Talk:Number 10 North

Logo

Politics UK has revealed the new logo for No. 10 North. Accessible here. This logo can also be seen in the background of Burnham's speech from today . Should this be uploaded to the infobox? 11WB 💬 11:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

As it is plain text, it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons using the {{PD-text-logo}} tag.Dn9ahx (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. 11WB 💬 12:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

"No. 10 North" or "No 10 North"?

The following discussion 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.

---

We've got different sources using variations of this. It would be good to gather, if anything, informal consensus for this before actually committing to a page move. 11WB 💬 13:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @JJLiu112. 11WB 💬 13:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The UK government uses it, as do top newspapers The Telegraph, The Guardian, the i and The Times as well as the BBC. This feels good enough for me. Further, it fits closer with contemporary British style, which omits the punctuation in, e.g., "Mr" and "PhD". JJLiu112 (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

According to MOS:PS, the above is acceptable. 11WB 💬 14:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn't become too much of a problem as the page has stayed with the point for a long time so there is some WP:CONSENSUS. If this question does need to be resolved, you should use a requested move discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@11WB BBC and Gov.uk seem to be going with No 10 North

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgvyr76973o?app-referrer=deep-link

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-opening-remarks-to-staff-following-his-arrival-at-no-10-north-24-july-2026

Also No10 North but it seems to be a one-off

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/no10-north-open-for-business-as-the-governments-new-situation-room-for-making-britain-better

In any case, shouldn't this page be in British English where the full stop isn't required after abbreviations such as No and Dr? Saxmund (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 24 July 2026

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: moved. There is consensus against "№ 10 North" and "No10 North", which is also the official name. Neither gained traction in the discussion, and we don't necessarily hew to official names on Wikipedia.

As for the proposed move itself, editors contested generally the utility of the period following the "No" in the title; its absence, some held, would lead to confusion of the British abbreviation of number, which lacks the period, with the word "no". Supporters of the move used WP:COMMONNAME as an argument, giving sources (see JJLiu112's comment) for No 10 North; this was rebutted in part by Chessrat's comment showing inconsistencies in source usage between No and Number. There was additionally WP:TITLEVAR privileging UK English in titles; that the office of the PM of the UK has strong national ties to the UK is, on balance, not in doubt.

But the No-no dichotomy proved irksome. COMMONNAME states that Ambiguous[f] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. "Number 10 North" saw substantial support in its own right, alleviates the No-no concern, and has usage in reliable English-language sources. Several editors thus supported both No 10 North and Number 10 North.

There was consensus in !vote-count and weight of argument that the current title is unsuitable, due to the aforementioned reasons and also WP:CONSIST, if we set aside, for a moment, the No-no concern. There is thus consensus to move the article. The No-no concern renders the originally-proposed destination no consensus in !vote-count and strength of argument.

I will thus move this article to Number 10 North under WP:BARTENDER. This option has seen substantial explicit support in the discussion, jives with WP:TITLEVAR and WP:CONSIST, and is used by reliable sources, as shown and accepted by editors in the discussion.

Disagreements with the destination ought to be rectified not with discussion with me but with a subsequent RM, as per BARTENDER. (closed by non-admin page mover) In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 02:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

---

No. 10 North → No 10 NorthNo 10 North – Making it clear here that I personally do not support this move as without the dot, it sounds more like "no" than abbreviated to "number". Apparently there has been an editor wanting to use the name used in this discussion, so I am bringing this question forward to finally resolve the dispute and ground it in WP:CONSENSUS. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject England, WikiProject Greater Manchester, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, and WikiProject Politics have been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

To make this more fun, yesterday the government referred to it in a new press release as "No10 North" (no space between No and 10)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/no10-north-open-for-business-as-the-governments-new-situation-room-for-making-britain-better

Reuters did the same: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-burnham-opens-no10-north-shift-economic-power-london-2026-07-23/

That being said, "No 10" works for me since that's the most common use I've seen.

RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Not a problem. It could be "No 10 North (also No10 North)" with the order changed if and when the latter usage becomes more common than the former. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: As Qwerty123M said, it reads more like the word "No" than the readily understandable "No." for number. Also in the 10 Downing Street article "No." is used much more frequently than "No". ThundorLord (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  But most frequently used is the full word "number", I guess because the "no." shouldn't be abbreviated. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Support after looking at the sources presented by @JJLiu112 aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed on this ~2026-41382-04 (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

If you don't provide an argument based in policies or guidelines in your response, your vote won't be counted in determining WP:CONSENSUS, which is the point of this discussion, per WP:RMCOMMENT. Additionally, I can't tell if you are agreeing with me that this page should not be moved or if you agree with the proposal to remove the dot following "No". Qwerty123M (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, Govt. now uses "No10 North"-- pause proposal until a variation is adopted en masse. Ighs (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per nom. Even if several news outlets do not include the dot, I think that maintaining clarity is important. I think a redirect if sufficient. Mitchsavl (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Notified: User talk:JJLiu112. Reason: as they made the first bold move. Qwerty123M (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support: Per above discussion, this is acceptable under MOS:PS and represents the majority of reliable sources discussing the topic. 11WB 💬 14:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  To rebut @Qwerty123M's point on the target title sounding like "no". The title could alternatively be "Number 10 North". 11WB 💬 14:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would not like this compromise. If the British media and government overwhelmingly prefer one use over the other, who are we to say, "but it is unclear?" It is not a sure thing to say, and not a necessary conversation to have. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is an argument to be made for either "No 10" or "Number 10". Manchester Evening News uses the latter for their live updates. 11WB 💬 14:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  I support that alternative proposal as that would be far more readable but at that point we may be deviating too far from the sources. MOS:ABBR seems to contain good advice for this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support: As I say, the UK government uses it, as do top newspapers The Telegraph, The Guardian, the i and The Times as well as the BBC. This feels good enough for me. Further, it fits closer with contemporary British style, which omits the punctuation in, e.g., "Mr" and "PhD". JJLiu112 (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Article titles are supposed to be "natural" and "commonly recognisable", so the title should read easily as being an abbreviation of "number", rather than as being the word "no" (not a problem that affects "Mr" and "PhD"). Ham II (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, and oppose on this basis too. Notakeyring (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Clear common name. U-Mos (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support no dots or commas and less formalities in the new government tongue - less bars and more freedomKotofski (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
• Move to Number 10 North— sources are inconsistent on how to abbreviate and plenty of sources write out "Number" in full e.g. MEN, Sky, BBC, Al Jazeera, Financial Times. Given the lack of any consistent form of abbreviation, writing it out in full makes sense. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Note also the article title Number 10 Policy Unit. The ngrams for that topic don't paint the clearest of pictures, but if that article should stick with a "Number/No./No 10" formulation (not "10 Downing Street Policy Unit" or "Downing Street Policy Unit"), then that article and this one should be consistent with each other in their titles. Ham II (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Agree with Chessrat (Number 10 North) as first preference or keeping the current title (No. 10 North) over a version without the dot. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Move to Number 10 North per @Chessrat's reasoning, though I would not oppose a move to No 10 North. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Move to Number 10 North pre WP:CONSIST. If people think "No." abbreviation may have confusion, then use the full name, and also follow the same naming of Number 10 (London). Awdqmb (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support I haven't seen a single citation of a reliable UK source that uses "No." (It is possible to find some, but they are by no means the majority.) "No." reads as an Americanism. BBC News has used both "No 10 North" and "Number 10 North" and I would be fine with either. However, since the current proposal is for No 10 North, I support that. The idea that anyone would be confused and think "No 10 North" is the opposite of "Yes 10 North" seems somewhat far-fetched. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose – without the full stop, then it is ambiguous with the word no (i.e. there is no ten north). "Number 10 North" looks messy because only the 10 is shortened. Stylistically, it should either be No. 10 North or Number Ten North, the latter of which is not really used. Finally, MOS:NUMERO says that 'No.' is an acceptable acronym, so it is not even like we are fighting the MOS here. The only thing that's proscribed is '№'. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 22:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  MOS:NUMERO is for article text punctuation, for example journal volumes and issues ("Vol.", "No."). MOS:PS, whilst not specific to article titles, does allow "No" without the fullstop in British English. Regardless of style, "No. 10 North" is not reflected in reliable sources, and cannot be used for this reason. 11WB 💬 22:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  The ambiguity argument seems far-fetched. If there is ever a pop group, or a film, or some other cultural entity that calls itself "No 10 North" (ie, where "no" is the opposite of "yes"), then this topic could perhaps be revisted, but, for the time being, "No 10 North" is not ambiguous, because there is no other thing called "No 10 North".

  As @11WB says, MOS:NUMERO principally relates to the text of articles, not to their titles.

  The policy on article titles says (WP:CRITERIA):

  "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject."

  And (WP:TITLEVAR):

  "If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English ..."

  On the whole, we don't write abbreviations with full stops in UK English. Some people like to do it, but on the whole we don't, and that is what we see reflected in the reliable sources. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Move to Number 10 North. This seems like the most logical fix. Just looking through Wikipedia, I can't find anything to suggest that spelling out "number" is unheard of or verboten. It can be seen in both official usage (Number 10 Policy Unit) and popular culture (Number 10 (TV series), Number 10 (drama series), and Number Ten (novel)). Even it's own official website refers to it as "Number 10". Woko Sapien (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would also support Number 10 North. But that is not the current proposal, so, for clarity, I also support the proposal currently on the table - ie, No 10 North. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Alternative names can be proposed in comments for a requested move, that is why P.I. Ellsworth relisted the discussion to see where consensus firmly lies. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

•  Relist note.  I don't see consensus above for any particular title variant, so that warrants this RM to be relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Move to No10 North (no punctuation, no space). It's the official name and avoids EngVar debates about the punctuation. Tevildo (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  WP:UCRN: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) ..." Kennethmac2000 (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Seeing as No10 North is the official name, I have created it as a redirect. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: The period after the No commonly denotes an abbreviation and is conventionally necessarily to distinguish it from a negation. Abbreviate properly or don't abbreviate at all. The article title without the period makes little sense. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 11:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is simply untrue. It is conventionally necessary in the United States, but in the United Kingdom, full stops are omitted more often than not in abbreviations.

  This can be seen in the number of UK reliable sources which use “No. 10 North”. They are few and far between.

  Per WP:TITLEVAR: "If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English ..."

  This is also interesting…

  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/No_10

  No. 10 is listed as an alternative form, but the ‘main’ form is No 10. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Use the numero sign (№). The name is "№ 10 North". That is the orthographic convention in British English when "number" is abbreviated to "no". "No." is a typewriter habit that isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia. —Kilopylae (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  That would violate WP:TSC#3. 11WB 💬 15:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

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.

Distance

Is the road distance estimated from Downing Street or from Charing Cross?--Johnsoniensis (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The claim about distance is not in the present version of the article (it was removed by @DeFacto in this edit) but it stated (without a source) an approximately 200 mile road or rail journey. Google maps gives distances of 206-209 miles for a road journey from No 10 North to Downing Street, 205-208 miles for a road journey to Charing Cross and 200-209 miles for Manchester to London without being more specific. Caveat that this is obviously original research, but given that all these figures approximate to 200 miles it's not possible to answer your question by this method, nor is it likely that a source will specify. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Having said that though, I looked for a source and found PBS News stating [...] he is reportedly planning to move some of the prime minister's operation closer to home, about 200 miles north of 10 Downing St., the London office and home of the U.K.'s leader.

I don't have an opinion whether this fact should be in the article or not, but if it is it should be as {{convert|200|mi}} or {{convert|200|mi|disp=sqbr}} if it's part of a quote. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I would say it would not be a worthwhile addition; both 200 miles and northwest would be approximations and for rail travel it would depend on which of the railway stations was used.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)