Talk:Tower of London

Garrison section

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower of London in popular culture

Attempt to merge this back here. And did they tell you about it? No, of course not. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It's rather telling that you think those who watch this page would be alarmed by that prospect. Perhaps content like "in the 2005 Christmas special "The Christmas Invasion", it was the secret headquarters of the fictional military organization UNIT. The UNIT base also reappeared in the 2012 episode The Power of Three." is content that can safely be deleted? AusLondonder (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of the dross on that page will have to be culled per WP:Verify, this being a featured article... Firebrace (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to note we now have a great new section successfully and skillfully added by Piotrus at Tower of London#In popular culture. A vast improvement on the mess we had at the seperate article. AusLondonder (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No it isn't - it just covers what one might call folk legends. Nothing on literary, artistic, film etc portrayals. Poor show. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Poems, comics and Shakespeare. But nevertheless if you feel something has been missed, add it. AusLondonder (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

But with secondary, not primary, sources, please. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to, because I'm too busy stopping you two further degrading WP, and writing my own stuff. Plus there is so much to add it would unbalance the article. But it is a very poor effort, managing to omit by far the biggest folklore elements around the Tower (ravens, Princes in the Tower) though they are mentioned elsewhere. This fully confirms my concerns about the way Afd is being used by a crowd of deletionist drive-bys to foist inferior stuff onto FAs. Johnbod (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

CS1-Parameters

Hi Nikkimaria, you have reverted the majority of my valid edit to restore CS1 parameter aliases which are not the preferred usage. My original edit meets requirements as discussed here, WP:CS1, and elsewhere where the CS1/2 templates are documented. The link you have used here is to a nearly two-year old bot use discussion and AFAICS has no bearing on my original edit. You need to come up with a effective reason as to why you reverted the majority of my original edit. Neils51 (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Neils51, as the RfC linked makes clear, the unhyphenated format is valid and should not be deprecated, which is why CS1 does not support the original edit. Additionally, because of the community consensus found at that discussion to continue allowing use of the unhyphenated format, your use of AWB for that edit was invalid per WP:AWBRULES point 3 and should not be continued or repeated. There's certainly no effective reason to reinstate the disputed original edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Trappist the monk § CS1 parameters

One discussion in one place please.

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

Hi Trappist, do you agree with this editor’s stance here? Looking at this discussion, MJL’s close suggests “In the meantime, any editor should feel free to manually or semi-automatically change unhyphenated parameters into their hyphenated forms while they're doing something else on a page”. There is further discussion below the close, a request of a close review (continued elsewhere) however I have not sighted any material which negates the close. Your thoughts please? I also placed a note here re one of your edits, not sure if you have seen it. Neils51 (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably not. Editor Nikkimaria wrote: the unhyphenated format is valid and should not be deprecated. The unhyphenated parameters |access-date=, |archive-date=, and |archive-url= are not deprecated; replacing those parameter with their canonical forms is not an act of deprecation. When a cs1|2 template uses a deprecated parameter, cs1|2 emits a red error message and adds the article to Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters; your edit did not cause red error messages and did not add Tower of London to Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters. Editor Nikkimaria continued: which is why CS1 does not support the original edit. I presume that original edit is your edit. I do not know how it can be that CS1 does not support your edit. If cs1|2 did not support the original edit, there would be a lot of cs1|2 templates emitting red error messages or the templates would be so horribly broken as to be non-functional.

As part of the revert of your edit, Editor Nikkimaria changed these <ref /> tags:

<ref name="Kennedy"/> → <ref <ins>name</ins>=<ins>"</ins>Kennedy<ins>"</ins>/>

<ref name="I&P 91"/> → <ref<ins> name</ins>=<ins>"I&P </ins>91<ins>"</ins>/>

It is not clear to me how those changes were beneficial because html tags are not allowed to nest within a self-closed html tag.

Editor MJL's close was overturned; Editor Joe Roe's close is the close of record. The close of record says: Bot removal of non-hyphenated parameters from transclusions, i.e. Monkbot task 18, does not have community consensus. You are not a bot and your are certainly not User:Monkbot so I do not read that close as a prohibition disallowing the hyphenation of unhyphenated parameters. So long as the edit is not wholly cosmetic, I think that edits that switch unhyphenated parameters to their canonical hyphenated forms are permitted.

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

Thanks appreciate you input. Neils51 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

which is why CS1 does not support the original edit was in response to Neils51's claim that "My original edit meets requirements as discussed here, WP:CS1". There is nothing there supporting the original change. Additionally there is the issue of AWBRULES: the edits in question lack demonstrable consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility editing

Greetings Wikipedians,

My edits on this page have been reverted twice today, which lead me to review the page’s edit history. I’m noticing a pattern. Edits that make the page more accessible are swiftly and repeatedly reverted, without referencing policy.

With the help of MOS:ACCESS and WCAG, the internet is becoming a friendlier place for those with physical disabilities or cognitive differences. Some of the things that make life better are larger images – large enough to read a map or an index or to properly view an engraving or detailed picture. Long paragraphs broken up with subheads can reduce cognitive load, help those with dyslexia or other processing disabilities, and support screen reader use.

However, if you read the page’s edit history, those types of edits do not appear welcome. I understand that keeping the facts, images and citations intact are vital to the quality of the article. Unhelpful edits that detract from the quality of the article or which are actual vandalism should be quickly corrected.

However, do we really consider accessibility edits an unwelcome category of adjustment?

Finally, the lead is bloated with detail and micro facts. It is meant to be an overview at a high level, but it is very, very long. This does no one any favours, regardless of their need for accommodation.

I will not attempt to edit this page again, but I am leaving this food for thought for those who actively monitor and work on this page.

~ ~ ~ ~ FallingRocksAhead (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Other than the reverts of your own edits, what edits in particular do you feel are problematic? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

In particular, any attempt to make an image larger. There are maps, engravings, and images. All very small. Any attempt to make them larger is reverted. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Clicking on an image brings up a larger version when wanted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

True.

However...

Per WP:ACCESS, information essential for understanding should be visible without requiring a click-through. Clicking to enlarge is considered an optional enhancement, not a substitute for basic legibility.

Because several of the images on this page (particularly the maps and engravings with fine detail or embedded text) are not at all readable at default thumbnail size on many displays, a modest increase in upright (for example 1.2 or 1.3) is consistent with both WP:ACCESS and general accessibility standards.

The Wikimedia Foundation’s accessibility guidance is aligned with WCAG 2.1: information conveyed visually should be perceivable without requiring additional user actions. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Why don't we delete the map altogether? That way, no one can access it. Firebrace (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@FallingRocksAhead: In this edit you added no fewer than 94 newlines, but no additional text at all. This took the paragraph count of the "Changing use" subsection from 10 to 57. In a large number of cases, you left paragraphs consisting of a single sentence, the shortest such paragraph being the twelfth, reading This had not always been the case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I did indeed. I was in the midst of an incremental change to the page. I've been told that it can alarm other editors if too much happens to a page at once, so I started breaking up paragraphs with the intention of reorganizing the work into subheads (I reorganize rather than rewriting wholesale.) I broke it down into discrete sentences, then, while I was reorganizing another editor reverted that first preparatory save. I then went back and redid the whole thing in one pass, but it was for nought as that edit was reverted as well. Not touching it again. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

While incremental editing can be helpful, an incremental change that results in the live article being in a less-than-ideal state is also potentially alarming. A large-scale reorganization of a well-developed article is probably best discussed. I'd also argue that a switch from chronological to thematic organization is a separate issue from shortening paragraphs or adding headings. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I will not attempt to edit this page again Oh dear. Firebrace (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If you get reverted twice in a row on the same page, it seems best to leave well enough alone, no? FallingRocksAhead (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You may want to copy the Changing Use section into your Sandbox and make your changes there first, as you have done previously with other articles. Firebrace (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are solutions to the problem of having your progressive edits interrupted. Regardless of how I got there, the section I broke up with subheads was reverted with only the comment that the editor liked it better how it was in the first place. What would be the point of continuing to do this kind of work to the page? FallingRocksAhead (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Its not that they "liked it better how it was in the first place"; this is long the practice in not just the wiki house-stype but in writing in general. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Final thoughts on accessibility....

The discussion has drifted toward my editing process rather than the underlying issue I hoped to raise. To reiterate, my concern is accessibility of this page:

- Small images

- Absence of alt text

- Large blocks of dense prose

- Lack of visual navigational cues such as subheads

These create barriers for readers with visual impairments, cognitive processing differences, or those using assistive technologies.

These are not matters of preference. They are specifically addressed in WP:ACCESS and reflected in WCAG 2.1, which the Wikimedia Foundation aligns with in its guidance.

For articles as high profile as this one, I think it might be particularly important to be aware of these issues and work towards creating an equitable experience for users.

I genuinely appreciate the feedback given and I will use all the tips offered for future editing. I’m going to chalk this one up to experience and leave it to the community to decide if and when additional enhancements are made.

Thank you again for taking the time to engage and to offer commentary and insight. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, but re "Large blocks of dense prose" you are essentially advocating that Wiki's paragraph should be single or double sentences only, to suit your current screen reader. That makes the reading very tedious for everybody else and more importantly removes connectivity between claims, thus removing argumentation and leading to non-sequiturs. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

[sic]

[sic] is used after a mistake in a quoted text to show that the error was in the original source and is not a typo by the person quoting it. It should not be placed after words from historic documents if the spelling was standard for that time period, such as totallie, enemie, or nobilitie. [sic] is meant to flag actual mistakes, not to mock or confuse readers about older linguistic norms or archaic spellings. Of the many reliable sources that quote the 1649 order of Parliament, none has [sic] after the word totallie. Firebrace (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to present the quote without sic because, to my eye at least, 'totallie' is clearly an archaic spelling of 'totally' and the text is still entirely legible. The OED says that [sic] can be used "to guard against the supposition of misquotation", although I don't think it's very likely that someone will assume it's an error in the reproducing the quote. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you're incorrect in asserting that sic is necessarily only used after a mistake; I believe it flags both mistakes and original non-standard/-current spellings. Wikipedia's own article on sic agrees with this, saying 'sic ... is inserted after a quotation to indicate that the quoted matter has been transcribed or translated as found in the original source, including erroneous, archaic, or unusual spelling [...]'. I think it's quite reasonable to have one after an archaic spelling, especially where it represents a single non-standard word in an otherwise standardly-spelled quote. RocksInMyDryer (talk, contribs) 11:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Let's not use Wikipedia as a source, it isn't reliable. I can't seem to find a reliable source where [sic] is used in that specific quote. Clearly, book publishers don't think it is quite reasonable to have one after the archaic spelling. Also, standardly is a standard -ly adverb and as such a hyphen is not required (hopefully you're aware of that and did it on purpose.) Firebrace (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)