Jump to content

Talk:Big Ben

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lifts in Big Ben

[edit]

There are two lifts in Big Ben which are used by the maintenance team to access the Belfry. A passenger lift in the ventilation shaft and a platform lift from the top of the ventilation shaft to the Belfry. The lifts are used by the maintenance teams to access the clock workings and bells instead of walking up the 334 steps - https://www.stannahlifts.co.uk/case-studies/elevating-safety-and-accessibility-inside-well-loved-global-landmark 217.33.2.197 (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name origin

[edit]

Youtuber JDraper has found an article from the Times archive and shown it on video. she says the article is from 1856 and we can clearly see how the text of the article talks about how the bell just arrived in Westminster. The article also states that "Big Ben" has been proposed as a name in honor of Benjamin Hall. So if someone has the patience to verify the archives and make at link to the times article, the wiki article could be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.137.68.147 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video is here. The Londonist gives a rundown of relevant press articles. In their list the text apparently found in The Times archive was, at least in part, first printed in the Evening Standard of 22 October 1856. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wowsers 😲 5.57.73.241 (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, should it be Big Ben or Elizabeth Tower?

[edit]

It seems there is a dispute whether to start this article with "Big Ben" or with the "Elizabeth Tower" at the beginning. AFAIAA this article has always started with "Big Ben" until @A.D.Hope changed it in October 2023 and since re-instated it. May be a slow edit war? Better for a discussion. Under MOS:BOLDLEAD ideally we start with the article title as its WP:COMMONNAME rather than use the uncommon "official name", unless this article is to be moved to Elizabeth Tower?

