This is an archive of past discussions about London. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 9 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion
Should London be described as pre-eminent? In my opinion no. It is without doubt one of the worlds greatest cities, the greatest by some measures, but promotional (peacock) terms are best avoided in an encyclopdia.
This article is a Good Article and therefore should meet certain encyclopedic quality standards. Some other articles, New York City for example do not meet the sam standards as this one and contain much dubious promotional language.
I fully agree with Martin. Pre-eminent is the kind of term we should not normally use even if a source use it as it remains a subjective opinion that by its very nature is un-encyclopedic. Jeppiz (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
"all contributing to its pre-eminence" implies it surpasses all others and stands alone. This is subjective; "leading" is much better. --NeilNtalk to me23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Some of the source materials provided use the term 'pre-eminent.' Wouldn't you agree that if you're ranked 'most influential, most powerful, or most desirable' across a number of spheres, you're 'pre-eminent'? It's not necessarily subjective when there are tangible numbers -- i.e. the Global Power City Index -- used to corroborate a statement. Nonetheless, let's say 'pre-eminent' isn't an appropriate word choice. I still feel London deserves a word in the opening paragraphs that accurately reflects upon its pre-eminent/prominent global stature. This wouldn't run contrary to the so-called encyclopaedic standards that are regretfully applied inconsistently throughout Wikipedia. In fact, the way the relevant paragraph is worded now doesn't differentiate London from Minneapolis, which also has strengths in the arts, commerce, education, entertainment, fashion, finance, healthcare, media, professional services, research and development, tourism, and transport. This in and of itself is un-encyclopaedic considering London and Minneapolis are in different leagues. NorthernFactoid (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
"London is a leading global city...", "It is one of the world's leading financial centres...", "London is a world cultural capital...." "It is the world's most-visited city as measured by international arrivals..." Minneapolis? Not so much. --NeilNtalk to me00:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
As NielN rightly points out, the greatness of the city (and it is great. Especially that little Palestinian restau across from Holborn station)is established by all those things he mentioned. The idea behind WP:PEACOCK is that objective statements in the article should allow the reader to be able to come to the conclusion that the place they're reading about is great. We don't need to attach loaded terms to it to guide people towards an opinion. That's encyclopædic, but by early 20th century standards. I also concur that Minneapolis, and the whole state of Minnesota by extension, are fail-whales. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 8 Adar 5775 00:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
We're not talking about that section though, are we. We talking about: 'strengths in the arts, commerce, education, entertainment, fashion, finance, healthcare, media, professional services, research and development, tourism, and transport.' I guess I'm of the opinion that the language used on this page should reflect London's stature and match the language used on the pages of other great world cities. Paris's opening paragraphs discuss its famed restaurants, haute cuisine, and fashion week. It also mentions its art galleries as being the most visited in the world. New York City's page talks about its 'significant' impacts across a number of spheres and being the cultural and financial capital of the world. London's opening paragraphs are now bland in comparison. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to educate and inform. Martin Hogbin even admits that, by some metrics, London is the greatest city on Earth. Can't we find a better term than 'leading' that accurately reflects this? NorthernFactoid (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
'Pre-eminent' can also mean outstanding. Can't a city be called outstanding for being ranked most influential, most powerful, and most desirable? NorthernFactoid (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I certainly think London is great, but it's not for us to say which city is greatest. Any such claim is subjective. And like the others, I don't see how describing London as "a leading global city", "one of the world's leading financial centres", "a world cultural capital", "he first city to host the modern Summer Olympic Games three times", " third most populous in Europe", "contains four World Heritage Sites" could ever be considered "bland".Jeppiz (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There's more than one definition for 'pre-eminent.' And Jeppiz, never once have I personally claimed here that London is the greatest city on Earth. I merely feel that given the sources I provided earlier, an appropriate word should be used to accurately reflect London's elevated global stature. This would be in keeping with the co-called 'encyclopaedic principles' that are apparently sacrosanct for this particular article. Again, encyclopaedias are meant to inform and educate. A city ranking number one across a number of spheres can arguably be called 'pre-eminent.' Would anyone object to the word 'prominent' being used? Prominent can also mean pre-eminent but more frequently means 'important' or 'famous.' I'm sure everyone here would agree that London is an important and famous city. NorthernFactoid (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
NorthernFactoid, I originally took a similar view to you; that we should use the somewhat vauge and subjective positive terminology about London but was persuaded that 'less is more' so to speak in articles like this.
There are many editors trying to push their home towns in WP and for the most part this serves only to reduce the quality of WP and make the articles look silly and amateur.
There was a long discusssion and an RfC on a similar topic a while back about whether London should be called the 'Financial_capital_of_the_World'. According to most sources presented it was, the problem is, what does 'financial capital of the world' mean. There is no clear and generally agreed difinition of the term so using it in an encyclopdia is pointless.
