Talk:Big Ben

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2025

I am requesting the edits because I want to watch some pages incase of vandalism and adding dates to Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day because some people may forget the dates Myexellentdays (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You can add pages to your watchlist even if they are semi-protected. Best, Altamel (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2025

I wish to add further information (able to be corroborated by an article in The Times from 1856).

To the current sentence: "Its nickname derives from that of the tall Sir Benjamin Hall, who oversaw its installation." Add: ', as he was President of the Board of Works when the bell was cast.' So it reads: 'Its nickname derives from that of the tall Sir Benjamin Hall, who oversaw its installation, as he was President of the Board of Works when the bell was cast.'

I saw information on this, including a visual of the article from The Times' archives, on this short by historical educator Jo Draper. https://youtube.com/shorts/rZhpncZA68o?si=UuiTofkAo6pn6djs 203.123.64.154 (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Hall's position as president of the Board of Works is already mentioned in the body of the article (in the "Nickname" subsection). I don't think it's necessary to also mention it in the lead. Day Creature (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

big ben

during its restoration big ben chimed 3 times a year, armistice day, remembrance sunday, once if armistice day was on a sunday & new years eve 81.98.243.229 (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph

As some time has passed since the last discussion, I would like to again propose changing the lead paragraph to the following:

Big Ben, officially the Elizabeth Tower, 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 "Big Ben" nickname now applied to the whole tower. The tower was officially called the Clock Tower until 2012, when it was given its current official name to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II.

The current lead paragraph is:

Big Ben is the nickname for the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and, by extension, for the clock tower itself, which stands at the north end of the Palace of Westminster in London, England. Originally named the Clock Tower, it was renamed Elizabeth Tower in 2012 to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. The clock is a striking clock with five bells.

The current lead does not follow MOS:REFERS, as the subject of the sentence is the nickname "Big Ben" but the topic of this article is the tower and the clock and bell it contains. The proposed lead paragraph rectifies this by making the tower the subject of the first sentence, followed by information about the clock and its bells. This mirrors the structure of the article body, which has separate sections for each of the three.

I'm open to other wording suggestions. The primary aim of this discussion is to bring the lead paragraph into line with the MOS by making the subjects of the first sentences the same as the subjects of the article. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have made this, or similar, requests previously and have received little support. Please don't make changes to the article in this regard unless you have gained consensus here. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was some support for changing the lead paragraph during the previous discussion on the topic a year ago, but a consensus was not reached. This discussion has been open for a week with no response; my edit to the article was made in the expectation of encouraging discussion, as my edit summary shows.
Would you like to offer an opinion on the proposed change? A.D.Hope (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the proposed change as it is inaccurate. "Big Ben" is the bell, even if it is also incorrectly applied to the tower - the current wording is much clearer in that regard. As for The primary aim of this discussion is to bring the lead paragraph into line with the MOS by making the subjects of the first sentences the same as the subjects of the article. the subject of this article is the clock, the clock tower and the bells equally. The first sentence as it stands is thus perfectly compatible with the manual of style (not that the MOS should ever be prioritised over factuality or clarity anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, Thryduulf. The current first sentence is not compatible with MOS:REFERS as its subject is the nickname "Big Ben", which is not the primary topic of the article. As the MOS puts it, "the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject"; the subject of the first sentence should therefore be the tower, the clock, and/or the bell.
For the current lead sentence to meet the MOS it would have to be re-worded along these lines:

Big Ben is the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and the clock tower which stands at the north end of the Palace of Westminster in London, England.

