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.
None of the comparable city pages ( New York, Paris, Berlin ) have pointed references in the intro section about the proportion of the population that is or is not white. They have references to the number of communities, and the proportion of inhabitants of those cities who are born elsewhere, which the demographic section of the London article proper also does. In that context, it's hard not to see the sentence on races as an anomalous point levered into the main intro for POV reasons. Am removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartylunch (talk • contribs) 22:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Londoners - get your house in order!
Come on WP:LONDON - the flag and arms in the infobox belong to the City of London (at worst), but properly the City of London Corporation, not London. And whilst I know there are a gazillion references out there saying London is a city, Wikipedia and Wikipedians should do better: It's the "capitalcity of England and the United Kingdom, and its largest city most populous municipality....". We surely all know city status belongs to the square mile, and consequently London is more aptly described as "a region of England considered to be a global city" (key subtle difference, which gets the "city" reference in there): The "largest city" in England by area is the City of Carlisle; the "largest city" by population is Birmingham. A couple of years back this article made the difference quite clear - it now reads like someone has purposely entered "city" and mixed the square mile in there as much as they possibly can without being completely silly. --Jza84 | Talk 10:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I reverted your change. The problem here is that there is more than one definition for "city". We have the UK local government definition, which you've applied, and we also have the more widely accepted definition, applicabale to large connurbations the world over. To imply, or state, that London is not a city is just not viable at Wikipedia or anywhere else. Pikemaster (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The protocol is Bold, Revert, Discuss. Jza84 did the bold edit, I reverted it and added to the discussion. You, TBrandley, on the other hand have reverted again without a consensus being reached here, so I've put it back to the status quo, awaiting a consensus to emerge. Concerning the point at issue, it's a minority pov that London isn't a city. As I mentioned above, Jza84, and now you, are imposing the narrow definition of a city. In every sense but one, the administrative view, London is a city. This point is referenced. The pov suggesting otherwise also suggests that this place, City of Carlisle, is a city in its entirety; obviously it isn't. It's a local government area, mostly rurual, that has City in its name. Pikemaster (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Why is there such confusion between a city (a word meaning a large settlement) and City status in the United Kingdom? The two are not the same. The first is a word used commonly and in human geography. The latter is a distinction given by the Crown to particular organised communities, and then usually to a specific body, in this case the "Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London" (the Corporation of London).
As for the flag - it is the flag of the City of London - and NOT London or Greater London. Flags, coats of arms, etc, in the UK are (like city status) given to specific bodies. Again, in this case it is to the Corporation of London. Greater London Council had its own coat of arms, for example. David (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Greater London?
From my current understanding, this article refers to the region known legally as 'London', the administrative area known legally as 'Greater London' and London historically, whereas the 'Greater London' article refers to the region know legally as 'London' and the administrative area and ceremonial county known legally as 'Greater London'. Personally I feel this makes it difficult for the reader to understand the difference between the Greater London ceremonial county, the London region and Greater London administrative area.
Why not create a new article called 'Greater London (ceremonial county)' and delete the 'Greater London' article, moving the information to the 'Greater London (ceremonial county)' article and this article. Then to make it clear that this article is about the London region and the Greater London administrative area, change the opening sentence to "Greater London, also referred to as London, is the capital city of England and the United Kingdom" and adding 'Region' and 'Administrative area' to the 'settlement type' section of the info-box?
Perhaps a silly suggestion, but maybe this article should be deleted and redirected to Greater London, where must information should be legally described. As a person non-familiar with most government policy in the United Kingdom, this is rather confusing with the former. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
As WP:COMMONNAME implies, articles should usually be called by the common name of the subject. The common name for the conurbation in 'London'; 'Greater London' is the bureaucratic abstraction, and 'the City of London' is a very specific subset. It's also not self-evident that 'the capital' is coterminous with 'Greater London', so I'd avoid any wording which said that it was. Basically, I'm against all these moves. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree this article should be called 'London' as per WP:COMMONNAME however I disagree that Greater London and London and different entities. As far as I can tell 'Greater London' is just the modern-day official term for 'London', for example 'London' continues to be used in the term 'London Assembly' which is the assembly for Greater London. If London and Greater London are the same geographic region and political entity then how are they not coterminous? Regards, Rob (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
So London and Greater London can be used interchangeably? Also, please take a look at the note I posted on the Greater London Talk Section. Justgravy (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
From my understanding, however the ceremonial county called 'Greater London' is not. Regards, Rob (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Possibly a better option would be to make this article refer to the region called 'London' and it's status as the Capital City of the United Kingdom, then split the Greater London article into 'Greater London (administrative area)' and 'Greater London (ceremonial county)'. Regards, Rob (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I've just read through the above and can't work out if it's a joke. Why are these things so difficult to some? Why do some make things so complicated for themselves?
This article is about London, a city (in the general sense - ie a large settlement) that is also the capital of the United Kingdom and England.
The administrative area and ceremonial county of Greater London / the English region of London are related administrative aspects of this city. As the three things (the region, the ceremonial county and the administrative area) cover the same area (yes I know the City isn't part of the ceremonial county, but that hardly matters) they only need one article: Greater London.
Otherwise everything to do with London, including an overview of its administration and administrative areas, belongs, funnily enough, in the London article.
Leave things alone - it's been thought through by hundreds of Wikipedia editors over the years and makes perfect sense. David (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, these are serious suggestions. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the terms actually break down like this:
London is a conurbation, or colloquially a city, which occupies the London Basin, a large artesian basin in the lower Thames valley;
The City of London is the 2000-year-old square mile at the core of that city, defined since the Middle Ages as a separate administrative area with a very peculiar form of government;
The Corporation of London is the common name for that government, although I believe the legal name has changed recently;
Greater London is a former administrative county containing most of Middlesex and parts of what used to be Kent, Essex and Surrey; it almost completely encompasses the conurbation, and is partitioned into ~33 boroughs;
The Greater London Authority is a recently established sui generis regional government with authority over Greater London;
There is also a ceremonial county of Greater London, which has absolutely no effect whatever on the lives of most Londoners;
Westminster is one of the innermost of the London boroughs, and contains the seat of government, the residence of the monarch, the church where that monarch is crowned, the court to which ambassadors are sent, and the seat of the Roman Catholic archbishop for England;
Despite which, it is absolutely standard practice to say that London, rather than Westminster is the capital of Great Britain, and of England;
and to the best of my knowledge, the term 'capital city' has no defined meaning in Anglo-Welsh law.
Exactly. (Except that there are 32 boroughs, not 33, in the ceremonial county of Greater London, and which together with the City form the administrative area of Greater London.) But yes, what you've written there is exactly correct, including that the seat of government is Westminster and that there is no formal definition regarding the capital - London (the city, as in the settlement) is the capital by long-standing convention and common usage.
Essentially nothing needs to change. Newer editors here shouldn't be surprised to hear that this has been gone through time and time again over the years.... David (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem I have is that from my understanding, London, the region of England is the exact same thing as London, the city. Both are conurbations and have no administrative role within UK Government. This article is currently suggesting that 'London' as a city is only a convention when really, there is a legal entity know as 'London', the region which effectively acts as the capital city of the United Kingdom. I agree that Greater London and London are separate entities, and deserve separate articles however currently there are two articles cover the same region known as 'London'. I think that the region known as 'London' should removed from the Greater London article and this article should show that London is a region commonly described as a city. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Not true. London (Local Government region) is the same thing as Greater London, but the conurbation consists of the actual physical settlement, which spills over into Essex and other neighbouring counties (and thus local authorities, local government regions, etc) and conversely has tracts of countryside in it; the village of Downe is certainly not part of the conurbation, but it's part of Greater London. The problem arises from the fact that the actual urban sprawl of London has the most obvious direct manifestation - but no legal identity whatever. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
This article is about the capital city called 'London' not the Greater London Urban Area. I lived in Essex and never heard anyone define any place in Essex as being part of the capital city called 'London', please provide reference for your claim. As for the village of Downe, many cites such as the City of Sunderland contain rural areas that are still defined as being part of the area of the city. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Rob, your understanding is wrong I'm afraid. The region of London is exactly the same as the administrative area of Greater London, despite the difference in the name. The region is one of the 9 Regions of England. (Greater London the ceremonial county is almost exactly the same coverage, minus the City of London.) London, the city, does not have defined boundaries because in this loose sense ("a city") it is a settlement and not an administrative, statistical, or political area. David (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
And just to add, Greater London and Greater London Urban Area are two different things: the first is a fixed (in law) administrative/political area, the latter is a statistical area which presumably changes as the settlement(s) change. They cover different areas. David (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I was making the point that a continuous urban area does not define a city. From my understanding the reason why the region was named 'London' rather than 'Greater London' during its creation in 1994 was to clearly define the cities borders. I also personally think the majority of people who live in and around London define the border of the city as being identical of that of the region. I can't personally prove this and i understand that most people here disagree. As suggested, creating a new article regarding the terminology of London should reduce confusion between the various definitions. Thanks, Rob (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
But that's just the point: 'London' didn't come into being in 1984; it had been there for centuries, growing slowly. Drawing an imaginary line around it doesn't confine it either. At some level, I think we need to understand that a city consists of its buildings and citizens, not of administrative divisions. For what it's worth, I am a Londoner, and my experience is that people often think the boroughs are coterminous with the sprawl, and are surprised that Downe is in Greater London, or Grange Hill in Essex. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that the city came into being in 1994, i'm suggesting that the city was defined in 1994 however i can't prove this. Regarding the boroughs being coterminous with the sprawl, i would highly disagree as the area around the London region already makes up boroughs of other regions.
In my opinion after the London region was created, people have began to recognise this as being the area of the city. Another example of this is the city of Newcastle Upon Tyne, which borders use to be defined by its urban sprawl, but are now defined by its metropolitan borough. Most people from Wallsend would no longer define themselves as being part of Newcastle, even though they are one urban area. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, good — Dpaajones and WheelerRob have indicated support, so hopefully if I or someone does start such an article it shouldn't get deleted.
Here's an outline sketch of what the article perhaps might cover. However, I've probably missed some things, or included things unnecessarily, so I hope people can offer suggestions.--A bit iffy (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The term 'London' is sometimes unclear, and can mean different things to different people. This article clarifies the names for London, its boundaries, and its governing bodies.
London is a conurbation, or colloquially a city, which occupies the London Basin, a large artesian basin in the lower Thames valley.
City of London
Corporation of London
Greater London
Greater London Authority
Greater London ceremonial county
Westminster
Greater London Urban Area
London County Council
Greater London Council
London Assembly
M25
County of London
London postal district
Nicknames: Great Wen, Big Smoke, Square Mile
I strongly support this proposal, and would be happy to use my professional knowledge of local government to try and rustle up some good sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this also, different people have lots of different definitions (how valid they are is not in the scope of this article) indeed if there was proof that people in Merseyside thought they were an outpost of London we would have to include it. However, I think the title should be "the peoples definition of London" or something like that, because a few definitions you have given (the postal one for example) are not recognised by Government. Justgravy (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
2 years ago a common figure estimating the size of Londons metro area was about 11.000.000. That data was backed by Eurostat.
The current introductions claims 15.000.000 citizens. The data is not backed by a reliable source. Please correct this obvious superstition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.147.22 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not sourced. The link/ the website does not proof or cite anything. The 15 million inhabitants is simply a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.139.158 (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The reference links to the Eurostat figure for Brussels, and on a quick check I could not find the figures for London. It would be helpful if the complainant gave the source for his figure instead of resorting to abuse. 10:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The IP is certainly correct. The source does not state anything relating to 15 million inhabitants, and data from the 2001 census suggests that the population be 13,709,000. If the change could be implied with a source from the 2001 census, that would be great. TBrandley (T • C • B) 03:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it is wrong to label it is as one of the regions of England. It is much different than regions like the East Midlands and such. It is a region of boroughs which make up one city headed by a Mayor and Assembly.Bjoh249 (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Region??
I think most agree that London is a city. It is made up of 32 boroughs which form one entire city just like the 5 boroughs of New York City. London also has a mayor and council over all 32 boroughs.70.178.153.27 (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This article covers the general topic of London, covering the London region and the city. Perhaps the field should be omitted. TBrandley (T • C • B) 20:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Also removed the "Greater London" line - this is the name for the administrative area (and not the region or an "official" name for London - there isn't one). David (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Not true at all. The City of London corporation has a white shield with a red cross and a sword in an upper corner, and famously has silver dragons for supporters, some of which can be seen at the entrances to the City. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The City of London is ran by the Mayor of London and London Assembly just like all of the other 32 London boroughs. Therefore it is a part of London. When they mention that it is "not to be confused" with London they mean not to think that the City of London is describing the entirety of London. The City of London is largely ceremonial because of its ancient status.
Would editors agree with me that healthcare most often denotes the more practical side of the subject, whereas medicine most often denotes the research side of the same subject, and therefore the more accurate term is medicine in the lead (section).
On a related point, I generally avoid clear fanciful, jargonistic "administrativese" in particular "administrative area" when county would be perfectly more succinct, understood and established, also whether England has as some contend exactly 10 regions is now debatable, of course in budgets at the European level it does, but the term is to local minds particularly unused in a place like Hampshire/Wiltshire, which often see themselves as purely South of England, and Yorkshire and the Humber where people in the latter mostly very much in the former, so that is perhaps a redundant point for the lead section, after the dismantling of the Regional Assemblies which proved ineffective (so the government opined in doing so). - Adam37Talk18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the source supporting the sentence containing "healthcare" in the lead. This is a Global Power Index report which doesn't seem to say anything about such sectors in London or elsewhere. The lead generally seems to be poor. It should be a summary of the main body of the article and so shouldn't have any independent facts requiring citations. There seem to be grammatical errors in there too and my impression is that the whole thing needs a rewrite. I don't understand your point about regions and suppose that a rewrite will take care of that too. Andrew Davidson (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Pronunciation
It's not as bad as Manchester, which previously had the wrong pronunciation, but there's nothing local or distinct about this pronunciation of London and we can leave it to the city's Wiktionary entry to help people who don't already know it. The IPA is distracting, needless, and mildly insulting: there is no one coming to this page who is able to read it and doesn't already know how to say this word. Martin Hogbin's previous reply on this point was poorly taken: the English pronunciation is perfectly straightforward and phonetic. (Perhaps he was confused by the second "o" turning into a schwa, but that's completely standard in unstressed syllables.)
I'm not against IPA in principle: Chulmleigh, e.g., absolutely should lead with its IPA since the pronunciation differs so much from how it's written. Versailles needs it to help those unfamiliar with French; Versailles, Kentucky, needs it to help those who are. Manchester's is ok since the local version differs a bit from the American one. But here? For London? Could I ask those arguing that this is helpful, would you please provide a common incorrect pronunciation (in any form of English) that we are avoiding by "helping" our readers in this way? — LlywelynII03:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
As far as consensus:
I'm for removing it
Martin's against
...but – as mentioned above – for an invalid reason
although I would argue he is wrong to think that the current placement as odd symbols directly next to the lede of the article in the middle of the flow of the lead sentence of the article is "easily ignored"
I am not sure what your argument is for not having an IPA pronunciation. I appreciate that many people throughout the world will be familiar with the correct pronunciation of 'London', it is indeed an exceedingly well known city, however, I think the general argument that 'everybody knows that so we need not make it clear' is a a bad one. There are many bizarre misconceptions held be people about almost every subject and it is quite possible that there are people who, having seen only the written word, are not sure of the correct pronunciation of the city. Encyclopedia articles are always written for the benefit of people who do not know something.
It is common in English for the letter 'o' to be pronounced as 'ʌ' but not universal thus the IPA may be of use to some people. What is the harm in having the IPA? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Martin Hogbin. The word is not pronounced as it is written. It is not rare to hear foreigners incorrectly pronouncing it as it is written (London) instead of Lundun. Why wouldn't you pronounce an O as an O unless you happened to know otherwise? -- Alarics (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to be written in a simple, easy-to-read form which summarises the main body of the article. Per MOS:INTRO, we should "avoid difficult to understand terminology and symbols". IPA is technical jargon which will be unfamiliar to most readers and so is not appropriate. The sound clip (pronunciationⓘ) might stay but I reckon that's contrary to WP:NOT#DICT which forbids "prescriptive guides for prospective speakers". Andrew Davidson (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
See WP:IPAE: "Throughout Wikipedia, the pronunciations of English words are conveyed by means of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)". This is typically put in the first sentence of an article. It is the normal practice to include this in placenames; see Manchester, Edinburgh, Leicester, etc. Why do you want to make an exception of the article about London? -- Alarics (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Capital city of England and UK
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The page states that London is the capital city of England and the united kingdom. it is not the capital city of the UK.
the uk is a state which included a group of countries and does not have a capital city
I dont disagree that London is the seat of "some" of our Government, but Scotland and Irelend have there own Government, Wales has its Welsh Assembly these structures works along side the London based UK government.
I've looked at the first link so far to see if I can tell where it's located, and this is getting fascinating. I read at that website: "Wales’ voice in the UK Government is represented by the Secretary of State for Wales and supporting staff in the Wales Office." This turns out to be headquartered in both London and Cardiff. Presumably the other members of the UK have headquarters somewhere outside London too, so I imagine that wording should indeed be correct, "and the centre of the United Kingdom government". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Now I see the wikipedia article contradicts that website by saying this is no longer the case as of 2006, but I guess it doesn't matter either way for purpose of this edit request! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It certainly is a strange situation, and only going to be more confusing if Scotland votes for full independence from the UK next year.
Each of the countries making up the UK has its own governmental buildings.
This is all quite wrong. There is no doubt at all that London is the capital of the UK. It is where the UK government is overwhelmingly based, both the legislature and the executive as well as the bulk of the civil service and the monarchy. If we should delete anything, in my view it is the statement that London is also the capital of England. Arguably England doesn't have a capital as it does not have its own government. -- Alarics (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Rainfall
In the climate section, it is mentioned that precipitation in London is lower than various other cities that have a reputation for good weather. However, I believe this is misleading as it is not mentioned that London has significantly less sunshine hours than these cities. --5.66.108.39 (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Less rainfall is less rainfall. It doesn't need clarifying. It may not match many people's prejudices and stereotypes, but that is what an encyclopedia should do.86.172.102.208 (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
London's status/standing understated in opening paragraphs & infobox montage
Compared with other articles on prominent cities such as New York City, the opening paragraphs on the London entry greatly understate the city's prominence. While not advocating bloating the section with miscellaneous facts or back-patting, its prominence as a leader in certain fields should be included or stated. Examples that escape mention on the London article but are included on other cities include that London receives more foreign investment than any city, has amongst the world's most expensive real estate and has the highest foreign-born population of any city at the last census.
The infobox montage of London images is also out of date and lacking in quality compared to the likes of Paris. I can help with the compilation of an updated one and post demonstrative examples on this talk page if wanted.
I would support adding facts like those that you mention provided that they can be very well sourced and cannot be disputed. We should avoid vague peacock terms like NYC's ' has been called the world's leading financial center'. Better pictures are always welcome. We currently have no Shard pictures. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I am going to add to the second sentence of the intro, after "United Kingdom" but before Note 1, that London is the largest city of the European Union, as referenced by Note 1. I also think that adding the facts stated by Southlondoneye, above, would be useful to highlight London's prominence among important world cities, provided that such facts are properly referenced.
American In Brazil (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
World cultural capital
I don't understand why London is referred to as "A world cultural capital" but then New York is called "THE world cultural capital". It just doesn't seem to make sense. This article significantly understates the influence of London (the only other Alpha ++ city in the world) in comparison to the New York one. Thank you for reading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.239.39 (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It is simply that this article is of a higher encyclopedic quality that the New York City one. There was a discussion a while back on whether any city could call itself the 'financial capital of the world' and there was a clear consensus that this term was undefined and unencyclopedic. It is easy to find sources making this claim for both London and NCY and indeed other cities but no way of judging them or deciding which is correct. There is not even an agreed definition of the term and trying to decide that here would be WP:OR. It was therefore agreed that the term should not be used in WP articles. Nevertheless, one editor insisted in writing that NYC 'had been called the financial capital of the world'. This is undoubtedly true and supported by a reliable source but sources could also be found that said that London 'has been called financial capital of the world', and probably the same for other cities.
I think the situation is even more vague for "THE world cultural capital". I would guess that half a dozen cities at least could lay claim to this accolade. To state it as a fact for any city is unencyclopedic and misleading. I suggest that you take the matter up in the NYC article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I have removed a recently added main section on air pollution, (marked as a minor edit) pending discussion on whether this material should be added and, if so, where. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Shanghai has a section on env. protection. I suggest the amount of space London devotes is in proportion to the seriousness of the issue for London vis a vis Shanghai. And not just vis a vis Shanghai: there needs to be global proportionality on this--A P Monblat (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC).
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove 'and of the United Kingdom' as this is factual incorrect. Officially there is no capital of the UK with each constituent members of the UK have there own capital London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.
Davidgildea (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
A peer review of the Wikipedia entry for Penge is underway. Editors are cordially invited to participate in this review. Many errors have been corrected and most of the entry is now suitably referenced. Nay suggestions for further improvement will be gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebofpenge (talk • contribs) 02:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
top 20 ethnic groups?
Section Ethnic groups has this: The table to the right shows the 20 most common foreign countries of birth of London residents in 2011, the date of the last published UK Census.
However, the table has 28 entries of which one is "United Kingdom". The part "20 most common foreign countries" is not true, while the rest might be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.73.182 (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I want to Add below Link to Tourism Tab of London Wiki Page, This Link have detail of travelling London Attraction in 2 Days.
There seems to be much unsourced anecdotal information in this section. I have removed some of it but it still needs inproving. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
OK - well done for finding the original BBC article. It's clear from that that this didn't happen 'in 2013', but between 2001 and 2011; and there are a few games being played with the numbers. For example, White Irish people who are a long-established ethnic minority in London are excluded from the figure quoted. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have any statement on this subject, but I feel that the wording of this sentence from Ethnic groups in London is preferable: "According to the 2011 Census, 44.9% of London's residents are White British. London is one of the few places in the United Kingdom in which White Britons comprise less than half of the total population." That's unambiguous, and doesn't give the misleading impression that any other group outnumbers White British. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Climate
What is an average climate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.254.200 (talk) 6:46 pm, Today (UTC−4)
If the warmest month in the climate chart is greater than 22 Celsius (July is 23.2 Celsius and August is 22.9 Celsius) and the coldest month is greater than 0 Celsius, then shouldn't London be classified as a Humid subtropical climate (Cfa) instead of a temperate maritime climate (Cfb), as the warmest month has to be less than 22 Celsius in order to qualify as Cfb? --135.23.217.194 (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
23.2 °C is London's average daily high July temperature; CfA classification requires overall average above 22 °C in the hottest month. The climate section in the article does not list that data series, but can be estimated at around 18-19 °C (average daily low in July is 13.9). It would take at least 50 more years of global warming for London to get to the humid subtropical. :) No such user (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Geography
"The area of Greater London has incorporated areas that were once part of the historic counties of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire".
The historic counties have not ceased to include those areas. It would be better to say:
"The area of Greater London includes areas that are part of the historic counties of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire" if you are using historic counties in a definitive way, and adding an appropriate link, or
"The area of Greater London includes areas that were once part of the counties of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire", though this leaves you with a non disambiguated use of the term "Counties" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.240.17.66 (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Collage
The previous collage
First, let me express my general dislike towards the overuse of collages in the infoboxes, because the images they contain are too small to be comfortably viewable, too crammed to decently present the city in a single view, and, last but not the least, occupy vertical space in such a manner that they obscur the vital information in the infobox.
That being said, I must say that the one presented here is probably one of the worst in this regard. Most photos in that collage are already present in the article, i.e. the information is duplicated. After extensive scrolling, I cannot even reach the important information that is supposed to be in the infobox. I don't see any value it adds, except that it occupies space and is, well, colorful and joyful. However, as a reader, I want information. WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE states that "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can.", and this one is sharply on the "can" side.
Just because "everyone does it", aka WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and the fad of adding collages and montages stems from ~2007, never really unopposed) is not a good reason to do it here, and please, just put any simple, professional, iconic image of Buckingham Palace or Tower Bridge or whatever. This one is on the bottom end of a slippery slope which was enabled when those collages started to emerge. If you think that it "represents London better", it does it in only one regard: both are quite messy and crammed. If you still insist on a collage, at least drop the indistinct lake and forest, second from the bottom. No such user (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The opposite view has equal merit. A collection of images can be informative just as a collection of words in an infobox. This is one of the best examples I have seen, and is relevant and informative for this article about a city. The caption provides a link for each image just like an info box. Having to scroll down is an inevitable part of reading an article.
A strong view against collages in general is probably a forum or policy discussion.
Disparaging the city that is the subject of the article is probably not a good first step, but if you wish to change the lead image on this article please build a consensus among editors. Whizz40 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Disregarding ad hominems, I will briefly repeat my points:
All the images in the infobox images already exist in the article. Therefore, the collage is redundant.
Individually, they are too small to be immediately recognizable, and appear as a patchwork.
To a foreigner like myself (and your average Wikipedia reader), and someone who has not visited London, only the Westminster Palace one, at the bottom, is immediately recognizable as London (Buckingham palace distant second). All other components could be from just about any major city in the world. Therefore, the iconic and aesthetic value of the introductory image is diminished.
Most directly, the large collection of images at the top ruins the accessibility, as the information from the infobox is moved several screens below. I have to scroll quite a lot on my 10" tablet to get to contents.
London has a few truly iconic images: Tower bridge, Big Ben/Westminster palace, Picadily square. Pick a high-quality one, of which there must be plenty around, and let the reader access the high-res version directly. Or at least, make a smaller and friendlier collage.
