Talk:Big Ben - Knowledge

624: 603: 2214:

editing on Knowledge, 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)

1277:

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".

319: 255: 414: 393: 713: 692: 519: 498: 309: 288: 785: 215: 529: 424: 246: 1587:, 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. 862: 1224:

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.

2124:

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

1394:

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

1280:

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

912:

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

1223:

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

889:

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

1890:

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

1402:

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.

1325:

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

1276:

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

1197:

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

1744:

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

2213:

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

1561:

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

1773:

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

1375:

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

1069:

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'.

1245:

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.

1086:

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?

1240:

In the end, Knowledge 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

1281:

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.

1351:, 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. 1909:

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

1843:

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?

1321:

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

2128:

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

1155:

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.

1150:

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

1039:

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

1379:

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.

2108:

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

1424:

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.

1728:

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.

153: 1456:

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.

2310: 674: 664: 1949: 1672:

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".

1354:

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.

1347:, 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 1146:

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

640: 1326:

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.

2305: 989:

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 @

2115:

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

1201:

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.

1918:. 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. 631: 608: 1562:

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. —

1329:

If you read the 'Elizabeth Tower' version of the lead outside the context of Knowledge and its manual of style, would you think it was confusing or otherwise inadequate?

206: 2295: 2260: 1990: 575: 1471:. 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. 1536:

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.

1357:

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.

2182:

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 @

2275: 2001: 1693:

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.

365: 2285: 470: 147: 1541:

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?

480: 1055:, 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 2350: 2345: 2340: 2335: 2330: 2325: 1952: 1937: 1876:

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.

79: 2290: 2250: 2245: 2270: 2023: 585: 891: 2265: 2255: 446: 375: 1955: 913:

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.

2280: 1992: 1961: 1998: 2320: 763: 753: 259: 85: 2105:

The fact this article is called 'Big Ben' means the Knowledge consensus is that the common names of the tower, clock, and bell are 'Big Ben'

623: 602: 920: 1530:

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.

844: 318: 2167:

I have reverted. In the circumstances there needs to be consensus for such an edit, and the discussion so far shows no such consensus.

2300: 894: 551: 437: 398: 1964: 1301:

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?

1958: 970: 341: 2070:

Thanks for clarifying and collating some sources. I appreciate the effort you always put into discussions; it doesn't go unnoticed.

1943: 796: 2125:

mentioning the clock it belongs to. Spreading this information over two or three sentences isn't the end of the world, or is it?

1987: 2240: 2007: 1513: 729: 99: 44: 30: 2315: 2016: 1946: 636: 104: 20: 1782:, it seems the more encompassing description. Add to that the fact that one does not need "five bells" to strike the hours. 2004: 1698: 1644: 1612: 542: 503: 74: 1928: 1593:

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!

332: 293: 268: 940: 168: 65: 1978: 135: 2136:

isn't particularly satisfactory, but how could it be improved? I'm really just organising my thoughts here, sorry.

1966: 837:

Could someone amend the spelling mistake "extention" to the correct "extension", in the first line of the article?

720: 697: 214: 185: 892:

https://www.stannahlifts.co.uk/case-studies/elevating-safety-and-accessibility-inside-well-loved-global-landmark

225: 1694: 1654: 1640: 1608: 924: 848: 1463:

rather than the "Big Ben" grouping is as unnatural. The only thing that groups this article together is the

1139: 109: 1940: 974: 898: 202: 198: 194: 190: 2027: 2013: 129: 1501: 1274:"Any Brit, certainly Londoner, will delight in correcting anyone falling for the oldBog Ben tower thing" 274: 1925: 1774:

clock", or "chiming and striking clock, seems more appropriate for a clock such as Big Ben. Although

1666: 1002: 916: 840: 821: 817: 813: 809: 805: 801: 245: 125: 1867: 1306: 429: 161: 55: 728: