Talk:Greenwich

East Greenwich

I followed the link to this page from another page for 'East Greenwich'- what you have here is a lot of stuff about Greenwich, as the tourists know it. East Greenwich is different - it has a dynamic industrial history (sorry you don't note my various books on that!) but archaeological finds in the past year look to rewrite the history of both East Greenwich and tourist Greenwich - with all its stories of royalty and myths about the navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.223.224 (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A little late, but for future reference see Greenwich Peninsula Pterre (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Anachronism ?

I know that I should just rewrite the stuff, but haven´t got the time required at the moment. There are some grave inconsistencies in this, as an example this one : "Anne of Denmark had a house built by Inigo Jones on the hill above, overlooking the hospital" I know how this can be read, seen from today´s point of view, but phrases like this does indeed make the understanding of the history wrong. Anne was long dead when Charles, who commissioned the hospital, was born. So how could she build a house overlooking this hospital ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.233.17 (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Grenwich-0,0,0,0 —77.98.211.58 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And so they are, already. Please explain your request more fully below and remove the "tlc|" from the {{geodata-check}} tag when you have done so. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Lord Romney

This figure, mentioned as having power to charter the original market in 1700, is identifiable as Henry Sydney, 1st Earl of Romney because {a} he was alive in 1700, (b) he seems to have been the only Earl Romney with the name Henry, and (c) he held important offices including Groom of the Stole and Master-General of the Ordnance. It is reasonable to surmise that the latter post, with connections to the nearby Woolwich Warren and to the naval establishment, was the basis of his control over the Greenwich land. It would be preferable to replace the guesswork with a specific citation. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—{{subst: vivek}}

the errors is that the greenwich is nor in eastern hemisphere neither in western hemisphere its longitude is just 00°00′00″

Well, actually, some of Greenwich is in the Eastern Hemisphere, and some of it is in the Western Hemisphere. In any event, 0° can be expressed as either 0° E or 0° W, so the coordinates in the article are not incorrect. It is a peculiarity of the infobox used in the article that if one enters 0.0000 in the longitude field, the longitude is displayed as 0.0000 E. Deor (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Market photo

The photo of the market is not at all representative of the market or its environs. (In fact, I suspect it might be a photo of the small market by the clock tower rather then the market in Greenwich town centre). Does anybody have a suitable replacement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.89.57 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Introductory inconsistencies

The second paragraph of the article is almost entirely incorrect or misleading.

It is incorrect to say that Greenwich is in East London, and misleading to say that it is sometimes described as such (since such description, if it happens, would be erroneous). There are online examples of Greenwich being described as in "East London", but they appear to be mentions in passing, rather than authoritative claims of fact. One of them has even been corrected since the article was referenced. Referring to the Wikipedia article on the subject of East London, it can be seen that the whole of East London lies north of the Thames, whereas Greenwich lies on the south bank of the Thames. It may be technically true to say that Greenwich is sometimes described as being in East London, but any such description is wrong and has no place being repeated in an encyclopaedic article.

It is incorrect to say that Greenwich is one of the five boroughs of the London Docklands. This article is about Greenwich, and it's clear from the first paragraph that a separate article exists to cover the Royal Borough of Greenwich, which is indeed one of the five boroughs mentioned. Greenwich itself, which this article is about, is a small town in the extreme northwest corner of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. It is not a borough, let alone one of the five boroughs of the London Docklands.

Fixed. Paul W (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that Greenwich is connected to Canary Wharf (or anywhere else) by the East London Line. The East London Line does not pass through Greenwich, nor does it pass through Canary Wharf. The Docklands Light Railway, which is a completely separate rail system, connects Greenwich and Canary Wharf, as correctly noted in the Transport section towards the end of the article.

I have fixed this. Paul W (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a long time since I've made any major edits and I don't want to delete the paragraph only for it to be rolled back. Someone with more recent experience than me may wish to make the necessary updates. Thank you in advance. Arcman (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greenwich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mYjJHOZA?url=http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/LeisureCulture/RoyalGreenwich/RoyalGreenwich.htm to http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/LeisureCulture/RoyalGreenwich/RoyalGreenwich.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Greenwich Heritage Centre

There seems to be a problem with the website - can someone else check it. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greenwich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414202633/http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/Travel/LocalTravelServices/RiverBoatCruise.htm to http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/Travel/LocalTravelServices/RiverBoatCruise.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Origin of place names

"Some vestiges of the Danish camps may be traced in the names of Eastcombe and Westcombe". The source for this from 1796, but it is contradicted in article Westcombe Park, that states: "Westcombe is a topographical place name, derived from Combe, a common old English word for 'valley'". I think the last one makes more sense. --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)]

Combe is in fact a Brythonic name element, predating even the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, although the East & West are certainly Old English. Unfortunately the claim is correctly cited from a source that appears reputable so probably cannot be removed without a source contradicting the existing citation. Sadly I doubt any such source exists that is specific enough to count, regardless, I hope the article at combe is enough evidence that the claim in the article is absurd and so I have removed it Tristanjlroberts (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Greenwich (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)