Pinging those who appear to have disputed it since the change was first made last year, @Dr Greg, @SilkTork, to explain their reasoning for some consensus. DankJae 18:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning for having 'Elizabeth Tower' first, as far as I'm concerned, is simply that it's easier for readers to explain the terminology that way. I realise that this will always be somewhat subjective, but in my opinion
Big Ben is the nickname for the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and, by extension, for the clock tower itself, which stands at the north end of the Palace of Westminster in London, England. Originally known simply as the Clock Tower, it was renamed Elizabeth Tower in 2012 to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II.
Does not flow well, and it is unsatisfactory (although not massively) that the official name is left to the second sentence. As a side note, I'm fairly sure that 'Great Bell' and 'Great Clock' should not be in bold, and that the clock is not actually called the 'Great Clock'. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the title of the article should be recapitulated early in the lead. Also, "Elizabeth Tower" is both long-winded and of recent vintage, however official and deservedly so. How many people naturally refer to the clock and its tower by the latter designation? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a two word name of fourteen letters in total is 'long winded'. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of counting is by syllables. "Big Ben" has two; "Elizabeth Tower" has six. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, WP:OFFICIALNAMES, and WP:ASTONISH we should use Big Ben in the lead. An editor's personal opinions carry little weight when measured against accepted usage, guidelines, or policies. I think it's worth directing editors to WP:BRD when they have been bold, but have been reverted. After being reverted it is considered best practise to discuss the reasons they made the changes rather than simply reinstating their contested edit. However, I do agree with A.D.Hope that 'Great Bell' and 'Great Clock' should not be in bold, as they are not redirects to this article. I have now made the appropriate edits, though discussion may continue to see if there are other changes that should be made to the lead. SilkTork (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork, since reverted by @Ex nihil. Note the original change to Elizabeth Tower never got consensus in the first place. DankJae 16:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I since reverted the recent edits to the lead to the original, in the order as it was when it lasted for a few months this year (then years before the first change to it last year). But I agree that Great Bell and Great Clock probably shouldn't be in bold. But I guess we need consensus on that too first.
Changing to Elizabeth Tower first was a bold edit without consensus, so we should restore the original wording until consensus is here to use Elizabeth Tower instead of Big Ben. DankJae 16:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DankJae Yes, I see that now. However, I think only tourists call the tower Big Ben now, and Wiki only serves to compound that error because it is influential enough to swing a name. We shouldn't be manufacturing facts. There is no doubt about the actual name. Perhaps an article on Elizabeth Tower and remove all reference to anything other than the bell from Big Ben. Any Brit, certainly Londoner, will delight in correcting anyone falling for the oldBog Ben tower thing. I conducted a small survey here at a committee meeting for something else; nobody thought Big Ben was a tower, everybody knew it was the Elizabeth Tower.Ex nihil (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, Wikipedia is to serve an international audience, so many those tourists too. This article is a collection of the clock, bell and tower, grouping them under the "Big Ben" name. But if this article should focus on the clock tower, possibly renamed/split to Elizabeth Tower as you say "Big Ben" does not actually refer to the tower, then we would be able to clarify it then. Either we should focus with everything grouped Big Ben under the current title, or convert this article on mainly the clock tower, so possibly split off the Big Ben bell. DankJae 11:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ex nihil, your comments "I think only tourists call the tower Big Ben now" and "Any Brit, certainly Londoner, will delight in correcting anyone falling for the oldBog Ben tower thing" really surprise me. As someone who has lived in the UK all my life of over 60 years, that's not my impression at all. How many UK newspaper or magazine articles or UK TV/radio reports use the name "Elizabeth Tower" in preference to "Big Ben"? I haven't conducted a survey (so maybe I'm out of touch and stand to be corrected), but my impression is "hardly any", at least not in the headline or introductory paragraph. (They may, at some point, mention what the official name is.) Of course, if you questioned someone in detail, explicitly asking them to name the bell and the tower separately, some people may remember the tower's official name, but I am referring to more casual use, where people just use the first name that comes into their head. If you showed someome a picture of the tower and casually ask them what it is (without raising their suspicions that they should think carefully before answering), I suspect most people would, without thinking, say "Big Ben".
The article's introduction, infobox and overall structure, does seem to put more emphasis on the tower than the clock or bell. There is, perhaps, a case for emphasising the clock and bell and making the tower a secondary subject, in its own subsection. If we went down that route then we wouldn't need to argue over the introductory sentences or the article title; there would then be no doubt that the article was about "Big Ben". But I'm not sure whether such a restructuring would work, and I don't personally have any problem with the current structure or naming.  Dr Greg  talk  13:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bell is not really Big Ben either. It is the Great Bell. Why is it acceptable as a nickname for the bell, but not for the tower? Firebrace (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think that arguments which rely on links to the MOS carry much weight unless they also give an opinion on how the MOS should be applied in a particular case. Arguments which rely on essays carry even less weight if they are unsupported.
In this case, looking at MOS:LEADSENTENCE, while incorporating "Big Ben" into the lead sentence is possible, it is not necessarily desirable. When a subject has an official name and a nickname, it makes sense to define its name before its nickname. This is particularly important in this case, where the nickname is applied to three distinct subjects – the tower, the clock, and the bell. Using the official name first allows the nickname to be explained clearly and in natural language.
If you read the 'Elizabeth Tower' version of the lead outside the context of Wikipedia and its manual of style, would you think it was confusing or otherwise inadequate? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the MOS is very clear, we use the common name first as in the title, we don't automatically prioritise official names. But if the common name and the official name are different forms of the same name, like at United Kingdom, then we start with the full name. There is no MOS policy prioritising official names, rather just one editor policy? Nonetheless, you reverted the long-standing lead unilaterally without consensus. Just saying "the MOS is wrong here" isn't a good argument either.
If you dislike the MOS, call to change it there. If we don't start with "Big Ben" as most people know it as, but the "Elizabeth Tower" many readers would think they're on the wrong article.
If there are three distinct subjects here that need clarifying, that the common view of grouping them all as "Big Ben" is "officially incorrect", then raise a SPLIT. DankJae 16:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A strict interpretation of the MOS is wrong here, as it forces the lead to use unnatural wording. The topic of this article is not the nickname itself, but the tower and its clock (including the bells), but the lead sentence has the nickname as its subject in order to conform with the MOS.
I'm not going to call to change the MOS, because the section in question works perfectly well for most articles. I don't think that a split would address the issue, as the common name would still be 'Big Ben' in each case. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this, and it seems like there are two options. There might be more, but I haven't hit on them yet. The first would be as above, to simply use 'Elizabeth Tower' before 'Big Ben' as it allows for better phrasing. I really don't think that doing so is a violation of the spirit of the MOS, but that's not for me alone to decide.
The second would be to treat 'Big Ben' as primarily the name of the tower. This would allow the first sentence to be "Big Ben is the clock tower of the Palace of Westminster in London, England", which correctly identifies the subject of this article as the tower, and by extension the clock and bells within it. This would need some form of consensus. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Prioritising the official name over the common name is also unnatural wording. I think the long-standing lead is the best for this complex situation, as no one had thought of any alternative, aside dropping Big Ben.
  • Elizabeth Tower, commonly known as Big Ben, is a clock tower
  • Big Ben, officially the Elizabeth Tower, is a clock tower
  • Big Ben refers to a bell, clock, and clock tower
are all technically incorrect or as unnatural to say. While we don't need to be MOS strict everywhere, still believe the name most people know it as must be first, even if it makes defining it more harder.
While making this article's lead focus on the Elizabeth Tower rather than the "Big Ben" grouping is as unnatural. The only thing that groups this article together is the clock tower with an uncommon name, and the misapplied common name itself. Prefer the latter scenario, hence I assume why "nickname" is the description. Most people know this as Big Ben, but the most known structure isn't actually Big Ben. DankJae 17:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A possible rewording of the first paragraph could be:
Big Ben is the common name for the clock tower which stands at the north end of the Palace of Westminster in London, England. The name originated as a nickname for the tower's Great Bell, but, by extension, is also used to refer to the Great Clock of Westminster and the tower itself. Since 2012, the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II, the official name of the tower has been the Elizabeth Tower. The clock is a striking clock with five bells.
  • The first sentence is short and to the point. The use of the phrase "the common name for" already hints that this isn't the official name.
  • The second sentence clarifies that the name also applies to the bell and clock.
  • The third sentence, for clarity, explicitly uses the phrase "official name", to contrast with "common name". The name can hardly be ignored because it's in bold font.
I'm not entirely happy with this because the first sentence isn't the whole truth without the clarification of the second sentence. But does that really matter?  Dr Greg  talk  18:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like that actually... it's better than the current formulation, because it makes clear that this article is more about the clock tower more than it is about just the bell, while also utilising what is overwhelmingly the common name for said clock tower and complying with the MOS on lead sentences. The verifiable part of the story is more important than the formal situation and the pedantry, and we're handling the latter by the second sentence in any case.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been having a think myself, and would like to make a suggestion:
Big Ben, officially the Elizabeth Tower, is the clock tower of the Palace of Westminster in London, England. It contains the Great Clock, a striking clock with five bells. The Great Bell, the largest, is the source of the nickname now applied to the whole tower. The tower was officially called the Clock Tower until 2012, when it was given its current name to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II.
I'm aware that I've been very present in this discussion, so besides this I'll try to be quieter over the next few days! A.D.Hope (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my conclusion, i think we shall call it the Big Ben Tower now. NotSoKindOfKindness (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not call it that. DankJae 08:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? NotSoKindOfKindness (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NotSoKindOfKindness; Do you have evidence that most sources use that name? Otherwise if there are no sources, it is WP:OR, and if not enough sources, it is not a significant MOS:ALTNAME, let alone the WP:COMMONNAME. I've not seen that used as a proper name.
Most erroneously call it just "Big Ben", but if specifying the tower (in relation to Big Ben), they use "Elizabeth Tower", or use a description relating to Big Ben, i.e. "clock tower housing Big Ben".​ DankJae 16:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But many sources should've call it the Big Ben Tower but i hope one day everyone else in the world like ourselves should now call it the Big Ben Tower if possible. NotSoKindOfKindness (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we up to with this? It seems like there's some consensus that the current lead wording isn't quite right as it makes the nickname the subject, but we've not quite worked out what to change it to. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the paragraph-length alternatives mention the nickname first, which is as it should be, unless we change the article title. I am reasonably okay with any of them, which includes what is currently the lead paragraph. The part that I would change is that "chiming", rather than "striking", clock would be the more appropriate designation for the entire clock mechanism. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference, if you don't mind me asking? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are clocks that merely strike the hours. Big Ben chimes the quarters as well and does so in a complete fashion (my nearby church clock only sounds the 4th-quarter Westminster sequence, seemingly with a bit of jazzy syncopation thrown in, before striking the number of hours). So, "chiming clock", or "chiming and striking clock, seems more appropriate for a clock such as Big Ben. Although the latter term is a redirect to the article on striking clocks, it seems the more encompassing description. Add to that the fact that one does not need "five bells" to strike the hours. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A.D.Hope, since changed to

Big Ben, officially the Elizabeth Tower, is a clock tower…

, adding their preferred wording due to the lack of progress here.
@Amakuru,@Dhtwiki,@Dr Greg,@Ex nihil,@Firebrace,@SilkTork, is this a suitable change?
I understand the edit and the reasoning, still prefer the previous, as it is dubious whether the clock tower should be called Big Ben on its own or the primary thing (specifically) called it. But is a less confusing arrangement. So is this the way forward? DankJae 18:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Firebrace (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat what I said in the edit summary, I’m very happy for the edit to be reverted. I just thought it might act as a bit of a nudge for the discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jae, but when you say "it is dubious whether the clock tower should be called Big Ben on its own or the primary thing (specifically) called it" do you mean that it's debatable whether the article should define Big Ben as the Elizabeth Tower in the lead sentence as the nickname also refers to the bell? A.D.Hope (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A.D.Hope Calling "Big Ben" as the clock tower seems wrong when sources are mixed, some say "Big Ben" followed by "the clock tower housing Big Ben". So I think it is not as truthful to call just the tower specifically/primarily Big Ben, but is merely the most known thing of/called Big Ben but not is Big Ben. The current lead avoids this somewhat by focusing on "nickname" for first the bell but also the most-known tower. We can't say just "Big Ben is a clock tower" in the lead IMO.
Rough quick research at some sources (hope I read them right):
Independent "The name Big Ben is nowadays used to describe the tower, the clock and the bell" Similar statements from CNN
So it's clear, either "Big Ben" is likely more commonly specifically referring to the bell, or pars pro toto the "bell, clock and tower" combined (status quo).
So the options are:
  • This Big Ben article specifically refers to the Bell that it is the nickname of.
  • This article is renamed Elizabeth Tower. (Bell possibly split off as "Big Ben")
  • Status quo (be clear that the name itself is complex)
DankJae 16:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying and collating some sources. I appreciate the effort you always put into discussions; it doesn't go unnoticed.
The way I see it – and it is quite difficult not to get tied up in knots:
  • This article is about the tower, clock, and bell.
  • The fact this article is called 'Big Ben' means the Wikipedia consensus is that the common names of the tower, clock, and bell are 'Big Ben'
  • It is therefore accurate to say that 'Big Ben is the clock tower of the Palace of Westminster', 'Big Ben is the turret clock of the Palace of Westminster', and 'Big Ben is the largest bell of the clock of the Palace of Westminster'
  • Trying to fit all of this into a single sentence produces ungainly results.
  • Making the nickname itself the subject of the lead sentence gives the impression that the name is the primary topic of the article, which it is not. The sixth main bullet point of MOS:FIRST does caution against wording similar to that currently used.
Taking all that into consideration, I think it's best to aim for a lead paragraph which concisely summarises the topic rather than a lead sentence. A logical structure would be to introduce the tower, then the clock, then the bell; the reverse could work, but it's tricky to introduce the bell without mentioning the clock it belongs to. Spreading this information over two or three sentences isn't the end of the world, or is it?
Alternatively, and agreeing with your second option, splitting this article into two or three could work. It could remove the need to define three identically-named topics in one article, at least, although is that a good enough reason for a split?
I'm not quite sure. The status quo isn't particularly satisfactory, but how could it be improved? I'm really just organising my thoughts here, sorry. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted. In the circumstances there needs to be consensus for such an edit, and the discussion so far shows no such consensus. SilkTork (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your current position? Your original objection was that 'Big Ben' should be in the lead (sentence, presumably), and the proposals put forward by myself and @Dr Greg both do this. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork has commented on my talk page, so in order to keep the discussion centred in one place I'll copy that message over here:

I have, of course, reverted your latest edit to Big Ben. There is no consensus for that edit, and you are a lone voice pushing for Elizabeth Tower being more prominent in the article. Your edits, and your continued one-sided arguments on the talkpage, are pushing into disruptive. Sometimes when editing on Wikipedia, even when we feel we are absolutely right, we need to let go and move on. I've been in your position, and know how frustrating it can be when you feel you are right and everyone else is wrong. But, if you carry on trying to push your point, it will only cause you (and others) more stress. There are millions of articles, many of which are sorely in need of attention. You would feel more relaxed if you let this fight go, and got on with working on other areas of the project. As time passes you will come to accept the situation, and even get to the point where you wondered why this mattered so much to you. SilkTork (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

A.D.Hope (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: part 2

[edit]

I'm hoping to re-start the discussion of how the lead sentences of this article might be improved.

Since the discussion above stalled over a month ago, I've invited @SilkTork twice on their talk page to participate. These messages have now been removed, which I assume means SilkTork has seen them but does not currently want to engage in the discussion.

Two proposals were put forward for how the lead could be changed, by @Dr Greg and myself:

Proposal 1:

Big Ben is the common name for the clock tower which stands at the north end of the Palace of Westminster in London, England. The name originated as a nickname for the tower's Great Bell, but, by extension, is also used to refer to the Great Clock of Westminster and the tower itself. Since 2012, the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II, the official name of the tower has been the Elizabeth Tower. The clock is a striking clock with five bells.

Proposal 2:

Big Ben, officially the Elizabeth Tower, is the clock tower of the Palace of Westminster in London, England. It contains the Great Clock, a striking clock with five bells. The Great Bell, the largest, is the source of the nickname now applied to the whole tower. The tower was officially called the Clock Tower until 2012, when it was given its current name to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II.

I think it would be a good idea to start by considering the merits of each, and how they could be improved.

Pinging other users involved in earlier discussion: @DankJae @Dhtwiki @Ex nihil @Firebrace @Amakuru @NotSoKindOfKindness A.D.Hope (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1 looks decent to me. As per my comments above, I don't think we should focus on Big Ben being the bell in the first sentence (as the article currently does) and I also don't think it's necessary or optimal to mention the "official" name of Elizabeth Tower in the very first sentence. The opening paragraph of proposal 1, which helps explain where this name came from, it optimal IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead currently reads (with citation numbers removed)

Big Ben is the nickname for the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and, by extension, for the clock tower itself, which stands at the north end of the Palace of Westminster in London, England. Originally known simply as the Clock Tower, it was renamed Elizabeth Tower in 2012 to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II. The clock is a striking clock with five bells.

We might discuss what it is lacking before we try to change it. During the funeral for the late queen, I heard a BBC announcer referred to "Big Ben" as it was being tolled as a funeral bell. That brought to mind that the clock and its tower must be more heard than seen and that emphasizing the reference to the bell, as the current lead does, is appropriate. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the lead emphasises the nickname rather than the clock, bell, and tower which are the subject of this article.
I don't think it would be useful to try and determine which of the three subjects people are most often referring to when they use "Big Ben" so that we can mention it first; we should instead use the order which leads to the clearest understanding for the reader. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still prefer the status quo, as the best of the alternatives, and has some balance with using the clock tower for the infobox. Unfortunately "Big Ben" refers to three things as I mentioned above, the most-recognised aspect of Big Ben isn't necessarily the thing most specifically called "Big Ben" in sources. Proposal 1 focuses more on the name, so if that was the issue with the current, then it doesn't solve it. (plus it is still a nickname?) While Proposal 2, as per my quick search above, it isn't entirely supported in sources, as many sources use "clock tower housing Big Ben", and we shouldn't re-order it based on the assumption that readers (not sources) only know Big Ben as just/mainly the clock tower. The current seems the best still, less focus on the name but not enough focus on just one part of Big Ben. But if any one has better ideas then my mind remains open. I encourage anyone to find more sources to help analyse usage. DankJae 19:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the fact that this article is called "Big Ben" not mean that the Wikipedia consensus is that the name should be used for the tower as well as the bell, though? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DankJae @Dhtwiki @Ex nihil @Firebrace @Amakuru @NotSoKindOfKindness
Do any of you (or any other users) have further comment on the lead paragraph? The move discussion below has effectively closed off any name for the article other than 'Big Ben', which seemed likely anyway but is helpfully now a concrete position. I'm tempted to open an RfC to ask how the name should be handled, as I don't think this discussion has really got to the bottom of it, but if the issue can be resolved here then that would be great.
My issue with the current lead is that its subject is the nickname rather than the bell, clock, and tower, which seems to go against the spirit of MOS:REFERS. My preference would be to re-write it in clear English which identifies the clock, tower, and bell as the subjects of the article. It's easy to get tied up in knots about which of these three is more prominent and should therefore appear first, so I would ignore this and instead use whatever order is easiest to understand – I hope we can trust readers to read past the first sentence if the explanation of the topic of the article takes a couple of sentences. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 November 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ben → Elizabeth Tower – The current title is recognisable, natural, concise, and arguably consistent, but not precise (see WP:CRITERIA for article titles).

The title is not precise because 'Big Ben' can refer to the clock tower, the clock within it, or to the bell which forms part of the striking mechanism of the clock. This is a particular problem in the lead, where, as the "Lead, should it be Big Ben or Elizabeth Tower?" discussion above shows, it creates confusion and makes the use of natural language more difficult. For example, the subject of the lead sentence is currently the term 'Big Ben' rather than any of the things the nickname is applied to.

If the title is moved to 'Elizabeth Tower' then the tower can be treated as the unambiguous primary topic of the article, with the clock and bell as sub-topics. This is a logical structure and is already reflected in the arrangement of the article.

To be clear, I am not proposing 'Elizabeth Tower' because it is the 'official name', but rather because it is more precise than the current title in referring only to the tower. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Ben&oldid=1258593121"