Misplaced Pages

Talk:Great Fire of London: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:43, 5 August 2006 editColin4C (talk | contribs)Rollbackers11,028 editsm →For Discussion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:20, 18 November 2024 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers38,056 edits rv 2015 nonsense 
(415 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{British English|date=September 2010}}
{{WPLondon}}
{{article history
|action1=FAC
|action1date=15:20, 11 November 2006
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Great Fire of London/archive1
|action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=87054770


|action2=FAR
''An event mentioned in this article is a ].''
|action2date=22:17, 11 November 2008
-----
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Great Fire of London/archive1
==Buckets and Engines==
|action2result=kept
|action2oldid=248201541


|action3 = FAR
The last line of the '''Events''' section has been altered to read: "Buckets were of no use, from the confined state of the streets." I'm not sure if this is subtle vandalism, or someone who thinks ] would be an anachronism in 1666 London. Anybody have any comments? ] 22:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
|action3date = 2022-01-29
|action3link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Great Fire of London/archive2
|action3result = kept
|action3oldid = 1068386248


|currentstatus=FA
----
|maindate=November 28, 2006


|otddate=2004-09-05|otdoldid=5687132
Do the fires of 798, 982, and 1666 have names? Anyone know? --]
|otd2date=2005-09-05|otd2oldid=22613796
|otd3date=2006-09-02|otd3oldid=73160539
|otd4date=2007-09-02|otd4oldid=155134712
|otd5date=2008-09-02|otd5oldid=235630865
|otd6date=2009-09-02|otd6oldid=311523911
|otd7date=2010-09-02|otd7oldid=382530048
|otd8date=2012-09-02|otd8oldid=510390923
|otd9date=2016-09-02|otd9oldid=737366274
|otd10date=2019-09-02|otd10oldid=913636918
|otd11date=2022-09-02|otd11oldid=1107802517
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=FA |vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject London|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Firefighting|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Mid}}
}}


{{Archive basics
1666 is just known as The Great Fire of London, the others...? Why are Pudding Lane and Monument in quotes? -- ]
|archive = Talk:Great Fire of London/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 2
|maxsize= 150000
}}{{archives|search=yes|small=yes}}


==British English==
I imagine each was called "The Great Fire" - until the next one. It's much like the Great Plague - a puny affair compared to those of the 14th century, but it's still the most recent, and therefore "Great". ]
I should hope this article IS written in British standard English - it is a British topic, after all. However, there are nevertheless some creeping Americanisms within it. For example, we don't use the word 'specialty' in the UK.


==Capitalization of "City"==
I seem to remember that fish porters from Billingsgate used to race up and down the Monument with crates of fish on their heads, but I haven't been able to track down the circumstances of this. ] 14:23, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I noticed this throughout the article- is there a special reason for the word "City" always being capitalized? Is it part of London's official name? Nothing urgent- I'm just curious. --] 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:The "city of London" and "City of London" aren't the same thing. It's pretty crazy, but take a look at ], ] and especially ] for the gory details. --]<sup>]</sup>&nbsp;] 02:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you, Spangineer, for that clarification! It is really nice when people bother to explain some local naming detail that can make the reader really confused. I wonder if there is a good, non-intrusive way of working that fact into the text of the article itself? Maybe the introduction? All in all, an absolutely beautiful article, especially considering the grim story it has to tell. Big thanks to all who did this! --] 07:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I managed to miss the expression "the City proper—the area bounded by the City wall and the river Thames" - that makes it quite clear. --] 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
::It's not 'crazy', as you put it. It is a semantic and ultimately legal distinction. ] (]) 10:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


Capping "City" still doesn't make a lot of sense in spite of this answer. "The city" would serve as well in most cases, and WP avoids unnecessary capitalization, per ]. ] (]) 07:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I edited ] for James II who is the proper Stuart King at the time. ] 07:05, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
:I tend to agree, but I'd like to discuss this before making the change. No idea why this discussion was abandoned 15 years ago, but this article has ] right now. I'll put "unnecessary capitalization" on the list. ] (]) 16:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
::I downcased to "the city wall"; in "the City proper", I suppose it means specifically "the City of London itself", so I can accept that. In many cases, where "City" if just short for "City of London" specifically, I'm OK with it, but we should look for and fix any more generic uses. ] (]) 17:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
:::Thanks, {{u|Dicklyon}}. The relevant section of the City of London article, ], is confusing in that regard, as it sometimes writes "City", sometimes "city"; and so does the rest of that article. For example, the lead says "The city is now only a tiny part of the metropolis of London ; however, the City of London is not a London borough", which leaves me scratching my head. ] (]) 17:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
:Can you speak English? 'Capping' means putting a limit on something, usually measurables like expenditure. What you mean is 'Capitalizing'. ] (]) 10:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


