![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
I preferred the previous montage image in the infobox. Anyone support reverting it. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 11:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion, perhaps a picture of St Paul's that is more representative can be found? The wide angle distorts the structure 86.144.199.72 ( talk) 12:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Dvjvvikramaditya (
talk)
09:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am writing this mail to request you to update information under the section " 7.1 Tertiary education ".
In 2009, one of the prestigious business school - Hult International Business School( formerly known as Arthur D Little School of Management) was established near Russell square area, London. The school is ranked globally 27th - economic intelligence unit, 1st in international experience and top 100 according to Financial times.
I request you to include the name of the school in the description of business school and please list it between European Business School London, and Imperial College Business School.
Hope you will add details as per my request.
Thank you very much for your time and help
Sincerely, Vikram
I am very proud of what London has become and that is why I don't see the point about lying about it in the introduction:
Can this be corrected to properly informing people about the great city London is ?
I was just taking a look through the references to see if I could fix any of them and I noticed the date for Pepys' diary is given as 2001. Surely it should be given as 1700 or whenever it was originally published? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 14:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The Economist has an article this week about the French community of London, numbering 400,000. But this article claims that in 2001, there were just 38,000 French-born people in London. Has the French community really increased by a factor of 10? If not, what explains this discrepancy? 98.209.116.7 ( talk) 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Cordless Larry makes a good point immediately above. The population has changed very significantly since the 2001 census. For example, from 2003 to 2010 the UK's Polish population grew sevenfold (from 75,000 to 520,000) and the ONS estimates that in June 2010 London had 122,000 Polish residents ( source)—but the 2001 census table in the London article shows none.
I haven't checked out other nationalities, but given that current French and Polish figures seem so far removed from the 2001 data, surely the 2001 census table should either be footnoted or removed entirely? It is misleading to have a graphic – which draws the eye with its little flags – that doesn't reflect the current situation. - Pointillist ( talk) 23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
( ←) That's a fair point too. As I see it there are two issues: (i) discourage readers from treating the 2001 census data as being reliable for 2011, and (ii) avoid introducing unreliable data into the article, e.g. by selective use of later data, perhaps using incompatible measurements such as nationality rather than country of birth. On that basis I think The Economist's French numbers are a dead loss, and arguably the only source we can consider is the ONS. They have published data on the UK population by country of birth ( here) since 2004, and the biggest change has indeed been Poland (up 4.47x from 95,000 in 2004 to 520,000 in June 2010). At national level ONS reports 60 countries, but for London they only report the top five, which are as follows:
2001 Country | 2001 Population | 2004 Country | 2004 Population | 2010 Country | 2010 Population |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
India | 172k | India | 190k | India | 248k |
Ireland | 157k | Bangladesh | 127k | Poland | 122k |
Bangladesh | 85k | Ireland | 124k | Ireland | 110k |
Jamaica | 80k | Jamaica | 74k | Bangladesh | 107k |
Nigeria | 69k | Kenya | 73k | Nigeria | 95k |
Kenya | 66k | ||||
Poland | 22k |
I'm not claiming to have the answer, but I do think the 2001 table in the article needs to be explicitly qualified somehow. - Pointillist ( talk) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
2001 United Kingdom Census | |
---|---|
Country of birth | Population |
![]() |
5,230,155 |
![]() |
172,162 |
![]() |
157,285 |
![]() |
84,565 |
2009–10 ONS Estimates | |
---|---|
Country of birth | Population |
![]() |
248,000 |
![]() |
122,000 |
![]() |
110,000 |
![]() |
107,000 |
I propose a revision or possible deletion of the final paragraph in the Toponymy section. It doesn't add any relevant information to the topic, it merely contradicts what has already been established as a consensus of opinion above. The whole thing looks like a personal theory backed up by disparate sources.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Two recent discoveries indicate that London could be much older than previously thought. In 1999 < http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba46/ba46news.html>, the remains of a Bronze Age bridge were found on the foreshore North of Vauxhall Bridge. This bridge either crossed the Thames, or went to a (lost) island in the river. Dendrology dated the timbers to 1500BC.
In 2010, the foundations of a large timber structure, dated to 4500BC, were found on the Thames foreshore, South of Vauxhall Bridge < http://www.thamesdiscovery.org/frog-blog/london-s-oldest-find-discovered-at-vauxhall>. The function of the mesolithic structure is not known, but it covers at least 50m x 10m, and numerous 30cm posts are visible at low tides. Both structures are on South Bank, at a natural crossing point where the River Effra flows into the River Thames, and 4km upstream from the Roman City of London. The effort required to construct these structures implies trade, stability, and a community size of several hundred people at least.
Please add to prehistory section R. J. Stevens richard..no spam..@thestevensfamily.org.uk Photos available if required
"In the dense areas, most of the concentration is achieved with medium- and high-rise buildings"
This is incorrect, there is little to no correlation between height of buildings and population density within London. see here: http://data.london.gov.uk/visualisations/atlas/ward-profiles-2010/atlas.html?indicator=i8&date=2009. 85.228.215.80 ( talk) 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
«London attracts over 15 million international visitors per year, making it the world's most visited city» Please look at this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism#Most_visited_cities_by_international_tourist_arrivals
«London attracts over 15 million international visitors per year, making it the world's most visited city» Please look at this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism#Most_visited_cities_by_international_tourist_arrivals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.159.30.231 ( talk) 10:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Its snowed in London every year for the past 3/4 years. Saying its uncommon is a bit odd, yes it only snows in winter but still its expected every year by most Londoners now. Likelife ( talk) 15:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
"Over 74 per cent of children born in London died before they were five.[61]"
It seems surprising to have such a precise estimate of the number of children dying before the age of 5. Furthermore, everyone knows that child mortality was much higher in the middle ages than today, but 74% before the age of 5? Even if there is a reference, I would like to see other evidence of these numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.159.240 ( talk) 16:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The Climate data charts (temperature highs and lows, etc) has a title that says it is for Helsinki, not London - Anyone know if it is the title that's incorrect or the data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.128.54 ( talk) 17:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The Thames, as well as being a famous feature, has been fundamental in London's development as a city, and so I feel it deserves at least a mention in the introduction:
Owing to its position on the River Thames, London has been a major settlement for two millennia, its history going back to its founding by the Romans, who called it Londinium.
If anyone can think of anything better then do improve it. Cooltrainer Hugh ( talk) 00:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Another editor has three times removed the fact that London was the world's biggest city. Rather than edit-war, I thought I would start a discussion here. I think it belongs in the lead because it is such a remarkable fact. How many other cities can say that? -- John ( talk) 07:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Should it be linked to from here - it is at [9] and I seem to be the only person currently adding to it. Jackiespeel ( talk) 20:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The very first sentence of the article says that “London is the capital city of England and the United Kingdom.” There are other places in this article and on other Wikipedia articles like this one (which lists London as the 17th most populous cities in the world) that consider London to be a city. The answer to the FAQ above of “Is London a city” says that it is officially not a city, but a region with many boroughs and 2 cities. How can London be the capital city of England and the UK if it is officially not a city and how can it be consider a city if it has 2 cities? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to write that London is the capital municipality of England and the UK? Willminator ( talk) 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
London consists of 32 boroughs and the City of London. The City of Westminster is also a London borough. I would also counter the claim that if we were extremely technical, that the City of London woud be the capital. Using that argument the City of Westminster would technically be the capital. Furthermore, the argument about what constitutes a city would extend to most other large cities, like Paris, Tokyo and Los Angeles to name a few obvious examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.217.243 ( talk) 11:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The way the British government uses census data to determine the population of what most cities call their "metropolitan area" is at small but significant variance with other government's practices. Generally this leads to a rather significant understating of the population of the metropolitan area around London. As best as I can determine using 2001 census data, the population within a 60 mile radius of London would have exceeded 15 million by a few hundred thousand. Surely, considering the size of London, such a radius would not be unwarranted. I imagine the population after the 2011 census data is collected would now place the same area's population above 16 million. Considering the fact that cities of similar size (New York, Los Angeles, Paris etc) allow a larger geographic area to be included as long as population density within the radius generally reflects significantly increased density based on the accessibility of and to the metropolitan core, I would argue for the inclusion of the larger population figure based on such a radius. Certainly it would more accurately reflect the true scale of population in the London area, and provide a more accurate figure for comparison with other similarly-sized world cities.( E.a.weinstein ( talk) 14:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.a.weinstein ( talk • contribs) 08:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Is currently 26 degrees. Tomorrow is the 1st October and the forcast is 29 degrees. I will probably be on to update! Cls14 ( talk) 16:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.gfsnews.com/article/3089/1/EU_financial_centres_plunge_in_rankings, That's all the important index's now and the article should reflect that. 10:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
An IP is insisting that this document produced by local government is unreliable. If reasons are not produced, backed by reliable sources, the information should be restored. Nev1 ( talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The Climate data charts (temperature highs and lows, etc) has a title that says it is for Helsinki, not London - Anyone know if it is the title that's incorrect or the data?
The figures for average snowfall in London are plainly wrong. I don't know the correct figures, but 46.7cm in an average Winter is too high by a factor of three, at least. In a typical Winter, London will have one or two snowfalls that persist on the ground, with each snowfall consisting of 2 to 15 cm. It's not unusual for no snow at all to fall in London over an entire Winter and any individual fall of more than 15cm is exceptional, to the point of triggering newspaper headlines and urban paralysis. 82.35.103.182 ( talk) 11:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Section London#Tourism refers to London as most visited of the world. However, Tourism has a list of cities by visitors, and Paris is #1. Has London taken over the #1 spot, and that list is old news, or what? 82.141.73.142 ( talk) 22:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
On another note, why is the Paris article part of the Geography portal, Europe portal and European Union portal and the London article is not part of any of these portals? Let's have some consistency, please. London is also part of Europe and the European Union. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
159.92.233.153 (
talk)
13:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}}
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The climate data for London is wrong. Please change the record high for April, because in 2011 it reached 28 degrees Celsius. Also, the record high for October is incorrect as it should be 30 degrees Celsius as on 1st October 2011 it reached 30 degrees in the centre of London.
Spanner pig ( talk) 13:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add short info about 'pods' (the so called ultra system) - in my, other, news-editors, Wikipedia articles, users, and specialists this is probably the newest, and most advanced RPT system in London. Ok, it is short now, but working well for months(and bus service on this line was cancelled). -for e.g. - "Transport in London also include 'pods' ULTra system."
It is probably the symbol of "new, and modern London" as well - as far as I remember that type of similar pods was in sci-fi games, films.
"London is the capital city of England and the United Kingdom". I never thought twice about it before ... not until I read some other Wikipedia articles. "London" is usually referring to Greater London, but Greater London doesn't have city status, so de-jure it's not a city and hence cannot be the capital city. According to the section City status in the United Kingdom#Greater_London the City of London and Westminster have city status. The government and the queen is situated in Westminster if I've understood it correctly. That would de-jure make Westminster the capital, wouldn't it? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.119.55 ( talk) 23:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well considering that there is an elected mayor and assembly over all 32 boroughs headquartered at one main city hall, I would say that all 32 boroughs make up one city, like the 5 boroughs of New York City make up one city. I can see where you can get confused about it though, and there wasn't always one overreaching government over all of London. Bjoh249 ( talk) 02:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The word city is used here with its more general meaning here rather than the specific UK meaning as in City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom. Although London is a leading global city it might be worth mentioning that Londoners often refer to it as London Town and use terms like 'in town' when referring to being in London. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I will try to assume good faith regarding user:MazabukaBloke even though he/she is unable to have the decency of doing likewise.
“It is one of the world's leading financial centres” would suggest it places in the top 5-10, not the top which the references state.
I have amended this sentence to more accurately reflect the references:
“It is the world's leading commercial centre [ [12]] and most economically powerful city[ [13]] [ [14]]”
1) The Mastercard reference [ [15]] ranks London as the leading commercial city in the world.
2) The Forbes reference [ [16]] ranks London number 1 in its list of “World's Most Economically Powerful Cities”
3) The Zyen reference [ [17]] ranks London number 1 as “Global Financial Centre”
I strongly suggest user user:MazabukaBloke carefully reads Wikipedia:Verifiability before blindly reverting my edit and contribute towards discussion. Zarcadia ( talk) 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Would someone like to correct the "Expression error" on the Information Box?
Surlyduff50 (
talk)
15:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Population of London's Entire Metropolitan Area, or Commute to Work Zone
The way the British government uses census data to determine the population of what most cities call their "metropolitan area" is at small but significant variance with other government's practices. Generally this leads to a rather significant understating of the population of the metropolitan area around London. As best as I can determine using 2001 census data, the population within a 60 mile radius of London would have exceeded 15 million by a few hundred thousand. Surely, considering the size of London, such a radius would not be unwarranted. The 2011 census data is now becoming available and would now place the same area's population well above 16 million. Considering the fact that cities of similar size (New York, Los Angeles, Paris etc) allow a larger geographic area to be included as long as population density within the radius generally reflects significantly increased density based on the accessibility of and to the metropolitan core, I would argue for the inclusion of the larger population figure based on such a radius. Certainly it would more accurately reflect the true scale of population in the London area, and provide a more accurate figure for comparison with other similarly-sized world cities.I will be publishing the 60-mile radius data in the next 4-6 weeks, and ask for opinions for including that statistic once that has been completed. 68.37.54.53 ( talk) 03:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)(point first raised by E.a.weinstein (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that a footnote on the Article says:
Is it not a bit odd that the lead that London is the capital of England without any qualification? It gives all the appearance of editors choosing the source they prefer. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
23:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
http://filesmelt.com/dl/3987401_460s.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus6767 ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is being let down by the current infobox image which is inferior to the more comprehensive New York City page montage. The City of London is given too much prominence at the expense of other landmarks (no St. Pauls!), on the Paris page La Defence is only in the far distance of a panoramic photo. The File:Londoncollage2011.png is similar to the NYC image and has been added a few times by various editors since it was created in December, only for it to be immediately reversed by Rangoon11 usually on the grounds that the previous image is "longstanding".-- Paul011089 ( talk) 18:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The skyline choice currently on Wikipedia seems quite limited. My personal favourite (of Canary Wharf) is (1).
An equivalent one of the City would be in my view preferable, but the only one I can locate is called File:Cityoflondonatnight10.jpg and is currently pending deletion. Perhaps, when it is deleted, someone will replace it with a daytime shot? I have searched famous arial views of London ( Parliament Hill, London, Primrose Hill, Alexandra Palace and the London Eye for good skyline pics with no luck. Perhaps an updated version of (2) could be used?
I like how the complex layers of buildings contrast both each other and the moody sky, but think the completed towers and minimal crane impact would imprve the photo further.
In response to an earlier (now banned, but I thought it was a good point they raised!) user's request for the inclusion of St Paul's, the best of a bad bunch are (3) and (4).
I apologise profusely for the terrible formatting! What does anyone else think? -- ThunderingTyphoons! ( talk) 17:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Urgh, this formatting's even worse than I thought! Would someone please be able to fix it and explain to me where I went wrong? Sorry guys. -- ThunderingTyphoons! ( talk) 17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, just thought I'd dive in (I've never been involved in image montages before, so take what I say with a grain of salt). I think, at the small size we're dealing with, the current is far better than the new. I've lived in London my whole life and I (genuinely) had no idea that was the Emirates Stadium until I read the discussion. I know that's the Westfield logo, but I'm pretty sure that's only because I'm a Londoner. I'd like something transport, but that bottom-right photo isn't the way to do it. From the images above, (1) of Canary Wharf is the only one I'd consider including. Here's my suggestions: • Keep most of the images from the current montage • If possible, update the skyline one to include The Shard • Add something London transport ( NB4L, Tube?) • Include (1). Cheers, Alex Muller 10:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Sports", London has six teams in the Premier League, not five
86.41.116.83 ( talk) 02:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
London is considered, rated or ranked a world "first" or leader in several fields that are not included in the opening paragraph, fields that are mentioned in other city wikis. Here are two examples; are these select fields worthy enough to be mentioned in the opening paragraph:
In May 2012, London was crowned as the world's premier sporting city in a study conducted by the industry-prestigious SportBusiness Group, at the SportAccord convention in Quebec. [1] The study was reported worldwide by many respectable news outlets, such as the BBC [2] and Herald Sun [3], and is cited in numerous government publications worldwide, such Singapore [4] and Australia. [5] Away from this particular ranking, London has often been described as the (or a) world sporting capital, from as far away as the Sydney Morning Herald. [6] Is this statement worthy of inclusion in the opening paragraph?
The wiki page on New York City makes this same assertion in its opening paragraph. If you look at the source provided, [7] NYC ranks 3rd in the world and London ranks 2nd. With an even higher ranking than New York (who deems this statement noteworthy enough to include in its initial paragraph), would it not be even more noteworthy for London to do the same? The expensiveness of London's real estate market is an extremely noteworthy aspect of this city, which includes the world's most expensive residential property. [8] With all things considered, are these two points at least worthy of inclusion in the opening paragraph?
According to Rangoon11 ( talk · contribs) the template Template:Eurovision Song Contest is trivial and keeps removing the template from this article - actually removing it twice ( 1 and 2) in a short period of time which the second rerevert goes against WP:BRD anyway. But come someone please explain that a contest that has been going on since 1956, is watched by 125 million viewers worldwide, and brings tourism to the city hosting the contest, how can it be deemed as a "trivial competition" that doesn't hold any notability to the article? London hosted the contest 4 times in the 58-year history, thus meaning it played host to a notable event. Each time London hosted the contest, tourists came to attend, and they spent money in London which in turn helps the economy of London - and yet it is still trivial? Does the user know the difference between what is trivial and what is notable? We are an encyclopaedia, and suppose to be providing as much notable data that is relevant to the articles subject. How do you expect the general viewer to know that London played host to a notable event if the template is removed? Articles on all host cities are vital to the WikiProject Eurovision, they provide information on the host city to people interesting in Eurovision-related articles. It allows a user to find out more about London if they so wish. Other articles include the templates, so why should this one be any different and not contain the template? Also the Project banner appears to have been removed too, why is that so? Wesley Mouse 18:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not assuming the motives of others. The "its like we're saying" statement is an euphemism, or at least that was the way it suppose to have come across. But one user has explicitly stated the contest is a "joke" that the contest is a "trivial competition", which is basically saying that the contest is a pile of crap and shouldn't get mentioned anywhere. Would you like me to provide diffs for those statements to show that I haven't made things up? Wesley Mouse 19:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The Shard is now the tallest building in Europe. We should have its picture somewhere in the article. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It is extraordinary that the skyline shots are so out of date. I work in the City and it is drastically different from what is on there now. The Heron Tower is now built, the Walkie-Talkie is under construction, as is the Pinnacle, etc. Doesn't reflect well at all.
176.251.26.211 (
talk)
15:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, but isn't the Lead getting a bit over the top? The fourth paragraph with its long list of tourist sites could, to my mind, be taken wholesale into the article. See New York, Tokyo and Paris by way of comparison, all three of which have much tighter, more concise intros. I think we are heading into "let's list everything cool about London in the intro" territory. My proposal is that we do a bit of thinning throughout and basically dump the 4th para, or at least slim it down radically. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 07:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The article states "London generates approximately 20 per cent of the UK's GDP[157] (or $446 billion in 2005); while the economy of the London metropolitan area—the largest in Europe—generates approximately 30 per cent of the UK's GDP (or an estimated $669 billion in 2005)". However, in the Paris Wikipedia article, I read "Paris and the Paris Region, with €552.1 billion (US$768.9 billion) in 2009, produce more than a quarter of the gross domestic product of France". Since, Paris is in the EU, how can London have the largest economy in Europe? In addition, the Economy of London article in Wikipedia states that: "London has the sixth largest city economy in the world, after Tokyo, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Paris with a GDP of $565 billion in 2008." Could you please correct this error?
Well, your figures are based on the PwC that is not really a reliable information since it's an estimate, you just have to read the document and the methodology to understand that, you could also take the city mayors study too ! why not ? it just only show a different picture where London doesn't rank 5th. Also, the European union disagrees with that statement :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_European_Union_by_GDP
As you can see, Paris is way ahead London and because of the economic crisis, I'm not sure London is in a better shape.
What I fail to understand is why the LUZ is ok to calculate the population and not when it's about GDP ????? all of this doesn't make any sens.
Also, I'm afraid there is a huge confusion between what is a metropolitan area, what is an urban area and what is a LUZ in the introduction of the article.
BTW, the largest URBAN AREA is not London, but Paris, it's written here, and it is said by demographia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_urban_areas_of_the_European_Union#Urban_areas_over_750.2C000_inhabitants The rule is simple : Urban areas are contiguous built-up areas where houses are typically not more than 200 m apart or here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population#Urban_areas_.28population_over_2.2C000.2C000.29_ranked_by_2012_projected_population As you can see, both cities have got a A, it means it is a RE-LI-A-BLE population estimates. Maybe you prefer the united nations ? who knows : http://geography.about.com/od/worldcities/a/unlargecities.htm
As for the Metropolitan area you can find a lot of informations here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe As you can see, UN and OECD disagree with Eurostat... not just the university of Avignon.
Last but not least, the study made by mastercard about tourism is flawed, they made this study without understanding that Paris was a little bit more than the inner city... Actually, most of the hotel are in the outskirts of the city... so, Paris is way ahead any other city in the world in terms of tourist. Don't you find weird to have got 29 millions of people visiting UK each year with 20.1 in London only ???? really ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings
BTW, in France it's about 80 millions ! but only 18 millions go there... frankly ! lol
It's a shame ! this article is written by teenagers ! we want reliable information, and all we've got is a stupid and chauvinistic and inaccurate article. A kind of propaganda aimed to show how London is powerful... a dope for you, we all know it !
PS : I just read the introduction... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2F2A:5410:AD3B:E7C8:EC93:113C ( talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello! Please may you change the population of London's urban and metropolitan area's. London's urban area has increased since 2001 from 8,278,251 to 9,086,254 in 2011. And London's metropolitan area has increased from 13,709,000 in 2001 to 15,435,700 in 2011. Powerof97 ( talk) 11:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
About GDP, here’s the situation: one study gives almost equal results for London and Paris (PwC: 565 – 564), two others give a slight (McKinsey: 751.8 - 764.2) or large (Eurostat: 376.5 - 490.9) difference at the advantage of Paris. What’s the methodology here? Pick a unique study and not the most recent (PwC), ignore the others (McKinsey and Eurostat) and draw a peremptory conclusion from a ridiculous difference (565-564) which certainly not intersects the margin of error. How can it be justified? The sentence "London is, along with Paris, Europe's biggest city economy and one of the largest in the world.", as mentioned in the Paris article, would be more adapted.
About the tourism figures, I will be less categorical but still critical: Rangoon, you say that “the tourism figures need to be using the same metrics, and from the same third party source” but you had no problem with Euromonitor for a long time, which precisely collects official sources using different metrics: where’s the study since London doesn’t appear at the top anymore? Did it become less reliable? The Mastercard study is based on aerial traffic and compare, from this criterion, cities with very different accessibility characteristics: London is on an island and naturally has a very important aerial traffic. In Paris, more than 40% of the tourists come from border countries (Parisinfo.com), and not by plane for a large part. The last study (the second) partially proceeded to a methodological correction (20.1 for London, 18.1 for Paris in 2011 ; 16.9 for London, 16 for Paris in 2012). But incidentally, there's a problem : according to the first results, 2012 will be a record year for both cities. Moreover the study has another flaw: we can land in a city to visit another which has no airport or only a local airport. I think the Mastercard study is promising and give guarantee of transparency, and since the methodology is clear, I don’t see why we shouldn’t mention it. But in that state it will not replace official hotel statistics which are the most precise statistics we can have. And since you think that we have to compare figures with same metrics, why shouldn’t we compare Greater London with Greater Paris? The results won’t be the same.
Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 10:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last sentence of the "Late modern and contemporary" section of the History part of the article currently reads "A day after the July 7th terrorist attacks London was awarded the 2012 Summer Olympics, making London the first city to stage the Olympic Games three times." when in fact the Games were awarded to London on July 6th 2005.
Please change "A day after the July 7th terrorist attacks London was awarded the 2012 Summer Olympics, making London the first city to stage the Olympic Games three times." to "A day before the July 7th terrorist attacks London was awarded the 2012 Summer Olympics, making London the first city to stage the Olympic Games three times."
Look at the New York page. You will see no mention of a much more significant event, the September_11_attacks. I think the NY article has got it right, cities are not defined by terrorist actions. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 13:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not know where else to put my edit insertion suggestion.....as there is no previous editing about London's religions.
I would, myself, edit that whole first paragraph about London's "Christianity" (and other beliefs) but it would be a major undertaking, and I do not have that much time. So I will give you the updated facts here, and hope at some time that I see my edit incorporated into the "London" page.
Per my church's previous Assistant Pastor's wife (who worked for the Christian organization Biblica - before she resigned for reasons she would not disclose to me).....when I talked with her about being upset after reading how totally out of control Britain has become regarding the newspaper-reported rampant teen pregnancies, and since then also reading that the British government has allowed followers of Paganism to become an official religion - Cheryl told me that Britain (and possible the whole British Isles) has been "Post-Christian" ever since Henry the VIII killed the head of the Catholic church, and had many of the catholic churches throughout Britain burned. And I have since read that the Anglican church (which may also be the Church of England) is not based on the Bible at all. The ONLY thing the Anglican "church" follows is 2 books of someone's prayers. THAT'S IT !!! And considering that Henry VIII started the Church of England on what he wanted to do and believe......there is almost no biblical foundation to that religious entity either.
Per CRU's (formorly Campus Crusade for Christ) general website, and newspaper articles......Britain is 87% atheist, 7 to 10% agnostic, leaving only a very few percent other religions, and Chrisitanity (however vague it is over there) at only 5 - 6%. Therefore, Britain is NOT Christian.
However, there IS a small, but growing Christian happening throughout the British Isles, especially in Britain - this new Christianity IS based not on following the dogma of theocratic religion, but with the emphasis of each person learning about how Jesus did His ministry against the Romans, and acceptance of Jesus as Savior. (Jesus' rebellion against the Romans seems to "hit a nerve" with Brits, especially the younger ones - they relate to Jesus more through that angle). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroPointGirl ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Religion demographics section needs to be updated with 2011 census data. It has been updated in the main article Religion in London. Census data can be take from there or is available from the government weblink
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-286262
Hussaintutla (
talk)
12:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
london averages at least 12 inches of snow per year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.19.183 ( talk) 14:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It's been estimated that there are between 300,000 400,000 French people living in London (see here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930), but this article reports only 66,000. What explains the discrepancy? 108.254.160.23 ( talk) 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello Editors for London page,
My Zns Smith and I would like to request to edit info on London’s page. This additional text I have provides important overlooked historical facts regarding London. Thank you.
Zns Smith ( talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a few points to mention here, which I shall list in order:
1) I believe the picture montage in the article's infobox needs to be changed as it is outdated due to a number of recent building that have been built in London as well as leaving out other iconic landmarks and not including providing enough images to give a bigger picture of London. For example, the Heron Tower has already been built in the City of London, as well as others currently under construction such as 122 Leadenhall Street and 20 Fenchurch Street. In addition, The Shard has been completed since 2012 and deserves a place in the montage, already having become a very recognisable landmark, as well as holding the prestigious title of being the tallest building in London. Buckingham Palace is more worthy of being in the montage than the London Eye, being more recognisable, iconic and having been part of the history of London and the United Kingdom for much longer. Likewise with Big Ben, St.Paul's Cathedral, Trafalgar Square, Picadilly Circus, Canary Wharf/Isle of Dogs, Oxford Circus (and its station) etc.
2) The statement that London "is the world's leading financial centre alongside New York City" is contradicted by the article on New York city which states that New York City is the "financial capital of the world". Having looked at the references on the New York City article, many of them are not relevant to the statement made. For example, one reference is from a book with no clear indication of any text that supports the statement, or a an easy way to access it and verify any information without obtaining a physical copy. Another reference, titled "New York Eclipses London as Financial Center in Bloomberg Poll" is also irrelevant, as as it based on an opinion poll, with no other evidence and results that can vary hugely when conducted at other times and in other locations. Furthermore, whilst the reference "Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Centers Development Index (2011)" includes a table, marginally placing New York at the top, the document also comments that "New York and London rank the top two and take an absolute dominant position among the international financial centers". It is absurd to claim New York is the financial capital when both are so far ahead of others and both are labelled as "dominant", as opposed to just New York being called 'dominant' or the 'leading financial city'. Lastly, there is an article in Spanish which cannot be accurately be used as a reference by anyone other than those who are fluent in Spanish and understand the language fully.