So it is with 'pre-eminent'. What exactly does that mean in this context? How famous or important does a city mneed to be to be called 'pre-eminent'. Using the term 'pre-eminent' tells the reader nothing about London, only something about the writer's understanding of the term 'pre-eminent'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we have to use the word "pre-eminent" but I do think it might make sense to move some of the second paragraph to the top, so that the stuff about being a leading global city comes first, before saying that it is the capital and most populous city in England etc. which is probably what most readers would assume anyway. In other words mention London's global significance before discussing its purely local significance. -- Alarics (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Alarics: Fair enough. Pre-eminent is probably not the best word to use. I do think reverting to the original 'London is a leading global city, with strengths in the arts, commerce, education, entertainment, fashion, finance, healthcare, media, professional services, research and development, tourism, and transport all contributing to its prominence' would be in keeping with certain encyclopaedic standards. There's no question London is a prominent (i.e. conspicuous, seen easily, famous, important) world city. The word prominent does not denote superiority as 'pre-eminent' admittedly can. From a purely stylistic point of view, 'London is a leading global city, with strengths in the arts, commerce, education, entertainment, fashion, finance, healthcare, media, professional services, research and development, tourism, and transport all contributing to its prominence' sounds better and doesn't take away from the quality of this article at all (the mentioned strengths do indeed contribute to London's prominence). I also like your point about moving the second paragraph to the top. NorthernFactoid (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Population figure in lead
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Why is the population of the city's metropolitan area in the second sentence of the lead? Metropolitan area is not a measure of the size of a city. Other towns such as Reading and Luton are within the London's metropolitan area. The statement begins with noting that the city is the most populous in the UK, then cites the population of it's metropolitan area. Why not cite the population of the city?
I changed the sentence to "With over 8 million inhabitants, it is the most populous city in the United Kingdom", which was reverted as apparently the existing revision "was well".
Newcastle's metropolitan area includes the City of Sunderland. Birmingham's includes the City of Wolverhampton. Comparing cities by metropolitan area not really possible, so the two segments "It is the most populous city in the United Kingdom" and "with a metropolitan area of over 13 million inhabitants" are not reinforcing each other
In 2013 it stated: "With an estimated 8,308,369 residents in 2012, London is the most populous region, urban zone and metropolitan area in the United Kingdom and is the largest city in the European Union".
Then in 2014: "It is the most populous region, urban zone and metropolitan area in the United Kingdom".
And now: "It is the most populous city in the United Kingdom, with a metropolitan area of over 13 million inhabitants".
Most often in metropolitan areas there are other smaller cities but metropolitan area's population is the most commonly used measure of the size of the metropolis. But, ok - if you do not like the sentence of "It is the most populous city in the United Kingdom, with a metropolitan area of over 13 million inhabitants" I correct it, now is "It is the most populous metropolitan area in the United Kingdom, with 13 million inhabitants". Subtropical-man talk (en-2)12:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the infobox the area listed for Greater London is listed primarily in imperial units as opposed to the rest of the article, which is listed in primarily metric. The imperial and metric data should be reversed:
Also agreed, there is scope for a much improved collage. From an aesthetic point of view, a border (preferably white, matching the background) between images is near essential for coherent montages. In terms of content, such is the renown of London's landmarks and skyline that the current three photos alone don't suffice. It's also imperative that a montage isn't over complicated by too many images, or presented in a randomised, incoherent manner. I've whipped up two collages as examples of what can be formulated, both examples take up less space than the current London infobox collage:
Included in both is a recent skyline image of the City (and Canary Wharf in the distance), accompanied by four photos of notable/recognisable London landmarks. One can spend all day deciding which of London's skyline views is best suited, and which of London's many landmarks are worthy of inclusion. The two collages above are examples of what can be formulated. Both include five images, the same amount as the Tokyo and Paris articles, and notably less images than collages for various other cities in the UK (eg. Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, Belfast and Liverpool) or worldwide (eg. New York City, Los Angeles, Moscow, Berlin, Rome and Amsterdam). Cheers. Southlondoneye (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015
Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as that; my Collins dictionary is admittedly a bit old but it lists both spellings and doesn't make any distinction as to differences in usage between US and UK. Where difference between UK and US exists the dictionary usually makes it clear, but there is no such comment about medieval/mediaeval. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Medieval is good British English too; it's recommended by Fowler's in all three editions, and the third describes mediaeval as "now fast passing out of use in favour of medieval". Going further back, the first edition of the OED has entries for "Mediæval, medieval", "Mediævalism, medievalism", "Mediævalize, medievalize" and others without any comment at all, though it then uses mediæval in the definitions. NebY (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "medieval" is now far more common in BE, & actually has been so for decades. Show me a British book title from the last 30 years that has used "mediaeval". The British Museum for one uses Medieval. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Evidently I am out of date. I was taught at school to spell it mediaeval. I left school 50 years ago. I was unaware of this change in practice. -- Alarics (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi London wikieditors, I have recently received the following message on my talkpage after i removed info added by User:AHLM13 about Lakshmi Mittal from the Religion section: " yo[edit] Leave London and go to edit Sydney and Melbourne. -- AHLM13 talk 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)". Is Mittal some sort of special Londoner who needs to be mentioned in the article? Is AHLM13 a London wp:expert? Should we colonials (or am i:)) only edit articles on the antipodes? should i be given a wp:trout(s) for being a ......?? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
There are many rich and famous people in London. There's not space in the article to mention them all, and I don't see any special reason why Mittal should be an exception. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Mittal seems to have been inserted[1] to replace the mention of "wealthy Middle-Eastern Muslims" in Mayfair and Knightsbridge. I don't think we need either in this section on Religion and perhaps that was the point of the replacement.
The same edit provided a reference for a claim that had been disputed before both here and on other talk pages, and tagged here as needing a citation since January 2015. The same editor supplied that reference in several other articles the day before: Islam in England, Islam in the United Kingdom, Religion in England and Religion in the United Kingdom. The reference does not support the claim, that the East London Mosque was "the first mosque in the European Union to be permitted to broadcast the adhan" - it just briefly recounts disputes over allowing the adhan in 1986. I'll remove the claim; it's been tagged and queried long enough. NebY (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the edits, just be prepared for an edit war. The editor in question rarely discusses and quickly reverts. It's getting close to an ANI topic, especially given some of their comments, but I think not yet. I'm probably the last person that should warn them, but maybe they'll listen anyway. Ravensfire (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
If the editor is adding claims to multiple articles that aren't supported by the reference provided, I think this should be raised at ANI so that their edits can be investigated in more detail and reverted where necessary. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Tunnels
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The official limits of the "City" of London (i mean the capital of UK not the county) are the same limits of the Greater London region (Inner London+Outer London) or are different? --Good Hope Phanta (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Not done London is both the capital of the United Kingdom, and the capital of England, like the article correctly says. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
What is the actual difference between the two? Sometimes, people try and make a distinction between them such as saying a place is in Greater London but is not in London? Justgravy (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Greater London is a county that includes all of the London boroughs, so I would say it is interchangeable with "London". When people differentiate between London and Greater London, they're possibly using "London" to refer to Inner London. There's also the City of London, of course, but I've never heard people use just "London" to describe that - it's usually "the City". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Greater London includes Inner and Outer London. Take a look at London#Scope and London#Status, or review the many discussions on the various Londons which you have participated in on this page and other pages over the last few years. NebY (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
"capital and most populous city of... the European Union"
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
This is false. London is not the capital of the EU, and by urban population, London is less populous than Paris.
The addition was added here, only yesterday. Please discuss before changing the existing wording, rather than edit warring. Rob984 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
no, London is the capital and most populous city of England, the United Kingdom and... the European Union. This is not capital of EU, this is most populous city of EU. Also, text about EU was before but someone changed lawlessly. Subtropical-man talk (en-2)20:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Subtropical, your edit does not have consensus. The existing wording (since Febuary) does. Please see WP:CONSENSUS: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". London has the most populous municipality in the European Union. If you want to add this to the lead, then discuss. Edit warring is pointless. Rob984 (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
All the pictures in the article show either a blue or red sky, and one picture shows snow in London.
The three of them are actually rare in London, as the sky is for the most part of the year and by far overcast and rain would be in reality one of the main features of a representative London picture.
More than an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia looks sometimes a tourism agency or an agency of a governmental department, and there is an at times irritating bias in that sense in some of its editorial line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.5.32 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem with photographs of rainy scenes is that they can be of poor visual quality, due to reduced visibility. But anyway I disagree with 2 of your assertions: in my view blue skies are not particularly rare in London, and the pictures in the article do not all show either blue or red skies. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It rains less in London (by quantity and number of days) than most major cities around the world. Furthermore, as mentioned by PaleCloudedWhite, the visual quality and usability of photos taken in poor conditions is reduced. Southlondoneye (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I do not think that this is suitable for the lead. It is not clear exactly what the statement means (even though Forbes decribe how they arrived at it). This source is one of reasonable quality and providing there are no conflicting sources this fact might, in my opiunion, be included, somewhere in the body of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would surely apply here too. That's to say, it wouldn't be acceptable to say "London is ranked as the most influential city in the world", but it might be acceptable to say "Forbes ranks London as the most influential city in the world". I agree that this doesn't belong in the introduction though. The intro should just summarise the article, really. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I am junior editor. I needed your opinion on the "economy" section of London
I added that the sentence below but it was removed by an editor
London is the world's largest foreign investment destination according to IBM's annual Global Location Trend report and in 2014 the city created more jobs than any other city in the world according to the report.
[2]
I was wondering that if above two sentences are encyclopaedic material and therefore if relevant or not??
Also I added information regarding London real estate (below) with but it was removed.
"""London is also home to one of the world's most expensive and exclusive residential addresses such as the $12,000 per square foot (world's most expensive as of 2013) apartment complex One Hyde Park in Knightsbridge
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mhj45edfjh/one-hyde-park-london-u-k/ ,
I wonder what constitutes advertising on wikipedia as the editor who removed my article stated this as promotional material although my intentions is to add relevant and quality material. I am confused because I added this after reading New York City article on wikipedia (economy section) mentioning commercial property prices in their section and sold prices so I am little confused on the relevancy of this material.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
wouldn't it be more presentable to place the photo image as Palace of Westminster, Buckingham Palace and Central London skyline (in that order) instead of Central London skyline, Buckingham Palace and Palace of Westminster? The same image gets tiring sometimes. Rome, Washington, D.C. and other articles of cities changed their main image caption for something better. It's not really changing anything. I'm not taking away the realistic presentation view of London (if that's anyone's concern. I mean if you want to show realism, why not use an image of eastern London?). And if your problem is to show the skyline for some bizarre reason, then keep in mind that the articles of Paris, Washington DC, Moscow and São Paulo either have their skyline on bottom or don't even have skylines at all. (N0n3up (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC))
Capital of England?
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
London is the largest city in England and the United Kingdom. It is however the capital only of the UK. There is no capital of England.Royalcourtier (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Out of curiosity why does the article's climate section currently read: "Despite its reputation as being a rainy city, London receives less precipitation (601 mm (24 in) in a year), than Rome, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Naples and even Sydney in Australia, but those are spread over more days."? [emphasis added]
Given that Sydney is - by a wide margin - the rainiest of those cities, the use of the word 'even' seems rather misplaced. Also according to the figures on the respective Wikipedia articles Sydney has 143.8 precipitation days to London's 109.5, so I believe the statement is factually inaccurate as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.242.133.196 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I think the sentence should be better worded. '.. less than many other European cities' for example, or may missed out completely. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Londonium
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Comparing London's solved crimes stats with those of the United States
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I think this is pure WP:OR. First, one cannot compare a city to a country. What's worse this statistic is not even in the source. So that's pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Using edit-warring to support original research and synthesis must stop. Thanks. Dr.K.09:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You could compare the London rate to the overall rate in the UK, that would make sense in my opinion. But to the US? Why? What makes the US special? Sounds like nothing more than a parochial Anglospheric view. In any case, it must be supported by sources and not only that, but the same source must give both figures and compare them; otherwise, arbitrarily deciding to contrast them with each other is the classic example of WP:SYNTH. LjL (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. In the absence of a single source making the same comparison as the one just reverted, the comparison looks like some WP:POINTy reference to the US crime stats. Who knows why. Which is the main point of original research; only those who add it know the specific reason. Dr.K.17:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion
Greetings all. I'm of the opinion, shared by many, that the montage in the infobox of the London article can be improved. It is certainly lacking compared to those of other major cities. As I've remarked previously, such is the renown of London's landmarks and skyline that the current three photos alone don't suffice. It's also imperative that a montage isn't over complicated by too many images, or presented in an incoherent manner. In terms of aesthetics, a clean border between images is imperative. Here are four examples from the articles of Paris, Tokyo, Chicago and New York respectively:
Below are montages I've created for London in a similar vein, as examples of what can be done. Each montage includes five images, the same amount as the Tokyo and Paris articles, and notably less images than montages for various other cities in the UK or worldwide. Included in each is a recent skyline image of the City, accompanied by four photos of notable/recognisable places. One can spend all day deciding which of London's many landmarks and locales are worthy of inclusion, as such there are bound to be omissions that won't make everyone happy. The examples below include the Palace of Westminster (seat of parliament), the London Eye (most popular paid attraction), Buckingham Palace (principal workplace of the monarchy), Canary Wharf (major financial centre), St Paul's Cathedral (notable as an iconic structure) and Tower Bridge (notable as an iconic structure):
What are your opinions on the matter? Can a consensus be reached so that we can implement a montage worthy of this good article and wonderful city. Cheers Southlondoneye (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
If (A) is the first image and (D) the fourth, my order of preference would be 1st: (C), 2nd: (B), 3rd: (D), 4th: (A). I like that (C) gives prominence to Big Ben and the tube sign, neither of which is well represented in the images in the article body. Cheers, Ham II (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree, from the choice given. But they are all big buildings/things seen from a distance. London's buses & taxis are distinctive, especially in international terms, & one shot of one of those with people too would be good. The article's bus photo isn't bad. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, they're much appreciated. I didn't include any of our icons in the demonstrative examples (routemasters, black cabs, red phone box etc) as infobox montages generally focus on buildings and cityscapes. Plus it was already difficult deciding which landmark(s) to omit! Of the four I posted, C is also my preferred one. Southlondoneye (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
From an artistic perspective I think C is the most attractive option, although as others have commented, one image ought to include people-sized objects (as per your Tokyo, Chicago and NY examples). In (C) maybe you could replace the London Eye with a wide-angle image of people/buses/taxis in Trafalgar Square? Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your work. Some of the photos sourced are really excellent. However, I think there is room for improvement: the skyline shot is uninspiring: there are many more aesthetically interesting shots on commons and flickr of London skylines. Even though some editors have in the past said the skyline shot should be of the City rather than Canary Wharf, the fact is the latter is more photogenic. If we can manage without Buckingham Palace and St Pauls, why can't we omit the City skyline in favour of Canary Wharf, if we can't find a suitable City shot. Then there is Trafalgar Square: this is a good photo in some ways, but Nelson's column is in shade - surely a better shot must be available of this scene. A P Monblat (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't really understand why it is felt that "photogenic" images should be used. Is this a travel guide? We should be aiming to portray accurately what London looks like. I think the skyline picture does a good job at this, even if it isn't the most aesthetically pleasing. Also the City is in the centre of London, more recognised, and one of the most significant financial centres in the world. I agree a better picture of Trafalgar Square could be found. Rob984 (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Why have a photo of a small, dreary-looking cluster of tower blocks as your top photo of London? It might pass as the top infobox photo for the City of London article, but not for London as a whole! Why not the Houses of Parliament or Buckingham Palace? As to the Trafalgar Sq pic, here is a better one I have just transferred from flickr to commons. @Southlondoneye: if you agree, would you mind amending your montage accordingly (just the Trafalgar Sq element for now). And better place it here in Talk first, before going live with it. Thanks. A P Monblat (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
New mayor
Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
Does anyone know when Sadiq Khan will take office? The article has predictably been the subject of attempts to add him as the current mayor, but although he has won the election, not all political offices are necessarily taken up straight away. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry good question, I don't know. But if you check Boris Johnson's article, it will show his term is done whereas Sadiq Khan's article still doesn't show he became mayor but that's because his page is protected. Either way Johnson's term is done. (N0n3up (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC))
That page was unprotected after the election result was announced. That still doesn't necessarily mean that he has taken office, though. I'd like to see a source confirming when he does. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I found a source. See the relevant legislation, where it states that the mayor's term of office will "begin on the second day after the day on which the last of the successful candidates at the ordinary election is declared to be returned" and "end on the second day after the day on which the last of the successful candidates at the next ordinary election is declared to be returned". So Khan is not yet officially the mayor; Johnson still is. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I would say so, Jeppiz, but I have tried and every time, someone comes along to change it again. I don't want to get into an edit war, so I have given up. The bigger issue is at Mayor of London, where the term dates are being reported incorrectly. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Is it really necessary in the introduction to mention that some people don´t consider themselves Londoners? It just seems a bit dated, you could go further back if you liked. The name Greater London was also given in the early 1960s. A loose definition of a Greater City would extend beyond the current county/city of Greater London. It is mainly the last sentence I feel should be replaced, and also perhaps a mention that many boroughs in the home counties that made up the built up areas of London was absorbed, and that urban area has grown beyond it.
I could get statistics, but if you look at the boroughs outside Greater London - these are the neighbouring boroughs - that have more than 50% working in London, if I remember correctly it is all the boroughs that form a orbit around Greater London.
I live in one of the towns brought into the new Greater London area in 1965. The sentence you criticize very much sums up the attitude of a lot of people round here. I grew up in one those areas just outside the present Greater London and, while we felt we lived in the London region, we did not regard ourselves as Londoners. LynwoodF (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it is undue for the opening paragraphs. Also, some of those sources are quite weak. A poll of 70 people in South Croydon? AusLondonder (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Music
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Under the music heading EMI is listed as a major record company but EMI as a record company is no more. I just wondered if that needs to be amended? Patrice58 (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 135 external links on London. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
As the body of the article states:
Although there is evidence of scattered Brythonic settlements in the area, the first major settlement was founded by the Romans after the invasion of 43 AD.
This seems sufficient to justify the explanation in the lead:
It was founded – probably close to an already existing Celtic Briton village or settlement – around the year 43 by the Romans, who named it Londinium (7)
Both these statements contain verifying references already footnoted. However, we now have the appearance of two editors who are looking for various reasons to do away with the probability or evidence of Briton settlements and/or the date 43 AD, from the Lede. One says he does not think it notable, and the other says it is unsupported speculation. Both seemed a bit too bully to initiate discussion rather than edit war, so I'm initiating it here for further explanation. Regards, Philip Mexico (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Philip Mexico: The article says "Although there is evidence of scattered Brythonic settlements in the area, the first major settlement was founded by the Romans after the invasion of 43 AD" while the material you're edit-warring against multiple editors over says "probably close to an already existing Celtic Briton village or settlement – around the year 43". Which is not at all the same, meaning that "probably close to an already existing Celtic Briton village or settlement" is pure unsourced speculation (see WP:OR/WP:SYNTH) and against the rules here. Which is why I have reverted you... - Tom | Thomas.W talk15:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Pardon me, but what do you see as the significant distinction in the import of those two sentences? Unless you are splitting hairs, such as one saying "settlements" (plural) and the other "settlement", which I should think would be easier to correct than edit war to delete all of the data about Britons and 43 AD from the Lede. Philip Mexico (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
There's no mention in the body of the article about the Roman settlement having been established "close to an already existing Brythonic settlement", there's not even any mention about there having existed Brythonic settlements at the exact same time as the Roman settlement there was established, they could have ceased to exist before 43 AD, or have been established after 43 AD (since the local population didn't suddenly vanish when the Romans arrived...). And there's no mention at all of there ever having existed a Brythonic village or even settlement at almost the exact same location where the Romans established there settlement (as "close" implies), as there is in the text you are repeatedly adding. It also wasn't "around the year 43" (around means some time before or after, and Londinium having been established before 43 AD is totally impossible since there were no Romans in Britain before 43 AD...). So it's all one big unsourced speculation... - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I've just had a look at the reference given in the lede in support of the statement in question - the Museum of London website. To my surprise according to that website the Romans actually founded London in the year 50, 7 years after the Conquest. It also said the Roman name Londinium "may have been derived from the original British placename" but you are correct, it does not seem to specify any continuity of any Brythonic settlement or village right up to that point. Since these facts, particularly the 50 AD founding date, are indeed in the reference already, is there a way we could word it to reflect this? Regards, Philip Mexico (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I also just noticed this from the article Londinium which seems like an even more precise year:
"A wooden drain by the side of the main Roman road excavated at No 1 Poultry has been dated by dendrochronology to AD 47, which is likely to be the foundation date."[1]
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Should this be stated? Since it now mentions "most populated in the EU" maybe it should be stated "until the Government gets its wheels on the track"?--Edittrack121 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It has not yet happened and may not happen. Unless the vote directly affects the sentence you refer to, there is no need to change anything. Wikipedia is not about guessing the future. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Bizarrely that addition was made after the EU referendum. I think its not really relevant for the lead sentence, and it is repeated further down in the introduction as well. Rob984 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Dont think it is really relevant to London until it actually happens and so far we have no idea what changes or affects will happen in London. Best not to mention it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Numerous
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The word 'numerous' is used in this article four times, yet in all cases the items in question could be enumerated. This should be fixed, at least by changing all instances of 'numerous' to 'many.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.243.90 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 105 external links on London. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on London. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on London. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The weatherbox seems to assume that the highest temperatures in the UK always occur in Heathrow, which is not always the case. Heathrow did not record a 19.7°C record high for February as that temperature was only reached at Greenwich Observatory on 13 February 1998. It did not record the record the record high for April of 29.4°C as that occurred only in Camden Square on 16 April 1949. May, June and October continue in the same vein, displaying record highs for the whole of the UK when those temperatures didn't occur at Heathrow but as far away as Southampton and Gravesend--Minotdips (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Winters are "damp" ?
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
By what definition? The climate data provided shows about 150mm of rain during the December through February period, and about 10 days of measurable precipitation per month. That is, not hugely different from the rest of the year, and not particularly wet compared to many other places. I'm not being "defensive Londoner" here. If you can provide evidence of "damp" winters (humidity?) then go for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.53.180 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2017
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the infobox as detailed below in "please change X to Y" format (sorry but including the fully detailed request in this part seems to break the template). An edit of 18 August 2017 (diff below) changed the infobox GVA figures for all London to those for a small, rich area of London, as was made clear by the title of the inserted source "This pocket of London is the richest place in Europe" and the text of the source, beginning " Data published Friday shows an area of inner west London is the most prosperous part of Europe by a long shot. The area encompasses Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, Notting Hill and the City of London financial district. Based on GDP per head, this part of London ...."
As the other part of the edit (bizarrely changing https to http throughout) has already been undone by a bot, the infobox will probably have to be changed by hand as below.
Please change
| demographics_type1 = GDP/GVA (2016)
| demographics1_footnotes = [1][2][3]
| demographics1_title1 = Total
| demographics1_info1 = £890 billion / $1.2 trillion
| demographics1_title2 = Per capita
| demographics1_info2 = £119,300 / $162,200
to
| demographics_type1 = GVA (2016)
| demographics1_footnotes = [4][5]
| demographics1_title1 = Total
| demographics1_info1 = £378 billion
| demographics1_title2 = Per capita
| demographics1_info2 = £43,629
The error was last reinserted on 18 August 2017.[3] It seems as if most of that editor's contributions to this article[4] have been insertions of erroneously high values here, including directly reverting corrections by Rob984 and Skandinavas.
92.19.24.9 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Harper9979's edits to economy figures in the infobox
Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Harper9979, why don't you just explain where the hell you are getting those figures from, and what they actually mean? They could possibly be included along side the regional figures. But the official ONS regional figures for London's GVA in 2015 are not wrong, and London's economy has not increased in size by 200% since then. You've been reverted by numerous editors. Stop being disruptive. Rob984 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence of the CNN story says that it is about "an area of inner west London", specified as "City of London, Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, Hammersmith & Fulham, Camden and Wandsworth". See Central London for a variety of formal and informal definitions of Central London. The area selected by CNN is not one of them and may even have been assembled by the CNN journalist for that one story, by cherry-picking London boroughs with high per-capita GDP listed in the "data published Friday". We don't know because the journalist fails to tell us what data they're using. 92.19.24.9 (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on London. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I followed the link to weatheronline.co.uk but the data used in coming up with the month-by-month averages is quite sparse. Purports to be averages from 2001 to 2014 but for the month of November (for example) the only available data points are for 2003 to 2008. Averaging over just 6 data points could give quite unreliable numbers. Or so it seems... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigalxyz123 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It states Sadiq Khan as mayor of London in infobox, which is correct, but add Jo Johnson (C) as Minister for London? Could add new tag, or just br under major of London and add Jo Johnson there.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hi, I'm Komky.
On page 4.4 (Climate), I want to add the Trewartha classification for London, it is Subtropical/Maritime. Komky (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Rugby section needs an update - still has London Welsh as a premiership club, they are now in London NW3 following going bust. Richmond are a Championship side.
I suspect all other sports are equally out of date.
Can someone with an account and time fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.99.67 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Pictures - Misleading
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
All the pictures in the article depict a "sunny" London that is far from reality. It's even more amusing to notice that even the only picture in the climate section is a remark about dubious 'summer day temperatures'. Unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.172.187 (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Totally agree with this one. London has predominantly a cloudy or overcast sky throughout most of the year, and the pictures (some of which look even edited because the light in london is not that intense) depict a sort of idyllic sky which is the exception most days in the city. This manipulation is encyclopaedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.170.2 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
the comments above are nonsense. London is officially drier then Sydney, Rome oR Paris. The whole 'it always rains in London' thing is an incorrect stereotype. The original stereotype was that it rains alot in England which is true (however London is in the driest part of England and much dryer than England as a whole) this somehow changed to it raining alot in london as many foreigners say London when they mean England. This year the summer was so hot that from space England (including London) looks a yellow colour as all the grass has died and dried up and we had consistent sunny days of 35c+.
Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
{{edit London}}
In the Education section, please update the university rankings of UCL, ICL and KCL to read:
A number of world-leading education institutions are based in London. In the 2013 QS World University Rankings, University College London (UCL) is ranked 4th in the world, Imperial College London 5th, and King's College London 19th.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2013|title=QS World University Rankings - Overall for 2013|accessdate=18 March 2014</ref>
Done.
Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
London population is old, info is from 2016, current info from the same source from 2017 is 8,825,001 inhabitants.
Change:
subdivision_type = Sovereign State
subdivision_name = United Kingdom
subdivision_type1 = Country
subdivision_type2 = Region
subdivision_name1 = England
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG
WP:INFOBOXFLAG
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG starts "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes - Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." The later passage "Human geographic articles – for example, settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags", isn't as emphatic and seems to be a contradiction. A year or so ago, maybe two, I remember reading comments about a discussion there had been between admin, senior editors et al, in which a consensus had been reached that flags should not be used in infoboxes of town and cities, and a random check of such pages tends to bear this out
82.30.110.20 (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
I propose that Greater London be merged into London. The administrative boundaries of the London region and London are the same so I don’t understand why the articles are seperate. IWI (chat) 20:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The two articles serve different purposes. Greater London is about the administrative region, while the London article is about the history of both the city and the boroughs. It is much cleaner to keep them separate.--2601:446:400:2ADC:E101:FE30:4E36:F79B (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose But perhaps the disambiguating hatnotes could be made clearer, so that the casual reader can more easily understand why there is more than one article and how their scope differs? -- Alarics (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Climate change
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
the article has a subsection on climate change.
However, it does not contain information on the impact of climate change on London, which probably has peculiar features.
Information by reliable sources should be added.
Kind regards,
Sarcelles (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
In the introductory sentence of this paragraph, I erroneously wrote, the article has a subsection on climate change. I intended to say climate. Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion
Hello!
Apologies if I'm violating any convention. I'm not a common Wikipedia contributor.
The London article lists it as capital of England and the United Kingdom. My understanding is that it is only the capital of the United Kingdom following the Acts of Union in 1707 and that England technically has no capital. The supporting material sited as reference for this statement only notes it as capital of United Kingdom and doesn't mention England. While I agree it's a common notion that London is the capital of England, I don't believe that is factually correct.
It's possible I'm mistaken, but thought I'd post a comment to see if any improvements are necessary for article accuracy.
Cheers!
I tried to edit the page to reflect the idea that London is not recognized as the capital of England and that it is, in fact, the capital of England (just like English is not the official language of the United States). Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
No law or act of parliament officially recognises London as the UK’s capital never mind England. London’s status as both the de facto British and English capital is only legitimised through long-standing recognition and tradition. Margalant (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The "government" of areas in England is delegated to councils and unitary authorities under the guidance of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, based in London. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
England is currently administered by the UK parliament and by the English Legislative Grand Committee, which are both located in London. Also, many English institutions such as the FA and RFU have there headquarters in London because it’s the English capital. Like I stated above, London’s status as England’s capital is legitimised by universal acceptance and long-standing tradition. The same applies for the UK, because no act of parliament has ever officially made London the British capital. Margalant (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
People need to stop edit warring and start talking about the parameter that changes every day at this point. IWI (chat) 12:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2019
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The record low temperature in the London area is -16.1c recorded at Northolt in January 1962. There is an unsourced claim of -21c, which is incorrect and should be removed. 62.255.196.99 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to move the information regarding the region of London from the article for Greater London to this article
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Currently, the article for Greater London contains information the London region as well. I think that the parts about the London region should be moved to this page because they are the same thing. Greater London only includes the parts of London outside of the City of London. However, the boundaries of the region of London include the city as well. London, the capital of the United Kingdom has the same boundaries as London, the region of England so I believe that they should share the same article. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Some people might say that London and Greater London are even less the same thing. Shouldn't that distinction be made clear first? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It is, they are both separate articles. What I'm proposing is that the information about the London region is moved from the article about Greater London the the article about London. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Repetition
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Religion section has "Large Hindu communities are in the north-western boroughs of Harrow and Brent, the latter of which hosts what was, until 2006,[1] Europe's largest Hindu temple, Neasden Temple.[2] London is also home to 44 Hindu temples, including the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir London." The Neasden Temple of the first sentence is the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir London of the next sentence, and Neasden Temple is a redirect to BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir London.
An even smaller quibble is that while it's true that - at least at the 2011 census - there were "large Hindu communities ... in Harrow and Brent", there are large Hindu communities in other parts of London too, as shown in a map used in Religion in London.
^"Hindu London". BBC London. 6 June 2005. Archived from the original on 18 February 2006. Retrieved 3 June 2006. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This statement: "London is considered to be one of the world's most important global cities[18][19][20] and has been termed the world's most powerful,[21] most desirable,[22] most influential,[23] most visited,[24] most expensive,[25][26] innovative,[27] sustainable,[28] most investment friendly,[29] most popular for work,[30] and the most vegetarian friendly[31] city in the world." is a great example of puffery isn't it? I'm sure, if I tried hard enough, I could find a reference that stated London is the dirtiest, most unfriendly, etc, etc city in the world, but we wouldn't put it in the lead. I can't see what the statement adds. Should it be removed? Silas Stoat (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Weak Agree – Although I would agree London is a great, you're right in that this does come across as puffery. However, some of that is useful information (power, influence, cost of living, economic centre). So whilst I agree it can be better put – "... as a centre of power, influence and finance, and a destination for tourism, living and work." (that's not that great, but just to show alternative phrasing), I feel that a lot of the concepts should be included. Shadowssettle(talk)10:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Population Density
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The calculation for population density is incorrect. If there are 9,126,366 people living in 607 square miles as per the other statistics given then the population density is over 15,000 per square mile. Please correct this for the sake of accuracy and also because 500+ people is quite significant on the ground. By leaving the population density at 14,500 it somehow looks as if London isn't dramatically overpopulated when in fact it is. Iynx (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
There are quite a few problems with those numbers. The density figures don't match either the total population or Greater London in either unit. The footnote says the total population is Greater London and the City of London but the numbers don't add up. The infobox also says the numbers are 2019 without indicating where they come from. I'll hold off making the change now until I can find some sourced numbers. Perhaps someone else can provide them beforehand. Jts1882 | talk09:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems User:Goom80 made the change based on this estimate, which uses the 2014 estimate and 2011-2014 growth rate to calculate a 2019 population. This doesn't seem an accurate estimate as growth rate patterns have changed (e.g. see ONS revisions of population estimates from 2012-2016). The previous data in the infobox was mid-2017 from the ONS using their population estimator. The exact numbers are London region 8,825,001 and City of London 7654 (revised downwards from earlier estimates of about 9,900), with the difference providing the Greater London number. I have restored these mid-2017 numbers. The next release (for mid-2018 estimates) is due in June 2019. The density per square mile is correct to three significant figures and I've corrected the density per km2 (8,825,000/1572 = 5614/km2). Jts1882 | talk11:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
City of London
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
To state that London is the largest city in England is wrong. 'London', the City itself, is small.
Like the 'puffery' subject mentioned below, it's no wonder the English are laughed at by the rest of the World.
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
An editor recently attempted to remove the fact that London is England’s capital both on this page and the England page. He/she was swiftly told that consensus is that London is the undisputed capital of both England and the UK, but he/she continues to delete the part in the lede which highlights this fact. I would ask this editor to stop as their actions are creating inconsistencies between the London and England page. Margalant (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
No issue with reference to Imperial College and LSE in the lead, but the amount of detail seems excessive and the failure to include UCL eccentric considering it is far larger and ranked higher by most global rankings. These three are the London members of the G5 and usually regarded as the London members of the "golden triangle". Sugggest:
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A couple of comments on the lead:
1 The sentence "London ranks 26 out of 300 major cities for economic performance." is meaningless without an explanation of the criteria - there are endless ways to measure economic performance of a city - or timescale. I suggest that this sentence is deleted, which will also help trim some of the bloat in the lead.
For (1), I agree that the current wording isn't great for the intro; unless someone has a clear idea of how to make this constructive, it probably should be removed, especially as there are other more constructive comments on London's financial power in the intro paragraphs anyway. For (2) I don't particularly mind, however, I do think that it's worth mentioning what they're highly ranked for, otherwise it's just three names. I tried to cut down the specifics a while ago—the day before you brought this up—to just the broad subject areas, but if there's a consensus to cut this down further, that's okay. For now however, I suggest it be left as is. Shadowssettle(talk)12:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
London (disambiguation) really?
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Team, first part of the code renders as following;
This page is about the capital city. For the region and county of England, see Greater London. For the historic city and financial district within London, see City of London. For other uses, see London (disambiguation).
I think it is a bit long for general visitors and should be cleaned up to;
This page is about the capital city. For other uses, see London.
This page London (disambiguation) also needs to be re-ordered I feel, not sure how and wanted to seek viewpoints etc.
Was thinking either "Most common" section and have top three uses?
sub section "Authorities"?
Just does not seem to scan well, if anyone has any more or better suggestion please add.The Original Filfi (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Prehistory
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
New discovery suggests London’s story goes back more than 3,000 years longer than previously thought.
"Archaeological investigations just 15 metres outside the northern boundary of the historic City of London have unearthed evidence of what appears to have been some sort of prehistoric ceremonial site. The implication of the discovery is that London may have begun not as a town or even as a village – but as a ceremonial place of popular assembly where local people would have come together for major social and religious feasts and rituals."
An exciting new dating method.[6]Doug Wellertalk15:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Dear Wikipedia
I would like to change 2 things
1.Greater London Built up area -something like 10.7-12 mln in 2020 and the phrase that london commuter belt is the biggest metropolitan area in Europe .
It is not the biggest because Moscow metropolitan area is over 20 milion . JTarg (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Done Amortias (T)(C) 00:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Not done London is both the capital of the United Kingdom, and the capital of England, like the article correctly says. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Question: What makes that link so special that it needs to be linked in an article about the entire city? TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 09:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Not done: TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 19:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, thanks for informing me. I'll see what I can do to get them to stop. Rob984 (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Something done. I have added Jo Johnson's appointment under London#National_government, but could not add it to the infobox as there are no spare leader tags. Batternut (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
United Kingdom
England
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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please be precise. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)