Talk:London/Archive 7

message: I belive London is now the biggest balll sake ever fuke ;london
 world financial capital and not as this article claims New York City.
82.14.68.6 13:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, London is only the third most important financial city in the world (1st is NYC, 2d is Tokyo).
I would question most comments made about london on this page. Some of the figures quoted are outdated and do not refelect its current status. London is by far the financial capital of the world, I should know I work in the financial district of London. London deals with more currency, hedge funds, dolars, euros, etc than anywhere in the world. There are more banks here than anywhere and London has the unique advantage of its position geographically. It is also the only city that is growing faster than any other.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safletcher3 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "London is by far the financial capital of the world" : Why are British people so arrogant ? It's amazing. London is not the world center, honey.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.179.90 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Safletcher3, just prove it with figures !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.179.90 (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial Capital 

message: I changed the reference about Wembly Stadium being the largest in the world. Kardous 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--A bit iffy 08:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fixed - thanks for that, Eric. --A bit iffy 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting point. What is the The Star of Nanchang? Is it an observation wheel or a Ferris wheel? The London Eye article says the London Eye is an observation while, whilst the first external link in the Star of Nanchang article says the Star of Nanchang is a Ferris wheel. I see someone's altered the London Eye article to indicate that the Star of Nanchang is an observation wheel. All quite confusing. Hope someone can clear this up.--A bit iffy 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections

message: There's a photo of the very large platform at Angel station with the caption "A typical London Underground platform.". I find this rather amusing when you consider that because of the unusually large size of that platform it would actually be more accurately described as an atypical London Underground platform. 83.216.157.38 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, so I've removed "typical". To me, it is a great photo though: it beatifully illustrates the tubular nature of, er, the Tube. --A bit iffy 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of Angel station

message: The image of Ken Livingstone was removed by User:WikiWitch on 10 February with no comment - I am restoring it because Livingstone is (a) the very notable Mayor of London and (b) I don't like sneaky POV changes with no appropriate comment. I would ask other editors to be vigilant on this. We should have the Mayor's photo in the page. Thanks. MarkThomas 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obviously good to comment and discuss, but it's a bit rich to assume that it's a POV change. There have been quite a few disagreements over whether articles on a geographical entity should have pictures of political leaders, and it's usually nothing more than a matter of style. As it is, there are arguably too many pictures in that section of this article, and not many geographical articles do have pictures of political leaders. JPD (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ken Livingstone picture

message: Hello. I was wondering if anyone could help splitting the very long History of London page into sub-pages. A start has been made on this with Londinium and Saxon London. But there's still masses to go. 
Incidentally I have been debating at Talk: Londinium whether Londinium should be moved to Roman London. I think it should, in order to be consistent with other periodised sub articles, but someone else disagrees with me. G-Man * 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History of London

message: I did some rejigging of the infobox as the population/area figures were not aligned to the correct entities. I can't immediately see a way of entering both the City of London and Greater London areas without falsely calling the total area of London to be 1 sq mile and claiming that Greater London is the same as the urban area, but with some more fiddling it must be possible. MRSC • Talk 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will see about adding some "blank fields" in over at infobox City and this should help.  In the mean time I'll install the other infobox.  —MJCdetroit 01:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the changes to the standard infobox.  They should be correct now.  Here's an example of what it will look like here. —MJCdetroit 17:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Shouldn't this article use the Flag of the City of London as its flag? All other major wold cities now have their flags included into their articles so shouldn't London too? It seems strange that London is pretty much the only city without its flag being displayed.
:The problem is that London as a whole - Greater London, or the London region - doesn't actually have a flag. As you rightly say, the City of London does, but that only really applies to the square mile. It is a shame, in my opinion, that the GLA did not revive the GLC crest, which was in turn was derived from the LCC's, then that could be used. But they didn't - all the GLA has is a logo... Tarquin Binary 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Not every article on a city has a flag in the infobox - only those that actually have flags. We shouldn't give in to the people who demand that there be a flag in every infobox, but only show flags when there are appropriate flags. JPD (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag of London