== Panorama used in article ==
:And yet the king for whom the baking was being done was Charles II. Go figure. -- ] 07:21, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I've recently been reading about some of the pre-1666 panorama artworks of London, some mentioned at ]. The one used in this article is the ] from around 1600. There is a later panorama, the Hollar panorama of 1647, which is at the image file: ] (no article yet, but it would be possible to have one). The Hollar panorama is described in ''A Descriptive Catalogue of the Etched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar 1607-1677'' (2002) by Richard Pennington. Following the description of the original ], Pennington goes on to describe some of the later states, including some versions that show details from after the fire. Pennington also quotes from another work (''Printed maps of London circa 1553-1850'' by Darlington and Howgego) that says the Hollar panorama is "the most important ... and the most accurate of the pre-Fire panoramas". Given the differences between the Hollar panorama and the Visscher panorama (particularly the use of a single perspective in the Hollar panorama), maybe a crop of the Hollar panorama could be used here instead, or at least referred to for a more accurate representation? It might also help to make clear (I'd not fully realised this before) that the Visscher panorama is from several different viewpoints, and doesn't quite show what the actual view looked like (i.e. the bend in the river is 'flattened' somewhat in the Visscher panorama). I suppose what is needed is to find someone able to crop the massive file we have of the Hollar panorama, and see if the result is worth using or not. ] (]) 11:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
:: No I erred. Sorry


==Why is this article protected?==
-----
It appears this article has been protected for several years. If Misplaced Pages policy has changed, please indicate, but my understanding is articles should only be protected from editing if there is consistent and ongoing vandalism, edit warring, etc. Closest I can see from looking at the history is some editor claimed to have never heard of Pepys' Diary, though that may have been in jest. ] (]) 20:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


There's a comma after "however" missing here: "However an enormous stroke of bad luck meant". <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I removed some really excessive, unnecessary linking. One sentence ended, I'm not making this up, "managed to escape the burning ], along with his ], by climbing out through an upstairs ]." Every vocabulary word in a sentence shouldn't be linked in this manner. ] 05:36, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


== Close to not meeting featured article criteria ==
"but incredibly only 9–16 people are known to have died."


The article has multiple issues at the moment, including a lack of citations, and some outdated information, contradicting research published in 2016. I'll give it a few weeks before opening a featured article review. ] (]) 20:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I've read accounts that 6 deaths were "recorded." Recorded by the government? Given that the fire originated in the King's Baker's house, there could be an effect of information control. Does anyone know the origin and context of the "recorded data"?
:I've addressed these issues; just waiting on a book to come in for some additional touchups. ] (]) 20:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
1-2 hundred thousand were left homeless. Most of those people had to have left or died. It was not helped at all in the context of the 17th century, including Cromwell (who's head watched london burn from pole outside Westminster), and Three Dutch Wars that left England bankrupt and defeated.
*Hi {{u|Nikkimaria}}, I was just checking this over during FA sweeps and it seems to me that the issues might be deeper than just a few touch-ups. It seems that the Field book () is credited by reviews by bringing a new perspective to this topic by examining it as ]. (There is also other new research, eg:) The citation format is also inconsistent and I wonder how diaries and other primary sources from 1666 can be considered "high-quality RS" according to the FA criteria. ] might be on the right track when calling for a FAR. (] · ]) ''']''' 04:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
(viz.
:Hello {{u|Nikkimaria}} and {{u|Buidhe}}, and thanks. I also think that these problems are still considerable (despite the efforts by Nikkimaria back in September 2020), and go beyond what a single editor can be expected to handle. More help is needed. Hopefully we can get the article back into shape with an FAR. ] (]) 05:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
)


===Featured article review===
I have never edited a page before so I'm not going to change the text. I prefer discussion.
The article has been nominated for FAR. Please comment ] and help improving the article. ] (]) 06:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
~Rotsujin


=== Images ===
-----
{{u|Nikkimaria}} I'd like to work on fixing some of the image issues (fixed pixels, etc), but first, a question about what images to include.
''''In 1666 London burned like rotten sticks.'''' - what the hell? perhaps this quote(?) needs some explanation...? - Mar 19 2005
* Bish an image of ] and an image of ]. Do you have a sense of why they were removed, or if we have images of them that meet policy?
* Also, regarding the ; I'm not able to make much of those images, wonder what others think.
*: Archived, ] (]) 17:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
* And , or is there something there to work on? ] (]) 04:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
*:At the moment we have IMO too many images for the available content. I would be inclined to deal with the content first and then consider if there is room to include additional images. ] (]) 15:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
*::Got it. The images that show the burned areas in pink breach ], since they depend on color only. I was thinking of asking Guerillero if he could code the pink areas somehow, if you’re agreeable to that. ] (]) 17:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
*:::Sounds good. ] (]) 18:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Could we stop fretting about image sizes, when we shouldn’t be using fixed pixel sizes ''anyway''? I was planning to address all of the images, using the more correct upright= parameter, once we finish with the text. All of the images will need to be adjusted, and that will not be done by using fixed pixel sizes. ] (]) 03:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


: Thank you, {{u|Guerillero}}, for upgrading the maps to account for color blindedness and color issues per ]; you're the best! ] (]) 15:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
== on the subject of recorded death ==


=== Comprehensive ===
The reporting of deaths in London at the time was one of the jobs of the Parish Clerks, who published official statistics (of debatable but fairly good accuracy) every week in Bills of Mortality.
Thoughts on whether these is anything to uncover in these sections above, or should they be archived?
* ]
* ]
] (]) 04:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
:I think they can be archived, since they don't provide any sourcing for proposed additions. ] (]) 15:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


* , BBC.
Now, this dispute over recorded deaths in the Great Fire of London is essentially semantic. Because London burned, and everyone in it ran away, the parish clerks of the City could not go around and check who was alive and who dead in the parishes because they would have been fried, not that there would be anyone around to count of course, because everyone had to flee. Furthermore, had the parish clerks been magically flame-resistant, they would not have been able to publish the data they collected, because Parish Clerks Hall burned down on the evening of Sunday 3rd September. Moreover, the heat of the fire was sufficiently intense that cremation of bodies was entirely possible, so they might not have found anyone anyway.
* , ''The Guardian''
* It appears that the Great Fire of London impacted building codes worldwide: , , , and see after Grenfell Tower fire. And these from Buidhe (see above): “There is also other new research, eg:” ] (]) 17:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


:{{u|Nikkimaria}} does this ? It seems to have a lot to say, not sure what the source is, iPad typing from the car. ] (]) 16:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
The Bills of Mortality were not printed for three weeks, until late September 1666 and when they were, no mention was made of the fire, only of 10 people who met their death through various accidents unaccounted for under the usual headings of TB, cancer, plagues, old age, etc. The fact that this figure probably bears no relation to the real number of people who perished in the fire does not detract from the fact that, inasmuch as there was any official figure at all, this was it.


=== Aftermath ===
Hope that helps to clear it up.


It appears from available sourcing that the Aftermath section could do with significant expansion and therefore subdivision, but I'm struggling a bit with what that might look like. Here are the pieces currently in the article and those with significant sourcing to support additions that I've found so far:
And whoever wrote that James II was the king at the time really needs to do more reading and less writing.
*blaming foreigners
*reactions from abroad
*legal proceedings (Fire Court, resettlement proclamation, committee of inquiry)
*rebuilding plans
*impact on building codes
*development of insurance industry
*impact on population
*political impact
*economic impact
*cultural responses (including pop culture)
*monuments
*plague myth
I don't think each of these warrants its own subsection, but does anyone have thoughts? Pinging ], ], ]. ] (]) 21:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
: Reactions (blaming foreigners, from abroad, legal); Rebuilding plans (include Wren, Evelyn, monuments, St. Paul’s etc); Impact (population, political, economic, insurance industry, building codes, fire brigades); Cultural responses (myths, pop culture). Perhaps eliminate “Aftermath” and have four new level I sections, as there is so much. But that’s just a very quick glance after a very long day. ] (]) 03:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


