Talk:London/Archive 9

message: At the end of the status section that says "...'the most important town...' and many other authorities..." there are three references the first two both say "HC 501 0304.PDF (PDF). Parliament Publications." However, they link to different sites. Does anyone know if they are the same publication which can be seen in the first of the two, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubacc/501/501.pdf ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 June 2008
Possible merge with Birmingham?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.40.174 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Status section

message: London is not capital of England as suggested in the opening paragraph - it is capital of the UK only.  England is not a sovereign state.  The same applies to Wales, Scotland etc - they are not sovereign states and should not be referred to as countries  ([User:ucallmemadam], 1 Aug 08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucallmemadam (talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own governments: the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. England, however, does not, so London isn't the capital of England. There was a massive discussion about this. I don't know what the end result was and I don't know where to find it either. 86.29.130.14 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An assembly or a parliament does not constitute a government.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Have a look at the Status section in the article, where this issue is considered.  There is no definitive answer to the question as to whether London is the capital of England and  both views are supported by authoritative sources.Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what does one say if there's no answer?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Is consensus what matters? Surely, encyclopedically one is interested in fact. England may or may not have formal status as a nation. It is, IMHO, a jurisdiction while the UK is a nation which means a country. Capital may mean the seat of government, in which case the city of Westminster is probably that; the monarch lives there and the parliament is there too. There is, as far as I know, no governmental institution in the city of London.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: If you read the status section you will see reasons why London can be described as the capital of England.  On what basis do you claim that it is not? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital of England 

message: Hi, I think some of the values in the climate chart are incorrect, particluarly the summer average max values. 28 in August!!
The previous style of graph (grid like - see Paris page for exmaple) was clearer and had the correct data in it.
The rainfall in the chart is completely unclear as well.
81.157.198.134 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for picking this up. I've tried to reolve some of these problems: I have rounded the precipitation data up to the nearest whole number, so it should be easy to read now; I have linked the reference to the correct URL (before it was to an article about August 2003); and I have corrected the values for the max temperatures in summer (you were quite right, 28 is ridiculous!). You can see the source for yourself here. Thanks, bsrboy (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate Chart 

message: I dont think having all these images is encyclopedic. Other cities like New York, Paris, Shanghai all have ONE image in the infobox. Having 10 images is unnecessary Nikkul (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: New York is well known for its sky line and Paris is well known for the Eifel Tower, but with London it's difficult to have one picture to sum it up. Also the picture for Paris is actually bigger than the one for London. bsrboy (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: think the pictures are pretty damn good, as it is --Rockybiggs (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Image 

message: I'll have to remember to not even go to look at this article as it has nearly crashed my computer each time. Hate to think what it does to those with even less speedy systems or who have to pay for downloading time from their own pockets. Article presently is at 134k with a recommended 30-50k for main article text. Please see Wikipedia:Article size for ideas about dealing with article size issues and suggestions. Banjeboi 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the (text only) prose length is only 53K, which is within the limits under Wikipedia:Article Size. Between the many pictures and some of the charts, there is over 80K of extras, but I don't see that hacking them down would improve the article much. It does take a while to load, but it's policy-compliant as it now stands. Horologium (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to suggest "hacking" anything but perhaps some form of splitting the article would benefit all concerned. Banjeboi 03:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article has many spilts already suchs as History of London, Etymology of London, Geography of London, Sport in London, football in London,Economy of London etc etc etc.  Plus there was a recent cull, please see page history--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, that "recent cull" took the size from about 142k down to 137k when i tagged it with . Personally I'm not able to load the article so I can't really help here anymore. If anyone is interested see WP:Split for some assistance. Banjeboi 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The wait makes it all the more enjoyable when you read it... unless it crashes your computer, which is like 1% of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs) 19:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, I've viewed this article on multiple machines of differing specifications and haven't personally had any problems loading the article, - in fact, it's no slower than any other article I've viewed on Wikipedia. There's so many sub articles pertaining to different aspects of the city, anymore would become complicated and totally unnecessary. Entangle (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMG - waaay too huge 

message: I must say I'm impressed.  The photographs on this page are amazing!!!  Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazing photographs 

message: Seen this picture floating on the Canary Wharf page, is there space for this too, or one too many. Either way amazing.
--Rockybiggs (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! Replace it with the third image in the economy section: :Image:Canary Wharf at night, from Shadwell.jpg. bsrboy (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I am missing in this article a map that shows where in England (or where in the British Isles) this city is located. Maybe something like the map shown in Greater London. What good is an article on a city, if it doesn't tell you where to find that city? 
Johan Lont (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of London in England 

message: Should  this article have a health section included? Signsolid (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should have a section on Public services, which covers health. bsrboy (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Health Section

message: Just revisiting this page this morning and noticed a Samuel Johnson quote had been added at the head of the article.  What do you guys think of this?  I admit it adds something, but opening with a quote seems like something more suited for a novel than for an encyclopedia article.  Might it also be an NPOV problem, kind of like the "capital of the world" debate? Perhaps it belongs in another section of the article... Lone Skeptic (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead quote? 

message: Hi. I was recently working on the Paris article, and there noticed an un-sourced and rather pompous claim that The Paris urban area is Europe's biggest city economy, and is fifth in the world's list of cities by GDP. The author of this statement insists that we leave the phrase as it is, and provided a "source" that is a study - based on estimates - undertaken by a single organisation that is not at all the source of France's demo-economical data; there is only one, the INSEE. I do not at all condone this practice of trumpeting selective studies as "facts" that are nothing of the same.
Then I come here to the Economy section and find an un-sourced London has the 4th largest city economy in the world after Tokyo, New York City and Los Angeles. Where do you get these numbers? Is your source the same? I hope not.
If your source - if it exists - is as selective as that used for the Paris article, I suggest either finding a world-wide-accepted (and here we're talking government level) comparison between the world's city spreads/GDP's, otherwise we should (humbly) modify both articles (not to mention others) to use more generalist terms to describe a city's rank in the 'world of riches'. 
The above sort of selective "greater than thou" game has resulted in years of edit and revert wars between the above two articles - namely the Economy of Paris article - and I would like to put an end to it. 
Generalist terms are perfectly acceptable: for the Paris article, based on all the studies I've seen, I think a "estimated to be among the top ten" language would be appropriate, if it was needed at all. What do you think? Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your interest. I'd just like to add that my whole point about the PwC report is that it is based on estimates and predictions - not solid fact by any official entity - , the mechanics of which are not disclosed. I don't know about London, but French economical data is taken in communes, départements and régions, and not at all in urban areas - so these economist organisations can only make estimates concocted from pure, official and quite citeable data (see the INSEE) - I think the fact that these reports (article claims) are concocted estimations/speculations by private businesses/organisations should be noted for the better information of the reader, instead of being presented as pure and unaltered official fact, which is not at all the case. See my point? THEPROMENADER 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you should note though that the cited report itself mentions other reports that differ greatly with its own. Are we the ones to judge which report is "the best" and promote it as unchallengeable fact? I think not. At the least we should mention that the report comes from a private source, and is based on estimates. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  It seems that the Economist also used the same PwC report . The author of this report and estimates be mentioned in both articles - as now the reader is persuaded that this 'ranking' conclusion is based on official data and statistics, where it is not. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  But that's the whole point - estimates by a single organisation are not undisputable fact - as are official census and economic records. If the rankings indicated are estimated (by a single organisation), they should be indicated as such, with mention of the organisation name. Here I seek clarity and NPOV that will cover all possible 'positions' in the matter. I really could care less if London or Paris comes 'first' in any study; rather, it bothers me that an estimation or prediction is presented as undisputable fact. Is there anything wrong with putting "PwC estimates that X comes X in their listing of the world's richest city GDP's" ? THEPROMENADER 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  But again, that's the whole point. Until there is a unanimously-internationally-accepted method of calculating density/wealth, everyone can promote their own method as being the best - and many do, as shown even in the aforementioned report. Until that time, such statistics should be related where they are solidly sourced - that is to say, from the government agency that gathered them. Even PwC pulls the base of its 'calculations' from the INSEE and Greater London institutions - why must we published the juggled numbers of one private institution over official others? To better play the 'greater than thou' game? No matter my misgivings with the immaturity of such an endavour, mention the organisation juggling the numbers in the article, that's all I ask. THEPROMENADER 19:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without further ado, the best way to clarify this tidbit for both articles is to indicate the source of the estimate, in both articles, to the reader. This way we can leave the 'ranking' as it is in the most clear and NPOV manner possible. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Claim - Economy section 

message: What happened to the London coat of arms that used to be here some time ago?... Also I wonder if London has a flag, and if someone could put them in the article. Energyfreezer (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the flag and coat of arms are only relevant to City of London rather than London as a whole. Brilliantine (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can confirm this; Greater London, today also known as London, has its own logo and no coat of arms. THEPROMENADER 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  coat of arms? 

message: It says that Hulk Hogan is the Mayor!?!?!? --71.225.111.4 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hulk Hulgan??? 

message: An accent section has recently been added to the article. While I can see that this might be valuable, as it stands it's completely unreferenced. Should I remove it? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, we now have one reference but hopefully more can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accent section 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?] - Not sure about this one? --The  Helpful  One (Review) 10:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PR 

message: There is a discrepancy between the date when New York became more populous than London. The History section of the New York article puts it at 1948 while the demographics section of the London article puts it at 1925. Which one is it? I've created a similar section on the New York talk page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliwalla (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article suggests that 1925 is correct but it says that New York's population was 8 million then, whereas the New York City article suggests that it was only 5,620,048 in 1920 and 6,930,446 in 1930 so I'm confused. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's to do with the difference between the city proper and the urban area? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to List of largest cities throughout history, both sources that tracked 20th century data both list 1925 as the year that NYC took over London. Given the rate of immigration into New York (Ellis Island was processing on average almost 1000 immigrants a day at its peak) until the U.S. passed the Immigration Act of 1924, it would certainly have been possible for NYC to grow that quickly. -epicAdam (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But what about the historical population data here? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. Census records for 1920 show that the population recorded for NYC was within the 300 square miles of the city proper, indicating that extraneous "urban area" was not included in their tally. The only explanation I can think of, therefore, is that the census bureau data might in fact be wrong. The Census at this time would have required people to fill out the census questionnaire and return it by mail. Given the number of non-English-speaking immigrants coming into the city, my guess is that this resulted in a massive under count in NYC's official population data. The authors of the more recent books cited on the List of largest cities throughout history probably have gone back and taken this into account by formulating new population estimates based not only on the old census data but on immigration data as well. -epicAdam (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just revisting this, it seems we're left with the discrepancy. Does anyone have any suggestions for making the two articles consistent? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being taken over by New York in population?  

message: We all know that the London article is frequently the victim and one of Wiki´s prime examples of teenager enthusiasm. I suggest another sentence for the intro: "London and its inhabitants are known for ongoing exaggeration and superstitions (lies) in all matters of live." I found it to be always funny when England claims itself as a soccer top favorite in several tournaments while constantly losing in the quarterfinals.
: I think the specific sentence you are referring to was merely repeating the source cited. I'm not sure about how good the source is, but there has been quite a lot of back-and-forth on this topic already - which I'm not about to get involved in. It's 'football', not 'soccer', by the way :P Brilliantine (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The view should probably be attributed in any case, as the source is not exactly going to be neutral. I'm saying this as a Londoner, btw. Brilliantine (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: London is the world's leading business, financial ....bla bla"

message: In the "Rise of Modern London" section, I deleted a fragment about how racial integration was smoother in London than elsewhere in England.  The sentence had a reference at the end but the online source only supported what was being said in the first half of the sentence (which was actually about race riots in London).  In fact, London had worse race relations than everywhere else throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and the far-right gained all their successes in Greater London until fairly recently.  Even today, Barking & Dagenham is the BNP capital of the country.  It is an urban myth in England that London is so much more civilised than everywhere else, which is probably what prompted this part of the article.  Epa101 (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Race relations vis-a-vis rest of England

message: Hi there! This is from the previous FAC about unreliable sources...
* What makes the following reliable sources:
** http://www.gatewaysmoving.com/about_moving_to_london_england_uk.htm (it's a moving company?) Why would you use this for history? Also lacking a publisher - . See this edit. --The  Helpful  One (Review) 12:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy from failed FAC about reliable sources to fix. 

message: Think the population for Greater London may need updating a little, BBC posted an article about a month ago saying that the population of greater London was 7.56 million http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7639338.stm Dav matt (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, thanks for your comment but I'm going to leave it as is at the moment, as I require and exact figure to make the change - and I can't find the exact figure! The Helpful One Review 19:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater London Population 

message: I would like to eventually support this article but I have some suggestions that I would like to post here not on the FAC page so it doesnt clutter it up or harm its chances of passing. 
*Can we toss the pronunciation help right after "London" in the first sentence? It mucks up the page and I dont think its very helpful. - Looked at some other FA's with Geography, they're all like that: Alanya, Israel, Japan, Peru etc. The Helpful One Review 17:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like the rest of the article and it looks like it is really well done. I dont have any more comments. NancyHeise  talk 00:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: some comments

message: The recent FAC nomination of this article has been withdrawn by the nominator. Please leave the  template at the top of this page to enable proper archiving of the recent FAC, which should happen within several days. Thank you. Maralia (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC withdrawn

message: Hi 
I checked your page for information related about LONDON and i advice to place a link Star Shipping International International Shippers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunwest seo (talk • contribs) 11:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Link to International Shipping company of LONDON under External Link 

message: Looking through the current lead section, it currently ties itself up in knots regarding what London actually is - just because London itself does not hold City Status.  Instead, it uses the phrases "conurbation" and "urban area" - but both of these are wrong too!  The Greater London Urban Area is NOT the same as London - it includes towns like Watford and Woking which are outside London.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to use "city" with a small "c", meaning a large settlement (whilst noting that it doesn't hold City Status) - similarly to Leeds, and then state that it's the same thing as the GLA area and the Region of England? Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not so sure that the peculiarly British and historical reasons for London not being classified as a city are that relevant to its status in the world. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Urban Area" in lead section 

message: Someone put Baby P in the article. This isn't a caring town.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.66.104 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already plenty of coverage of Baby P on Wikipedia. I haven't checked the article on the London Borough of Haringey, but it might be relevant to mention the crime and the resultant enquiries in there. But to be perfectly honest, the death of one child is not a significant event in the history or demography of an entire city. We're writing an encyclopedia, not misery lit or a call to change the world. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baby P 

message: I cannot see what is gained by adding 'country' and 'Sovereign Nation' to the opening sentence, and suggest that they are removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest additions to the opening sentence 

message: The image :File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved - image was removed from . Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png

message: I originally was just trying to correct usage of the  template for population density, but in trying to verify the data, I ran across a few issues, related to population, area and density:
* Ref. 16  is broken. It's in the Wayback Machine, but the associated XLS and CSV files are not. The closest I could find is here (table 1.13). These figures are slightly different than shown in this article, and at Greater London. Additionally, the pop density figure in this article is for Greater London - or maybe not, I'm not clear on how you define and speak of your City-of, Inner, Outer, Greater. etc. Londons.
* Ref. 86  apparently supports the statement "more than ten times that of any other...", or else the preceding numeric data on pop density  - but it is singularly uninformative in a quantitative sense, being a coloured chart which provides no actual numeric data that I can see.
* And further to the "more than ten times..." statement, consulting this appears to falsify the statement (see "North West") - though admittedly outdated. However, I question the wording in any case, since no other region of Britain is composed exclusively of a single densely-populated urban area.
So, is there ay better wording and referencing that could be brought to bear? And is there any distinction between London and Greater London, at least as far as the area, pop, and pop density figures apply? I'm not familiar with the topic(s), else I would try my own fixes. Thanks for the help! Franamax (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics section - issues 

message: Ich muss in Englisch einen Aufsatz über 2 Sehenswürdigkeiten in London schreiben. Bitte helft mir!!! Bitte in meine deutsche Diskussionsseite schreiben.--K.A.R.R. (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilfe!!! 

message: I'm a bit concerned about this article. It's currently a GA, but even from a cursory glance at the lead I'm confident that this article would fail a GA-review. We have several outstanding "citation needed" tags, as well as dead links and uncited claims. London is a Top priority for several wikiprojects, and is one of the most important cities in human history. Perhaps users who frequent this page could apply some collective TLC? --Jza84 |  Talk   15:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, we need a 'quality drive' on this article. We should aim to restore the GA level of quality and move towards submission for FA. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA status?? 

message: It should be a link on the climate for London snowstorm.
--68.197.226.22 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, actually. You've blanked my user page twice already to draw attention to this belief of yours. But all the new weather stuff you've been trying to put in is from the past 9 years. In the description of a city that is 20 centuries old, the heaviest snow in 20 years is pretty much irrelevant. The Great Smogs are relevant because they led to the Clean Air Acts; they've had a lasting impact on the life of the city. But it's too early to say if this week's, or even this decade's weather will do that. I'd guess not, but WP:CRYSTAL says I mustn't put my belief about the future into the article text. (To other users: I don't want to get dragged into a one-person edit war here. What's the consensus on updating the 'climate' with recent weather news stories?) AlexTiefling (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in complete agreement with you, AlexTiefling. The anon IP has also been changing the stats in the climate section, deleting conversion templates and replacing proper references with "www.weather.com", which hardly constitutes a reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Truth is not the criterion for inclusion. Verifiability and notability are our criteria - and for article content, relevance is important too. I've never heard climate defined in terms of 'the past 30 years'. Climate is about the general patterns of weather in a region - rather than specific incidents like this week's. And the correctness of putting the smog in the climate section wasn't my point; my point was the incidents have to have a lasting effect in order to be relevant to a general article about the city, like this one. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The smog has historical importance, as displayed by the fact that it led to legislation. Why do you think the recent snow is equally important? And why should it be the only snowfall in the entire history of the city to be mentioned? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The numeric IP user above has repeatedly added the snow back in, and has now removed the smog as well. I'm getting confused by all the different revisions. Could some kind person restore this article so that the climate section looks the way it did before last Monday's snow, please? Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I placed a WP:3RR warning on his talk page. I definitely think this is a case of Recentism and anon is not taking account of the historical perspective. --Triwbe (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. He's at it again, though. We have nothing about the 19th century frost fairs; why should we have one week's worth of snow? (Tangential thought, though: is there enough information out there for a good secondary article about London's weather?) AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Your edits will continue to be reverted until you provide justification here as to why the snowstorm is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snowstorm 

message: I am proposing a link to the website British Destinations. As webmaster of the site, I believe that its destination articles and itineraries provide an invaluable source of information to users of Wikipedia who may be considering a trip to London and Great Britain. The aforementioned link has already been deleted several times, been called spam and such forth, but it is no such thing and instead is a wealth of information or possible British tourists. Therefore could it be permanantly placed in this and perhaps other articles to which it is related? (the url is http://www.britishdestinations.wikispaces.com) 203.171.199.62 (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, I have a number of concerns with that: first, there's a clear conflict of interest; secondly this is an encyclopaedia and not supposed to provide specific travel information to readers - there's a travel wiki for that; next up, its inclusion appears to conflict with wiki policy on the inclusion of external links; and finally, nothing here is 'permanent'. The article is the result of consensus by many editors, it would appear that that consensus is that it is an inappropriate link for wikipedia. I hope that helps clarify why your link is being removed. Kbthompson (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm the user who previously deleted this link. Allow me to explain my reasoning. Firstly, as webmaster of that site, you have a conflict of interest which means that it may be inappropriate for you to add material relating to the site. Secondly, although it may be useful, utility is not a criterion for inclusion. Thirdly, while it may be useful, it's still advertising. And fourthly, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and so adding information aimed at travellers does not enhance the site or help it serve its purpose: to be an encyclopedia. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for your contributions. I understand and condede your points. Thank you again! 203.171.199.111 (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Destinations 

message: Any idea what is wrong with the last part of this section? I commented out the incomplete sentence at the end. I checked back as far as "Revision as of 09:58, January 31, 2009" and it is the same. Quebec99 (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  National government 

message: I added the paragraph about science and research and development in London. Could anybody please add that the cited reference (No. 123) at the end of the paragraph was retrieved on february 21, 2009 ? I am quite busy with work these days and have not enough time to learn how to add that piece of information and do it properly. Many thanks in advance.
Roibeird (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: science in the Economy chapter

message: "It is also ranked 4th in the world in number of billionaires (United States Dollars) residing in the city.[91] London ranks as one of the most expensive cities in the world, alongside Tokyo and Moscow.[92]"
:The latest Forbes list is now out, and London is up to 2nd - with many Russian billionaires going backwards. reported here. I can't find the specific ref in Forbes, but the group of articles does go on at some length arguing that London is now one of the cheapest cities (in comparative USD). Those couple of sentences could do with some work - thoughts? Kbthompson (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billionaires and expense ... 

message: The audio clip containing the pronounciation of "London" does not work. Is it me, or should this be removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.137.234 (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation audio clip 

message: I've just noticed resently that there is no disanbiguous london at the top of this page. There are many different "London"'s on wikipedia, but the search of "London" only comes up with this. Anyone want to make it? Cainine (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that as well; I just added a hatnote with a link to London (disambiguation). Cheers, Rai•me 02:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguous London 

message: London is in England. Why is the Welsh version of London on the page? There isnt the Scots version, or the Irish version (spoken in N.Ireland, part of the UK, still...).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.166.68 (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There shouldnt be any Welsh at the start 

message: I'm sure Bill Bertram won't object to me removing his panorama from the parks and gardens section. It was too similar to his superior excelllent panorama in the cityscape section.--Tom dl (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panoramas 

message: The text in this section is illiterate and meaningless. I'm fairly sure that London has more than 570 buildings. I'm equally sure that it has far fewer than 570 buildings that could reasonably be considered skyscrapers; in fact, looking out of my window, I can't count more than about ten at the absolute most, mostly in Canary Wharf. Skyscrapers are conspicuous in London by their almost complete absence; if there's going to be any text in this section, wouldn't it make more sense to say something about the buildings that actually characterise the landscape here? 90.201.20.16 (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cityscape 

message: There appears to be a huge bit of white space in the lead of this article. I suspect it's something to do with the collapsable list in the infobox, but it's definitely there (I'm using IE8, Windows Vista). Anybody else see it? --Jza84 |  Talk   13:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, neither in IE8 or firefox3 (at least I think it's 3) in Vista. My display is 1280x800. Nev1 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  White space 

message: I wonder if London exists. There's greater London and the city of London but what is London? Should this page actually be a disambuguation (that crazy, Wikipedia made-up word) page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tired of London. . .tired of life? There are many other mugs lining up.  :} Bjenks (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: existence

message: I have removed an uncited statement attributing 'some' possible derivations of the name London to Anglo-Saxon language. I know from my schoolboy Latin that Roman occupiers used the name Londinium—at least 400 years before the existence of any language that could be termed Anglo-Saxon. (I believe the first recorded use was by Tacitus (lib xiv, ch xxxiii) in the year 61 C.E., though it may well have been founded a century earlier.) We can readily assume the Romans adapted a Celtic (British) antecedent but there is absolutely no way the name could have been coined by Angles, Saxons or Jutes. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[London#Etymology|Etymology]] 

message: The list of artists mentioned in the music section is growing out of hand again. Would people support a trim and, if so, which artists should be kept/removed? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've cut the list back to those mentioned as notable in two reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music section 

message: None of the other 'global cities' mentioned in the introduction of this article (New York, Paris, Tokyo) cite the other three in addition to presenting a link to the article on global cities, so why should London? In the interests of consistency, and also to avoid focusing too much on three other cities in the opening paragraphs of an article on an entirely different one, I've removed this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.88.125.129 (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above; unfortunately articles on cities tend to degenerate into penis contests.  The article is about london, keep it about london. Writing about london doesn't detract anything from New York Zaq12wsx (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global cities 

message: I was surprised to notice that Buckingham Palace isn't mentioned in the article. Is there any particular reason for this? It could probably fit into the architecture section or could do with a mention in the history section. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is odd. It could perhaps also go in the governance section given the Queen's role as head of state. But perhaps under architecture would be best. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Buckingham Palace]]

message: Having just reverted out a change in the figures in the infobox as not in accordance with the reference, looking at the figures reverted to some of those do not appear to stack-up with the reference either. The reference appears to have changed this year so cannot be 2001 census data. Also the figures quoted in the infobox appear to be different to that in the text which is supported by a different reference. Can someone look over the figures in the infobox and the section on ethnic groups and reconcile the situation. Keith D (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've now checked this and there were indeed discrepancies between the article and the source. We should all keep an eye out for changes to the ethnicity statistics since they seem to be a favourite target for unsourced edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity

message: Why do the architecture and parks and gardens sections come under the economy header? Surely they would be better placed under society and culture. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, perhaps better still, create a landmarks heading and include them under that? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, these have now been moved to the cityscape section by another editor. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article headings 

message: I am sure that this must have been discussed before but I can find no record on this talk page of it.  London (apart from the City) may not be a city according to our strange British customs but in ordinary language it is called a city here and throughout the world. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is London a city? 

message: I notice that the article has a section called "Emergency Services In London", consisting solely of links to other articles. Is it appropriate to have this section? The emergency services would perhaps be better mentioned in the governance section. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and references added. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emergency services 

message: This article is in general very good. However, I can't find anything about Tourism, besides a few lines in the Economy section. Of course Wikipedia must not become a Lonely Planet, but a section with information about the main sights (London Eye, Tower of London & Tower Bridge, Big Ben/Houses of Parliament, etc.) and other activities, like shopping, visiting theatres and bus and boat tours. I think this could best be done in only one or two paragraphs. I'm not a native English speaker and I'm not an inhabitant of London er even the UK, so I don't think I'm the one who should make up such a section, but I think it would be a good (and needed) addition to the current article. Greetings, 77.167.224.101 (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a landmarks section, as suggested above, would be a good place for this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. That idea seems good to me. 77.167.224.101 (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism/Sights section 

message: Due to recent high levels of vandalism to the article, I have semi-protected it for one month, meaning that unregistered editors and new accounts cannot change it. Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection