Talk:Great Fire of London

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.

	Great 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 Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 28, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 11, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted November 11, 2008 Featured article review Kept January 29, 2022 Featured article review Kept Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

London Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. 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 articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Firefighting High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

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.

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)[reply]

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^ws (háblame) 02:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It appears this article has been protected for several years. If Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Hi 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 (London, Londoners and the Great Fire of 1666: Disaster and Recovery) is credited by reviews by bringing a new perspective to this topic by examining it as social history. (There is also other new research, eg:[1][2][3]) 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. Renerpho might be on the right track when calling for a FAR. (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

• Bish originally had an image of John Evelyn and an image of James II. Do you have a sense of why they were removed, or if we have images of them that meet policy?
• Also, regarding the suggestion in this section; I'm not able to make much of those images, wonder what others think.

  Archived, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And should this section be archived, or is there something there to work on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it. The images that show the burned areas in pink breach MOS:ACCIM, 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Talk:Great Fire of London/Archive 1#Influence of the Great Fire of London is actually still alive in Australia !!!
• Talk:Great Fire of London/Archive 1#In Popular Culture

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

I think they can be archived, since they don't provide any sourcing for proposed additions. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Five ways the Great Fire changed London, BBC.
• How London might have looked: five masterplans after the great fire of 1666, The Guardian
• It appears that the Great Fire of London impacted building codes worldwide: [4], [5], [6], [7] and see NYT report after Grenfell Tower fire. And these from Buidhe (see above): “There is also other new research, eg:[8][9][10]” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]