I would gladly bow to consensus if there was one, but I don't see it. Silence does not equal consensus. I perused the talk archives, and the collage was only debated in /Archive 10#Infobox image in 2012, and it apparently was about a different image than this one, and no apparent consensus was here. This particular image dates from 27 August, when it was introduced into the article by the author, User:Likelife[5]. The previous collage, File:London collage.jpg was at least much smaller and color-consistent. After the revert [6], you restored this abomination [7] on Aug 31, then on Sep 8 [8], Dec 24 [9] and Jan 9 [10]. The image author and yourself, who only communicated your preference using edit summaries so far, do not equal "consensus". Where is your consensus for introducing this image in the first place? No such user (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know of this conversation. The reason I made a new image was simply the first one was and is out of date. For a image of our skyline to be 7 years out of date, without the tallest building in Western Europe and no Heron and Leadenhall buildings doesn't, to me look like an article which is up to date. Secondly, only one image in that collage was even in the article so that argument doesn't make sense. And finally to say the Shard (the tallest in Western Europe), St Pancras station (considered one of the best stations in the world and gateway for European Railway Services) and Canary Wharf (one of the most important finance districts in the world) are not landmarks is baffling in my opinion. Likelife (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Just adding my two cents here. I'm inherently biased as all four of my images were used in the previous collage and half of mine are used in the new and current collage. I recently updated the Buckingham Palace image in the collage with a newer (and potentially more aesthetic image), I hope it's not going to upset anyone. Anyway, my opinion is that the new collage is slightly large. Also, what is the reason for the convention of collages being made PNG files? PNG images are (in my opinion) inferior in a number of ways. Firstly, the file size is enormous for the resolution as there is no compression. Secondly, they are not resized effectively by Wiki's image processing software. As I understand it, the image processor does not apply sharpening to the image and it ends up looking rather soft compared to an equivalent JPG image, which is sharpened. It's obvious even in comparing the collage images above. The Houses of Parliament image is much sharper in the 'previous collage' because the file is a JPG. As for what notable buildings or features should be included in the London infobox, that's a tricky one. However, although Canary Wharf is certainly a notable financial district, User:No such user makes a valid point that it's not recognisable. It's a very anonymous skyline. The Shard building is notable too, and is recognisable, but does it deserve such prominence in the infobox? Anyway, just questions to consider. Ðiliff«»(Talk)15:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
My brief input on the matter. No matter your preference with regard to collage size, the larger collage is a much better effort and representation than the smaller one. As has been noted, the main feature of the small collage is a wholly out of date skyline photo. The collage needs updating, although perhaps not as large as the previous effort. Southlondoneye (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
This really needs to be resolved because these two collages are constantly being switched back and fourth. My perspective is that the larger one is better. It's more modern and better reflects London today. Even if it doesn't include the image of the City, I think that's fine because the previous one is far too outdated, the skyline has changed dramatically since 2008. I do think the image of St James Park is overkill and largely nondescript. Whamper (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
London is a kl city evry1 go there
London has been through lots and im only 4 so please answer this im smart for my age
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. — {{U|Technical 13}}(e • t • c)15:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2014
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the third paragraph, change “London had an official population of 8,308,369 in 2012,<ref name=2012_estimates>{{cite press release |url= http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-england-and-wales/mid-2012/mid-2012-population-estimates-for-england-and-wales.html |title=Annual Mid-year Population Estimates for England and Wales, 2012 |publisher= [[Office for National Statistics]] |date=26 June 2013 |accessdate=26 June 2013}}</ref>” to “London had an official population of 8,416,535 in 2013,<ref name=2013_estimates/>” (reusing the reference from the infobox) because newer figures are available.
188.220.209.245 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These collages need to be agreed in advance by a number of editors - this is set out above. I am not reverting it, but I imagine someone else will, sooner or later. I think your collage has merit, but I feel the stadium image comes across as too generic and not an archetypal image of London in particular. I would replace it with the Buckingham Palace image. Also other editors have agreed that the skyline shot should be of the City, not Docklands. Whilst the latter is visually very impressive as a cluster of skyscrapers, the City is far more important, because of its history and role in the London - and UK - economy. Currently there is no perfect City image on Commons, which is why Diliff has kindly volunteered to take one. A P Monblat (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
We do need to see why Wackslas thinks their montage is "clearly better". I don't see why the selection of images is better, ranging as it does from a naturalistic image of a generic stadium to quite artificial images of the London Eye ferris wheel and Canary Wharf. The image quality appears degraded; it seems to have lost resolution (compare Manchester, for example). Lastly, I believe it's inappropriate to impose a montage when we can have dynamic selection of images as our discussions continue and new images becomer available.
Wasn't trying to be rude when I said mine was better. I mean in a visible sense. I didn't know what you used had to reflect the whole city, just things that are in the city itself, you know? Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Improved" is wp:POV and, in mine, I have a marginal preference for the version headed with the nighttime image of Docklands. You might consider adding picture references in the description of your image which will be useful reference if more pages link to it. Note though that both images treat London as a collection of buildings and structures rather than a habitat of people but this is easily balanced in article content. Gregkaye (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
In exactly what year did London first become the capital of a unified England?
In this article, it's loosely suggested that it happened during or just before the reign of Edward the Confessor, near the end of the Wessex (Saxon) dynasty; in the "Wessex" article, it's supposedly some vague time "after" the Norman Conquest. Neither article gives a date, and the second doesn't even give a reign. All articles that discuss London's history as an English capital should give a distinct date and reign for its beginnings as such--especially the most recent occassion.RobertGustafson (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
There isn't really a clear date. There's two capitals of England. The administrative capital, Westminster, and the commercial capital, the City of London. Of course, today we collectively refer to these, and the surrounding area as 'London', but at one time they were separate urban areas. When 'London' became the English capital depends on which capital you are referring to. Westminster became the principle (although not exclusive) seat of government by the 12th century, however the City of London was already the largest city, and commercial centre, two centuries earlier. These cities probably merged together to form one urban are a few centuries. When this urban area took on the name 'London', I have no idea. So either, ~10th century, ~12th century or ~14th century, depending on what the source defines as the start of 'London'. Best to give sources for the the establishment of both cities as administrative, and commercial capitals respectively. I'll look sometime. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 09:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
If you think we have distinct dates for everything that we know happened within various periods of the early Middle Ages, think again. We're not obliged to provide specificity for things where that specificity doesn't really exist. The concept of time immemorial has some relevance here. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I propose we start removing images, not adding them. We're suffering WP:SANDWICH and WP:WHITESPACE effects on wide screens and filling entire mini-tablet or smartphone screens with images. Parts of the article are dominated by images rather than text.
As I understand the general principles, as well as MOS:IMAGES particularly and various parts of WP:ISNOT too, we include images to inform, not to decorate. That can actually militate against including "iconic" images; images that repeat familiar images of London like taxis and double-deckers add very little information for the general reader. At the other extreme, we could lose images which tell the general reader nothing that's specifically about London; for example, the aerial and satellite images of the conurbation at night are virtually indistinguishable from images of other large conurbations.
I realise I could start hacking and reverting right now, per WP:BRD, but I respect the effort fellow editors have put effort into finding and adding images - it's just that the total effect of all those efforts is a little too much. Could we have the discussion first? NebY (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The main view that I have regarding images is that they should be representative of peoples experience on issues of everyday life and, in the case of London, I think those issues can include congestion and overcrowding. Beyond that I don't have strong opinion on the quantity of pictures presented. I recently made a few swaps of images and added the Heat on the London Underground image to contrast with the London in snow image. I also thought that the inclusion of a congestion image might balance with the two images of London from the perspective of empty space but any can be cut. As a potential solution to the WP:WHITESPACE problem I have added width values of 800px to Template:London_weatherbox to allow it to fit and have added related discussion to Template_talk:London_weatherbox#Width. I personally see a value in pictures and wouldn't argue that they can each be potentially worth a thousand words. Its important though that they be used to present an honest story. Gregkaye (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The article on London should describe the city (and yes, a small part of that may be overcrowding/congestion, as it would be in any big city), not describe what the experience is like to live there or visit. It is an encyclopaedia, not guide. Your photo of 'heat in the underground' is probably not that useful in the London article in my opinion. The fact that the London Underground system is not well air conditioned and gets hot in the summer is not really worth more than a sentence or two in the body of the article and the photo itself does not illustrate anything that the caption does not on its own. Given the scarcity of space in the article for genuinely important images, I don't think it really needs to be there, to be honest. In terms of illustrating buildings and views of London, less people is generally better simply because it allows you to isolate the building better, instead of it being partially obscured by people. But we don't want to present an idealistic view of London either, necessarily. Not all photos have to be taken on a nice sunny day, although pleasing light does usually make the image better. I'm all for presenting a subject accurately and neutrally, but it sounds like you're looking at the article from a fairly specific POV. As for the total number of images, yes perhaps there may be too many. But as long as they are congruous with and relevant to the article text, I think they do inform rather than decorate. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the article should describe the city. Its a city that was built by, is occupied by and which, to a great extent, facilitates the needs of people. My POV is that that where possible images should be used that are honestly representative of people's experience of the city.
(My ongoing concern for the city, for England and for the United Kingdom generally relates to population. We have a level of population that, amongst other things, can't feed itself and that's and even in the current context of an availability of fossil fuels).
My POV is that, if there are two images that both give good representation of a subject, the picture that gives better representation of people's experience should be used. The use of ghost town images should be avoided where ever possible. Pictures should be used to give an overall view of reality. Gregkaye (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that I think that some very clear indication of congestion on the London Underground is warranted. Many journeys start at hub stations such as Waterloo, Kings Cross, Victoria, London Bridge and Liverpool Street and many of them continue either to business/tourism centres or other hub stations like Waterloo, Kings Cross, Victoria, London Bridge and Liverpool Street. Many peoples experience of London, on any particular visit, may consist of little more than a journey on the Underground and I don't think that the typical experience is represented by the previous picture. Two people sit at an otherwise clear platform as a train arrives: File:Lancaster Gate tube.jpg. Gregkaye (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree actually, I think congestion in a train station is easier to illustrate than heat. I actually took a photo a few days ago of Waterloo station at peak hour, but I wasn't entirely happy with it (it was quite busy, but just 10-15 minutes earlier, it was even busier and would have made a better photo) and wanted to revisit sometime to improve the photo. I'll upload it and see what you think. Ðiliff«»(Talk)17:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, uploaded. Thoughts? Does the 'long exposure' with suggested movement aid the photo? As I said, I think I can get a more 'congested' example, and probably a slightly better angle too. But it's an idea. It illustrates London Waterloo station and congestion, so serves two purposes. Alternatively, I could take a similar photo from any of the other stations. Kings Cross's new concourse has another high vantage point that makes photography easier. There already some good images taken from there but not at full congestion. Ðiliff«»(Talk)20:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Example of the congestion of London's transport system...?
Wow. A transport picture with people in it. It certainly gives a fairer representation than photos that deliberately edit out people or that have been taken by photographers that have gone to locations to take photos and not because they were themselves going with the traffic. (I personally like the contrast between the movement of people weaving between stationary people. It made the hippy part of me think of streams of water weaving between rocks). One commonly used Underground image that I have seen on a variety of Wikimedias is File:Westminster.tube.station.jubilee.arp.jpg with its a not in service, empty train passing a platform occupied by a single LT employee. On the London page we have worthy but unrepresentative images such as: File:Parliament_Hill,_London.JPG sunrise/set image none-the-less with appearance in corner of head of person who is largely excluded, File:30 St Mary Axe from Leadenhall Street.jpg with no traffic an a scattering of distant people, File:London Big Ben Phone box.jpg clear pavement, File:St James's Park Lake – East from the Blue Bridge - 2012-10-06.jpg (I'm sure that anyone who stood in contemplation on the Blue Bridge would find this a memorable image but, for good reason, no people), File:Buckingham Palace from gardens, London, UK - Diliff.jpg this great image is used twice, (I recently saw that File:Buckingham Palace UK.jpg is also available. There are some great and perhaps influential depopulated images. If they cannot be matched with fairly populated, I personally think that their influence should be the selection of other relatively well populated photos to restore balance. Gregkaye (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've made a small start by removing four of the images: the duplicate of Buckingham Palace, the Big Ben phonebox and the night aerial and satellite views. I'm fascinated by this discussion of depopulated images. I think you're explaining a lot about why I find so many Wikipedia urban pictures so alien. (There are exceptions, of course - that aerial view of Hyde Park tells me far more about our access to green space in London than the St James Park panorama, even though it's on a less human scale.) To that end, I wonder if the view of Waterloo Bridge and the skyline behind it could be bettered by a view of that skyline from the Hayward Gallery walkways, which might capture some pedestrian/road traffic? I'm particularly fond of the skyline towards the city, lit by a low winter sun in the morning - but I don't know if it would photograph well. NebY (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the question of whether it's better for images to have more or less people depends on what the subject is, and whether people are relevant to the scene, or merely incidental. In Gregkaye's example of Westminster Tube Station above, it's alien because it's very rare for any tube station to be so empty. But on the other hand, it does allow you to see the barrier system used on the Jubilee line much better than if it were obscured by people. On balance though, I think it's better to present it as it more regularly appears on a day to day basis because the transportation system exists for people. On the other hand, if I am trying to capture a photo of a building, I don't want random people's heads in the way of the camera or cars driving across in the way. Yes, of course there are cars and pedestrians on any given street but to include them just because they are there doesn't serve the best interests of illustrating the subject. So I think there is a need for both styles. I don't think you're quite right about Hayward Gallery being a good view of the skyline. You have a view of Waterloo Bridge but the city skyline is obscured. Are you sure you don't mean Gabriel's Wharf, further along near the OXO Building? That has a good view of the city skyline but is past Waterloo Bridge. Alternatively, Waterloo Bridge itself is a good viewpoint for the city skyline. Ðiliff«»(Talk)12:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I guess you're right about the Hayward as well as more generally. I was thinking of these steps but they may not be high enough and the NT seems to be in the way. NebY (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
What do people think of these images? We could choose one to replace the duplicated image (it's also in the infobox) of the City skyline in the Economy section. One's got old and new buildings, and some people too - who add rather than detract, I'd say. It's not totally brilliant, but I thought I'd see if there were any opinions. The other is just a nice clear view of the Bank of England. Thoughts? A P Monblat (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think either of those images are particularly good if I'm honest. Compositionally they are both poor, the Bank of England image especially, as it's cut off both at the top and the bottom. I'd be surprised if we don't have a better photo available. I'm sure I've taken a better one over the years but never uploaded it actually. I'm happy to revisit and take a replacement, in any case. Ðiliff«»(Talk)19:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please do retake the image - thank you. The Bank image is currently the infobox image in the BoE article, so your new improved version can replace it there too.A P Monblat (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Even busier image of London Waterloo taken at about 6pm, middle of rush hour
When I have the chance (next week or two), I will. Also, in the mean time, here's an improved (well, certainly even more busy) rush hour image of London Waterloo station. I spoke to my wife and she thinks I might actually be able to get a better photo from the London Victoria raised concourse. In the mean time, this will probably do to illustrate congestion. There is a sense of movement in this one too, but a little less than the image above. I tried different exposure lengths but the longer/blurrier ones just didn't quite work as well IMO. Ðiliff«»(Talk)21:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this photo gives a good visual indication of the busy/crowded City that London often is. Thanks for taking it. I have added it to the transport section. A P Monblat (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictures
Most of the pictures in the article show a blue sky more characteristic of the capital of Italy than of the capital of England.
The weather in London is very often overcast, and yet by almost all of the pictures in the article one could have the impression that London enjoys a Mediterranean weather. This is a WEAKNESS in many Wikipedia articles about cities, their pictures. It is like showing clear blue skies for Seattle in the US as if Seattle were in The Caribbean, when the reality is that the city is covered by clouds six of seven days in a week for most of the year. 90.244.9.234 (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's an exaggeration to say that it is overcast 6 out of 7 days a week. This suggests that London has clouds of some type between 65% and 75% of the time, depending on time of year (summer = less cloudy). However, I don't think that you have to show the predominant weather conditions necessarily. Overcast days are often more difficult to photograph well, as the sky tends to end up an overexposed white textureless mess. Sunny days are also more aesthetically pleasing and more interesting for viewers. I'm not suggesting we should prioritise beauty over accuracy, but I don't think we should overlook the fact that good articles tend to have engaging images. Ðiliff«»(Talk)00:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but the more I see that top photo in the current photo montage, the less I think it works as a thumbnail-size image (ie how the vast majority of readers will see it). At full screen size it's really quite good, as you can pick out lots of interesting little details. It could work as a panorama going right across the page, if it could be converted to such a format by a wizz kid. But for the photo montage, it really needs to be retired as soon as possible, and something easier on the eye put in its place, imho. A P Monblat (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that one doesn't work well at that size. I still rather like the general view, with St Paul's, the City and the river; would a cropped version or another, less panoramic picture looking in the same direction work? NebY (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Should the map show the Greater London administrative area, or a pinpoint in the centre of London? Defining London by administrative boundaries would imply that it has clear boundaries, which it doesn't.
Also, Greater London is a county-level administrative division, equivalent to the unitary authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The UK's subdivisions are non-uniform, but so are England's. Comparing London to these, rather then the NUTS 1 regions is possibly more appropriate.
Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 23:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think showing the area is more informative than showing a point. Of those two maps, I slightly prefer the more detailed, because I fear the general reader may be quite puzzled by the NUTS 1 boundaries - it's not as if they have a large role. I think I'd prefer one that showed just the Welsh and Scottish borders and the area of London. NebY (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I wondered if it might. But then I wondered if anyone would seriously draw that conclusion, so contrary not just to general knowledge but also to the article itself. Rather, it would simply show London within England and within the UK. Of course, it would work fairly well without even the Scottish and Welsh borders. NebY (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I especially like the third! The unobtrusive shading - even without a caption - is clearer then border lines alone and further reduces the risk of anyone think we're implying London's a country too. NebY (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you're right. Although different shadings from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland implies that there is no link between them and London, when that isn't the case? For that reason, I think perhaps the second is slightly better than the third. But I am not particularly bothered, I like either the second or third. Ðiliff«»(Talk)12:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2014
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
West Ham The Greatest football team ever. We won the world cup for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
1966 Wembley
@Irlinit: I've just reverted[11] your latest edit to the climate table because it's not as the stated source, the Met Office's table of averages for 1981-2010 at Heathrow. Are the figures you provided from another source, and are they for Heathrow? I notice also that we don't cite any other source, but the Met Office figures don't include record highs and lows or daily means. What source do we have for these? NebY (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the above changes were supposed to be for a different climate box - my mistake
Skyline header images
The skyline images at the top urgently need to be changed back to incorporate some more modern, representative and less dull views of the city, as was the case before. The current image of the City from behind the bridge at the very top of the page, which almost acts as a signature for the city for the whole web, is particularly drab and functional, and is doing a London a disservice on the web compared to all its counterparts.
You might like to join in the skyline discussion above, which is current, and look at some of the discussion over the last couple of months in other sections above. NebY (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the current photo in question is that bad, although it is not ideal by any means. Thankfully, a user has kindly undertaken to take a better photo of a similar scene (but without the bridge blocking the view). This is all documented above, as pointed out by NebY. A P Monblat (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Collage
I removed the collage and added various pictures to a sub-infobox so they can be changed individually. It also allows each image to be expanded individually. I personally think the infobox is too long with that many pictures and would prefer removing the picture of St. James's Park as it's least recognisable. Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 14:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Rob, I really don't think the skyline shot is any good, for the reasons set out on your talk page. Someone just pointed and clicked. Or so it appears imho. Why is the selection of images on Commons so limited and unartistic for all subjects - not just London? Flickr is so much better! A P Monblat (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons is free use images only.
There are many pictures, just they're not easy to find.
Thanks Rob, of those selected above 053 is best. But I took the liberty earlier of replacing the 2012 City one with what I think is a great one of Canary Wharf - the way the buildings are lines up with the river in front really works for me. A P Monblat (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You can indent comments with colons.
I think a picture of the City of London is more relevant as it is the heart of the city. I don't think London's second financial district deserves the principal position in the article. I would be fine with 053.
Also, the one you added is fairly large. Possibly it could go next to the Shard, and then we could move Buckingham palace down and remove St. James's Park? Though we might then be putting too much emphasis on the city's skyline then. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
When my route used to take me across Waterloo Bridge, I discovered I wasn't the only pausing to enjoy one of the best easily-accessible views of London. So I'd like to nominate File:City_of_London_skyline_at_dusk.jpg. It may have some compositional flaws, but it's a very recognisable picture of London (complete with red double-deckers, even), more so - for me, anyway - than night pictures of Canary Wharf or File:London_(Panorama)_(8162101805)_cropped.jpg. NebY (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It's out of date and a little dark. The picture will be small, thus needs to be fairly clear. I don't think night, or evening shots are ideal. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I prefer NebY's choice, of the two and think we should use it for the forseeable future; but I think we should look out for an even better one, and deploy it if and when it becomes available. A P Monblat (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
There probably is free-use images elsewhere we could look at. I will put NebY's suggestion for now as we all agree it is okay. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Rob and AP! I confess, the picture is less impressive at infobox size so agree we should still keep our eyes open for a better one. NebY (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree it only really comes into its own when full screen size. I found an excellent one flickr - is there any way it can put on Commons? Here is a link to it [12]A P Monblat (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
With a Flickr account, you should be able to ask the photographer to licence it. (If you do, could you request the right-hand side only? Then you'd be spared my heartfelt agreement with the first para of Tower Bridge#Reaction and a diatribe on the excrescence at 20 Fenchurch Street besides.) NebY (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Found a better one: it's not of the City, but is a skyline one with a great foreground. It has a lot of views which proves people like it. Here it is [13]. If there is agreement, could someone get this photo on to Commons in the manner described by NebY? A P Monblat (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's a particularly good image, and nor is it really the best skyline shot. Canary Wharf is not the typified London skyline. If you have a particular view in mind, I'm happy to go out there and shoot it. We don't need to fuss about with contacting Flickr users trying to get them to licence their images. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Whatever exact location is used to photograph the City of London towers, I think zoom is required to bring them closer (and from a suitable angle, Canary Wharf could also be seen quite clearly in the background - with enough zoom). The roof of the shopping centre mall near St Pauls is one possible vantage point. There are an awful lot of artistically taken shots of London out there, and it seems a missed opportunity to put any basic ones up in the infobox. (A picture tells a thousands stories.) A P Monblat (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Me again. Another possiblity would be to simply retake the classy-looking 2008 shot from an earlier collage from the viewing gallery atop City Hall (you took this shot, Diliff). But this time with all the new towers included - here it is. A P Monblat (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's not use photos with such extreme zoom as this suggestion, or heavily processed ones such as this one mentioned earlier. They're not faithful and realistic images of London; someone standing in the very same spot would not see that London and would declare Wikipedia to be extremely misleading. NebY (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair point about not overdoing the zoom. I am happy to trust to Diliff's judgement, bearing this point in mind, having just looked through the his previous work.A P Monblat (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree; this way it's much more straightforward to update and change selections, plus we don't suffer the image degradation shown in Wackslas's recent montages. Also, the points made by No such user back in December and January above still stand, especially the problem of images forcing the infobox text information down. Indeed, I could happily lose that floral display, even if it did mean the abolition of the monarchy removal of Buck House. NebY (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I've found the {{Photomontage}} template excellent for making montages out of separate files for the Birmingham article and have some draft examples in my sandbox here. You have to create crops of the images to fit and remain in proportion, but you need to do that for the montage to look neat and professional anyway. There are also guidelines for making montages for UK cities from the UK geography wikiproject here. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I cropped the images in photoshop and reuploaded them, marked as derivative works so that the original photographer is still correctly credited. I have wondered since whether the crops would be better in wikipedia image space than commons though. We don't really want commons filled up with different crops of the same images. I found that single panorama with a 5:2 or 6:2 aspect ratio, with two landscape shots with 3:2 aspect ratios and three portrait shots with 3:4 aspect ratios gave a nice balanced montage. You have to crop to the exact aspect ratios though or you get thick black lines where the images don't fit and it looks a mess. JimmyGuano (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
If you want to select the images I'll happily crop them for you if you like, though I won't have time until this evening. JimmyGuano (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The images are making the infobox quite large. I think we should either remove an image, my preference being St. James's Park, or place two images next to each other, as with the Shard and Buckingham Palace, which would require replacing two images with ones with more vertical ratios. Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 21:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
So I think we have agreed upon the top image being a skyline, and that the current one is the best on commons, but not ideal. As for the rest of the collage, I think we should change one of the two palaces to two vertical images so it looks more like a collage rather then a list of images. I don't think we want any more then 3 rows of images because the infobox shouldn't be primarily images. Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 12:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
All three are good images, but I think we should leave out St Pancras - highly impressive though the building is, I doubt if it is that well known internationally (well only in France and Belgium being a Eurostar terminus). Also, at thumbnail sizing, at it is not at its best. The other two are both iconic (how quickly the Eye has attained that status!), and can be seen clearly as thumbnails. A P Monblat (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Your mention of "iconic" raises a point which has been bothering me. As I understand the general principles, as well as MOS:IMAGES particularly and various parts of WP:ISNOT too, we include images to inform, not to decorate. That can actually militate against including "iconic" images; if everyone knows London has red double-deckers and recognises pictures of red double-deckers, then the added value of a picture of a red double-decker is vanishingly small. Skylines are informative, I think, and pictures of the entire river frontage of the Palace of Westminster are arguably more informative than pictures of the Victoria Tower (Big Ben). I have similar problems with several of the images in the article.
I do think we need to prune them, as we're suffering WP:SANDWICH effects on wide screens and filling entire mini-tablet screens with images. It might not be very hard; I think we could soon agree to lose two of the three images at the start or lower right of London#Geography as having little information content and being virtually indistinguishable from images of other large conurbations. But I hesitate to start hacking without consensus - I respect the effort fellow editors have put effort into finding and adding images, it's just that the total effect of all those efforts is a little too much. NebY (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree we could lose two of the aerial images in the geography section. Regarding the point about "iconic", I agree we should not "decorate" the article as such with pretty iconic pictures just because they are pretty. However, to the extent that images in the infobox are there to educate, I feel editors should work on the principle that readers will (rightly) assume that the photos represent the key features of London (which may or may not be iconic, but often are). So the City, the seat of Government, the residence of the monarch, the major Cathedral, a major tourist attraction - given the importance of tourism to London - such as the Eye or Tower Bridge are suitable for inclusion. If such images as these are not in the infobox, readers may assume they are not important. In a sense the infobox images are education for beginners, whilst the photos in the actual sections can be more advanced educationally - but not too advanced! So, as an example, the St Pancras image would sit well in the transport section, but not perhaps the infobox. Hope all this makes sense to people A P Monblat (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Because editors who aren't interested in the infobox discussion but have added images might have missed this bit, I've started a new discussion below - apologies for the repetition. NebY (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Skyline
I'm going to start again at the bottom becaues I have no idea where to re-insert myself into this discussion. These are my thoughts. I think we already have a pretty good selection of high quality images of London, although as pointed out, some of the skyline images are now out of date (such as the one taken from City Hall in 2008). I know from experience that it's difficult to get a good vantage point for cityscape views of London, and that vantage point on the rooftop balcony is not easy to access under normal circumstances, it is usually only open to the public (I believe) during the Open House weekend, which is coming around again on the 20th and 21st of September. Getting a good shot from there does rely on nice weather, but lets see if we can do so. I'll probably be giving it a go myself, but in case I don't manage to, other locals may like to try their luck at getting a suitable photo. Wackslas, the Houses of Parliament image you keep using in your collage is inferior to the main lead image for the article on that subject. I'm not just saying that because it's my image. ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk)12:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Until such time as a really good skyline shot including the City becomes available, I wonder whether cropping the current one (a bit but not too much) might not be a useful way of enabling the various buildings etc to be easier to discern at thumbnail size. I'd be happy to take on this little task, if others (eg NebY,Diliff, Rob etc) agree. A P Monblat (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good! And I wonder if the smaller file size will improve page loading times - I know nothing of those aspects. I'm ignorant too about Commons protocols for such edits. I'd rather assumed you'd upload the cropped version under a new name; as it is, the cropped version's replaced the full version on several other pages on en.wiki and elsewhere. Hope that's OK. NebY (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought I should check the other pages on which this ubiquitous picture appears to ensure that it displays properly; I'm glad to say that it looks OK on all pages, both the English and the other language pages. However, I too am no expert in these matters, and was wondering why the file size has become smaller: if anyone knows the answer, I'd be interested to know. Diliff, Rob, anyone else? A P Monblat (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Ahh I see, thanks. Well, I should have some time in the next week or two to try to get a nice skyline shot. I'm still not sure what kind of shot we're actually looking for though. I don't think that view from Golden Jubilee bridge is really the best view of London's skyline though, as Waterloo bridge is pretty ugly and obscures much of the river and foreground. The view from Waterloo bridge is better. The central part of this image is a better skyline view IMO. Perhaps a nice dusk shot (taken a little earlier in the evening so we get both the city lights and a bit of a blue afterglow in the sky) would be a good compromise? Pleasant lighting is important for a good skyline shot (London may have long periods of overcast, hazy weather but that doesn't make it the best conditions to illustrate it), but once dusk sets in, it doesn't matter so much what the weather was like during the day, it's easier to get an aesthetic view of the skyline. These are just my thoughts anyway. I don't mean to appoint myself official skyline photographer but it seems that we've been waiting a while for something better to appear. I'm happy to give it a go but I'd rather we settle on what we want from the photo before I make a trip in and photograph it. Ðiliff«»(Talk)00:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
If you're game to put in the effort, I'm sure you'll come up trumps. Sorry for not responding sooner; I finally took a look when I was there on Friday afternoon and was surprised to realise just how close to Victoria Embankment the current picture's viewpoint was (then saw the Flickr notes do say it was from the Embankment). Waterloo Bridge isn't all that ugly, but from it you do have a much clearer view of the tree-lined bank and have Blackfriars Bridge picked out in red and white, though a bit more distant and you might lose it at dusk. It's striking how much the skyline's changed already. Oh, while you're there, you might enjoy a look at the current east face of Covent Garden, now stealing the thunder of the Trafalgar Square Yodas. NebY (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
While we await the new photo by Diliff, I wonder whether the attached might be worth using as a stopgap for the infobox City skyline shot. I found it on Flickr and was able to transfer it to Commons (using Flinfo) as there was no copyright restriction on this particular image. I then cropped it, in the hope of making it more suitable for the infobox. Whilst still not totally ideal, this 2014 shot has two advantages over the 2012 one in use now: the bridge does not cut across the middle of the picture; and it contains the two latest towers. Thoughts? A P Monblat (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Update Someone has just replaced the infobox photo in question with a photo I actually consider preferable to my own suggestion. A P Monblat (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the current infobox top picture is a pretty fantastic photo, and one of the few angles that can show both the city skyline and the Shard in the same frame without being too wide. Obviously I'm not going to be able to beat it as far as getting on a hot air balloon, but I think there's probably still some merit to a regular 'ground level' shot taken from around Blackfriars Bridge, so I'll still go ahead and take it. Apologies for the delays, I still intend to do it at some point in the near future, but I'm more than happy with the current infobox image. Ðiliff«»(Talk)05:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the shot from the hot air balloon is great, especially as, in addition to including the City, it highlights the Shard, London's tallest and almost certainly most notable skyscraper. However, I am glad Diliff is pressing ahead with his photo, as I am sure it will add further to the article. For my part, I don't see any overriding reason why both could not be included in the montage. A P Monblat (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Walking as transportation
Walking may be a form of transportation but the discussion of walking in London isn't about commuting but recreation. On the other hand the short section on cycling does describe the use of bicycles for transportation. Walking can of course also sometimes be a sport, but unless there are objections I'll restore the paragraph on walking to where it was originally, under 'Leisure'.
There is some potential overlap between 'Walking' and the section on 'Parks and gardens', and I'd suggest that this too would be more appropriately placed under 'Culture/Leisure' rather than 'Geography'. Rwood128 (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Walking in this context is more about leisure than transport. Likewise parks are on balance more about leisure than they are about geography. Given that the article (unlike some articles about places) actually has a section covering leisure, it makes sense to use it for these purposes, I think. A P Monblat (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
all of my edits, which i have done with much effort, can not be removed. Many of them are good, but you can not undo all work, including punctuation and capital letters .
Pls see als my works and tell me where are the problems, i will try to revert some of them. For example I added LONDON SCHOOL OF ECoNOMICS image by deleting ROYAL MUSIC one, and this can not be removed.
Have a look to this sentence "London's 43 universities form the largest concentration of higher education in Europe." Here I wrote "world" by removing "europe", like another user who did the same thing. Therefore this is ok.
NebY and others, can someone reply please. If you want revert my edits, please do not remove all of them, which are helpful. Now I have to go to sleep, so maybe i will not be able to reply. So see all of you tomorrow, maybe in evening. Good night! Lopoponsnko (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Why the largest concentration of students in the World rather than Europe? -- you need a new citation if this is true (Did you check the USA?). Error: you have deleted member colleges of London University. Then what's wrong with the School of Music image? A selection of London college/schools (secondary schools) should be sufficient. Anyhow you are acting like a vandal with all the reverts and not discussing disagreements. Some of your edits may be reasonable, but not most, as far as I can see. Rwood128 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Although User:Lopoponsnko was creating an edit war, I believe that some of his contributions are acceptable, such as the insertions of top further education colleges and insertion of University of Westminster. As regards the East London Mosque, this is considered as the first mosque in EU (not all europe geographically) to broadcast the call to worship. The adjunct of this mosques' aerial image doesn't make a big problem as it can be moved on the left. Furthermore, this edit made by User:GeorgeBurgess24 appears to be removed in mistake. The cancellations of University of London's associates seem to be vandalism. As I explained above, I'm going to modify things that have been undid wrongly. 115ash→(☏)10:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
East London Mosque wasn't even the first in England to broadcast the call to worship, preceded at least by Birmingham Central Mosque in 1985, and it's still a mystery why that detail would make that mosque a suitable image for the article above all others. Besides, that's got to be one of the most indistinct pictures of a religious building we've got, mainly featuring flat roofs, air-conditioning units and adjunct buildings. The schools and FE colleges section has become terribly jumbled: "there are also a number of private schools and colleges in London, including old and famous colleges and schools such as the City and Islington College, Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College, Leyton Sixth Form College, Tower Hamlets College, Bethnal Green Academy, City of London School, Harrow, St Paul's School, University College School, Highgate School and Westminster School." NebY (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I assume English is not your native language. Your text is riddled with grammatical errors and meaningless sentences. "London contains many mosques." Do you really think that deserves to be in an encyclopaedia entry? An article on London doesn't need the insight that many Muslims live in Tower Hamlets and Newham, add them to articles on those boroughs if you must, together with some census data. "The biggest mosque is East London Mosque, the first mosque in European Union which was allowed to broadcast the adhan and it is also the largest islamic centre in all Europe." Other users have cited factual errors but the sentence structure is no good. Biggest or largest? Should be "the East ..", "the European .." and the and clause on the end is just too clumsy, also "Islamic" should be capitalised. "in all Europe" is not correct either - either "in Europe" or "in all of Europe" (although this is overly wordy). There's far too much detail about various Islamic factions for a general article about London. I could go on but basically you are not improving this article.TheMathemagician (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015
This edit request to London has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
state that the East London Mosque is one of the first in the UK allowed to broadcast the adhan, as no reliable souces (in Wikipedia's terms) have been presented to show that it preceded Birmingham Central Mosque in being allowed to make the adhan audible to the general public in the surrounding streets, let alone those that already by wire or wirelessly broadcast the adhan into the homes of the faithful
describe the Baitul Futuh Mosque as the largest in western Europe, as described and referenced in its article - but I now note that the Mosque of Rome may be larger, so "one of the largest" would be better
remove any mention that the head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community lives in London, as superfluous to London#Demographics and so as not to start filling the article with lists of religious leaders that live in London.