message: I noticed that the number of categories is a little 'rich'. Since categories inherit, why not make Port Cities in British Isles itself a sub-cat of Port Cities in Europe? Similarly for capital cities. Kbthompson 10:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: What's about the Poles? see Polish minority in Great Britain. 83.8.79.81 17:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign born Londoners 

message: What's about the Poles? see Polish minority in United Kingdom. Kowalmistrz 17:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign born Londoners 

message: Why, at this time, is it necessary to have two images of the Houses of Parliament and two of the Millenium Wheel? One image of each of these structures is more than enough surely! --Rodge500 15:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate pictures 

message: After reading about London (being a Londoner myself), I'm somehat bemused to see a photo of Royal Holloway University representing all universities of London when it's not even in London! Yes, it's part of UoL, and so is the Paris institute, so why not have a photo of that - because it's in Paris perhaps?
Also, we are missing QMUL and Goldsmiths from the list who are both as large, if not bigger than some universities mentioned in the UoL statement. User: Anon 02 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.116.130 (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: That section does everything except what it says on the tin: defining "London". Can London be defined unequivocally and using verifiable sources? If so, we should give the reader a way to determine what "London" includes and what it doesn't include. If not, we should make it clear: London officially does not exist. What is London? Is it the same as "Greater London"? If not, why do we use the same map?
Also, I find it contradictory to state in the introduction that London is the capital of the UK when the first section makes it clear that officially that is not true. 83.67.217.254 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes it very clear that "London" cannot be defined in a single way, but is the name of quite a few well defined areas - so it describes the many ways that London is defined. It is not officially not true that London is the capital - it is just that the notion that it is the capital doesn't derive from an official statement. It doesn't always work to fit things into narrow categories the way you seem to want to. JPD (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The map shows the London region, which happens to have the same boundaries as Greater London. MRSC • Talk 09:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use some common sense. If there were only one way of defning London, it wouldn't be a topic worth having a whole section on! JPD (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, definitions is much better - I thought I had already changed that, but obviously not. However, seeing as a metropolis isn't the sort of thing you expect to be well defined (unlike say, mathematical objects, which often do have sections on their definition because it is so important to them, it is fairly clear that section concerning "defining London" is there because there is no one definition, especially if you actually bother to read the text in a sensible way. I am not sure which map you are talking about - the only one I can see is (and was) captioned "London region within England", clearly referring to the "London region". Why? Given that the map in the infobox is usually intended to simply show the location of the city, rather than the extent, it is as good a choice as any. JPD (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining London 

message: Now that's not a correct sentence, is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.96.105.44 (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well its a grammatical non starter of course.... but has it seriously won an award for its public transport? Barring black cabs and the tube between 10am and 4pm providing its not to hot outside - what on earth has it got going for it? Overcrowded, overpriced dirty trains? Rail services that stop before the shows finish? Unreliable busses? Or maybe it was just the good old armpit in the face while you pass out summer experience of the tube at rush hour? --LiamE 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has won an award for best public transport system in the world. Many people like yourself are critical of it, but only a handful of cities can offer the variety (bus, train, underground, tram, riverboat etc.) and extensiveness of London's system. A BBC news article on the poll can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5294790.stm Mkimemia 08:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised by this but not astonished. It's certainly true that black cabs are far superior to those in any other city I've visited, where getting a cab can actually be quite intimidating at times. The tube system is extensive and unlike in some other cities (e.g Paris) it'll take you right out to the burbs if necessary. Buses are also good and the whole system is quite clean and safe (...for the most part, anyway). There are two big problems- overcrowding (which is horrendous at times) and price. Tourists are unlikely to travel in rush hour unless they is fickos, and the price issue was in fairness noted in the survey (word to tourists- never buy individual tube tickets! Ken will snaffle your £4 or whatever it is now for a Zone 1 single and use it to pay his legion of elite pigeon assassins! If you are here for more than a day, buy an Oyster card instead (where a tube/bus fare is much, much cheaper), or even better, walk on the surface and enjoy the city). Badgerpatrol 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Typical London attitude - the Underground system is something to be proud of.  It's not as if overcrowding is unique to London, nor is uncleanliness. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly you are not a regular user of the underground at rush hour. It was something for the victorians to be proud of and something for today's commuters to suffer. The trains are rammed, the heat in the summer stiffling- frequently over 100F with little to no ventilation. I have seen MANY people keeled over every summer I've used the service, if I can call it that. The Jubilee line with its trains with less head room are particularly bad despite being modern. Major stations are often temporarily closed at peak times to prevent crushing suggesting to me it just isnt up to the rush hour job. The rest of the day its fine... but thats of little consolation to the people that can't get to work. Going back to the earlier point about London winning an "award" it should be noted that all it was was a poll of tourists. As it reported by the BBC with no external source given, my suspicion is that the poll was held in London which wouldn't have caused any systematic bias at all I'm sure. --LiamE 13:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, every day for seven years.  So don't give me that.  Ever been to Tokyo?  New York?  More crowded and more dirty respectively. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 22:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If the poll was held in London it would have been rated last, Londoners don't appreciate what they have.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.151.120 (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "London has recently been awarded the city for best public transport." 

message: The Office for National Statistics has estimated London's population at December 2006 to be at 7,657,300. The data can be viewed here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/QPEs_by_country_GOR_quinary_age_groups_and_sex_June95_Dec06.xls (excel document - table 11). I think that this should be inserted into the article (ie the infobox) as it is the most up-to-date official population estimate we have. It currently states the population to be at 7.6 million... which should obviously be rounded to 7.7 million.
Furthermore, I think that the infobox seems to suggest that the 'City of London' is the London city-proper (ie administrative area). I personally believe that data for the City of London has no relevance in a London article, as they are two separate entities. 
The infobox asks for a value of population total which is a total population of the city within city limits (ie the city-proper). The City of London is not the city-proper, so the value is incorrect.
If a value for the City of London is present, then a value for the City of Westminster should also be present.
The suggested amendments would appear as follows (sorry, density values have not been amended):
 
:Category:City infobox templates
Mkimemia 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the 'City of London' which is one square mile and then there is 'Greater London' which is 609 square miles.  Both have/had a spot in the infobox.  It looks like you changed the city (City of London) population from 9,200 to 7.7 million.  Yet Greater London was already listed as 7.6 million (which you suggested to change).  Is there some other London in between the "City of London" and "Greater London"? MJCdetroit 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My bad, on second thought, I didn't mean to change the CofL figure. However, it seems to imply that London's overall population is 9200. The only problem is that 'Greater London' does not have the same meaning as, say, Greater Paris. Most people do not associate the word 'Greater..' with 'city limits', so most will think that London's population within administrative boundaries is 9200. 81.178.232.104 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the area of the City of London should be deleted from this info box (as the person above stated the City of London's demographics are no more appropriate here than any other part of London).  If you delete the area of the city, just match up the corresponding areas and population with the same term (city, Greater London, London).  But as it stands now it looks like it's saying there are 7.5 million people in one square mile.  The "Greater London" ambiguity, if it exists, can be remedied by using "London" or "city", but what should be fixed is the area of the City of London without the associated population of the City of London and the discrepancy in the use of the term "city" in the same box.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.237.65 (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population on Infobox Table - Slight Revision? 

message: Since Royal Holloway is physically located in Egham rather than London, I felt that using an image of Royal Holloway to illustrate the Education in London section was inappropriate. I have replaced the image with one of the University of London's HQ, Senate House, which I feel is a more suitable image. Soobrickay 09:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education section 

message: "its status as one of the four major global cities." has four sources listed. Two of which link to wikipedia itself and wikipedia cannot be used as its own source. The other two get their data from one attempt at categorizing global cities, which listed London in the top 4 of 10 "alpha global cities". Furthermore, even if the organization the power to set the definition of global city, the same organization has since introduced a completely different categorization system. Neitherday 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global City 

message: I'm surprised to find no information regarding the existence of other Londons in the world. I know that there is at least one other one in Canada, which should be referred to somewhere in the article. I don't know whether there are any other ones elsewhere, but would like to find out. Disambiguation?
:London is a perfect example of what should NOT go to a disam page. The UK city is overwhelmingly the main use of the word in the English speaking world. Of course other uses and other Londons exist so at the very top of the article is a line explaining what this article is about and where to find the other Londons. --LiamE 13:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Londons? 

message: Shouldn't the infobox map be one of the UK rather than just England? While it would no doubt be England's capital if England indeed has one, it is undeniably the capital city of the UK, has more stature as such, and I would have thought the map should represent that. (Ajkgordon 14:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the map is included to recognise London's place as one of the regions of England; a UK map would be on a larger scale and thus less precise in locating London. But I don't think its too important either way. --Pretty Green 08:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The English region is Greater London for which there is a separate article with, justifiably, a map of Greater London within England. This article is a little different. (Ajkgordon 10:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else have a specific reason why the infobox should not show London on a UK map? (Ajkgordon 13:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it should be a UK map.  London is the UK capital.  The Greater London article makes more sense to have the England map as it is an official English region.  As can be found reading the main article, the definition of London is arguable, and the City of London and GLA areas are really only arbitrary.  I think the UK map would be more suitable, as it would only be a pin, and not attempting to define London = Greater London  — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 20:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have changed it to a pin locator map of the UK as found here. To re-iterate why, London's status as the capital city of a sovereign state, i.e. the UK, is more notable than it being the capital of a non-sovereign constituent country, i.e. England. In addition, a map of the UK is more recognisable to more people than a map of England without subtracting any information. The England locator map on the Greater London article remains as it is a region within England and is therefore totally justified. Apologies if I didn't exactly reach consensus but no objections were raised to my change proposal above. --AJKGordon 09:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK versus English map 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Infobox London}}]]

message: There is nothing to be recognized on the current lead picture. Lear 21 08:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the intro image due to the feeling that it was a bland and rather cliched tourist picture, in addition to not showing enough of the modern London skyline. Most of the other City articles seem to follow a similar layout, displaying a skyline (which gives an idea of the landscape of the city) as their intro picture, and reserving landmarks for use within the main article. Just look at the New York article. (D Dinneen 12:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be changed back. It might seem like a "tourist" picture, but so what? It's the image everyone associates with London, and that's what you need for an encyclopedic article. The whole idea is that it should be instantly recognizable. You can include skyline pictures etc. later in the article. I'm a huge fan of skyscrapers and modern architecture, but for a Wiki article on London it's important to have an opening image that most people can recognize straight away. Wjfox2005 18:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not too dark on my screen - guess it depends on your contrast settings. I agree with the image quality point though - it's a very low resolution photo. Cordless Larry 19:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: which now makes it three pictures of the London Eye on this article; I for one, think a single image of the LE is more than enough. -Rodge500 14:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then remove the other two. Mine should be the lead photo. Both of London's most famous landmarks in one shot, plus the River Thames which forms such an important part of the city. Wjfox2005 15:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a shame it's (1) got all that crap in the foreground and that the light it so flat, it's not "wow" enough in my opinion. I really think we should either revert back to :Image:Houses of Parliament.jpg (2) or consider using :Image:Palace of Westminster, London - Feb 2007.jpg (3) or :Image:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg (4) or :Image:London Eye and County Hall in evening light.jpg (5). Thanks/wangi 15:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 4 really is quite special. Thanks/wangi 15:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd personally go with 3 or 4.  DJR (T) 22:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro image too dark!

message: Deeper into South London? I have lived in South London 40 years and this is news to me. There has been talk of extending Victoria south of Brixton for decades but it has been just talk not plans. A link anyone please? SmokeyTheCat 14:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make this edit, but the East London Line is definitely being extended into South London towards Croydon and Crystal Palace, but will at the same time be rebranded as "London Overground". There is no clear difference between the two type of services, though, as both - and for that matter the DLR - qualify as metro systems. The Victoria line is not going to be extended any time soon, except for maybe a small reversing loop with a station on it to reduce the reversing time at Brixton. The line is too congested to go anywhere. There have been quite a few talks about the Northern Line - after a complete split of the services - to be extended southwards from Kennington and the Bakerloo line is likely to be going to Camberwell, Lewisham and possibly Hayes. I have some relatively reliable sources on this, but in the end, it is all just talk. sweek 08:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting thanks. I won't hold my breath tho.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans for the expansion of the tube? 

