# Talk:London

I propose replacing images depicting singular monuments, such as Nelson's Column, St. Paul’s Cathedral, and Westminster Abbey, with visuals offering broader perspectives. Can Keep London Eye. For instance, we can replace with the image of Bank Junction, which provides a view encompassing landmarks such as 22 Bishopsgate and the Walkie Talkie. Additionally, we can incorporate images of vibrant areas like Piccadilly or Trafalgar Square or any Park (there is no park image despite London being one of the greenest cities, might replace with a Canary Wharf view from Greenwich Park?) Please discuss.
Caberouii (talk)

It's common to have singular monuments in the montage, and St Pauls and Westminster Abbey as two of the most notable buildings in London belong there. See the Paris article for comparison. The walkie talkie building (and those next to it) is in the first image already. The montage is meant to best reflect the city and Canary Wharf being there does that. Piccadilly and its vibrancy as a busy area is a valid point as that image is not in the article at all which looks like a notable omission, in contrast to Nelson's column of which there are two similar images. Tub st (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Good call on Piccadilly as an image of it should really be in the article. Having scanned through the article history it was previously in the montage. A broader image of Trafalgar Square with Nelson's column is in architecture, so probably the best way to accommodate both it and Piccadilly is to replace the one of just Nelson's column with the latter in the montage. Nampa DC (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks.Nampa DC and Tub st.
Apologies with regards to Canary wharf I meant something similar to (Greenwich and Canary Wharf (3) - 2022-04-24.jpg where you have two attractions simultaneously). The singular Westminster Abbey is close to both the Parliament and  London Eye and we already have a church. We can consider to replace with something else, maybe Trafalgar Square, any of the big Parks (not needed if we replace Canary Wharf view from Greenwich park)or Museums, Harrods of Knightsbridge, Wembley Stadium, Buckingham Palace etc or maybe can simply add two-three additional images like new york city's article.

Also, is it possible to include about Queen Mary Uni (after King's college section) which was ranked 120th globally in the 2025 QS World University Rankings, higher  and more knownthan the other Unis mentioned in the lede.Caberouii (talk)
No additional images, that's the limit. We also don't add duplicates. And your proposal was addressed via Piccadilly. Nampa DC (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Nampa DC why not? And where do you see the duplicates? I am asking for further proposals. Remove Westminster Abbey and replace with something else. And how qmul? Caberouii (talk)
Wiki policy that's why not. All montages have a limit. Duplicates ie. the same or similar images twice in an article. This was addressed by changing Nelson's column, with another similar one already in the body, for one of Piccadilly. And there is no rationale for removing Westminster Abbey. Another poster answered that already. Nampa DC (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

For the statement...

Since the 19th century,[10][11] the name "London" has referred to the metropolis around the City of London,
...the source [11] ...

The Postman's Knock, Chambers's Edinburgh Journal (1857)
... is incomplete. I presume it refers to ...

Chambers's Journal (27 June 1857) pp. 397-400
...in which case, I think it's WP:OR to cite the article as proof that the metropolis was called "London". It's arguably an instance of such a use in 1857, but it's not a commentary on such use. It is a WP: PRIMARY source and as such to be avoided. As with most primary sources, the interpretation is arguable; it's talking about the recent creation of London postal districts, which were an improvement on the previous central sorting in a building in the City of London. The discussion relates to London as a postal town, which is a rather technical sense in which every town refers to a broader hinterland. jnestorius(talk) 04:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is a commentary from 1848:
Strictly speaking, the city of London is still confined within its ancient bounds, and the limits of the corporate jurisdiction; but as a continuity of buildings has connected it with Westminster, Southwark, and the neighbouring villages and hamlets, the name is, in common usage, given to them all collectively, their respective proper names being no more than subdivisions of one great metropolis.
--- 'London', in A Topographical Dictionary of England (London, 1848) Samuel Lewis ed.
jnestorius(talk) 16:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
London = the city called London,  the Capital City.
Greater London  =  The metropolitan county containing 32 boroughs and the City called London.
Greater London Authority  =  speaks for itself.
Mayor of Greater London  =  Sadiq Khan'
City of London Corporation  =  City of London local authority.
Mayor of London  =   Alastair King. 86.25.249.162 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
You seem to write "City called London" when you mean City of London? In what sense is that the "Capital City"? Most of the organs of government are in the City of Westminster:

jnestorius(talk) 23:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The redirect لندن has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 30 § لندن until a consensus is reached.  A1Cafel (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I updated a few images in my edit here here. Do you agree with what I changed or not? If so, please change aspects instead of a full revert. Thank you very much! Anglo3334 (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

"Updating" images is not a reason for altering them (and in mass numbers). I know you are a new editor, but the images in the article have been selected via editors collaborating over years for numerous reasons, including: aligning with the relevant text, spaced out to ensure there is no cramping text or overflow issue (image size has been factored in whether its landscape or portrait), and that they provide the clearest view of the subject. Your changes were too sweeping and altered those requirements. This is rated as a good article (GA symbol at the top) and the images play a part in that. You would need to break it down, start small, why an image should be altered, and gain a consensus from editors. Nampa DC (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
The issue is that Wikipedia is a constantly evolving project. You can't just keep the same images here indefinitely; they'll be updated by editors, and that's totally allowed. I'm a little puzzled by your comment that my image changes don't align with the text: I believe they do, at least from my perspective. I also corrected a few typos and fixed a gallery in the history section that was only showing one image, as the other image was taken down by Wikipedia Commons.
Honestly, I made all my changes in little bits, not all at once. If you spot an issue with one of my edits, feel free to fix it instead of doing a complete rollback, which would bring back typos and mess up the image gallery under history, @Nampa DC.
Me being a newbie is unrelated.  Anglo3334 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)
So many issues. Images unrelated to text. Inferior images. Too many to go through one by one as there are a host of them. You mention them on here with your rationale to get a response. And being a newbie is relevant as those of us who have worked on this article, and others, have done so while adhering to policy. Hells Bells7 (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I did fix a typo, though, which I have corrected again. I appreciate your comments and won't make those changes now. But could you at least keep my changes regarding the typo and maybe the image gallery under history, which is currently missing an image? Thank you. Anglo3334 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)
The issue is you're seemingly happy to employ a double standard where your changes, for what may be a very good reason, get to go live over others' objections, but once you've done the B in WP:BRD you suddenly have an issue with people making significant changes with the R in BRD. You're undoing someone else's work too, you know, and that equivalence is why we have the norms we do about preferring the status quo while consensus is ironed out. Remsense 🌈 论 21:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I am trying to learn and improve.  Anglo3334 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)
To wrap this up: I sincerely apologise @Hells Bells7, @Nampa DC, and @Remsense  for the problems I have created here. My intentions were not malicious; I did not aim to instigate edit wars. I genuinely believed that the edits I made were beneficial. I am eager to learn, and although my contributions were not up to standard and were bad, I will take the feedback into account and refrain from implementing any further changes. My goal was simply to improve the article, and while I am relatively new to this platform, I recognise that I was mistaken in proceeding with with my edits.
That said, I did attempt to correct a typo error in the article and to address the missing image in the media gallery under the history section. Would you be willing to retain that edit? I will not be making any further edits to the article at this time. Best wishes and regards. Anglo3334 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)
The missing gallery image was from Londinium. It had been deleted due to a copyright violation. Nobody had filled that in so it's good you brought that to our attention. The statue of Trajan, while decent enough, isn't directly about London, or Roman London, as he never set foot in London or Britain nor had any role in its founding. It's basically just ornamental. It would need to be more about London so I took another image from the Londinium article, one of an inscription with the first mention from the Romans of Londoners. On a general point, which applies across wikipedia articles, images should not push down images from another section as it can move an image away from the text they are related to. Hells Bells7 (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The statement about London/Greater London having 33 local authorities appears to be incorrect. Within the "London" region there are 32 principal authorities, the London borough councils and 2 non principal authorities namely City of London Corporation and Queen's Park Community Council which are not principal. There are also other local authorities outside the London region but are or were part of the BUA such as Epsom and Ewell Borough Council. Crouch, Swale (talk)  18:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Most sources I've seen list the CoLC and the London boroughs as equivalent as it delivers the same services as the boroughs (see [1] and [2] for example) remember that the CoLC is something of a unique legal anomoly which doesn't fit into any usual definitions. G-13114 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Isn't QPCC just a parish council? Remarkable for being the only one in Greater London but not to be mentioned in the same sentence or count as the London boroughs or the City of London which is very much not a parish council. Dgp4004 (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, the 32 boroughs plus the City form what those in mathematical circles might call a partition of the whole of London. Including the QPCC as a 33rd authority, which is wholly contained within, and subordinate to, the borough of Westminster, does not seem particularly called for here.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes QPCC is a parish council like those in (normally) rural areas. I would suggest something like saying that the London region contains the 32 London borough councils, the City of London Corporation and Queen's Park Community Council which is subordinate to Westminster. Given the fact that there is only 1 parish council we can easily name it but if there were many it would probably just be better just to say the number like we can for the London boroughs. Crouch, Swale (talk)  22:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)