Talk:London/Archive 6

message: The page lists the area of the City as 2.7 square kilometers and 1.6 square miles. While 1.6 linear miles is roughly the equivalent of 2.6 linear kilometers, that's not the case when it comes to area. 1.6 square miles is roughly the equivalent of 4.1 square kilometers. This schoolboy mistake crops up all over Wikipedia. So which is correct, and does this then throw off the density information? 86.0.203.120 21:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the answer but the City of London article specifies the area as 1.0 square mile, or 2.6 square km.--Paul 14:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This website http://www.a-london-guide.co.uk/sightseeing/london-areas/index.html mentions: "To a Brit, the 'City' doesn't mean the whole of London but simply the 'Square Mile' (actually 1.08 square miles) as it is colloquially known.". So I presume the "1.0 square mile, or 2.6 square km." on the City of London article is correct. --Donar Reiskoffer 14:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source is the Encylopaedia Brittanica, which is not the most error-free source but still ... It cites 2.9 km² and 1.1 sq mi. --Donar Reiskoffer 14:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: City of London Area

message: where exactly is the centre of London? Is it Piccadilly Circus? Or is there no actual centre of London (ignoring the whole area inside the inner ring road)? Simply south 16:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually considered to be around Trafalgar Square (there's a small paragraph to this effect in the Area subsection of "Defining London"). This is where road distances on signs around the country are usually measured from. --Dave A 16:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a plaque outside Charing Cross station which confirms this (to the left of the Thistle Hotel on a post at the start of Villiers Street if memory serves). MRSC 19:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact center of London is the statue of King Charles I on Charing Cross Square. There's a plaque on the pavement a few feet behind the statue which says: "On the site now occupied by the statue of King Charles was erected the original Queen Eleanor's Cross, a replica of whch stands in front of Charing Cross station. Mileages from London are measured from the site of the original cross." You can see a picture of this plaque here: . So I guess the plaque referred to by Mrsteviec is near the replica of Queen Eleanor's Cross, but the actual official centre of London is still the king's statue behind which the plaque I linked to is located. For examples of official city centre in other countries, check Kilometre Zero. It's odd that the official centre of London would have a plaque bearing the name "City of Westminster" by the way. Oh well, another of London's idiosyncracies I guess. Hardouin 20:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is Charing Cross Square? And why is it odd that a plaque in the City of Westminster should bear the legend "City of Westminster"? I think the Charles staue is actually just off of Trafalgar Square on the Whitehall side. Badgerpatrol 23:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's odd because you'd assume the centre of London would be in the City of London. Thanks/wangi 17:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a small arrow mark on the rear of the equestrian statue of Charles the First, that indicates the exact spot to measure distances from.  - Hardouin/Badgerpatrol - There isn't an area called "Charing Cross Square", the Charing Cross was erected where Charles 1st statue now is, and gave it's name to the area. The Statue is on the south side of Trafalgar Square, seperate to the main square. It's on a little traffic island and "looks down" Whitehall towards Parliment. Purely conjecture but perhaps it's regarded as the centre as the politcal centre moved from the City of London to the City of Westminster. I shall try to get a photo of the arrow on the rear when next near Trafalgar Sq. LiamVictor 00:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another question posed (or more) 

message: Yes?No?87.113.26.73 17:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course not. See WP:NOR and WP:V among others. Badgerpatrol 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For another website mabye. Jooler 17:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Follow the links that I have indicated above. And please try and avoid posting the same material to multiple talk pages in future- it's called spamming and is generally frowned upon. Badgerpatrol 17:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No no no. Its an awful idea which has no place on wikipedia or in any other encyclopedia. siarach 17:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should there be a section in the article which displays all the pros and cons of London then gives it an overall mark and should this be done for other cities?

message: Yes? No? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebaronoflondon (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 August 2006  (UTC)
Don't forget to sign.
There already is something similar at London#Built environment. Interesting to mention though. Simply south 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an Architecture in London sub-article, and as Simply south says, the Built environment section provides a summary which links into that article. There was a discussion in June on this (see Architecture above), although I just noticed that someone added to it recently. The sort of information that they suggest placing here would be much better placed in the Architecture in London article. --Dave A 11:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should there be an architecture section?