message: I notice there's been an addition to cover the latest attempted terrorist attacks.  I'm wondering if this is important enough to warrant mention on this page – the ones on 2005-07-21 haven't even been mentioned, which I reckon are probably more significant.  I'm removing this sentence since it's seems too much like recentism to me.  I'm interested to know what others think, though. Kevin Judson 12:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest terrorist action - June 2007 

message: The Beatles were removed from the Music section by User:Badgerpatrol with his comment: "Beatles not strongly associated with London..." That same user also deleted Paul McCartney's name.
"Beatles not strongly associated with London" - really? are you making an innocent joke? Let it be just a piece of "humor"... Now some serious facts: the entire recording career of The Beatles was made in London, mainly at the Abbey Road Studios. Their last live video recording of Let it be on the roof, and other outdoor works were made in London. Almost all of their top international hits were recorded in London. Beatlemania started at the Palladium in London. "Apple" - their company and store in London. Their homes in London. Please keep The Beatles in the article about London, please return Paul McCartney's name back to the Music section. Every time I'm at the ARS I am glad to see the famous albums by the Beatles being proudly exhibited on the wall in the lobby. See also Wikipedia articles about The Beatles, Abbey Road, Let it be, and other albums and songs. Please be thoughtful before the eyes of the educated world. Thank you. Steveshelokhonov 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am humbled to be before the eyes of the educated world! To put this in context, you only added The Beatles to the list at 15:13 today  and I then reverted it shortly after. You then replaced it and I haven't changed it back. It's not like I came along and arbitrarily deleted a long standing item. (It is true though that I removed McCartney, who had been in longer). The reason simply is...surely the city most associated with The Beatles is Liverpool? It is safe to say that virtually every major British recording artist will have lived, worked, or otherwise spent considerable time in London. An impartial list would be a mile long. For this reason, I would restrict the list to only those artists born or brought up in the city or its surrounds (I'd consider removing Pink Floyd, the only non-Greater London act, for this reason, and the sentence Musicians such as Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix and Freddie Mercury have lived in London could maybe better read Musicians such as Marc Bolan, Jimi Hendrix and Freddie Mercury have lived and died in London, in an effort to ameliorate the partiality of that sentence - a lot of musicians have lived in London). Nonetheless, I don't feel strongly about this and please change the article to any form that you feel comfortable with. 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Badgerpatrol, thank you for your kind reply. Steveshelokhonov 08:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Beatles and Paul McCartney were removed as "not strongly associated with London" ... What?!

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Pass

message: I've heard some interesting viewpoints in my time, but this takes the biscuit!:
London (pronounced /ˈlʌndən/) is the capital city of the United Kingdom and the constituent country of England.
Surely to heck that should be "in the constituent country of England"!!
*I assume it meant that it was the capital city of both the UK and England, but I agree that it is a bit misleading. Not sure how it could be fixed though - perhaps London (pronounced /ˈlʌndən/) is both the capital city of the United Kingdom and the constituent country of England? The word "Both" specifies that it is the capital city of two subsequent areas. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would if it came after "the capital city of", rather than before, where it doesn't change anything. I still dont' see why it's so important to mention England, as it has no capital other than historically anyway. JPD (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could explain how an area that does not have it's own government could have a capital? London is historically England's capital, but now in any real sense now. JPD (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  London is the constituent country of England. 

message: Canary Wharf is a really poor choice for the lead picture - it's completely atypical of London.  It's a business park outside the centre built in the 1980s!  If there has to be a skyline picture, than the view of the City from Waterloo bridge would be better.  But what's wrong with The Palace of Westminster - it's an internationally recognised symbol of London.
I'll admit that it's a nice photo though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danlee1001 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it's certainly a great pic, but not representative. I like your other suggestions. Perhaps the Canary Wharf pic can be used somewhere else in the article. --Merbabu 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The panorama is a good picture, but not he right shape or style for a lead picture. As for the Canary Wharf image - it definitely isn't central London, but I don't see what would be representative. The article is not only about central London, buildings built in the 1980s and since are part of London, both central and otherwise, and the image includes part of the (17th century) Greenwich Hospital, providing a contrast which is quite typical of London. The Canary Wharf area is one of the distinctive parts of the London skyline, and while I wouldnt' insist that the iamge be used, I don't think it's unsuitable and don't see any coherent criteria that it should be judged by. Having said that, a good shot from Waterloo Bridge would do well by any criteria. JPD (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead picture 

message: User:Francis Tyers has decided to engage in a tiresome edit war over the use of Welsh in the lead. I have made my reasons for reverting perfectly clear on User talk:Francis Tyers and will not debate the issue any further. I suggest that the article is left at the status quo without Welsh in the lead, and the can be debated by others here, as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Jooler 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say I'm not too pleased about your attitude. You were not bold, reverted and discussed. Instead, you reverted and told us off. But anyway: your argument is faulty. Wikipedia is not in British jurisdiction, so we are not forced to even consider if a language is official or not in a city when we include it. I think the Welsh name should be included because it's the capital city to the Welsh speakers of the UK. It's also encyclopedic, verifiable, etc. I don't see a good reason NOT to include it in the article. --★čabrilo★ 16:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason in not leaving it in the lead, while a proper section on naming is written. When a proper section on naming is written, including the history of the name, and the name in the other languages of the United Kingdom, then maybe it can be removed. Perhaps Jooler is willing to make a constructive start? - Francis Tyers · 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This sounds like what I had in mind: writing a proper section on the name. Adding a Welsh name to the lead meanwhile is a good start! --★čabrilo★ 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, sounds like a reasonable way to proceed no? - Francis Tyers · 17:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree with Jooler's reasoning (as expressed on User talk:Francis Tyers).  --Nehwyn 17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the reasoning? I'm not asking to troll, but I didn't quite understand it. Jooler only wrote that it's not a de iure official language (which I agree with) as far as I can read it. --★čabrilo★ 17:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Jooler only wrote that it's not a de jure official language". What part of the following, which I wrote on User talk:Francis Tyers, and was also posted on your own talk page in a similar form, did you fail to comprehend? "Welsh along with, Irish Gaelic, Ulster Scots, Scots, Scottish Gaelic, and Cornish are recognised as regional languages. See Languages_in_the_United_Kingdom#Status. If you add the Welsh name of London and Leicester then then these other languages would also have a claim to be included in the lead, and then others might argue that Gujarati, Arabic, and Hindi are more significant to these places than Welsh and so they would have to be included in the lead." Jooler 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could add Romany to the list too. --LiamE 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to push it really, but I still fail to see how it hurts the article to include the Welsh name (and all other names you mentioned, in which case, of course, we'd dedicate a section to the article). I fail to comprehend your entire argument to be honest, so if you could answer to me as directly as possible: why is the article better off without the Welsh name? --★čabrilo★ 16:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Welsh

message: Pull the other one - it plays a tune. Nfitz 02:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The population of 7+ million is refering to the number of people within the Greater London boundaries. The population of London's square mile is around 10,000. Simply south 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely Nfitz's point is that currently the infobox refers to both 1 sq mi and 7.2 million people as figures to do with "City", which isn't particularly helpful. JPD (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point— but it would have been helpful if Nfitz had said so instead of expecting us to read his/her mind. I have attempted to fix the problem, but the stupid procrustian infobox code has put the Greater London figures at the end of the list instead of in the second spot where I wanted them. Frankly, I would be fine with scrapping the City's figures from this page altogether (the 1 sq mile and 9,200, I mean); but it would be nice to use a label of "Greater London" instead of "City" for them. Stupid procrustian infobox markup. Doops |  talk 20:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City area of 1 square mile with population of 7.2 million people? 

message: Article seems to be locked, so can someone else fix a typo? A population figure in the infobox says it's a "2,006 estimate" but that obviously means the year 2006 (no comma). Ta.--85.158.139.99 07:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was that the population_total field entries are automatically formatted by . Since there is a separate population_as_of field, which is displayed at the start of the population section, I have removed the date from the population total, removing the problem. JPD (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--85.158.139.99 07:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix typo please

message: I've restored the phrase "capital city of both the United Kingdom and England" in the lead, which was changed by User:The Angel of Islington to "capital city of the United Kingdom and the largest city in England."
The reason for Angel's change appears to be a belief that England no longer has a capital city, or perhaps that England no longer exists except as a ceremonial fiction.
As I'm unclear on his exact reason, and it appears evident and uncontroversial to me both that England exists and London is its capital, and particularly because User:The Angel of Islington has re-asserted his change, I bring the subject here for discussion.
Unlike Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, and Cardiff, the capital of Wales, and even Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland, London has been the centre of law and government in England since the government moved from Winchester during period of Norman consolidation.  It is also the capital of the United Kingdom.
I wonder if at the heart of this there is confusion over the fact that England currently has no government distinct from that of the United Kingdom in Westminster.   If so, it seems to me rather arbitrary and counter-intuitive to determine that a capital city must have such a distinct government.  --Tony Sidaway 11:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that England has no "official" capital (i.e. no legislation has been passed affirming that London is the de jure capital city). It is obviously the de facto capital. That may explain the edit in question, in which case everyone equally correct. I would certainly be inclined to state that London is the capital of England, and possibly others would also. But, if my sketchy knowledge of constitutional law is indeed accurate, Angel of Islington is not actually wrong. Just my tuppence. Badgerpatrol 12:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends what "capital city" means. It usually refers to the centre of government, and so doesn't make sense for an entity that does not have it's own government. Then again, the historical status of London makes it seem strange to suggest that it is not the capital. I would think that we cannot say it is not the capital, but there seems little point in saying anything about the shady concept of a present capital of England. JPD (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say this of the vague constitutional mess of the UK: that during the long period when Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales had no assemblies or central courts of their own we still referred to Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff as the capitals of those countries.  England has no assembly distinct from Westminster (which happens to be, historically, the parliament of England), but I don't see this as a reason not to give London its customary and historic title of England's capital, much as we used the name "capital" for the other historic capital cities of the union when they had no particularly strong connection with the governance of their respective countries. --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is the "we" you speak of? Not opening sentences of Wikipedia articles. I would agree with you that London could be described as the capital of England, but as something that has no clear meaning and even less significance compared to the clear statements we can make, there doesn't seem to be any point insisting on it. JPD (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: London was the de-facto capital of the Kingdom of England from about 1300, or at least Westminster was. See Norman and Medieval London. G-Man ? 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital of England

message: misspelling: "encylopedia"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.47.98 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a misspelling (as far as British English is concerned), but it's what was used by the reference being cited, so it's what should be used.  --RFBailey 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done :).--SidiLemine 14:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref 102 

message: At some stage in the next few days, I will be doing a moderately extensive rewrite of the history section, as it seems to focus on one source and place too much emphasis on wars. I know there is a separate article, and might give that a bit of a going-over as well if I ever find the time.
* Does anyone object to a rewrite?
* Should it be the same length, shorter, or longer?
* How dense should the citations be? I have a multitude of excellent and extensive printed sources.
* Does anyone have any other comments?
No more bongos 21:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem, about the same length is fine. It would be usefull if someone could help complete the breaking down of the History of London article into sub articles. I've partially done this as well as I can (Roman London, Anglo-Saxon London, Norman and Medieval London etc) but havn't got round to finishing it yet as I've had little help from anyone. G-Man ? 20:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Shouldnt it be noted that London is the most populous city in Europe? An important fact surely worthy of one of the first lines? --Camaeron (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: London is the most populous city in the European Union. However, EU is not Europe. According to Wikipedia, as well as Russian sources, London has been second to Moscow for about a decade, and the gap is growing. Moscow had absorbed many suburbs, and expanded the city limits, as well as the boundaries of the greater Moscow. Besides territorial expansion, a huge influx of unregistered and undocumented population comes to Moscow, so that sometimes Moscow is compared to Cairo, or Mumbai. It is not easy to pinpoint all population in greater London, and greater Moscow, to have the final answer, albeit the Wikipedia says that Moscow is the largest city in Europe.Steveshelokhonov 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Most populous in Europe

message: Someone please remove Tehran from the list. It was added unreferenced to the actual Tehran article before, and has been copied hear. This is how misinformation spreads. 124.170.191.6 (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Twinnings

message: Hi. A few thoughts about that first paragraph—
*we shouldn't say the name is 'derived from' that of the City of London. That adds distance, makes it sound like we're talking about some etymological derivation. Which is silly: the word "London" has an unbroken existence, but has simply expanded to mean a lot more than it once did. 
*19th century? Really? So when Samuel Johnson famously said "when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life" he was referring only to the city? I doubt it: in 1777 when he made that remark, the rise of a rival center of town in Westminster was well underway.
*Even if the govt region is known as "London", it does have the same boundaries as the mayor and assembly's Greater London. And although I'd be the first to say that government is a trivial part of life, not the be-all-and-end all, the reader does deserve to know whether today "London" has any official existence, and if so, what.
Apropos of that, my whole aim in writing that paragraph is to make it clear to the less expert reader that there exist two municipalities entitled to call themselves London (the City and Greater London), but that this article is on neither of them — it is on London as an abstract concept. Cheers, Doops |  talk 15:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no particular disagreement with any of that. As regards: 19th century? Really? - that was also my initial reaction to this, but given than Westminster would have been still a distinct place at the time of Johnson, I think it is ok to leave it. I also considered adding 'at least' - but didn't as Mills is not that vague. MRSC • Talk 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in some sense Westminster is still a distinct place today! In some contexts, of course, I call the whole thing London; but in other contexts I'm sufficiently pedantic that I still use Westminster. So I don't think it's at all a stretch to suppose that in Johnson's day one could make a London/Westminster distinction in one context, and a London/countryside distinction in another, with St. James's Square (say) falling outside London in one context, and inside it in the other. Doops |  talk 20:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I sympathise with the idea that referring to the name "London" being derived from the "City of London" is quite silly. I really hope to bring this article to FA status and we can start with making sure that the text is less confusing. Reginmund (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: organization is even worse. Let's use the language that was used when Greater London was created and leave it as administrative area. There is no need to invent terminology. MRSC • Talk 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm not trying to invent terminology at all — I'm trying to use everyday language rather than terminology. But fair enough; maybe organization didn't work. I'll keep hunting; surely there must be a way to express the idea while sounding natural and fluid. (And as you saw, my revision left the phase 'administrative area' in; I see why you want to keep it an that makes sense.) Doops |  talk 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think it had already achieved the balance between fluidity and accuracy as it was. Specifically is organized in its own right is entirely redundant. Furthermore, a conurbation is not 'organised', its local government structures are. Then there is the matter of the American spelling. MRSC • Talk 23:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, heh, feel free to fix my spelling. As for the 'in its own right', the phrase is intended to contrast with earlier eras when applying the term 'London' to the whole urban area was purely figurative. But if you think my present version sounds wordy I'll try to come up with another. (I do think, however, that we shouldn't *just* expect the reader to swallow the jargonistic phrase "administrative area" unleavened. Jargon is taking over the world.) Doops |  talk 23:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: united under the mantle is also redundant. "administrative area" isn't jargon, its an accurate description. Implicit in its meaning is 1) there is a defined area and 2) it exists. There is no need to say  'in its own right'. Anyhow, I think the wording is perfect now. MRSC • Talk 08:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I think I understand all that. Obviously the difficulty on our hands, the thing making this sentence so hard to write, is the asinine Westminster decision to name the region 'London' instead of 'Greater London' as it should be named. Doops |  talk 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  that first paragraph