The question of whether the tower should be referred to as "Big Ben" is really beyond the scope of this discussion. It's the established primary name for the tower in the article, and a separate discussion would be needed to change that. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons at last time. It is incorrect to say the clock tower is the main topic for "Big Ben", but it is the main name for the tower. The situation is complex, and the long standing status quo is really the best option and the only alternative is a split of the article, which I am not advocating. DankJae 00:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jae. I've waited a few days to see if anyone would continue the discussion, but as they haven't I hope you don't mind me replying.
The proposal isn't to make the clock tower the sole main topic of the article, as the clock and bell are also main topics. They should stay together, so I wouldn't advocate a split either. Nevertheless, the current lead sentence doesn't follow the MOS and is a bit clunky, and should be changed to focus on the main topic(s) rather than the nickname.
I think that structuring the lead paragraph so that the first three sentences cover the three main topics makes sense and mirrors the structure of the article body, but I'm open to other ideas. In my reply to Thryduulf above I suggested a reword of the current first sentence, for example. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is a guideline, exceptions can apply, such as for this mess of a situation where the name for one is applied incorrectly and so widely. Still prefer the current and oppose your initial proposal, as stating "Big Ben [...] is the clock tower" was designating a primary description (probably meant that word not "topic") for the clock tower over the bell, which as above not all sources follow.
However, I do see some merit to your alternative proposal to @Thryduulf:, although would like "and, by extension," to be kept somehow referencing how it has been misapplied in that order. Technically in that proposal the bell is the main descriptor now or at least half of a dual descriptor, so would anything else change? the SD probably should. So if others support that alternative proposal in consensus then happy to join, to finally conclude this issue, but still feel the current is much more balanced on representing this article by being neutral with "nickname". Regardless of the outcome here, after this, can this issue be put to rest? DankJae 18:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping I missed the reply to me. Having now read that and the other responses since my message, I still think that the status quo is superior to all the alternatives proposed here. We should not make articles less clear and/or less accurate just to rigidly comply with style guidelines that are explicitly not intended to be rigidly applied to all situations. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my preferred form of words, but I could certainly live with:

Big Ben is the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and, by extension, the clock tower which stands at the north end of the Palace of Westminster in London, England.

It's an improvement over the current wording as the subjects of the article are the subjects of the first sentence.
I can understand you seeing the overall issue as a bit of a mess, Jae, but I do think it can be approached simply. Regardless of the official name, the Wikipedia consensus is that the WP:COMMONNAME of the tower is 'Big Ben'; this has been confirmed by longstanding use in the article and the failed move to 'Elizabeth Tower' last year. This means that the unqualified use of 'Big Ben' for the tower in the lead is fine, because it has been determined by consensus to be a clear and accurate name.
What do you think, @Thryduulf? A.D.Hope (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the participants in last year's move request and lead discussions. This is intended to broaden the discussion, not to canvass for any particular viewpoint.
@LilianaUwU @Amakuru @Crouch, Swale @Johnbod @Theparties @ Firebrace @blindlynx @Dr Greg @SilkTork @Ex nihil @NotSoKindOfKindness @Robkelk
Please note that this discussion is about the wording of the lead paragraph, not the article name. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to a change which says "Big Ben is... the clock tower" without that all-important word nickname. The current wording conveys the appropriate nuance while remaining reasonably concise, and the proposals here remove that nuance. Both the bell and the tower have widely used official names; while "Big Ben" is arguably still the more commonly used term for both, it's important that, as an encyclopaedia, we clarify that it is in fact a nickname right at the outset. WaggersTALK 10:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Waggers. The latest proposal is less bad than the previous proposals but it is still inferior to the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you think of a way of incorporating the fact that "Big Ben" is a nickname while conforming to MOS:REFERS, i.e. that the lead should be about the subjects of an article rather than a term for them? There must be a more elegant way of doing this than the current wording. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is about the subjects not the terms. It introduces and explains the terms used, but that is not the same as being about the terms. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed change includes an error of fact – Big Ben is not the name of the tower. If I was to see that claim on the page, I would change it immediately without consulting anyone, as per WP:DUBIOUS. I oppose this proposed change. Rob Kelk 13:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm ok with the current wording, albeit grammatically awkward. A possible alternative is

    Big Ben, the nickname for the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster, and, by extension, for the clock tower itself, stands at the north end of the Palace of Westminster in London, England. Originally named the Clock Tower, it was renamed Elizabeth Tower in 2012 to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. The clock is a striking clock with five bells.

    But I'm not sure if that is actually an improvement as there still remains the awkwardness of the term Big Ben referring to both the bell and to the tower, yet the lead paragraph wanting to define the topic as the tower. I think it would be better if tower came before bell in the opening sentence. Perhaps:

    Big Ben, the nickname for the clock tower at the north end of the Palace of Westminster in London, England, derived from the nickname for the Great Bell of the Great Clock of Westminster inside the tower, is a British cultural icon. Originally named the Clock Tower, it was renamed Elizabeth Tower in 2012 to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. The clock is a striking clock with five bells.

    SilkTork (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I do like A.D.Hope's suggested change, right at the top of this section. This article is primarily about the tower, with the bell inside also being included as a subtopic that doesn't warrant its own article. When it comes to naming, we all know that Big Ben is officially a nickname for the bell, and that there are pedants who insist it is wrong to use it for the tower. But Wikiepdia doesn't particularly obsess about official things, rather we follow what the sources say. This applies particularly to titles, which follow the don't necessarily use official names convention, but also to other areas in which we strive not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In a majority of sources, including this recent BBC article, Big Ben means the clock tower, and that is vastly more famous than the bell inside. The proposed lead change makes this clear, by leading on the clock tower and not on the bell. I can see consensus seems to be against making such a change right now, but it would I think have my !vote. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not pedantic to follow that sources cannot agree either, the source you cite states Big Ben's tower, as in the tower connected to Big Ben, not is Big Ben, proving the whole point. Sources don't always use "Big Ben" for the tower and sometimes specifiy the tower is separate from "Big Ben".
    Per the last discussion, not exhaustive:
    Independent "The name Big Ben is nowadays used to describe the tower, the clock and the bell" Similar statements from CNN
    Sources do not agree what "Big Ben" is specifically, just that is encompasses all of them. Therefore a change is making Wikipedia itself decide what Big Ben is. DankJae 18:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking on this a bit more, I'm happy to water down my opposition to a "no strong opinion" - the proposed wording isn't terrible in the scheme of things. WaggersTALK 12:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either seems fine to me but I'd say that we should try to avoid giving the impression that "Big Ben" is the entire tower even though it is commonly spoken of and per WP:COMMONNAME the title is fine. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see much, if any, improvement in the suggested changes. Big Ben is heard more than seen; so, it's appropriate to talk about the bell upfront and then, due to perhaps slipshod extension, the clock and the tower (I remember "the tower of Big Ben" from lyrics of a song from long ago). I don't see how the present lead is flawed, as it does that rather well. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 'Big Ben' as primary name

  • As the issue has been raised by @Robkelk, @Crouch, Swale, and @Dhtwiki I think it's worth pointing out again that the current consensus at this article is that the primary name of the tower is 'Big Ben'. This has been established by longstanding use and by the failed move to 'Elizabeth Tower' last year. This means that referring to the tower as 'Big Ben' is correct, except (for obvious reasons) where it would cause ambiguity with the bell. Changing that consensus is really outside the scope of this discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the consensus is that "Big Ben" is that this article, about the bell, the clock and the tower should be at "Big Ben" because that's the common name used when referring to the three things collectively and/or when there is no need to distinguish between them. The move discussion did not establish anything other than the preferred title for the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The move dicussion solidly rejected 'Elizabeth Tower', and several of the comments explicitly called 'Big Ben' the name of the tower. The tower has also been referred to as 'Big Ben' in the article for a good while, establishing implicit concensus.
    This implicit consensus could be challenged, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. We need to work on the basis that 'Big Ben' is the primary name of the tower. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The tower is commonly called "Big Ben", but that doesn't mean that the article should incorrectly state that that is its proper name as several of your proposals do. Sources are clear that the official name was "Clock Tower" and is now "Elizabeth Tower". Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead paragraph should mention that 'Big Ben' is a nickname and that the official name of the tower is the 'Elizabeth Tower'. At the same time, there's a consensus to refer to the tower primarily as 'Big Ben' and so for our purposes that is a proper name for it. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's very frustrating that things that seem to be settled in wider venues with a solid consensus (in this case that the tower is commonly called "Big Ben") still face opposition when discussing the nitty-gritty on the talk page. The proposed lead sentence clearly indicates that the tower is offically the Elizabeth Tower so any concern that we're misleading readers as to the official name is wide of the mark. The proposed new lead does a better job of clarifying that than the current one, since it mentions Elizabeth Tower on word 5. But make no mistake, the consensus is that Big Ben is the tower, and that's not "incorrect" as far as Wikipedia is concerned, because we follow sources rather than official names.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    consensus is that Big Ben is the tower, no, consensus is that the common name of the tower is "Big Ben", not that "Big Ben" is the tower. Commonly "Big Ben" refers to the tower, the clock and the bell either collectively or ambiguously. The current lead sentence is clearer in this regard than any of the proposed alternatives. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    consensus is that the common name of the tower is "Big Ben", not that "Big Ben" is the tower.
    I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making here, Thryduulf. If the common name of the tower is 'Big Ben' then Big Ben is the tower, surely? A.D.Hope (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. Just because X is the common name for Y, doesn't mean that most people mean Y when they say X. For example, "Hull" is the most common name for the city with the official name Kingston upon Hull but that doesn't mean that most people mean the city when they say "Hull". "London" is the common name for the metropolitan area, Greater London, the City of London, etc. all of them are "London" but that doesn't imply that "London" is any one of them in particular.
    When people say "Big Ben" they could be referring to the bell, the clock, the tower, or any combination of them collectively. This article is about all three things individually and collectively. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have to make sure we're clear about whether we're referring to the tower or bell when we use 'Big Ben', but we can still use the name for each individually and for the tower and its contents collectively. To use your first example, the Kingston upon Hull article refers to the city as 'Hull' throughout because it's clear that none of the other meanings are intended.
    To put it another way, we don't need to avoid calling the tower 'Big Ben' because the same nickname is used for the bell, so long as it's clear the tower is meant. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is not solely about the tower, the way that the Kingston upon Hull article is solely about the town. Changing the lead description to favour one of the items above the others would make it unclear which item is meant.
    Perhaps "Big Ben" should be turned into a disambiguation page and separate pages made for Elizabeth Tower, the Great Bell, and the clock (which does not appear to have a separate name as far as I'm aware), but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. (Nor do I have any plan to make such a proposal.) Rob Kelk 15:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Thryduulf. The issue "article title (first)" and "primary description" are two separate issues. It is agreed that the article title and lead should use "Big Ben" (first), but not what Big Ben is. Hull is not a comparable example, there aren't three Hulls in Kingston upon Hull just one specific to that article, there are three "Big Bens" in this article, the Big Ben tower, Big Ben clock and Big Ben bell. DankJae 18:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the length of the below comment, but I thought it necessary to lay out my rationale as clearly as possible. Producing an elegant lead sentence that accurately includes all the necessary information seems to be impossible given the constraints of the article, namely that:
  • the tower is Big Ben
  • the clock is Big Ben
  • the bell is Big Ben
  • 'Big Ben' is a nickname
  • 'Big Ben' is the common and primary name
  • the tower is also the Elizabeth Tower
  • the clock is also the Great Clock
  • the bell is also the Great Bell

Additionally, the policy WP:ISAWORDFOR, manual of style section MOS:REFERS, and related essay section WP:REFER caution against using terms such as 'refers to' unless absolutely necessary. 'Is the nickname for' falls under that umbrella, as the article is primarily about the tower and its contents, not the nickname itself. The main exception is for concepts which 'cannot be accurately or neutrally affirmed', which is not the case here; we know what Big Ben is, it's just tricky to encompass this in one sentence. Given all this, spreading the introductory information across a few sentences seems to be the best way of including it in a way that is easily understood by the reader and not unnecessarily contorted.

There is no strong consensus among the sources (and thanks to DankJae for compiling a selection) as to how to refer to Big Ben. Parliament, for example, is not particularly careful about how it uses ‘Big Ben’ on its website, with its introductory page immediately conflating the clock and the tower – “Big Ben is probably the world's most famous clock. That iconic silhouette is instantly recognisable”. Britannica, somewhat bluntly, opens its article with “Big Ben, tower clock, famous for its accuracy and for its massive bell“ and then goes on to explain the nuances of the name. As reliable sources have no issue with defining one aspect of ‘Big Ben’ before going on to explain its other aspects, I don’t think we need to be hung up about doing the same.

To that end, and trying also to take into account the comments made in this discussion, I’ve tweaked my proposed wording. The first proposal spreads the information over four sentences, and the second over two. The main change is to be more explicit about the fact that the nickname applies to the bell, the clock, and the tower equally.

Suggestion 1:

Big Ben, officially the Elizabeth Tower, 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 "Big Ben”, which is now also applied to the clock and to the tower as a whole. The tower was officially called the Clock Tower until 2012, when it was renamed to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II.

Suggestion 2:

Big Ben is the clock tower of the Palace of Westminster in London, England; it contains the Great Clock, a striking clock with five bells, with the Great Bell being the original subject of the "Big Ben” nickname that is now also applied to the clock and to the tower as a whole. The tower was officially called the Clock Tower until 2012, when it was renamed the Elizabeth Tower to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II.

Thank you all for your engagement, A.D.Hope (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those suggestions still leave the casual reader with the impression that "big ben == clock tower", with the later sentences just blurring rather than clarifying. We need to stop attempting to tie ourselves in knots to comply with a guideline that was never intended to be applied rigidly to all situations when doing so comes at the expense of accuracy and/or clarity for the reader. The present wording remains clearer than all so-far proposed alternatives. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate what I said above: "Big Ben" should refer to the bell first and foremost, from the big bell and the chiming bells being heard more than seen. Also, it's not correct to call the ensemble "a striking clock with five bells"; it's a chiming–striking clock that uses 4 bells for the quarter-hour chimes and a single bell to strike the hours. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be simple to add 'and chiming' to each proposal above, thank you. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On putting the bell first, that could look something like this:

Big Ben is the Great Bell of the Great Clock of the Elizabeth Tower, which is part of the Palace of Westminster in London, England. The nickname "Big Ben” is now also applied to the clock and to the tower as a whole. The tower was officially called the Clock Tower until 2012, when it was renamed the Elizabeth Tower to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II.

I could certainly live with this. Nevertheless, overall I prefer the 'tower, clock, bell' order at this reflects the order of the sections in the article body and in my opinion allows for a better flow in the prose, as it's easier to introduce the building of which an object is a part before the object itself. It was also tricky to incorporate the information about the clock's workings, although this can simply be moved into a later paragraph in the lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No improvement, as Big Ben "is the nickname for" the bell, not "is" the bell; and Elizabeth Tower, not the Elizabeth Tower, seems a consensus form of the official name for the structure. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using 'is the nickname for' makes the subject of the sentence the nickname, not the bell, clock, and tower that are the subjects of this article, and this is an issue for the reasons I gave above. The proposal above still clearly explains that 'Big Ben' is a nickname, in the second sentence.
The tower is referred to as 'the Elizabeth Tower' in plenty of reliable sources, including the BBC, its Historic England listing, and on Parliament's website, so there should be no issue using it in this article. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that as an alternative lead, although it shifts the emphasis to make it seem as if the primary topic of the article is the bell, not the tower (and possibly the clock). Personally I think the bell and tower sufficiently notable in their own right to have their own articles, which would alleviate a lot of the confusion we have from this being a broad concept article. WaggersTALK 09:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this pattern repeatedly on Wikipedia over the years, it's a recurring problem.
  1. We identify a notable subject and write an article about it
  2. We determine the most common name for that subject is X, so name our article X
  3. We find X has other meanings (which may or may not be notable in their own right) and adopt the attitude of "if the article is called X, we have to cover everything X could possibly mean"
That's fundamentally what's gone wrong here. The original article was about the tower, not the bell or the clock, neither of which had an article on them. We moved the article from "Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster" to "Big Ben" because that's the common name. And now we're risking shifting changing the primary topic of the article to something else that shares that name. Personally I think separate articles and a disambiguation page have to be the way forward, if we can establish that the bell/clock satisfy WP:N in their own right.
What we want to tell the reader is that "the subject of this article is the tower" but not "Big Ben is the tower" because the truth is Big Ben is many things. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary so on the one hand we shouldn't be defining everything "Big Ben" can mean, but on the other hand it would be inaccurate and misleading to simply say "Big Ben is the tower".
The problem with this proposal is it essentially says "Big Ben is the bell but we're going to tell you about the tower" and that's a little awkward. I think we're at the point where we have to seriously look at disambiguation; I know a few have said that's off topic for this discussion but it's the elephant in the room, would potentially solve this problem, and we should tackle it head on. WaggersTALK 09:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A split is an avenue worth exploring, I think, as it's been suggested a couple of times in this discussion and I'm sure it came up last time as well. My instinct is that 'bell' and 'tower and clock' would be a reasonable split, but I'd be interested to hear other ideas. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru@DankJae@Dhtwiki@Robkelk@Thryduulf@Waggers@Crouch, Swale@SilkTork

Given nothing has been added to the dicussion for a week, it seems fair to assume it's over and that no consensus has been reached to change the lead. As a split has been brought up a few times this would be worth exploring in the future, but I doubt there's much appetite for opening that discussion immediately.

I've just made two minor edits to the lead para to improve the flow of what's already there, namely removing 'itself' and adding 'the' before 'Elizabeth Tower'. I hope this isn't controversial. Assuming nobody has anything else to add, thank you all for your input. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clock_Tower,_Palace_of_Westminster