message: London is easily the most populous city in the EU.  Should we not say so in the article? Normalmouth 07:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been a big problem and comes up frequently - the current statement that London is "one of the largest and most populous cities in Europe" was designed to avoid arguments over different definitions of the city compared to other European cities. There was an extensive discussion on this only a short time ago - see above. --Dave A 11:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Greater London is the "old city". London refers to just about all settlement loosely connected to the London conurbation within the M25 Circular. I resent you calling the whole english territory a metropolitan area. Have you ever visited or lived in my country? A very large proportion of the land usage in the UK is rural. There are several major conurbations - London, Leeds, Manchester/Liverpool area, Tyneside, Cardiff, Southampton, Birmingham/Coventry area, Edinburgh, Belfast and Glasgow. Outside of those areas, which hold the vast majority of the population, over 90% I believe, there are small cities, old market towns and small villages dotted around the place. On the Scottish highlands you'd be hard-pressed to find any settlement for miles in some areas, and a similar situation is in the remotest parts of the Welsh mountains and the Irish wilds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.156.203 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  London isclearly THE most populous city in Europe wether we consider the 'city' proper or the metropolotan area. With almost 8m people within Greater London (smaller than the urban area) it is far ahead of any other city in europe (unless we count Moscow, which would stillbe less populous than London). If we count teh Metropolittan area, it is still more polulous than the secon (Paris, with about 10m). One should also point out that London is one of the LARGEST cities in teh world, twice as large as New York (we are talking). Darta are not easy to come by when we deal with population, but the fact that London is both the Largest and most populous city in Europe is blatant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.238.147 (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe's most populous city 

message: It is alledged by the government that they Greatly underestimated the amount of migrant workers who were let into the UK and that the original figure of 15,000 was more like 600,000!!  This makes sense as to the increase in population of London as the majority of these migrant workers would have gone to London to search for work.  From 7.1 million in 2001 to approx 7.5 million in 2005.  The government now expects around 360,000 more people when new countries are made part of the EU this year.  If this keeps up does anyone reckon, in the next few years, London could once again reach the 8,000,000 mark? dj_paul84 17:04, 25 August 2006
:Where does your 15, 000 figure come from? And I don't think it necessarily follows that all new immigrants with potentially meagre resources would automatically head to London, the most expensive city. Badgerpatrol 16:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  600,000 Immigrants 

message: The infobox geography class seems to be good enough, but is there any way of removing the horizontal lines without using the  function?  I'm thinking in particular of the Geography section, where Area/Population/Density would surely be better without lines between them and the City/Greater London title.  Only a minor issue really, but it'd be nice if it could be fixed.  DJR (T) 21:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is easier to read like this. However, I've made it clearer they are sub section titles. MRSC 09:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox lines 

message: Copied from User talk:Grcampbell:
:Hi,
:I noticed you've subst:ed infobox London into the actual London article.  While it is obviously a single-use template, the entire purpose of its creation was to avoid having the main London article filled with yet more text and thus size.  I'm not sure if there's a Wikipedia guideline regarding this, but I think the matter should be discussed at Talk:London first.  I have copied this message there, and would appreciate discussion to continue there.  Regards, DJR (T) 08:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now here I agree. Removing the infobox from the article is a good idea for these reasons. I recommend withdrawing the tfd. MRSC 09:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From Wikipedia:Template namespace Templates are used to duplicate the same content across more than one page. You can change a template in one place and it will immediately propagate to the pages that use it.. This is not the case for the template in question, being that it is a single use template. Others like it have already been deleted and others are up for deletion. One such example is :Template:Scotland infobox. The :Template:Infobox Country was no good for the Scotland article and a simple solution was found. --Bob 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a policy for policies sake to me. If single use templates really must not exist in the template space it can move to London/Infobox and be linked in from there. MRSC 16:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was moved from London/Infobox to the template space, because having it in the mainspace is against policy for good reason. Single use templates may or may not be a good idea, but using a fake subpage is definitely a bad alternative. JPD (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either alternative is ok with me. This is not the only example of a large article broken up in this way. e.g. List of postal districts in the United Kingdom. MRSC 16:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've restored the original template in the article. This will cause the TFD message to reappear and will generate some discussion at the deletion page. MRSC 16:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  substituting infobox London 

message: Okay dudes, we HAVE to put this thing in here. I mean if it's going to be an international holiday, like Martin Luther King Jr. Day then we HAVE to put this in here, you guys got three days to do it, or I'll put it in here myself. -The Bird
Why's that relevant to the London page? Looking at your talk page, you have a history of vandalism, plus the John Lennon Day page has been deleted, so please don't add a reference to it. Cordless Larry 11:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Lennon Day 

message: While the standard does indeed appear to have the title outside the box, doing so causes the title to overlap the infobox on several browsers thus partially hiding it.  There have already been many discussions about the merits of standardisation, and I can't help thinking that this is yet another example of where standardisation does not work.  The same issue was experience on the United Kingdom article, and the only resolution was the include the title in the infobox (see article).  I'd personally like to see this issue resolved on infobox_city so that there is still standardisation, but time is precious and I have little!  DJR (T) 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree that a systemic solution is required, but this must have a standard look with the title appearing outside the box. It must be possible to achieve as, for example, it works properly on other infoboxes e.g. :template:Infobox London place. MRSC 21:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox titling 

message: I've cleaned up the heading. There is no need to have "London is a leader in arts, culture ect." because everyone knows this and being a major global city, London is obviously good enough to need that sentence to suport it. Also, the bit about demographics and its diverse population is mentioned in the artice, under the demographics section. The reason I removed it is because the heading seems to promote London rather than give info and facts.
:No thanks, Jack. There is less info and facts in your version. JPD (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hit the road Jackp - haven't you noticed that we are all working together to always remove your edits. They only last a few minutes, why do you bother?. Also, please sign your comments, even when using your not-so-secret IP. --Merbabu 13:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up the heading 

message: I see someone has created an Energy policy section to the article. I have mixed feelings about this - it's useful information which doesn't seem to be anywhere else in Wikipedia, but in its current location I think it's getting undue prominence. I wonder if the Administration section which talks about the GLA should incorporate this, as energy, transport, housing etc. are areas with strategies laid out by the Mayor. --Dave A 21:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This deserves one or two sentences, not three paragraphs.  Also, the section does not comply with the standard heading layout for city articles. --Paul 01:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the section to Greater London Authority. If anyone wants it discussed in this article, a few sentences in the Administration section should suffice. JPD (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy policy 

message: We're back to Heathrow being downgraded again. Yesterday I was watching an episode of the US TV show "The West Wing" - President Bartlett, known as a (carefully checked by the scriptwriters) font of usefull facts, says "did you know that Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport?" to a bored staffer when landing there in Air Force One. Now I'm not attempting to cite WW as the source, but there does seem to be very widespread international agreement that it is the world's busiest INTERNATIONAL airport. What's wrong with saying so? The usual correction is that O'Hare, Atlanta, etc, are busier but they handle internal US traffic a lot. MarkThomas 17:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the current wording that's wrong rather than the current intent - Heathrow is verifiably the world's busiest airport with regard to international passengers, but this isn't quite the same as being the world's busiest international airport.  O'Hare and Atlanta are both international airports and both carry more people in total, making them both of them busier international aiports than Heathrow, but not as busy with regard to international passengers.  What was said on The West Wing is just a lazy way of saying this, and because it's lazy it's not actually correct.  Matthew 17:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have changed that paragraph.  If we talk about international transport hubs, I think it is worthwhile to mention the port of London.  More important than the argument how to phrase Heathrow's status, it is important to mention London is the largest aviation hub in the world.  This is calculated by the number of passengers using the airports of the respective metropolitan areas of cities.JGG 16:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  Is this worth taking onto the Global city page too?  It currently lists Atlanta as being the busiest city, aviation-wise, because it looks only at the largest airport.  There's a table at the bottom of that article - you'll see what I mean. Matthew 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes that table is very misleading.  It is a table about the largest airports by passenger traffic.  As the article is about cities and what makes them global cities, it would be more relevant to rank by: "cities by airport passenger traffic".  Of course, for someone making a tranfer flight, you would look at what is the largest airport.  But not when you evaluate to what extent cities are connected to the rest of the world, here all airports traffic volume can be added up.JGG 20:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Luton must be one of them. It's offically called London Luton. Cordless Larry 12:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be called London Luton, but it's not in London.  Luton is in Bedfordshire.  I don't think even the widest definition of London includes that! It does "serve" London though.  The 6th could be London Southend I think they're international, mainly charter flights I think. --Siobhan Hansa 13:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but then Stansted's not in London either and they still call it London Stansted. Cordless Larry 13:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I've read somewhere that Biggin Hill is London's sixth airport... Simply south 14:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and there are about fifteen helipads and God knows how many little airfields, but they hardly qualify on a list of leading international airports! Let's make it five and leave it at that. So changed. MarkThomas 15:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I could go with five, even though Luton is a bit of a stretch despite the renaming, but Southend - come on! We could start throwing in Oxford and Southampton. How about we make it five? MarkThomas 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we go with "served by five airports"? Then we could include Luton without it sounding ridiculous. Six seems a stretch. Cordless Larry 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stansted possibly even further out of London than Luton. Simply south 15:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree six was a strech because Southend is not very developed yet.  Five is probably the right number of international commercial airports.  By the way, with regards to private jet airports, I noticed the article on Farnborough has become completely out-of-date.  They have built a pretty new airport there over the last two years with very impressive buildings...  http://www.tagaviation.com/services/farnborough.php.  JGG 15:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahh the power of marketing, I'd forgotten Stansted was so far out!  Served by is more literal, might be a touch pedantic though. I hadn't meant to open up a debate, I think either wording works.  Looks like a good change by Mark. --15:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: LON is the IATA city code for airports serving London, see that article for the list of the six recognised "London" airports. /wangi 16:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wangi, I think Biggin Hill is just an emergency landing strip that big jets can use. It was used for example recently when they had the fluid bomb alerts. Personally I don't think this makes it one of "London's international airports" - the LON code is just a technicality really. MarkThomas 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Heathrow Airport 

message: Paris is not a sister city of London. Those two cities only sign a partnership in 2001. Paris have only one sister city : Rome. 84.103.176.225 02:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought this was funny, taking into account recent history.  Paris and London really behave like real sisters, they just can not do without each other.  Europe would be so boring without their sisterly relationship! JGG 15:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister cities 

message: I would like to beef up this part of the London article and insert sub-titles.  Any opposition or concerns?  JGG 23:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: Does this exist as a suburb\area\district of London? Around the station here seems to be a few things referring to it - a school, the park itself, a leisure centre, possible a community centre and a road. Simply south 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Langdon Park 

message: I believe it may be more suitable to show London on a map of the UK or simply Europe, rather than on a map of England.  The form of the UK is easily recognized by non-British, which is not the case for England.  
A further question is whether we should actually have a traditional geographical map.  Why not a map showing London as a node in the global urban framework? I particularly like Figures 3 and 4 on http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb157.html, but there are many similar maps that show London as part of the global urban network.  Such map would tie in very well with the introduction which describes London as one of the command centres in the world, being extremely well connected and being very cosmopolitan.JGG 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Look at the articles for other Capital cities such as Rome, Paris or Berlin and the location of the cities is shown on a map of the nation rather than simply a region within the nation - and by 'nation' i mean Sovereign state so pedants neednt pipe up with any talk of England being a nation because it isnt anymore than is Bavaria, Britanny or Texas. London is significant because it is the capital city of the UK, not because it is the capital of England. Change the map. siarach 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: England is not a region. It is a country. --LiamE 16:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No more so than any of the above mentioned regions, which were also once sovereign states in their own right before becoming part of a greater nation. Indeed given that Texas and Bavaria have far more recent histories as independent states than does England one could quite easily say England has less claim than the aforementioned. I always find it amusing the way we in the UK think that we have some special situation where we have a number of nations within one when it is no different many other nations. Anyway this is beside the point. The point is that London should be shown on a map of the UK (the nation of which it is a capital), not of England (the region of which it is a capital, within the nation) to bring the article into line with those of other major capitals which rightly show the cities in the context of their nation rather than local region or any other provincial option. siarach 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish. By that reasoning France and Germany et al are no longer countries as they are part of the EU. The countries are currently in union but retain their country status. If you know otherwise hurry along and inform the British Government because they obviously have it all wrong.  When you're done there there's only the rest of the world to tell. Perhaps you can start with OED, the purveyors of the English lexicon, as they have it wrong too. They define England as "the country forming the southern part of the United Kingdom." --LiamE 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little England? 

message: The population number is listed at 8,600. Should it be 8.6m? 
Leo vegoda 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're looking at the population for the City of London (i.e. The Square Mile) at the heart of London's financial district.  The Greater London population is given just below it at 7.5 million. --Siobhan Hansa 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population number looks wrong 

message: I think the article Londoner should not be merged since it actually is a disambiguation article. There's also an ongoing discussion on whether it is valuable to write separate articles on natives of cities/towns (apart from the category:  :Category:People from London or more general :Category:People by city or town in England or lists like List of people from New York. Brz7 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Londoner. Merge?

message: On December 16, 2004, The World Factbook, a publication of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)  added an entry for the European Union.  According to the CIA, the European Union was added because the EU "continues to accrue more nation-like characteristics for itself". Their reasoning was explained in this small statement in the introduction:
The evolution of the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's supranational organization of 25 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history...
... for such a large number of nation-states to cede some of their sovereignty to an overarching entity is truly unique...
... the EU ... has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded. Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries.
I might add that EU citizens have EU- numberplates, -passports, drivinglicense, the EU institutions, and regular election. I hope you support the small extension I made... all the best Lear 21 19:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid to say that I wholly disagree with its inclusion.  In no way is the EU a sovereign state - it is not a country and any of its members can leave it should they wish.  I personally would like it removed.  DJR (T) 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Strong Oppose. The EU is neither a country or a soverign state, so its inclusion in the line describing the country is misplaced, therefore it should be removed. --Bob 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is that a vast simplification of a much more complex issue, but it is factually incorrect and violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:CITE.  The EU is not a country, and suggesting its "sovereignty" over its member states is comparable to that of the United Nations' of its members.  The CIA have a long and illustrious history of getting things wrong - if they have suggested that the EU constitutes a sovereign, supernational country then this will be another example to add to the collection.  DJR (T) 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complement EU 

message: This page is incredibly wordy and does not read very fluidly. Can we all please remember that long words were for making us look clever at school. In the adult world their over-use makes us all look pompus and frankly a bit thick. 
Almost every paragraph of this article needs re-wording. If it is to be used as an educational tool it should be easy to read and understand. Those looking for a lesson in vocabulary have plenty of options available to them and this is not designed to be one of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.2.159 (talk • contribs) .
:Sometimes long words are useful because they capture a specific idea. For example "conurbation" does not mean the same thing as "extended urban area" that you replaced it with. A much better idea (since London actually is a conurbation) would have been to link conurbation to its article, like this: conurbation. That way people who didn't know what it meant would have the opportunity to learn new knowledge and the original intent of the article would be preserved. I'm all for simplicity, but accuracy is also important. By the way, there is no call for launching into incivility in your edit summaries or here. You can make you point perfectly well without attacking others. Gwernol 21:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor use of English

message: The first line of this article contains useless information, why is it there?EditorNo.235 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's useless about it?  I understood it and I believe that many others would too.Cameron Nedland 14:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Editor, it is useless. I feel most people coming to this page would have no clue as to what ˈlʌndən means and I highly doubt many of time would be bothered to trail through the pronunciation pages to work out the correct pronunciation. It should really have both with something like this luhn-duhn added. DavidB601 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pronunciation guides like luhn-duhn are worse than useless, particularly in an international context, as different people will read them in different ways. Using the IPA is helpful for those who care enough about pronunciation to know it already or bother looking it up, and is easily ignored by those who don't care. JPD (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'luhn-duhn' doesn't mean nearly the same thing to Polish or Spanish person.  Plus it's not consistent, it implies that the two vowels are pronounced the same.Cameron Nedland 20:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That rhyme isn't quite right (maybe it's just my accent) plus L'undone looks Italian or something.Cameron Nedland 14:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just your accent (although the fact that it could be is a reason not to use it), it's the stress on a different syllable. JPD (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronounced what?

message: I've removed this section - it has been added a few times already by an IP account. It's probably fair to say that it's a cut'n'paste from somewhere else... And what does "famous" mean? Thanks/wangi 21:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's generally agreed that good articles on cities don't include lists like this. JPD (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't see much value in that sort of list anywhere, but there are articles like List of people from New York City, so it would be reasonable to create a similar list for London, and put it under See Also. JPD (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: See also the discussions here on "notable natives":Talk:London#Londoner_Merge. Brz7 19:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Famous" Londoners 

message: Suggest the page has an extra section about waste management and recycling in the city. Snowman 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waste Management 

message: What language is spoken in London? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.203.66 (talk • contribs) 
:Many languages but mainly English. London UK  (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't live there or have ever been there, but I would bet my soul that the majority speak English.Cameron Nedland 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Which would be more correct? "One of the most populous cities in Europe" or "The most populous city in Europe"...? Is there any way to sort out this? Simply south 11:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City size 

message: Since almost the first edit, this article has stated without debate that London is not the capital of England, now today, suddenly, the article has been modified to remove this statement, with the edit comment that "England doesn't have an independent government or capital yet". This is clearly erroneous. From the time Londinium replaced Colchester as capital of Roman Britain, London has been the principal city of Britain. It can certainly lay claim to have been the capital of England since Winchester relinquished that role in the 11th century (with a possible exception when Charles I moved his court to Oxford during the Civil War). Even after the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800 joined England with Scotland and Ireland, there was no suggestion that London lost the role of capital of England.
Just because Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have their own parliaments based in their capital cities and England does not have a separate, England only, parliament, does not mean that London is somehow not the capital of England. There is nothing incompatible with the London being the capital of England and Great Britain & Northern Ireland.
Incidentally, Ofsted, the organisation responsible for ensuring educational standards in British schools, certainly seems to think London is the capital of England. It is one of the test questions it uses to assess geographical knowledge. 
I have changed the article back.DavidCane 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that this was accepted in fact but not enacted in statute, hence London is not technically the capital of England in the same way that London is not technically a city. I don't have any objection to referring to London as the capital of England however- it's fairly manifest. Badgerpatrol 12:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange assertion that London is not the capital of England

message: This section contained the following statement:
:By annual passenger air traffic (2002 census), London ranks 1st in the world, with around 133,599,000 passengers using London Heathrow Airport, London Gatwick Airport, London Stansted Airport, London Luton Airport and London City Airport in the year 2005.
There are several problems with this. 
*It seems to suggest that a census in 2002 documented the traffic through London in 2005, which is obviously wrong.
*It talks about a 2002 census without saying what kind of census. 
*It doesn't provide any sources for the information
So I have pulled the statement. If you can provide a source, and clarify what year we are talking about, then I suggest you amend and replace. -- Chris j wood 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unclear and unsourced statement from the 'Air' section of 'Transport' 

message: What is it about largest city data that turns sensible people into chest-thumping, flag-waving, "mine's bigger than yours" neanderthals?  Does it make any difference to anything at all whether Paris is "really" bigger than London or vice versa?  Can't we just accept that the definition of a "city" is inherently vague and state quite reasonably that London is ONE OF the largest cities in the EU? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lfh (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biggest city silliness 

message: I was wondering whether to include the Gherkin in the list of notable landmarks, in the final paragraph of the opening section (shown below). It's certainly become an icon for those living in the UK. And it's the 2nd biggest landmark in Central London. But is it famous enough outside Britain to be "associated" with London and included in this list?
"London is a major tourist destination, with iconic landmarks including the Houses of Parliament, Tower Bridge, the Tower of London, Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace and the London Eye amongst its many attractions, along with famous institutions such as the British Museum and the National Gallery."
Wjfox2005 14:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how well it's known outside Britain, but more to the point, that list talks of landmarks that are attractions. It is definitely a landmark, but not really an attraction. JPD (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How famous is the Gherkin? 

message: Didn't this article used to say something different as the first line, eg, the bold claim that London is the capital city of England and the UK - isn't it more accurate to say that it is the traditional and de-facto capital, since Britain does not have a formal constitutional capital city? MarkThomas 10:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital city 

message: Please see Talk:Tokyo#London_Sister_City_Status -- Exitmoose 06:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that basis, Tokyo should be removed... partnership cities are not the same as sister cities.  DJR (T) 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tokyo Sister City Status

message: The highest and lowest point of elevation should be listed in the infobox and the geography section. --Kalmia 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation 

message: However most London 'Christians' are only nominally so. Religious practice is lower than any oher part of the U.K. or Western Europe and is around seven times lower than American averages.
To be clear, this means Christian religious practice, yes? I would imagine Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs would have a far higher rate of religious observance. Serendipodous 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it is written suggests that overall levels of religious practice are lower than the rest of the UK/Western Europe, which could be caused by a high proportion of "non practising" Christians and non religious people, regardless of the levels of practice within Muslim, etc. communities. As for whether this is actually true/what is meant, we would need to have a source! JPD (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious practice