== A modern city? == == remark on a minor change ==


Hi folks,
The article states that "...today's London is a modern city..." How can a city with so many 100+ year old homes and buildings, that still relies on mass transit, be considered modern? All of the top attractions in London (Big Ben, Westminster Abbey...) seem to be very old. London's tallest building is merely 50 stories tall; not very modern. Should this statement be removed? ] 04:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
::I don't get what you mean by "Still relies on Mass transit", surely the hallmark of a modern city is an advanced public transport infrastructure? Westminster Abbey is very old, that is true, but Big Ben isn't, nor is Tower Bridge, nor are the Kensington Musea. In fact, out of the top attractions, only the Abbey, St. Paul's Cathedral, and The Tower have any real age, you could say Buckingham Palace is reasonably old too. All European cities have old buildings, such as churches and castles that attract visitors, are you saying that by that measure there are no modern european cities? Also, a city's modernity has little to do with what foreign tourists come to see, you could say theat LA is not a modern city, because tourists go there for the Beaches, which are older than any of the London Attractions.] 08:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


I from the captions for newspaper articles, specifically "Click on the image to enlarge and read". I imagine I understand why these were placed there--normally when we have images of newspaper articles it is under fair use and navigating to the image won't actually enlarge it. However the instruction itself is a self-reference to avoid (]--we say "the image" and not "here" but I still feel we should avoid it) and the term "click" no longer describes well the action taken to navigate somewhere (a reader may very well come across the article having never used a mouse!). ] (]) 19:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
== Cause of fire ==


==Thomas Dagger==
I read in a history book that the fire was started because a boy tried to steal some bread and the baker turned around with a shovel of coal for fuel. The coals were burning as the baker was putting them in and he turned around too quickly and scattered the coals and started the fire. This just a theory however. Should we include that in the article?
Interesting article today about the identity of the person who raised the alarm. Possibly worth adding - or at least considering. Cheers - ] (]) 11:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


:Definitely worth adding. Additional details in and . Sadly I cannot find a research paper that goes with it. ] (]) 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
:If you've got a quotable source, maybe. Without, it feels like speculation. ] 22:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)sls


== Layout problems ==
==Pepys a neighbour?==


In my web browser, the first few words of the article are squeezed into a very narrow vertical channel to the left of the first two big pictures, then there is a huge vertical gap below before the text continues below the pictures, at the word ‘London’.
The article makes it sound like Pepys lived virtually next door to the baker. He actually lived in Seething Lane which must be a good 500 yards away and, in a city that was only a square mile in size, I wouldn't describe them as neighbours. Also, Pepys's house survived the fire intact! ] 13:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
:Having written this, I thought I'd check my copy of Pepys: I find that he was not "awakened by the fire at 1AM" at all! He says "Some of our maids sitting up late last night....Jane called us up, about 3 in the morning, to tell us of a great fire they saw in the City." ] 16:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Could someone fix this with CSS or wiki markup wizardry? ] (]) 20:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
== Copyright violation? ==


:I don't see this on my screen. Can you tell us more about your setup? What skin are you using? ] (]) 01:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
It appears that this entire article has been plagiarised from this source:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11401/11401.txt

which is a copy of an article in a journal written in 1827. Most of this article is paraphrased, but a lot of it is still word-for-word copy. We need to find out if this is a violation of copyright, and if it is, then we need to rewrite this article.

:First, let me agree, if the article includes word for word copies of material, it should be cited.
:But the ]'s goal is to make available important works whose copyright has expired. Copying that kind of material is not a copyright violation, merely bad scholarship. -- ] 19:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

==Destruction section==

I have been trying to improve this section. There was a bit that attributed long term benefits to the fire, including "Most of London's public structures, the regularity and beauty of the streets, and the great salubrity and extreme cleanliness of a large part of the city of London are due to this." At first sight this looks complete nonsense: a lot of the public structures are much later; the streets aren't regular (they are still based on the pre-fire pattern); "salubrity and cleanliness" are debatable (I vote against) but in any case don't seem to owe much to the fire. Hence, I've left this bit out! ] 17:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

==Map==
How about a map of which areas were burnt by the fire, preferably on a map of London as it was at the time, but it could also be interesting to see the same area on a modern map to get an idea of the scale of the area involved. ]

== The chapel was St Pauls Church, NOT cathedral ==

I am changing the beginning of the article to read ] as opposed to St. Paul's Cathedral. At the time of the Great Fire (my history teacher informs me) St. Paul's was not a cathedral.

] 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything to support this (other than your history teacher, presumably). St Paul's website (http://www.stpauls.co.uk) says "A Cathedral dedicated to St Paul has overlooked the City of London since 604AD, a constant reminder to this great commercial centre of the importance of the spiritual side of life...The current Cathedral – the fourth to occupy this site..."

