Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London/Archive 1

message: I've been doing some work on London local government which could be tied into this Wikiproject. See Metropolitan Board of Works, London County Council, Greater London Council, Inner London Education Authority. Then there are the London politicians: List of heads of London government indexes most; John Thwaites, James Macnaghten Hogg, Herbert Morrison, Charles Latham, 1st Baron Latham, Isaac Hayward, Bill Fiske, Desmond Plummer, Reg Goodwin, Horace Cutler, Ken Livingstone, Christopher Chataway, Lena Townsend, Ashley Bramall, Bryn Davies, Frances Morrell, and Neil Fletcher. Dbiv 20:57, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: London Politics

message: I've given the  underground and  docklands categories a major update so that the lists are current as of 10/Oct/04. What would be a good course of action to keep them current in the future apart from quiet monitoring of  the  three  lists?
:BesigedB 13:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station Categories 

message: The article, Hidden London, has been marked for "move to Wikitravel" because it appears to be more appropriate for that part of the project. I thought so and saw that an earlier editor agreed. Articles about notable sites are appropriate here, as are the lists of those sites. But special lists, like "hidden London", are in the realm of tour information. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikitravel 

message: It's been pointed out on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting that the UK-geo-stub category is getting very large, and could do with being split.  A London stub has been mooted, though there might be some interest here.  Alai 05:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, the suggestion is here.  Alai 05:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  London stub? 

message: Wikia is not a WikiMedia project.  It's an external project.
To explore the possibility of building a Wikicity for London, I've started a miniwiki.  Please feel free to play around if you're interested.  Use it as a sandbox.
* http://scratchpad.wikicities.com/wiki/London:Home
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://scratchpad.wikicities.com/wiki/London:Home London Wikicity scratchpad]

message: I know a shedload of people who might want to be :) I'm asking because the datestamps here are so old. I think there are major ontological and encyclopedic problems¹ with the overall presentation of Wiki-London (never mind clean-up problems) - be nice to be able to discuss them, but no-one seems to be at home?
¹ For example the Borough->Met borough->district thing I was fretting about earlier. That's just ontology - the encyclopedic problems are even worse...
Tarquin Binary 23:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is anyone still on this project? 

message: I haven't been involved with any of this up until now, but I came across the above category recently. I have commented on that category article's discussion page, to the effect that it seems that it leaves itself open to thousands of entries. Each London Borough has around 100 pieces of open space, not counting other-than-borough-owned, all of which make up the pattern that provides the lungs by which the London conurbation breathes. Articles so far range from Hyde Park to a small recreation ground in West London, and none link up with others, even though some are interconnected. I have begun on a series of articles called XXX parks and open spaces (to my mind a better title than parks and commons, since the Boroughs tend to use that epithet). Maybe the Borough articles themselves should allude to the fact that the green areas are important? Peter Shearan 14:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was thinking of a separate 'Open Spaces' content heading on Hackney (which is the main thing I've been working on). The Victoria Park piece keeps building up, and have yet to say very much about others e.g London Fields, Clissold Park, The Marshes. So, yes, good idea I'd say. Tarquin Binary 16:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:London parks and commons]]

message: A58(M) motorway and A64(M) motorway need to be merged. How this should be done I really don't know - anyone able to assist with this? Any merging, btw, should use :Category:Articles to be merged instruction. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with merge 

message: I can never remember the exact wording of this page, so I've created a nice little shortcut:  WP:Lon.  Perhaps stick it onto the actual page?  Deano 20:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortcut

message: London has another new stub template and category! For buildings and other human-made structures in London, there is now . feeding into . Grutness...wha? 09:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New stub category

message: The London Portal is now registering votes for next month's Featured Article and Featured Picture.  Please vote:
*Next Month's Showcase Article
*Next Month's Showcase Picture
Deano 10:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be nice to get one (or more?) of the district or borough articles up to featured standard. Mrsteviec 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Showcase articles/pictures 

message: You can now add the template  to your user page.   Deano (Talk) 21:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: The naming convention for stations is being discussed in a few places at the moment, so I've set up Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) to agree the standard. Thryduulf 13:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)]]

message: hi everyone. the stubsorting project has just made  for all railway stations in london (not tube tho since thats already got ) so the new  might be useful for you. were slowly moving things into it from  (if you want to help please do :). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: another new stub

message: Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team|Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] cooperation 

message: I've just noticed that, unlike South London, North London and East London, West London does not have its own sub-article, and instead redirects back to the main London page - which is very confusing. Would anyone have any objectives to the creation of this article? I'm sure we could argue about the definition of West London there... --Dave A 15:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I've considered writing this article but the stumbling point was where exactly to include. In any case it will be a good article to have. Mrsteviec 15:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would indeed be a good article to have. I have no objections in the creation of this article. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I more than support the creation of this article - it is almost crucial, given the new layout of the main London article!  As a starting point, take the text that was on the old London article - have a browse in the history... actually, I'll find the link and get back to you.  DJR (Talk) 21:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well here's the link but I notice that the article has already been created and is already very good quality.  I was going to suggest using the old "West London" section from the main article (that was removed through the enclosed diff link) as a starting point.  DJR (Talk) 21:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point. I've incorporated much of that old section now (and added some photos). --Dave A 11:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  West London sub-article 

message: argh!  I was just updating the P:L Portal for May, and something went mad and the whole thing has gone crazy!  And it can't turn it back or do anything!  I have no idea what has happened!  Please help, somebody!  Cheers, DJR (Talk) 13:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP! 

message: A new article is being created at Historical London travel guide which appears to be a fork of List of museums in London. Comments are invited. At this moment the discussion is at Talk:History of London#Travel Guide as a separate page but it may get moved to talk:Historical London travel guide. -- RHaworth 07:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museums fork 

message: I propose adding a new portal box all about defining London and it's myriad of aliases and sub-division.  I'm presuming that anyone who reads this will ignore it, and I'm really typing it just so that I remember it next time I log on... but if anyone wants to beat me to it then I will be over the moon!  DJR (Talk) 23:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[P:L]] box for definitions 

message: The district articles mostly have an introduction with the format "A is a place in the London Borough of B. It is a (sub)urban development x miles N/W/S/E of Charing Cross." It's consistent, which is fair enough, but I find it awkward and uninformative. The casual visitor - ie anybody not from London - is unlikely to be familiar with the London boroughs or with the convention of taking Charing Cross as the centre of London, so those bits of information are going to mean little to them. Furthermore, "place" sounds like the wrong word to me and would be better replaced by "area" or "district".
I think "A is an area of N/W/S/E London" should be the opening sentence, followed by any relevant information such as what the district is known for, or a general description of its character. Borough information doesn't need to be in the first sentence - "north London" is more informative to most people than "London Borough of Haringey" - and the distance from Charing Cross is not that important either. See Hampstead for what I think they ought to look like. Thoughts? Lfh 10:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree about changing "place" for "area" or "district", I disagree with removing the Borough information.  The whole point in linking terms like London Borough of Camden or whatever is so that any ambiguity if solved just by clicking on the link.  The most accurate description of a place (IMHO) is to state the place, then state its next highest geographical area, etc.  Therefore, A is an area is in London Borough of B.  To me, having to remove "London Borough of B" and replace it with "north London" is just dumbing down... it's like what you see in the simple english wikipedia.   The reference to Charing Cross is particularly apt as it is something epole do not know, and therefore should be emphasised, not neglected.  People who do not understand would simply click on Charing Cross, rather than wondering what the hell is going on.  Those who don't care won't care.  Bar changing "place" for area/district, I would not like to see any significant changes to introductory paragraphs.  DJR (Talk) 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree about the use (misuse?) of the word "place", and have commented elsewhere on it. The other words mentioned, with perhaps "settlement" in some instances, are far better. It is also the fact that a great many of them were individual villages or hamlets before being swallowed up by the "Great Wen", and a note about their history would reveal that. Peter Shearan 16:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have altered the relevant wording on the WikiProject main page.  Feel free to change it if you disagree with how it is set out.  DJR (Talk) 12:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area format 

message: Shouldn't the article on London be a part of this project? I have just had a quick look and there seems to be nothing on there to indicate this. Simply south 16:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been implicitly mentioned several times, but I have made it nice and explicit now anyway.  DJR (Talk) 09:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large query 

message: I've adapted a graphic template devised by our Croatian friends to create what will hopefully be an improved method of providing locator maps for London places. It's no longer necessary to create a separate locator map for each location. Instead, all you need to do is to specify a set of coordinates for the location in question and add them to the following template:
:
Here's a practical example. Richmond upon Thames is at coordinates 51.4556, -0.3014. We want a small 150px wide locator map without a caption, and with the placename right-aligned to avoid it sticking out of the side of the map. The map on the right is produced using this code:
:
See Template:Location map for more information and further instructions on syntax.
To obtain the coordinates for any given place, all you need to do is look it up on Multimap and look for the coordinates in the "Map Information" box; you will need the digital coordinates (the numbers with four decimal points), not the analogue ones (the traditional degrees, minutes and seconds). -- ChrisO 23:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is pretty cool.  Is general consensus to add this as a major "To-Do" for the WikiProject?  DJR (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps it should be incorporated into the existing Infobox?  The layout gets difficult otherwise. See the Brentford article for an example of the mish-mash that can result - and I see no elegant way of sorting it out. :-( WLD 11:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely - I'll see if I can create a new field in the infobox.  DJR (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay all you have to do is change the template heading to use , then enter the latitude/longitude as fields as illustrated in the usage notes.  We should try to update as many pages as possible, methinks.  DJR (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All 400+ should be converted. When adding the co-ords it is worth checking if the London Assembly data goes to a redirect or a dab page as the constituency articles did not exist when the template was originally created. Mrsteviec 12:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok I've just moved the template to a less cumbersome name that will also make it easier to change pages quickly.  And yeah we should check all those things.  This could be a long haul... DJR (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "with map" is much clearer as to what it does. It should be moved back. Mrsteviec 12:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It does exactly the same thing with or without a map, and the basic infobox should have a map.  Are you suggesting  should be moved to  because it has a map?  Geographic infoboxes should all have a maps.  DJR (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. Where do you get that idea from? Mrsteviec 12:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You are acting wholly irrationally.  Please calm down and stop reverting changes as soon as I make them.  Infoboxes have maps in them.  They do not need to say "with map" for this to be the case.  Adding useless extensions like this just make it harder for us when we change them to the new format.  It is senseless that you have moved it back, and I am going to re-instate it at the old page.  If you want to keep it at "with map" then feel free, but it is not fair that other people should have to suffer from extra work because of your stubborness.  This is a collaborative project and we are trying to make things easier.  Perhaps take a moment to think whether you are helping to achieve that.  DJR (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: To be honest, I disagree with every single one of them.  All geographic infobox templates should have a map - no questions asked.  No template should have to be distinguished as "with map", because the basic template should have a map.  If you are really against maps then it is very easy to make a field optional, but either way it is absolutely senseless having two templates when only one is needed.  DJR (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is against maps? It just so happens that there are some articles that have infoboxes with maps and some that don't. Mrsteviec 14:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Very nice! But something seems to have happened to the embedded caption - the placename no longer appears in the map. Is this intentional? -- ChrisO 09:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the history, it appears it has been removed.  I think it's fairly self-explanatory what the dot is referring to in any case, so I don't think it's that crucial to include it.  DJR (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved location mapping for London 

message: To include the map in the infobox, simply add the fields "Longitude" and "Latitude" into the existing infobox structure (i.e. , and the map will automagically appear!  DJR (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice! But something seems to have happened to the embedded caption - the placename no longer appears in the map. Is this intentional? -- ChrisO 09:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the history, it appears it has been removed.  I think it's fairly self-explanatory what the dot is referring to in any case, so I don't think it's that crucial to include it.  DJR (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final conclusion

message: This template can be substituted to reduce server load. Do a "What links here" on Wikipedia:WikiProject London or the image to see how widely it has been applied. Mrsteviec 07:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a valid argument.  If the template is changed at any time, it will be automatically updated in all its inclusions.  If it is substituted then this will create hours of donkey-work as inclusions will be impossible to track down.  The WikiProject and the image are linked in lots of pages that are not relevant - using these as lists will be wrong.   Finally, server load is not compromised in any way by transluding a template - even meta templates are not an issue and have been cleared by the community at large.  The whole point in a template is to be transcluded.  DJR (T) (WC) 16:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, see WP:SUBST:  "Template substitution is a permanent change that removes functionality; it should generally be avoided without a good reason".  Somehow I doubt this would be stated it quite such explicit words if server load was that major an issue.  DJR (T) (WC) 16:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject tag

message: An anon has been adding what seems to be nonsense and is at the very least not very relevant info to Kew- see e.g. . I rv'ed 3 times but I'm reluctant to do so a fourth time because I'm worried about violating 3RR, since this case is not unambiguously vandalism. Messages on the Kew talk page and the user's own talk have so far not met with any response, although I'm fairly confident they've been read. Thought I'd leave a message here since I couldn't see any other course of action that wouldn't generate a potentially enormous amount of hassle. Remedies appreciated. Badgerpatrol 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly nonsense - it violates pretty much every Wikipedia policy and guideline I can think of so I really don't think 3RR would come into it.  I've reverted it back to the last version by you, but have amended the term "internationally renouned" - as stated in the edit summary, he cannot be that renouned if he doesn't even have a Wikipedia article.  In any case, it is unnessary POV.  DJR (T) 21:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, ta, that's what I thought. We'll have to wait and see what happens tomorrow. Badgerpatrol 22:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kew

message: I was just thinking. Should there be a Wikiproject on the LU or UK underground railway systems in general? Simply south 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  project 

message: If you take a look at the talk page of the Brentford article, you'll see that someone is complaining that the location as displayed on the map is not correct, even though the latitude & longitude are correct.  I don't have the technical expertise to investigate this - can anyone else follow it up? Thanks, WLD 14:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_London_place#Map_dot. Mrsteviec 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inforbox location mapping 

message: The Whitechapel Idea Store has been nominated for a Stirling Prize. If anyone's in the area, would it be possible to get a picture upload for my article? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok I've been and done it. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea Store, Whitechapel

message: Hi,
I have a great interest in London theatre, past and present. Anyone out there who would perhaps like to collaborate on a few articles?  -- Peripatetic 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about collaborating....but I intend to add a Music Hall section to the Shoreditch article. I have already gone to great pains to correct the misinformation about the Tudor theatres in this area...And I see that Mr KB Thompson has added music hall info for the Hoxton article, which looks good. An article which lists all the old music halls in Lodon would be worthwhile IMHO. And somebody should do something to improve the Marie Lloyd article methinks. Colin4C 19:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone interested in London theatre?

message: Reason is i had really contributed to any London articles, except those to LU, LO and DLR. Maybe i will return in future. Will see how i do. Simply south 12:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: There is a lengthy (and somewhat heated) debate about if Farringdon exists as an area or should redirect to Farringdon station. Wider comment would be appreciated at Talk:Farringdon. Mrsteviec 05:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lengthy & heated deabate? Where? The Farringdon talk page is blank.  Looking at the history, it says the debate was moved to Farringdon, London.  The talk page for Farringdon, London has one entry - an archive, which by definition is not current. I gave up looking at that point. Could you link to where the debate is actually taking place? WLD 13:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Farringdon

message: How comes the location maps at many places in and around London will not show up? Simply south 12:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: Hi, finally got around to joining. Anyway, three new sub areas have been created in my corner of the world and as these are part of existing areas I am not sure if they should have seperate articles.  I would appreciate other perspectives.  They are at:
*South Norwood Lakes
*Beulah Heights
*Norwood New Town
Regan123 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment all the Norwood articles are a bit lacklustre (and smaller London district articles in general). I would BE BOLD! and copyedit the existing articles to cover these places and then redirect in.  MRSC • Talk 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done as they say.  I will put the local articles on my to smarten up list, though a major issue is the overlap of Upper Norwood and Crystal Palace.  I think we need to come to a consensus about what goes into what.  My feeling is that CP should talk about the development of the name and give an overall impression, whilst UN should talk about the actual location.  There are parts of UN that are not in CP and so on and so forth.  It is a bit of a nightmare. Regan123 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New areas 

message: London Underground is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[London Underground]]

message: There's a couple of related discussion concerning London location stubs;  a somewhat premature-looking borough type, currently at WP:SFD, and a proposal for a  at WP:WSS/P.  Neither looks hugely urgent just yet, but eventually we're bound to have to split these up, either by "type" of location, or by subdivision of London (probably with some 'lumping', rather than individual boroughs, though).  If you have any general thoughts on this, please comment, especially at the latter discussion which more or less covers the gamut of possibilities.  Alai 00:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  London-geo-stub subcategorisation 

message: I have nominated :Category:Norwood for deletion.  Comments can be left at the above page.  Thanks Regan123 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_3#Category:Norwood]] 

message: Could someone please supply a secondary/tertiary reference for White City, London#New development - I would like to pilfer it for a related sentence in The Westfield Group#Criticism (it should be in Current operations on the Westfield Group article but if it can't be referenced it will be removed).Thanks!Garrie 03:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White City, London 

message: What articles should it be placed on? I've seen it on some tube station articles talk pages, but should it be there? Thanks, RHB 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:LONDON Project Banner

message: Hey, might there be a way to incorporate something like a to-do or request list for special interest articles? I'm doing one on Horsenden Hill. Only problem is I can't figure out how to use the confounded harvard referencing system. I'm reading up on it though. Druss666uk 22:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Articles... er... request? 

message: Back with another one.  The opening sentence reads: 
Addington Interchange is a place in the London Borough of Croydon. It is in fact not a actural district in a sence that people call there houses inside Addington Interchange, but is in fact part of New Addington.
Does this validate as a place under the WP:London criteria?
Regan123 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Addington Interchange]] 

message: I uploaded two aerial photos of London.  
* File:P3250035.JPG (not sure why it didn't take the readable destination filename I intended)
* File:Aerial_london_2.JPG
I will see if there are any under-pictured articles to stick them in now; feel free to add to any articles you think would benefit.  Stevekeiretsu 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerial photos