Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings

Intro/grammar

It is grammatically incorrect to start any sentence with a numerical number. Therefore:

Wrong - "52 other people were killed and around 700 were injured."

Right - "Fifty two other people were killed and around 700 were injured."

I cannot do it myself because of a page lock.. Besides the whole paragraph should be rewritten the more I think about it.

"The explosions appear to have been caused by home-made organic peroxide-based devices, packed into rucksacks and detonated by the bombers themselves, all four of whom died. 52 other people were killed and around 700 were injured."

How can they "appear to have been"? That's ambiguous nonsense? The bombers were either using organic peroxide or not. Were they using peroxide bombs as found from the forensic evidence? If they were, then state it because it was not another kind of device. Furthermore this entire sentence is over packed with too many clauses and facts. It reads like a grammatical-overstuffed mouth. Good writing keeps it clear and simple. This rewrite would be better:

"All four bombers died when they detonated home-made bombs concealed in their rucksacks using explosives created from organic peroxides. In total 52 people were killed and around 700 more were injured in the four blasts."

Let's try to par with 9/11

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

7 July 2005 London bombings → 7/7 London bombings – we wouldn't write the "September 11 attacks" as "September 11, 2001 attacks" and my proposed title will actually make a reference to WP:COMMONNAME, as this bombing spree is usually known simply as "7/7" (like "September 11", aka "9/11"). Most media coverage also refers to this as "7/7": see this BBC report on the inquest, this article on CNN, the Sky News articles "7/7 London Bombings: Terror Arrest" and "7/7-Style Explosives Found In NY Cemetery", The Guardian's "Thousands to mark anniversary of 7/7 London bombings" article, the "7/7 Tavistock Square bus bomb" report seen on Newsnight and "Is London ready for another 7/7?" to see a few. Google News has the results as is: 1,600 for "7 July 2005 London bombings" and 1,960 for "7 7 London bombings". Therefore, amalgamate "7/7" as the common name and "London bombings" as the description together in the article title and that will make thie article seem more like "September 11 attacks" in terms of naming. -- 92.4.75.68 (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Some media do refers as 7/7 but it may just be short way to indicate the date.
• 9/11 redirects to September 11 attacks so why we should do backwards? (7 July 2005 -> 7/7).
• I looked through some articles with the date in the title and none of them has X/Y as date in the title. The month is included in the "Full name format": September 2010 Lahore bombings/4 January 2009 Papua earthquake

Teyandee (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. As per Teyandee, 9/11 is a redirect to the fuller name, but we should also be so conceited to assume that the events of the day are so universally known that we don't need the year and location. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Piccadilly Carriage number

This article says "311", which is what BBC say, but TFL say "331", claiming that "311 was at South Kensington" that morning. Then Channel 4 says "346". What do we use? It's clearly recognised that tfl are the head of london transport! Spa-Franks (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between train numbers, and car ("carriage" is not used on the Underground) numbers. The train number was initially reported as 311, but TfL later corrected it to 331. The car affected was 166, but some sources - including C4 - erroneously identified it as "346D" which was impossible on several levels. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.newsweek.com/id/38176
  • In Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors on 2011-03-29 06:10:58, 404 Not Found
  • In 7 July 2005 London bombings on 2011-06-19 21:11:24, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/berne-halfmasting/index_e.cfm
  • In Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford on 2011-03-17 04:14:28, 404 Not Found
  • In Half-mast on 2011-03-22 19:27:17, 404 Not Found
  • In Half-mast on 2011-04-15 21:55:07, 404 Not Found
  • In 7 July 2005 London bombings on 2011-06-19 21:11:33, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:London newspapers 7 July 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:London newspapers 7 July 2005.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)