I am changing it back until you come up with a better source than an unnamed history teacher. ] 21:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Later in the article, it actually states that St. Paul's Cathedral was then St. Paul's Church. I don't know if this is verifiable, so I'll not change it until I find a concrete source. Thanks for your help.
--] 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See ]. A cathedral is literally 'the seat of a bishop'. St Paul's was the seat of the Bishop of London and headquarters of the Diocese of London since the 7th century AD ] 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:Have removed the implication that it was not a cathedral ] 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

== For Discussion ==
The following edit moved here from ] for comment and discussion. Sources and accuracy of the statement?] 19:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
:''Plague cases died out with the arrival of winter, 1665. Although it is widely thought that the Fire of Lodon 1666 effectively stopped the plague outbreak, probably due to the destruction of London rats and their plague-carrying fleas, this seems unlikely since the fire was confined mainly to the wealthy business and residential districts and left the rat-infested slums untouched.''


It might also be worth noting that the ] page discusses multiple research sources which collectively suggest that rats and fleas may not have been the disease vector for the plague at all. ] 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:20, 18 November 2024

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Featured articleGreat Fire of London is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 28, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 11, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
November 11, 2008Featured article reviewKept
January 29, 2022Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 5, 2004, September 5, 2005, September 2, 2006, September 2, 2007, September 2, 2008, September 2, 2009, September 2, 2010, September 2, 2012, September 2, 2016, September 2, 2019, and September 2, 2022.
Current status: Featured article
This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconLondon Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFirefighting High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Misplaced Pages! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconDisaster management Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2

British English

I should hope this article IS written in British standard English - it is a British topic, after all. However, there are nevertheless some creeping Americanisms within it. For example, we don't use the word 'specialty' in the UK.

Capitalization of "City"

I noticed this throughout the article- is there a special reason for the word "City" always being capitalized? Is it part of London's official name? Nothing urgent- I'm just curious. --Wafulz 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The "city of London" and "City of London" aren't the same thing. It's pretty crazy, but take a look at London, Greater London and especially City of London for the gory details. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Spangineer, for that clarification! It is really nice when people bother to explain some local naming detail that can make the reader really confused. I wonder if there is a good, non-intrusive way of working that fact into the text of the article itself? Maybe the introduction? All in all, an absolutely beautiful article, especially considering the grim story it has to tell. Big thanks to all who did this! --Ronja Addams-Moring 07:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I managed to miss the expression "the City proper—the area bounded by the City wall and the river Thames" - that makes it quite clear. --Ronja Addams-Moring 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not 'crazy', as you put it. It is a semantic and ultimately legal distinction. 82.40.43.135 (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Capping "City" still doesn't make a lot of sense in spite of this answer. "The city" would serve as well in most cases, and WP avoids unnecessary capitalization, per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I'd like to discuss this before making the change. No idea why this discussion was abandoned 15 years ago, but this article has more problems right now. I'll put "unnecessary capitalization" on the list. Renerpho (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I downcased to "the city wall"; in "the City proper", I suppose it means specifically "the City of London itself", so I can accept that. In many cases, where "City" if just short for "City of London" specifically, I'm OK with it, but we should look for and fix any more generic uses. Dicklyon (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Dicklyon. The relevant section of the City of London article, Early modern period, is confusing in that regard, as it sometimes writes "City", sometimes "city"; and so does the rest of that article. For example, the lead says "The city is now only a tiny part of the metropolis of London ; however, the City of London is not a London borough", which leaves me scratching my head. Renerpho (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Can you speak English? 'Capping' means putting a limit on something, usually measurables like expenditure. What you mean is 'Capitalizing'. 82.40.43.135 (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Panorama used in article

I've recently been reading about some of the pre-1666 panorama artworks of London, some mentioned at Panorama of London. The one used in this article is the Visscher panorama from around 1600. There is a later panorama, the Hollar panorama of 1647, which is at the image file: Long view of London From Bankside (no article yet, but it would be possible to have one). The Hollar panorama is described here in A Descriptive Catalogue of the Etched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar 1607-1677 (2002) by Richard Pennington. Following the description of the original state, Pennington goes on to describe some of the later states, including some versions that show details from after the fire. Pennington also quotes from another work (Printed maps of London circa 1553-1850 by Darlington and Howgego) that says the Hollar panorama is "the most important ... and the most accurate of the pre-Fire panoramas". Given the differences between the Hollar panorama and the Visscher panorama (particularly the use of a single perspective in the Hollar panorama), maybe a crop of the Hollar panorama could be used here instead, or at least referred to for a more accurate representation? It might also help to make clear (I'd not fully realised this before) that the Visscher panorama is from several different viewpoints, and doesn't quite show what the actual view looked like (i.e. the bend in the river is 'flattened' somewhat in the Visscher panorama). I suppose what is needed is to find someone able to crop the massive file we have of the Hollar panorama, and see if the result is worth using or not. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is this article protected?

