routine military activities, under the Royal Logistics Corps, having wound down in the latter half of the century and moved out of the castle.[125]"


 * "In the twentieth century" are my addition.
 * The question is: do the words "latter half of the century" pertain to the 19th or the 20th century? I am not sure from the context, and may have inadvertently caused an error. Could you please correct this if necessary?
 * Oh Dear! I have just noticed a verb missing! Will fix! Amandajm (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
A great article to have on the front page!

Amandajm (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

An historic and a historic
Is there any way, without this Talk page becoming a ranting battlefield, that we can peacefully resolve the "an historic"/"a historic" thing? Or given that everyone knows that they are right, is it doomed to just continue indefinitely as a slow-motion edit war? And if so, does it matter? Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or ... has it not maybe been discussed to death and/or consensus reached in some more general forum elsewhere, perhaps? DBaK (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:Engvar it should be An Historic as this article uses British English and it's a British English convention to use An before words beginning Ha, He, Hi, Ho, Hu or Hy - though both are correct. 62.25.109.198 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, this is very much what I didn't want to do here but, no, per WP:Engvar it should be nothing of the kind unless you can show me where WP:Engvar says "always use 'an' in BrE in these cases". It's a form of synthesis to say 1. Engvar says use BrE here so 2. this should say "an historic", because it requires me to accept the unspoken step 1a. the correct BrE usage is "an historic". This I do not accept: I know it is used by some BrE speakers but others, including me, find it archaic and frankly embarrassing. So I see no justification for changing it, and I feel it is important to assert that people who want to say "an historic" cannot simply hide it behind EngVar and BrE. But this is what I mean about trying to avoid the I know I am right about this bit because of course we both know that we are and we can both - well, if we could be bothered - go on asserting that I am right and you are wrong ad infinitum. I was hoping for something a bit more, er, policyish than this. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy aside, its long been my understanding that "an" is used to make the pronunciation of a following word easier - hence "an elephant" is easier than "a elephant". "An historic" is only needed if one uses the hard "a!", rather than "ey...", or if one pronounces the following word with a silent h.  Of course this is all my own research and based on nothing in particular. Parrot of Doom 15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "this is all my own research" Get the heretic! Prepare the stake!!!! :) DBaK (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have checked a bit and it appears that both usages are widespread and neither is regarded as uniquely correct. By analogy with the instructions about different variants of English I would stick with the original author's choice unless there is a reason and consensus for change. In this case I would say do exactly that: retain, or restore, the original author's choice of words. Mirokado (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure I buy this, but it is a very interesting approach and at least is better, to my way of thinking, than I'm right you're wrong. If I did buy it - and it would certainly be interesting to know what others think - then this would I think suggest that it ought to be "an historic". Of course this just makes me go sassle frassle because I think it's, er, wrong ... but I am not sure if evidence exists to back my prejudice, or maybe it does but I can't be $%^&ed to go and look for it! :) Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "An historic.." is a throwback to 19th century pronounciation where initial h's were barely pronounced. Anyone claiming it's (exclusively) correct, a British English convention, or widespread, is wrong. It is very rare indeed in modern English and will soon expire. No new writing should use it although it shouldn't be corrected in older works.TheMathemagician (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected?
Why is the article semi-protected? Because it has been a featured article? Because it is on a CD used for schools? Perhaps because it's been repoeatedly vandalised (but surely not)?

There should be an explanation. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The explanation can be seen in the protection log here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason given when the article was semi-protected towards the end of October was that there was too much vandalism; it expires on 27 November, but it's likely the vandalism will resume as the article is one of the most popular on Wikipedia. The version of this article that's been selected for school release is based on a version of this article from June 2008. Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tower Of London
It the most haunted place of London, with seven famous assessination of the century. Its been said that all those people are seen there living there final moments again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Most haunted" is a bold claim, do you have a source to back that up? Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Auto writes - I would agree with Nev. The Guinness Book of Records, some years ago [1960s/1970s?], had - IFRC - a pub or country house as the 'Most Haunted Building in England'; this, of course, may not be definitive. . . . .   Auto wrote. 20160725 2017 Z. 109.155.108.69 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

SFN
From the history of the article:
 * 20:04, 28 September 2011 Nev1 (Please format your changes in a manner consistent with the rest of the article and this material is not in the correct place as per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article)
 * 22:41, 28 September 2011 PBS (All long citations converted to short citations and the long citation part added to the list of general references)
 * 22:48, 28 September 2011 PBS (Altered lead Blitz was only WWII)
 * 22:55, 28 September 2011 PBS (Put in missing long citation removed in earlier edit)
 * 22:59, 28 September 2011 PBS (→Restoration and tourism: "and it generates an annual income of about €50 million")
 * 00:57, 29 September 2011 Nev1 (I would appreciate it if wecould stick to a single citation style. That used by the article passed FAC.)

Nev1, you have stated in the past that the format of sfn and harvnb are different. If so how? I checked the template code and could see no significant difference between the two either in the visual display or the HTML with the exception that the sfn template puts a full stop after the short citation something that harvnb does not do. If you looked at the time stamps on the edits I made you might have noticed that I spent several hours making the changes from long to short citations, and in doing so I checked the citations. Not only did you make a revert the use of sfn your also removed other additions such as authors, publishers, and reinstalling some links that do not work, publishing dates that were wrong. Further the edit 22:59, 28 September 2011 (that put in the information "and it generates an annual income of about €50 million") was reverted with no explanation as to why.

It seems to me that you are using a sledgehammer of a revert, when you could alter the inline citations to use the harvnb template if that is what you prefer. Although why you prefer it has not in my opinion been adequately explained. -- PBS (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have to explain his preferences. Once again, you are clearly breaching WP:Citation with these undiscussed changes, and on an FA. When you breach the policy by not seeking concensus, don't moan about how much time you spent. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not moaning! I was pointing out that I had taken a long time to check the citations and to make them more accurate, and that the revert had reintroduced inaccuracies which presumably was an oversight by Nev1 as I am sure the intention was not to reintroduce inaccuracies. -- PBS (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it a breach of CITE. Cite encourages the use of a consistent style. Before my edit there was a mix of short and long citations. After the edit there were none. -- PBS (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The changes being made here seem to clearly alter the citation style in the article (e.g. putting web sources directly in the bibliography rather than as in footnoted links) and therefore need to be discussed on this page and consensus reached first.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether a source is reliable or not is the criteria for their inclusion. We do not make a distinction between the types of media used in citation styles. If we were to do what you are suggesting then we would have the situation were a newspaper is available online would determine the citation style. Citation style relates to use parenthetical referencing or footnotes and if footnotes are used whether they are inline long references or inline shortened footnotes. Before I made the edit the citations were a mixture of inline long references and shortened footnotes so it was an inconsistent style and there were errors in the inline long citations. -- PBS (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hchc2009 why did you revert my edit of 22:59, 28 September 2011 PBS (→Restoration and tourism: "and it generates an annual income of about €50 million")? -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because your edit does not tally with the claims made by the man interviewed in the source, who runs a "50 million Euro tourist business". This is not the same as your belief that the Tower generates an annual income of about 50 million. Parrot of Doom 10:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The man was at the time the time was Resident Governor of the Tower of London one could quote him is "... and I run a 50 million Euro [hesitation] tourist business one way of looking at it whilst..." but the words " "and it generates an annual income of about €50 million" is a reasonable paraphrase of what he said that does not breach copyright (obviously or I would not have used it). If you do not think so, then how would you paraphrase what he said? -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a time and a place for quotes. This is it rather than introducing your interpretation. Nev1 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think a quote more appropriate then why delete the phrase and the citation instead of modifying the phrase to incorporate the quote? -- PBS (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And once again PBS, you appear to be trying to impose your view of what citation styles are appropriate for an article, ignoring the fact that consistent citation formatting is commonly interpreted as not mixing template:citation and template:cite web/news/etc in the same article. This article's citation formatting is perfectly acceptable, as judged by more competent editors at WP:FAC. Parrot of Doom 10:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "by more competent editors at WP:FAC" more competent than whom? "not mixing template:citation and template:cite web/news/etc in the same article" if you look at my edit of long inline citations to short inline citations, you will see that I altered a cite web to a sfn Citation pair. So can I take it approve of my edit? -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I mean more competent than you, PBS, and no, I do not approve of your edits. I suggest you go and play elsewhere. Parrot of Doom 23:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not object to the article mentioning that in the words of Major General Keith Cima, the Tower's resident governor, the castle is "a €50 million tourist business", but I am not going to enable such edits by cleaning up collaroral damage. An editor with nearly 70,000 edits should to be able to follow an article's existing citation style. As for the actual content, I would use the General's phrasing with quotes as it is not clear what he meant.
 * The difference between sfn and harvnb is small but still there. It's a minor detail, but consistency is important. If you are not sure what the difference is, use the same template. harvnb is very simple to use, and if you can manage sfn it should be no problem. I am not forcing you to use it in other articles, just requiring that you match the article's existing format. Nev1 (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI Cima is no longer the Resident Governor. The edit that used the Cima's information was not part of the same edit that changed the long citations into short ones, so you did not have to revert that edit along with the others so "cleaning up collaroral damage" is not relevant. Further in reverting the edit without being selective, you have reinserted errors (and broken PoD rule). -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There seems to be three different opinions expressed here. You seem to be objecting to the use of sfn not the homogenisation of long citations to short ones to match the other. If so why not edit my change rather than revert it? BTW did you not notice the change I made to the text after the ref label  ? If you did why make the comment "harvnb is very simple to use, and if you can manage sfn it shuold be no problem."? If not why did you not look in detail at my edit before reverting it? -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On the contrary Phil, it should be quite clear that I think you changing the web references is changing the format. It's great you've started to use harvnb as you did for  . Told you it was easy. So why not do it elsewhere? But that still doesn't address the issue why you changed web references to harvnb which is unnecessary and bloats the article. As I said Phil, I will not enable sloppy editing. If a newbie editor had edited using a different citation style I would have happily stepped in and made the necessary changes myself, but by now you should be able to match an article's format in your sleep. As for introducing errors, feel free to point out what they are. Nev1 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This article mixes inline short and long citations. Changing the format so that there is a consistent citation style is the norm. I use harvnb, harv, and sfn where appropriate and have done so for some time. When a short citation does not include a quote or a reference to another secondary source I use sfn because it auto-magically takes care of maintenance issues which named ref tags throw up when text with references is deleted/update or moved about.


 * One man's unnecessary bloat is another man's use of a consistent citation style. Personally I would not criticises someone for sloppy editing, I would rather phrase it more positively as making such accusations is not very collegiate. As for pointing out errors in the current text why not look at the changes I made to the article, they are all contained there some with hidden comments in the text to help other editors. -- PBS (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * PBS, my advice would be to make the content based edits you think are relevant, using the existing citation format for the article, then if you still feel strongly about it, to raise your proposal for a change in citation style on this talk page. It's quite okay to propose a change in format, but you do need to get consensus first. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advise, however you have not addressed my assertion that it is not a change of citation style to make all the citations in an article use a consistent style. Also please answer the question I put to you, as it is not clear why you made a blanket revert. -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Nev1 and Johnbod's comments above capture my own thoughts well, PBS. If you don't like the way the article cites web pages, start a new section below on this page entitled "Proposal for citation change", or something similar, and progress it through consensus.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again thank you for your advise but you still have not answered my specific question to you. There seems little point in repeating a conversation in another section and forcing everyone to repeat what has been said in this section particularly when questions and points in this section have not been answered. -- PBS (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the conversations above. When I reverted your edit of 02:48, 29 September 2011 I did so because your edit was breaching the policy in this area by changing the citation style without consensus. I pointed you in the direction of the comments by previous editors because, as Johnbod puts it, "you are clearly breaching WP:Citation with these undiscussed changes, and on an FA", and as Nev1 notes "it should be quite clear that... changing the web references is changing the format". For what's it's worth, I'd also agree with Parrot, when he notes that "you appear to be trying to impose your view of what citation styles are appropriate for an article, ignoring the fact that consistent citation formatting is commonly interpreted as not mixing template:citation and template:cite web/news/etc in the same article". Once again, I'd urge you to put forward a positive case for the changes you'd like to make. Putting them in a different section with a clear heading would make it easier for editors not currently following this dialogue to join in the debate, as the meaning of "SFN" may not be obvious to all. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * you write "ignoring the fact that consistent citation formatting is commonly interpreted as not mixing template:citation and template:cite web/news/etc in the same article". I made a mistake with the Keith Cima insertion (it was an oversight as I had copied from elsewhere and it is easily rectified -- just as in the same edit I rectified the "Royal Beasts at Tower of London" citation which with your edit you reverted from a template:citation to a template:cite web (I presume that was an oversight by you). You could have altered the Keith Cima cite web to a citation with a simple edit it was not necessary to revert it to correct it. -- PBS (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the suggestion of Hchc2009 and others as stated above. Start a new section for clarity to propose a change of pattern if you wish.
 * The current pattern for references is:
 * citations are constructed using the Citation template
 * inline refs to items without page numbers use Citation inside ref tags
 * inline refs with page numbers use Harvnb inside ref tags, pointing to a separate Citation definition
 * the presentation of references includes the consistent absence of a terminating full stop as determined by the templates used
 * This seen as a whole is consistent. It passed the Featured Article Candidate review. The different treatment of references with and without page numbers is very common. The article is actively maintained to a high quality in accordance with the above pattern (not only by Nev1: I participated in the FAC review and have continued to watch the article since, for example). For all these reasons you must seek consensus before changing the pattern. --Mirokado (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Where in the guidelines does it say that there is such a thing as a consistent pattern? What is written in WP:CITE is "A consistent style should be used within any given article" mixing inline short and long citations is not a consistent sytle. -- PBS (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Map
Hello,

I have just added a map of the Tower that I created for the German wikipedia article. I know the English article is a featured article, so I guess there are people watching over it. Please place the map where you think it fits best. I hope you find it useful and good enough to keep it. ;-) -- Thoroe (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like a very useful addition. The 1597 map was included so that a reader has an idea of the castle's layout, and while it's of historic interest could perhaps be removed since the new plan is much clearer. So what's the source for the map? Nev1 (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've added the sources to the file description. -- Thoroe (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that should be ok. I've removed the 1597 map as we don't need two plans, but hopefully I'll be able to find space for it elsewhere. I've also made it 300px wide instead of 200px. You still need to click on the image to read the labels, but it stands out a bit more now. An alternative might be to make the plan the width of the page as can be seen here (I immediately reverted, the edit was just to show how it would look). I'm not too keen on that option though as the plan is too tall, so making it say 800px wide takes up too much space in my opinion. Nev1 (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. I've just noticed that the river is labelled "Thesme" instead of "Thames", I guess this is because you made the plan in German first. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Silly me! That was too obvious! Just uploaded a new version.
 * The 300px version is fine with me. Thanks for your effort. -- Thoroe (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Gorgeous map - lovely work! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ravens
I'd like to suggest putting a link to the interesting article Ravens of the Tower of London in the See Also section. A link to Princes in the Tower would also be appropriate there, I think. Thanks. --ImizuCIR (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Both articles are linked in the article. Parrot of Doom 08:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Edwardian?
In the Outer ward section, it says; "archaeological investigations suggest that Legge's Mount is Edwardian". The usual British usage of "Edwardian" refers to the reign of Edward VII in the 20th century - see our Edwardian era article. I think it means Edward I, but as it has just mentioned the Tudors, it could be Edward VI. Could somebody clarify please? Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "A third ward was created during Edward I's extension to the Tower, as the narrow enclosure completely surrounded the castle. At the same time a bastion known as Legge's Mount was built at the castle's north-west corner." Parrot of Doom 17:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Changed to "archaeological investigations suggest that Legge's Mount dates from the reign of Edward I", hopefully that doesn't make it too repetitive. Nev1 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a hatnote at the top of the Edwardian era article, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone. Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Little Ease
I'm surprised to see no reference to Little Ease, the infamous tiny cell that is perhaps the most famous instrument of torture at the Tower. John M Baker (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

location of stone quarry source
The BBC " Coast" series mentioned that the stone came from a quarry in Normandy.. a huge undertaking, one would think ....this is not yet mentioned in the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feroshki (talk • contribs) 03:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the article, the stone from Normandy was only used to provide details in the facing. There is also some discussion of the stone used here, which appears to be RS.  John M Baker (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Importing all the stone from Normandy would have been excessive, but using it for architectural details was a powerful statement, as was the case with the White Tower (the first bit of the castle to be built in stone). The bulk of the material used to build the White Tower was sourced from closer to home, for example Kentish Ragstone. Nev1 (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * David Knowles' history of English Monastic Orders says somewhere (sorry for the vagueness) that many monasteries etc which were located on rivers accessible from the sea found it cheaper to import stone from France (often where their parent houses were located) than to source it in the UK. Moving stone by boat a long way was easier than moving it by cart on the then roads over much shorter distances. The same would be true of London - and Caen stone was used to build both Norwich and Canterbury Cathedrals. Caen is on the Orne near the coast and the extensive quarries themselves lay along the river Orne. Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"Privy council had to sanction torture
I removed from this article the impossible to substantiate claim that the privy council had to sanction torture in the Tower of London. No source whatever could conceivably prove the meaning of this claim: that torture never occurred in the Tower of London without approval from the privy council. This would be like saying that beatings are "not allowed" in prisons, and therefore don't happen. I think anybody on cold reflection would see that no historical source could evidence such a proposition.

Nevertheless, somebody reverted my edit, without explanation. So perhaps this could be discussed before it is reverted again. Bluehotel (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit and, contrary to your claim, I did give an edit summary for the reason. You altered detail that was followed by a supporting reference. Your change was not supported by that reference and therefore incorrect. Note that in order to have achieved the 'Featured Article' status the article has been given the supplied references were checked and verified by several editors, to achieve consensus for the award of the 'Featured Article'. Regardless of what you personally feel regarding the statement the consensus is that the reference and therefore the statement is correct. Accordingly I have reverted your changes back to the original wording submitted. If you believe the reference is incorrect then please first supply proof of that before altering the article. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Tower of London viewed from the River Thames.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Tower of London viewed from the River Thames.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 29, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-11-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

height
Everything seems to say the white tower is "87 feet excluding its' projecting corner towers". How tall are the projecting corner towers? 80.42.38.131 (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Installation
Auto writes. There is a photo link to 'Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red'; could/should mention be made within the article proper? I would like to see such a link, quite honestly. The installation had a terrific emotional effect on many people who attended [including the present writer!]. Auto wrote - 20160725 2022Z. 109.155.108.69 (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Why the Menagerie Closed?
Someone revised the text as to the final closing of the Menagerie and the reason.

Here are the facts as per the Tower of London's Historian: In 1835 however, Ensign Seymour, was bitten by a monkey and news of the incident reached the ears of King William IV (1830-37). After discussions with the Constable, the Duke of Wellington, it was reported that he wanted the display closed down. Dr. Malcolm Mercer, Curator of Tower History, https://royalarmouries.org/power-house/institutions-of-the-tower/menagerie

NOT a lion and an Ensign is a sailor not a soldier.

And according to The Guardian:

He was moved to the new Regent's Park zoo when the Duke of Wellington, as governor of the tower, evicted the animals on the feeble excuse that a monkey had bitten Ensign Seymour on the leg - Dr Parnell has found records which suggest that the soldier had been tormenting the monkey with a stick https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/18/maevkennedy Peter K Burian (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This book also confirms it was a monkey. https://books.google.ca/books?id=AuvepzgkYMgC&pg=PA34&dq=tower+of+London+Menagerie++the+tower+was+not+demolished+until+the+death+of+Copps,+the+last+keeper,+in+1853&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMypi2zZvVAhXm54MKHeLRBa4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=tower%20of%20London%20Menagerie%20%20the%20tower%20was%20not%20demolished%20until%20the%20death%20of%20Copps%2C%20the%20last%20keeper%2C%20in%201853&f=false
 * Peter K Burian (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "....and an Ensign is a sailor not a soldier" - In the UK at this time, an ensign was either in the infantry or the marines, so technically a soldier either way. Thomas Peardew (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to find out who the monkey's friend might have been. There are ten Seymours in the 1835 Army List: three captains, two lieutenants, four ensigns and a deputy assistant commissary general. The four ensigns are Francis of the 19th Foot, Henry of the 40th Foot, Henry of the 63rd Foot (who was promoted to lieutenant on 20 February 1835) and Richard Augustus of the 49th Foot. However, in 1835 the 19th were in the West Indies and the 40th, 49th and 63rd were in India. Charles Francis Seymour (son of Horace) was commissioned as ensign in the Scots Fusilier Guards on 5 June 1835, and would seem a more likely candidate to be serving at the Tower, but as a Guards ensign he would have been referred to as Lieutenant Seymour. Opera hat (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

TFA rerun
Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? Btw, a lot of the hrp.org.uk links are dead. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
Hi all,

Just a quick note to let you know that I would like to voice and add this article to WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia). --TomKocjan (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomKocjan (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Royal Mint
A suggested 'room for improvement' (after reading through the article within a half hour) to this Featured Article would be more on the Royal Mint's presence in the Tower, for example where its activities would have been in relation to the premises visible today. Its presence was long-term from the reign of Edward I until its move to Tower Hill in 1805 and later East Smithfield as borne out in the account in the wiki article on the Royal Mint. The Tower is mentioned in the summary paragraphs as having been the home of the Royal Mint among other institutions and purposes, but there is no illuminating detail in the succeeding sections. I have copied in from the RM article the detail about centralisation of the mint within the Tower in 1279.Cloptonson (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Defensive system
I wonder is there a concise account of how the integrated system was designed to operate in the event of attack. I think I've seen it briefly treated in a TV documentary. Shtove (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Caption to scale model of the Tower
Given this is a Featured Article it's somewhat surprising to find an error in the caption to this image.

The caption read "Edward I" when it should state "Edward IV". I've now fixed. --Rupples (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Tower of London article on the German Wikipedia
While reading through The Tower of London article here I noticed that the individual towers that partly comprise the site are not wikilinked to separate pages, e.g. Bell Tower in the Inner Ward section. I found this surprising. I searched Google for an image of Bell Tower and tracked one photo through to the German language version of Wikipedia which does have a separate page, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Tower_(London)). The German Wikipedia Tower of London page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_London also has wikilinks to separate pages for Salt Tower, Wakefield Tower, Byward Tower and others. I thought that maybe just the wikilinks were missing here so searched for some of the individual towers on English Wikipedia. No separate pages came up other than for the White Tower. Why doesn't the English Wikipedia have separate pages for the individual towers? Is it just the obvious or am I missing something? I'm mystified. --Rupples (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it's primarily a case of no one having got round to writing them yet! There would be a case for forking the content off to keep the main article from becoming too long. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

When I visited the German article the Google translate button appeared and so I translated the German to English. Would it be permissable to take the translated text as the basis for an English version here? I wouldn't mind having a go at starting a new page on say the Bell Tower. It would be my first attempt at a new article. (I'm reticent to start a new article from scratch but feel this might be a progression.) The editable source text is of course in German so I would have to copy the translated English text and reword any errors in translation. Is there a potential copyright issue with this approach? Is it permissable under Wikipedia rules? Would it be plagiarism? Are there other pitfalls? Rupples (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As the text is available under an open licence, you can translate it as long as you give attribution to the source, eg: in an edit summary. It's a bit like when copying text within Wikipedia. As you have made more than 500 edits and your account is more than 30 days old, it might be worth trying the Content Translation Tool. You'll have to activate it in your preferences. One important tip is to be careful with machine translations. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your advice. I'll go and read the attribution article and take a look at the translation tool. Just one further question, should I still be stuck at some point (after trying self-help through Wikipedia pages), is there a point of contact to get tailored help with an article's creation? Rupples (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Teahouse is always a good place to ask; I'd volunteer myself, but there's not guarantee I'll be around at any given point! Richard Nevell (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! I've got a query on another matter so will give The Teahouse a try. Muchas gracias. Rupples (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Garrison section
I'm finding this section a bit confusing. It begins with "The Yeomen Warders provided the permanent garrison of the Tower" - but they still do, don't they? Also, from what date did the Yeoman Warders provide the garrison? --Rupples (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I see what's happened. The sentence has been lifted from the Yeoman Warders section. Unfortunately the background and context for the statement is missing. Rupples (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tower of London in popular culture
Attempt to merge this back here. And did they tell you about it? No, of course not. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's rather telling that you think those who watch this page would be alarmed by that prospect. Perhaps content like "in the 2005 Christmas special "The Christmas Invasion", it was the secret headquarters of the fictional military organization UNIT. The UNIT base also reappeared in the 2012 episode The Power of Three." is content that can safely be deleted? AusLondonder (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the dross on that page will have to be culled per WP:Verify, this being a featured article... Firebrace (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note we now have a great new section successfully and skillfully added by at Tower of London. A vast improvement on the mess we had at the seperate article. AusLondonder (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No it isn't - it just covers what one might call folk legends. Nothing on literary, artistic, film etc portrayals. Poor show. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Poems, comics and Shakespeare. But nevertheless if you feel something has been missed, add it. AusLondonder (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But with secondary, not primary, sources, please. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to, because I'm too busy stopping you two further degrading WP, and writing my own stuff. Plus there is so much to add it would unbalance the article. But it is a very poor effort, managing to omit by far the biggest folklore elements around the Tower (ravens, Princes in the Tower) though they are mentioned elsewhere. This fully confirms my concerns about the way Afd is being used by a crowd of deletionist drive-bys to foist inferior stuff onto FAs. Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

CS1-Parameters
Hi Nikkimaria, you have reverted the majority of my valid edit to restore CS1 parameter aliases which are not the preferred usage. My original edit meets requirements as discussed here, WP:CS1, and elsewhere where the CS1/2 templates are documented. The link you have used here is to a nearly two-year old bot use discussion and AFAICS has no bearing on my original edit. You need to come up with a effective reason as to why you reverted the majority of my original edit. Neils51 (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Neils51, as the RfC linked makes clear, the unhyphenated format is valid and should not be deprecated, which is why CS1 does not support the original edit. Additionally, because of the community consensus found at that discussion to continue allowing use of the unhyphenated format, your use of AWB for that edit was invalid per WP:AWBRULES point 3 and should not be continued or repeated. There's certainly no effective reason to reinstate the disputed original edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

One discussion in one place please.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Trappist, do you agree with this editor’s stance here? Looking at this discussion, MJL’s close suggests “In the meantime, any editor should feel free to manually or semi-automatically change unhyphenated parameters into their hyphenated forms while they're doing something else on a page”. There is further discussion below the close, a request of a close review (continued elsewhere) however I have not sighted any material which negates the close. Your thoughts please? I also placed a note here re one of your edits, not sure if you have seen it. Neils51 (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Editor Nikkimaria wrote: the unhyphenated format is valid and should not be deprecated.  The unhyphenated parameters access-date, archive-date, and archive-url are  deprecated; replacing those parameter with their canonical forms is not an act of deprecation.  When a cs1|2 template uses a deprecated parameter, cs1|2 emits a red error message and adds the article to ; your edit did not cause red error messages and did not add Tower of London to Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters.  Editor Nikkimaria continued: which is why CS1 does not support the original edit.  I presume that original edit is your edit.  I do not know how it can be that CS1 does not support your edit.  If cs1|2 did not support the original edit, there would be a lot of cs1|2 templates emitting red error messages or the templates would be so horribly broken as to be non-functional.
 * As part of the revert of your edit, Editor Nikkimaria changed these tags:
 * It is not clear to me how those changes were beneficial because html tags are not allowed to nest within a self-closed html tag.
 * Editor MJL's close was overturned; Editor Joe Roe's close is the close of record. The close of record says: Bot removal of non-hyphenated parameters from transclusions, i.e. Monkbot task 18, does not have community consensus.  You are not a bot and your are certainly not User:Monkbot so I do not read that close as a prohibition disallowing the hyphenation of unhyphenated parameters.  So long as the edit is not wholly cosmetic, I think that edits that switch unhyphenated parameters to their canonical hyphenated forms are permitted.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks appreciate you input. Neils51 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * which is why CS1 does not support the original edit was in response to Neils51's claim that "My original edit meets requirements as discussed here, WP:CS1". There is nothing there supporting the original change. Additionally there is the issue of AWBRULES: the edits in question lack demonstrable consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Editor MJL's close was overturned; Editor Joe Roe's close is the close of record. The close of record says: Bot removal of non-hyphenated parameters from transclusions, i.e. Monkbot task 18, does not have community consensus.  You are not a bot and your are certainly not User:Monkbot so I do not read that close as a prohibition disallowing the hyphenation of unhyphenated parameters.  So long as the edit is not wholly cosmetic, I think that edits that switch unhyphenated parameters to their canonical hyphenated forms are permitted.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks appreciate you input. Neils51 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * which is why CS1 does not support the original edit was in response to Neils51's claim that "My original edit meets requirements as discussed here, WP:CS1". There is nothing there supporting the original change. Additionally there is the issue of AWBRULES: the edits in question lack demonstrable consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)