We need to discuss this here rather than in edit comments and I think it would be particularly helpful to hear from uninvolved editors too. NebY (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Too much about all of them. There are thousands of religious buildings in London of all faiths. Let us try to keep in proportion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
NebY It seems reasonable to describe Baitul Futuh as one of the largest as there are multiple sources describing Mosque of Rome to be largest and multiple sources describing Baitul Futuh to be the largest.--Peaceworld19:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Ahmadiyya Caliphate is always recognised to as a caliphate, for example as sourced above. Whether it is different in certain aspects or not is not relevant here.--Peaceworld21:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Certain Muslims may reject the Ahmadiyya Caliphate, but that only means that they choose not to subject themselves to it. In other words, rejecting a Caliphate is not the same thing as saying that such and such ceases to be a Caliphate. It still remains a Caliphate per se. In fact if you look at external sources, it is always recognized as a Caliphate and its leader a Caliph:
No, many Muslims do not recognise Ahmadis in general or Mirza Masroor Ahmad as Muslims and so do not and cannot recognise him as a Caliph, a successor of the Prophet. The statement that "Ahmadiyya Caliphate is always recognised to as a caliphate" was absurd, untrue if only one person in the world does not recognise him as a caliph. I realise your main interest on Wikipedia is the Ahmadiyya movement, even to the extent of being a Single-purpose account, but this attempt to shoehorn more and more about Ahmadis into this article is disproportionate and leading you into futile exaggeration - futile because your premise that as a religious leader of about 10 million people world-wide including 30,000 in the UK, Mirza Masroor Ahmad should be mentioned in this article is false. NebY (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
NebY It doesn't matter whether Muslims recognize him as a Caliph, as it doesn't matter whether they consider Mirza Masroor Ahmad or for that matter Ahmadis as Muslims. If he has been labelled a Caliph per external sources, then per policy, he is. It doesn't need POV authorization. Overlooking the false accusation, could you explain why a brief mention of the largest Caliphate, numbering somewhat 10-20million is UNDUE?--Peaceworld18:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Everyone knows that Baitul futuh is not the largest.Moreover most of the muslims do not consider this baitul futuh as a "mosque". That caliph Mirza should not be included in an article like this (he is followed just by some people). There are many famous islamic scholar who reside in London, therefore everyone will try to promote their own preferred. Some leaders like Timothy Winter, Abdul Qayuum, Abdul Jabbar are more known and followed than that Mirza. Therefore User:Peaceworld111's must be removed. Truthiseveryminghnj (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It is the largest (or one of the largest) per external sources. Whether most Muslims consider Ahmadis Muslims or not is irrelevant. So Timothy Winter, Abdul Qayuum, Abdul Jabbar are more followed, could you give a figure per external sources?--Peaceworld18:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015
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. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Climate /weather
The two existing paragraphs written in this section are almost in full dedicated to talk about EXTREME temperatures, particularly high ones. They certainly constitute some of the most absurd information about the climate of a city in any Wikipedia's article or indeed of anything written about weather in general, but particularly about London since it is one of the cities with the least temperatures variety in Europe. The graphs in orange and red do not even deserve any comment, someone seems to be obsessed with making London look like Dubai in terms of weather, it is simply absurd.
It sees to have been written by someone fond of hot weather or extreme events or involved in the tourist department of the city to attract visitors fond of hot temperatures (which would be absurd in any case).
It is NOT an informative section AT ALL. There is a clear misleading line going through all that banter-stupidity and rather than writing in a general and informative way there is for instance not even mention of the strong wind that is present in the city throughout the year.
Not allowing the editing of an article like this one, which is BADLY WRITEN, is in effect censoring the very principle foundation of Wikipedia, and certainly not doing any good at all.
therefore it needs to be corrected by whoever is allowed to, or responsible for this article, or deleted. It is getting really to really absurd levels — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.10.81 (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Economy (and GDP stats/percentages)
The economy section needs cleaning up.. Im reading here 20% and then 30% and its tingling my brain!
London generates approximately 20 per cent of the UK's GDP(or $446 billion in 2005); while the economy of the London metropolitan area—the largest in Europe—generates approximately 30 per cent of the UK's GDP (or an estimated $669 billion in 2005).
@Moka Mo: please can you say why you reverted my edit which indicated that the GDP figure you added earlier is for the metropolitan area? You'll notice that we make this distinction about other London statistics as well as its economy elsewhere in the infobox as well as in the article. NebY (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@Moka Mo: please explain here, where other editors of this article can see it, why you do not want your infobox GDP figures identified as applying to the metropolitan area? You have written on my talk page that it is "unnecessary". I have pointed out that we have figures for area, population and economy for three different definitions of London - Greater London, Greater London urban area, and metropolitan London, and that we take care to distinguish them. Yet once again you have deleted the clarification. Why do you not want it to be clear? NebY (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Given that there are different understandings/definitions or what constitutes London, it would seem sensible to me to specify which definition this GDP figures applies to. I don't see why that would even be controversial. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
rain
But London England gets A LOT more rainy days than Rome, Bordeau,Orlando, New York City etc. Nobody cares about how many cm or inches of rain a place gets they care about how many days of rain a place gets.London gets more days of rain than most places in the US. IN addition just about every place in the US gets MORE sunshine hours than London.Rome and Bordeaux get much MORE sunshine hours than London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:2380:27E:7106:D429:C4F8:ACAA (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Total amount of precipitation is not necessarily a good measure of how "rainy" somewhere is. A day of London drizzle is a lot of rain to most people, even if if may not amount to a huge number of millimetres on some climate chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.26.234 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Unless you are on stage in a musical, no it isn't. Cite some recent non-ironic examples if you think otherwise. I've never heard London referred to as "London Town".TheMathemagician (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Just seen Martin's reply to my curt comment. I did chuckle. It's the sort of expression one would find in an American film/musical about ye olde London towne - like Mary Poppins - said by some ridiculous Cockney character dancing about in the rain whilst tugging his furlock to a bobby, etc. Argovian (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Surely the best-known example is the 1937 song A Foggy Day (In London Town) by George and Ira Gershwin. Its sole purpose in the song is to rhyme with "had me low, had me down". Note that the Gershwins were Americans with no known experience of the UK. No British person would use the phrase except as a joke. -- Alarics (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I can assure you chaps that 'London Town' is common in the UK along with the expressions like 'Going up to town'. For a start you could Google "London Town"; it gets over 4 million hits. There is bound to be a RS in there somewhere if you insist on one but anyone who has lived in or around London will have heard the term 'London Town' being used. For comparison "New York town" gets around 300,000 hits and "Birmingham Town" around 200,000 so clearly "London Town" is a specific name for London. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The Great Wen
I have removed this alleged nickname because there is no reliable source cited either in this article or the Great Wen article to show that this nickname is in current use by a significant proportion of the population. No doubt this term has been used, along with a thousand others but we should only show significant and widely-used current nicknames. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Only people familiar the "The Great Wen" through history would know the phrase. It has no common usage whatsoever. London's smog ended with the 1956 Clean Air Act. Since then the nickname "(Big) Smoke" has been in terminal decline. I have never heard anyone in conversation use it. The nominal Cockney character in Manchester-based soap Coronation Street used to say it but even that was 20 years ago. You might be able to find some 70+ year olds still using it and many younger people would know what was meant but outside Minder re-runs you wont hear it now.TheMathemagician (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
"The Smoke" is still a familiar enough term to be used as a magazine supplement title, a TV drama series title and a film title], just to pluck three quick examples from the interweb. It would be hard to prove that it is or isn't in current use, especially if my guess is right that it's mainly used in terms of visiting or travelling to or from London (e.g. going back to the Smoke, escaping the Smoke). NebY (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done Please stop wasting our time with nonsensical requests. Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 02:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 21:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
.svg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(8162101805)_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