It appears this article has been protected for several years. If Misplaced Pages policy has changed, please indicate, but my understanding is articles should only be protected from editing if there is consistent and ongoing vandalism, edit warring, etc. Closest I can see from looking at the history is some editor claimed to have never heard of Pepys' Diary, though that may have been in jest. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a comma after "however" missing here: "However an enormous stroke of bad luck meant". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.180.198 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Close to not meeting featured article criteria

The article has multiple issues at the moment, including a lack of citations, and some outdated information, contradicting research published in 2016. I'll give it a few weeks before opening a featured article review. Renerpho (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed these issues; just waiting on a book to come in for some additional touchups. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkimaria and Buidhe, and thanks. I also think that these problems are still considerable (despite the efforts by Nikkimaria back in September 2020), and go beyond what a single editor can be expected to handle. More help is needed. Hopefully we can get the article back into shape with an FAR. Renerpho (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review

The article has been nominated for FAR. Please comment here and help improving the article. Renerpho (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Images

Nikkimaria I'd like to work on fixing some of the image issues (fixed pixels, etc), but first, a question about what images to include.

Could we stop fretting about image sizes, when we shouldn’t be using fixed pixel sizes anyway? I was planning to address all of the images, using the more correct upright= parameter, once we finish with the text. All of the images will need to be adjusted, and that will not be done by using fixed pixel sizes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Guerillero, for upgrading the maps to account for color blindedness and color issues per MOS:ACCIM; you're the best! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Comprehensive

Thoughts on whether these is anything to uncover in these sections above, or should they be archived?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I think they can be archived, since they don't provide any sourcing for proposed additions. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria does this help? It seems to have a lot to say, not sure what the source is, iPad typing from the car. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath

It appears from available sourcing that the Aftermath section could do with significant expansion and therefore subdivision, but I'm struggling a bit with what that might look like. Here are the pieces currently in the article and those with significant sourcing to support additions that I've found so far:

  • blaming foreigners
  • reactions from abroad
  • legal proceedings (Fire Court, resettlement proclamation, committee of inquiry)
  • rebuilding plans
  • impact on building codes
  • development of insurance industry
  • impact on population
  • political impact
  • economic impact
  • cultural responses (including pop culture)
  • monuments
  • plague myth

I don't think each of these warrants its own subsection, but does anyone have thoughts? Pinging Sandy, Buidhe, Renerpho. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Reactions (blaming foreigners, from abroad, legal); Rebuilding plans (include Wren, Evelyn, monuments, St. Paul’s etc); Impact (population, political, economic, insurance industry, building codes, fire brigades); Cultural responses (myths, pop culture). Perhaps eliminate “Aftermath” and have four new level I sections, as there is so much. But that’s just a very quick glance after a very long day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

remark on a minor change

Hi folks,

I removed some instruction from the captions for newspaper articles, specifically "Click on the image to enlarge and read". I imagine I understand why these were placed there--normally when we have images of newspaper articles it is under fair use and navigating to the image won't actually enlarge it. However the instruction itself is a self-reference to avoid (WP:CLICKHERE--we say "the image" and not "here" but I still feel we should avoid it) and the term "click" no longer describes well the action taken to navigate somewhere (a reader may very well come across the article having never used a mouse!). Protonk (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Dagger

Interesting article on the BBC today about the identity of the person who raised the alarm. Possibly worth adding - or at least considering. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Definitely worth adding. Additional details in Londonist and The Guardian. Sadly I cannot find a research paper that goes with it. Renerpho (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Layout problems

In my web browser, the first few words of the article are squeezed into a very narrow vertical channel to the left of the first two big pictures, then there is a huge vertical gap below before the text continues below the pictures, at the word ‘London’.

Could someone fix this with CSS or wiki markup wizardry? CecilWard (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see this on my screen. Can you tell us more about your setup? What skin are you using? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Categories: