Talk:London/Archive 5

message: In my opinion, this article is already close to an FA level.
You may want to take some time improving the quality and selection of the pictures in this article.  I would recommend using a fuctional picture in the "Districts" section, in place of the current one.  The London at night picture is intersting, but I question the encyclopedic value of it, especially when there is another ariel picture right above it.  Why not use a picture to comment on the various parts of London?
Also, the pictures in the history section need some attention.  The St. Paul's Cathedral picture is not set beside text that talk about the Cathedral, nor is the Queen Victoria picture.  Someone not familiar with London would question what the significance of Queen Victoria is to London.  I would recommend changing some of the descriptive text, or replacing the pictures altogther.--P-Chan 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made my own change.--P-Chan 21:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like this has been pretty much taken care of.  DJR (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures: Fuctional London, the Queen and Cathedral 

message: Question: if I am writing about a figure and I want to say that he was born in London, for example, would it be more proper to write it as "London, England" or "London, United Kingdom"? Vintner 05:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "London, United Kingdom" is probably more "officially" correct because England doesn't really have its own political status. However, "London, England" is widely used and understood, and is still correct. If your figure was born before 1800, then the UK did not exist at the time and it's safer to use England, which is guaranteed to be correct from about AD 900 onwards. --Dave A 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you much. Vintner 17:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Form

message: Obviously we would like London to reach featured article status. I think to make progress towards this goal, we need to identify the key deficiencies of the article in order to remedy them. The advice page at User:AndyZ/Suggestions provides a useful summary of the requirements.
One of my main concerns is the use of weasel words and peacock terms, and I've been trying to strip some of these out of the article. However, I think the lead section falls down hard on the following paragraph:
:London is an international leader in finance, politics, education, culture, entertainment, fashion and the arts. It is widely regarded as one of the world's major global cities, and has been an important settlement for nearly two millennia.
We have no source for London's "international leadership" on anything other than finance, and "widely regarded" is a terribly weaselly term. I propose the following rewording of this important paragraph:
:An important settlement for nearly two millennia, London is an international leader in finance and its activities in politics, education, entertainment and fashion contribute to its perceived status as a global city.
This is only a starting point, so I welcome any comments on how to deal with it. I'd also encourage people to point out other flaws in the article which would derail it on the way to FA status, so that we can deal with them. --Dave A 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the other 3 "major cities" NYC Paris Tokyo, you'll find they say exactly something like "It is widely regarded as one of the world's major global cities." Skinnyweed 19:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of which have gained FA status... --Dave A 14:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that someone disliked my lead section edit... please could they make their objection known here - thanks! --Dave A 23:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quest for [[WP:FA|featured article status]] 

message: The current edit war over which section goes where... Simply south 13:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Whichever BBC opt-out or ITV station is available in London really is not 'essential' infobox information and therefore does not warrant an entry in the infobox.  Likewise for services.  Does any other city infobox include this level of information?  I think not.  That is why I propose to lose this information from the London infobox.  Best regards, WikiWitch 12:35, 21st June, 2006 (BST)
:It is useful, relevant information and does no harm. It isn't like there is an economy of space and Wikipedia is not paper. The fact that it doesnt appear on other city infoboxes is irrelevant, perhaps it should be? And even if not, there is no benefit to uniformity for uniformities sake. The information should only be removed if it is not relevant or does harm. In this case it is neither. MRSC 11:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with you.  The infobox should hold 'essential' city facts like population, land, economic data etc.  Services and in particular, local TV opt-out info is irrelevant in comparison.  Whether it does "no harm" by being there really is not an acceptable justification for it's inclusion. WikiWitch 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On one hand, going on the basis that information should only be removed "if it is not relelvant or does harm", we should summarise the entire article into the infobox, which is quite obviously not the purpose of an infobox.  On the other hand, what exactly is "essential infobox information"?  There is no definition either way, but basic sensibilities have to come in at some stage to stop infoboxes just becoming mini-Portals.  I personally don't think media information is of enough general interest to merit its inclusion - people who know about London would know already, and people who don't know about London wouldn't give a rats arse what ITV franchise they receive.  IHMO, the purpose of an infobox is to provide important, relevant information in a consise manner.  I don't think media info is really very important in the wider scale of things.  DJR (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that irrelevant information would be harmful as it detracts from the essential points. However, including services and media which are London-wide does not detract from the other points in the infobox. MRSC 12:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm in agreement with DJR.  Media information for sure should go.  Does anyone else have a point of view? WikiWitch 12:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on the fence. Whilst I think the media information is useful, I don't think it's "important enough" to be in the infobox. My suggestion is to place a sentence in the body of the text saying something like "local television is provided by...". I only think it should be a sentence though (in the Economy section, with the rest of the media information) as we already have the Media in London subarticle. --Dave A 14:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, we should have an overview of all media in the dedicated "Media in London" section - it is both relevant and useful there.  It is not however essential for the infobox.  And what about services (Police, Fire, Ambulance etc) - is that really essential information also?  I suggest that is removed from the infobox also. WikiWitch 18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have text information on the various services under Government, so I wouldn't keep it in the infobox either. --Dave A 19:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We could always make a "Part of the Series on London" template to stick in somewhere - that'd cover all this stuff in one foul swoop.  Something along the lines of .  I'll put something together once we've replaced the current infobox.  DJR (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like that idea. We have a lot of sub-articles to keep track of now... --Dave A 19:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media and services

message: Based on the views expressed above, I think we are in a position where a change in infobox style has been suitably agreed.  It appears that there is some degree of consensus that media/services links should not be in the infobox.  Upon confirmation of consensus regarding these details, I will update .  DJR (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The deed has been done.  All individual London place articles have services listed in their infobox, so that should not be an issue.  DJR (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final decisions

message: I'm inclined to think this section should be removed from the infobox as this article is talking about London as a whole and by including the Corporation of London and Lord Mayor we are implying their significance to all of London is greater than it really is. The information is repeated in the relevant articles. MRSC 11:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. JPD (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but surely now this page simply usurps Greater London?  This infobox is supposed to be generalised for all of London - otherwise there would be no point in the Greater London page.  DJR (T) (WC) 21:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: City of London gov

message: I have removed University of London and University College London links from the “see also” section, since they are already mentioned in the education section on the London page. Jackp 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Links 

message: How do you edit the references section. Its no more than a link farm as it stands. Links 101 facts about London. What place does that have in an encyclopedia? stupidcupid 26 june 2006
::References are sourced from where they are referenced from - just click on the arrow to find the citation.  You will discover that the references are not external links, but citations that verify the factual nature of content in the article.  As for the place it has in an encyclopedia... Wikipedia policy states no original research.  DJR (T) (WC) 22:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Based on  and many other geography-related infoboxes, font sizes should be shrunk.  On top of simple standardisation, it reduces the clutter of the box and stops wrapping.  Furthermore, no user as any right to decide that "this version is better", especially when the said version has been re-instated in the face of previous consensus.   To say "do not change font size" in such explicit terms suggests either there has been some consensus to this degree (this talk page seems, in fact, to suggest the opposite), or that a user has more rights than another to determine what is right.  Wikis are free to edit... as was so wonderfully displayed during the period when the new infobox was implemented.  DJR (T) (WC) 09:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Font size

message: "London has the largest student population of any British city (about 378,000).[23] " Isn't this kind of obvious, given that it's overwhelmingly the largest city in Britain, one assumes it has the most of most things. "the largest number of rodents", "the largest number of angry old men", "the largest number of social misfits" and so on. Shouldn't we have a list of "largest number of xxxx things" and have done with it? MarkThomas 10:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is there to show that there are a lot of students in London, which may not be something people typically associate with the city. How would you reword it? I imagine the alternative is "London has a large student population (about 378,000)". --Dave A 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Almost 378,000 students study at higher education institutions in London" is a more accurate statement of the figure, but possibly shouldn't be the opening sentence of the paragraph. JPD (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: I think there are too many sub-sections under "culture and society". Someone should really consider trying to break them into paragraphs, and put them under the sub-section of "arts and entertainment" under society and culture. Jackp 08:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I contracted the Fashion subsection into a paragraph within Entertainment and shopping. I'm not sure the title for that subsection fits particularly well, but the prose flows reasonably well. --Dave A 11:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many subsections 

message: Shouldn't Defining London be apart of Geography? Since it's about that, due to the fact that it talks about London's area ect. Jackp 08:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining London? 

message: Where exactly are the borders of North London, South London, East London and West London? I am trying to design a template on each of these or do you think it is not worth it? Simply south 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exact borders do not really exist, but if you take a look at the North London, South London, East London and West London articles you'll note they already have maps showing the location... So yeah, not worth your time :) /wangi 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, forgot to add - template on railway stations. Simply south 10:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borders 

message: What is the difference between these two? Why wouldn't areas close to the city centre be classed as a suburb? Simply south 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suburbs and Districts 

message: Please do not add any vague statements about what temperatures are often reached. It is not necessary to include statements about the obvious fact that the temperature is often above the average maximum temperature for the month - that is the nature of an average. Relevant information that could be added (with references) is things like the average number of days over 30 per year, the highest ever recorded temperature, etc. JPD (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate 

message: In the article you get the impression that the income numbers are for individuals, but the source says that the numbers are for households. Could someone perhaps re-formulate the section?
Poktirity 13:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That figure is also for working households with a representative aged between 20 and 39. The average may be much lower - eg £38,586 or £37,074 instead of £46,288 -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Income

message: I’ve shortened the “Culture section”, it was getting lengthy and most of it is something that could have been found in a travel brochure. The people who are going to read this can be put together easily (unless they have no blains whatsoever). It looks better with two or three sections, another way it looks tacky. 202.6.138.33 12:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture section 

message: Let's discuss this here rather than continuing to edit war the article itself.
I ran the Google search that was used as a citation for this name of the Viking colony:  . This does return 510 hits, but most are not in English. Restricting the search to just English results  reduces the number returned to just 21. Of these only 7 are actually in English. One of these is this Wikipedia article. The remaining ones don't provide (as far as I can see) a reliable source that the name of the Viking colony was Lundunaborg. I believe we need a better source before we add this to the article. Other thoughts? Gwernol 16:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I thought that good faith would be assumed. The Icelanders have kept the Old Norse names for British towns and that is why most of the sources are in Icelandic. I frankly haven't got the time to look through books for that name ATM. I am insulted by being treated as if I want to add bogus information, and I hereby leave this edit war.--Isse 18:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I say it was bogus information? I just suggested that proper reliable sources be provided to allow for verification. The only thing I was questioning were the sources, not your good faith behind the edits. Gwernol 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me why Snorri Sturlusson's Heimskringla  is not a reliable source for the Viking name for London?--Isse 18:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't because I don't read Icelandic (I'm assuming here). That wasn't the provided citation for Lundunaborg that I was questioning, by the way, this was. To conform to the reliable sources guidelines you should find the relevant passage in English from here since English sources are always prefered to non-English ones. Judging by the Heimskringla article it sounds like only some of the tales are considered historically reliable, so it would be helpful to know if the part cited is amongst the "reliable bits", so to speak. Gwernol 18:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax, I don't burn to imprint the name on this page. I appreciate that you fight to keep everything 100% historically verifiable, and I apologize for my misguided eagerness to fill in a blank in good faith.--Isse 18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Lundún appears to have existed too. Unfortunately any of the names would be removed as bogus information unless someone can find a document from the Norse settlement in London with either of the names.--Isse 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lundunaborg