3)Looking at the references for the statement that London "is the world's leading financial centre alongside New York City", there is in fact actually more to suggest that London is the one leading financial centre. It ranks 1st by a sizeable margin in the "Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index 2008". It also ranks (marginally) 1st in "Global Financial Centres 9" with the comment that "London’s position is still regarded by many as virtually untouchable". Forbes' "World's Most Economically Powerful Cities" also ranks London as 1st. Numerous other references I found online such http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london-is-the-world-capital-of-the-21st-century-says-new-york-7179018.html also support this, as even the New York Times themselves pay "homage to London, claiming the financial, cultural and culinary benefits now tower over those of its home city" Furthermore, the highly reliable, relevant and perhaps biggest indicator that London is the world's financial capital is the Global Financial Centres Index http://www.longfinance.net/Publications/GFCI%2012.5.pdf, which ranks London as 1st, a significant percentage above New York, in the most recent (January 2013) rankings yet.
My edit of the London page on 22:21, 25 January 2013 clearly shows the information with all reliable sources. For some reason however, it was undone by MazabukaBloke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishan95 ( talk • contribs)
I think these issues need to be looked at and the relevant wikipedia article edited to amend these points. Kishan95 ( talk) 01:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
As no reason has been given for reverting Kishan95's edit and Kishan95 has given good supporting references, I propose restoring it unless anyone can give a good reason not to. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I have placed a comment on the NYC talk page suggesting we look at this issue. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Others believe that London derived from Slavonic words "Lono" and "don" which being combined means "river bosom" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulnewyork2000 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure it's there because someone thinks it's appropriate, but it simply isn't. We already have that information at wiktionary and it's frankly ridiculous that anyone who could read this article at all ("conurbation" shows up in the first paragraph) can't already pronounce the word. I could see the point at something like Worchestershire where the pronunciation has no basis whatever in the spelling, but London's not even one where the RP and American pronunciation differ at the IPA level.
When consensus-change time comes here or at some obscure corner of the MOS, kindly add my name on the list. — LlywelynII 06:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone add londons flag please 46.19.138.110 ( talk) 16:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
There is an RfC on whether any city should be described as the 'financial capital of the world' at Talk:World_financial_capital. Editors here are welcome to comment. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The RfC has now expired with a clear consensus not to use the term 'financial capital of the world'. I have changed both the London and New York City articles to say 'one of the world's leading financial centres/centers'. Now this argument has been resolved, I suggest that some of the excessive references are removed. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I guess, in Paragraph 3/4: Population, people and demographics, the sentence should start with "As a multicultural city", instead of "A multicultural city". I can`t give any references, its only based on my language comprehension. 93.203.162.137 ( talk) 11:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason for this other than POV to make it look more important? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population gives 34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population gives 21 94.139.28.177 ( talk) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel has restored the statement, which I deleted, that Winchester was the capital of Anglo-Saxon England. He states that his view is based on carefully researched facts, but the source cited is Frank Stenton's standard history, Anglo-Saxon England, which says the opposite: "In the eleventh century the conception of a capital city had not yet taken definite shape anywhere in the west. The centre of government in England was the king's mobile court." (page 539)
Other academic historians take the same view. For example, the article on Winchester in the Blackwell Encylopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, makes no mention of it being the capital. Is there any source by an academic expert which states that Winchester was the capital? Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I could continue, but that's just book titles, never mind hundreds of other books stating this fact but not in the title. Stenton is speaking specifically of only the 11th century, it seems, not the time previous to that. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 21:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Robert Rouse in The Idea of Anglo-Saxon England in Middle English Romance, p.152 quotes another leading historian of Anglo-Saxon England, Barbara Yorke, as saying that speaking of a capital is misleading in the ninth century. He says that Winchester's rise to prominence began under Alfred the Great, and it seems to have replaced Southampton as the seat of royal adminstration in Wessex in the late ninth century. It grew in importance in the tenth and eleventh centuries to become one of the two chief cities alongside London, reaching its zenith immediately after the Norman Conquest. This is very different from saying that Winchester was the capital, an old idea still propagated by popular authors but now regarded by historians as anachronistic. However, as I have no intention of getting into an edit war, no doubt the misinformation will remain. Dudley Miles ( talk) 21:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
I preferred the previous montage image in the infobox. Anyone support reverting it. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 11:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion, perhaps a picture of St Paul's that is more representative can be found? The wide angle distorts the structure 86.144.199.72 ( talk) 12:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Dvjvvikramaditya (
talk)
09:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am writing this mail to request you to update information under the section " 7.1 Tertiary education ".
In 2009, one of the prestigious business school - Hult International Business School( formerly known as Arthur D Little School of Management) was established near Russell square area, London. The school is ranked globally 27th - economic intelligence unit, 1st in international experience and top 100 according to Financial times.
I request you to include the name of the school in the description of business school and please list it between European Business School London, and Imperial College Business School.
Hope you will add details as per my request.
Thank you very much for your time and help
Sincerely, Vikram
I am very proud of what London has become and that is why I don't see the point about lying about it in the introduction:
Can this be corrected to properly informing people about the great city London is ?
I was just taking a look through the references to see if I could fix any of them and I noticed the date for Pepys' diary is given as 2001. Surely it should be given as 1700 or whenever it was originally published? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 14:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The Economist has an article this week about the French community of London, numbering 400,000. But this article claims that in 2001, there were just 38,000 French-born people in London. Has the French community really increased by a factor of 10? If not, what explains this discrepancy? 98.209.116.7 ( talk) 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Cordless Larry makes a good point immediately above. The population has changed very significantly since the 2001 census. For example, from 2003 to 2010 the UK's Polish population grew sevenfold (from 75,000 to 520,000) and the ONS estimates that in June 2010 London had 122,000 Polish residents ( source)—but the 2001 census table in the London article shows none.
I haven't checked out other nationalities, but given that current French and Polish figures seem so far removed from the 2001 data, surely the 2001 census table should either be footnoted or removed entirely? It is misleading to have a graphic – which draws the eye with its little flags – that doesn't reflect the current situation. - Pointillist ( talk) 23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
( ←) That's a fair point too. As I see it there are two issues: (i) discourage readers from treating the 2001 census data as being reliable for 2011, and (ii) avoid introducing unreliable data into the article, e.g. by selective use of later data, perhaps using incompatible measurements such as nationality rather than country of birth. On that basis I think The Economist's French numbers are a dead loss, and arguably the only source we can consider is the ONS. They have published data on the UK population by country of birth ( here) since 2004, and the biggest change has indeed been Poland (up 4.47x from 95,000 in 2004 to 520,000 in June 2010). At national level ONS reports 60 countries, but for London they only report the top five, which are as follows:
2001 Country | 2001 Population | 2004 Country | 2004 Population | 2010 Country | 2010 Population |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
India | 172k | India | 190k | India | 248k |
Ireland | 157k | Bangladesh | 127k | Poland | 122k |
Bangladesh | 85k | Ireland | 124k | Ireland | 110k |
Jamaica | 80k | Jamaica | 74k | Bangladesh | 107k |
Nigeria | 69k | Kenya | 73k | Nigeria | 95k |
Kenya | 66k | ||||
Poland | 22k |
I'm not claiming to have the answer, but I do think the 2001 table in the article needs to be explicitly qualified somehow. - Pointillist ( talk) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
2001 United Kingdom Census | |
---|---|
Country of birth | Population |
![]() |
5,230,155 |
![]() |
172,162 |
![]() |
157,285 |
![]() |
84,565 |
2009–10 ONS Estimates | |
---|---|
Country of birth | Population |
![]() |
248,000 |
![]() |
122,000 |
![]() |
110,000 |
![]() |
107,000 |
I propose a revision or possible deletion of the final paragraph in the Toponymy section. It doesn't add any relevant information to the topic, it merely contradicts what has already been established as a consensus of opinion above. The whole thing looks like a personal theory backed up by disparate sources.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Two recent discoveries indicate that London could be much older than previously thought. In 1999 < http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba46/ba46news.html>, the remains of a Bronze Age bridge were found on the foreshore North of Vauxhall Bridge. This bridge either crossed the Thames, or went to a (lost) island in the river. Dendrology dated the timbers to 1500BC.
In 2010, the foundations of a large timber structure, dated to 4500BC, were found on the Thames foreshore, South of Vauxhall Bridge < http://www.thamesdiscovery.org/frog-blog/london-s-oldest-find-discovered-at-vauxhall>. The function of the mesolithic structure is not known, but it covers at least 50m x 10m, and numerous 30cm posts are visible at low tides. Both structures are on South Bank, at a natural crossing point where the River Effra flows into the River Thames, and 4km upstream from the Roman City of London. The effort required to construct these structures implies trade, stability, and a community size of several hundred people at least.
Please add to prehistory section R. J. Stevens richard..no spam..@thestevensfamily.org.uk Photos available if required
"In the dense areas, most of the concentration is achieved with medium- and high-rise buildings"
This is incorrect, there is little to no correlation between height of buildings and population density within London. see here: http://data.london.gov.uk/visualisations/atlas/ward-profiles-2010/atlas.html?indicator=i8&date=2009. 85.228.215.80 ( talk) 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
«London attracts over 15 million international visitors per year, making it the world's most visited city» Please look at this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism#Most_visited_cities_by_international_tourist_arrivals
«London attracts over 15 million international visitors per year, making it the world's most visited city» Please look at this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism#Most_visited_cities_by_international_tourist_arrivals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.159.30.231 ( talk) 10:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Its snowed in London every year for the past 3/4 years. Saying its uncommon is a bit odd, yes it only snows in winter but still its expected every year by most Londoners now. Likelife ( talk) 15:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
"Over 74 per cent of children born in London died before they were five.[61]"
It seems surprising to have such a precise estimate of the number of children dying before the age of 5. Furthermore, everyone knows that child mortality was much higher in the middle ages than today, but 74% before the age of 5? Even if there is a reference, I would like to see other evidence of these numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.159.240 ( talk) 16:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The Climate data charts (temperature highs and lows, etc) has a title that says it is for Helsinki, not London - Anyone know if it is the title that's incorrect or the data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.128.54 ( talk) 17:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The Thames, as well as being a famous feature, has been fundamental in London's development as a city, and so I feel it deserves at least a mention in the introduction:
Owing to its position on the River Thames, London has been a major settlement for two millennia, its history going back to its founding by the Romans, who called it Londinium.
If anyone can think of anything better then do improve it. Cooltrainer Hugh ( talk) 00:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Another editor has three times removed the fact that London was the world's biggest city. Rather than edit-war, I thought I would start a discussion here. I think it belongs in the lead because it is such a remarkable fact. How many other cities can say that? -- John ( talk) 07:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Should it be linked to from here - it is at [9] and I seem to be the only person currently adding to it. Jackiespeel ( talk) 20:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The very first sentence of the article says that “London is the capital city of England and the United Kingdom.” There are other places in this article and on other Wikipedia articles like this one (which lists London as the 17th most populous cities in the world) that consider London to be a city. The answer to the FAQ above of “Is London a city” says that it is officially not a city, but a region with many boroughs and 2 cities. How can London be the capital city of England and the UK if it is officially not a city and how can it be consider a city if it has 2 cities? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to write that London is the capital municipality of England and the UK? Willminator ( talk) 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
London consists of 32 boroughs and the City of London. The City of Westminster is also a London borough. I would also counter the claim that if we were extremely technical, that the City of London woud be the capital. Using that argument the City of Westminster would technically be the capital. Furthermore, the argument about what constitutes a city would extend to most other large cities, like Paris, Tokyo and Los Angeles to name a few obvious examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.217.243 ( talk) 11:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The way the British government uses census data to determine the population of what most cities call their "metropolitan area" is at small but significant variance with other government's practices. Generally this leads to a rather significant understating of the population of the metropolitan area around London. As best as I can determine using 2001 census data, the population within a 60 mile radius of London would have exceeded 15 million by a few hundred thousand. Surely, considering the size of London, such a radius would not be unwarranted. I imagine the population after the 2011 census data is collected would now place the same area's population above 16 million. Considering the fact that cities of similar size (New York, Los Angeles, Paris etc) allow a larger geographic area to be included as long as population density within the radius generally reflects significantly increased density based on the accessibility of and to the metropolitan core, I would argue for the inclusion of the larger population figure based on such a radius. Certainly it would more accurately reflect the true scale of population in the London area, and provide a more accurate figure for comparison with other similarly-sized world cities.( E.a.weinstein ( talk) 14:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.a.weinstein ( talk • contribs) 08:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Is currently 26 degrees. Tomorrow is the 1st October and the forcast is 29 degrees. I will probably be on to update! Cls14 ( talk) 16:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.gfsnews.com/article/3089/1/EU_financial_centres_plunge_in_rankings, That's all the important index's now and the article should reflect that. 10:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
An IP is insisting that this document produced by local government is unreliable. If reasons are not produced, backed by reliable sources, the information should be restored. Nev1 ( talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The Climate data charts (temperature highs and lows, etc) has a title that says it is for Helsinki, not London - Anyone know if it is the title that's incorrect or the data?
The figures for average snowfall in London are plainly wrong. I don't know the correct figures, but 46.7cm in an average Winter is too high by a factor of three, at least. In a typical Winter, London will have one or two snowfalls that persist on the ground, with each snowfall consisting of 2 to 15 cm. It's not unusual for no snow at all to fall in London over an entire Winter and any individual fall of more than 15cm is exceptional, to the point of triggering newspaper headlines and urban paralysis. 82.35.103.182 ( talk) 11:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Section London#Tourism refers to London as most visited of the world. However, Tourism has a list of cities by visitors, and Paris is #1. Has London taken over the #1 spot, and that list is old news, or what? 82.141.73.142 ( talk) 22:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
On another note, why is the Paris article part of the Geography portal, Europe portal and European Union portal and the London article is not part of any of these portals? Let's have some consistency, please. London is also part of Europe and the European Union. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
159.92.233.153 (
talk)
13:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}}
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The climate data for London is wrong. Please change the record high for April, because in 2011 it reached 28 degrees Celsius. Also, the record high for October is incorrect as it should be 30 degrees Celsius as on 1st October 2011 it reached 30 degrees in the centre of London.
Spanner pig ( talk) 13:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add short info about 'pods' (the so called ultra system) - in my, other, news-editors, Wikipedia articles, users, and specialists this is probably the newest, and most advanced RPT system in London. Ok, it is short now, but working well for months(and bus service on this line was cancelled). -for e.g. - "Transport in London also include 'pods' ULTra system."
It is probably the symbol of "new, and modern London" as well - as far as I remember that type of similar pods was in sci-fi games, films.
"London is the capital city of England and the United Kingdom". I never thought twice about it before ... not until I read some other Wikipedia articles. "London" is usually referring to Greater London, but Greater London doesn't have city status, so de-jure it's not a city and hence cannot be the capital city. According to the section City status in the United Kingdom#Greater_London the City of London and Westminster have city status. The government and the queen is situated in Westminster if I've understood it correctly. That would de-jure make Westminster the capital, wouldn't it? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.119.55 ( talk) 23:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well considering that there is an elected mayor and assembly over all 32 boroughs headquartered at one main city hall, I would say that all 32 boroughs make up one city, like the 5 boroughs of New York City make up one city. I can see where you can get confused about it though, and there wasn't always one overreaching government over all of London. Bjoh249 ( talk) 02:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The word city is used here with its more general meaning here rather than the specific UK meaning as in City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom. Although London is a leading global city it might be worth mentioning that Londoners often refer to it as London Town and use terms like 'in town' when referring to being in London. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I will try to assume good faith regarding user:MazabukaBloke even though he/she is unable to have the decency of doing likewise.
“It is one of the world's leading financial centres” would suggest it places in the top 5-10, not the top which the references state.
I have amended this sentence to more accurately reflect the references:
“It is the world's leading commercial centre [ [12]] and most economically powerful city[ [13]] [ [14]]”
1) The Mastercard reference [ [15]] ranks London as the leading commercial city in the world.
2) The Forbes reference [ [16]] ranks London number 1 in its list of “World's Most Economically Powerful Cities”
3) The Zyen reference [ [17]] ranks London number 1 as “Global Financial Centre”
I strongly suggest user user:MazabukaBloke carefully reads Wikipedia:Verifiability before blindly reverting my edit and contribute towards discussion. Zarcadia ( talk) 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Would someone like to correct the "Expression error" on the Information Box?
Surlyduff50 (
talk)
15:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Population of London's Entire Metropolitan Area, or Commute to Work Zone
The way the British government uses census data to determine the population of what most cities call their "metropolitan area" is at small but significant variance with other government's practices. Generally this leads to a rather significant understating of the population of the metropolitan area around London. As best as I can determine using 2001 census data, the population within a 60 mile radius of London would have exceeded 15 million by a few hundred thousand. Surely, considering the size of London, such a radius would not be unwarranted. The 2011 census data is now becoming available and would now place the same area's population well above 16 million. Considering the fact that cities of similar size (New York, Los Angeles, Paris etc) allow a larger geographic area to be included as long as population density within the radius generally reflects significantly increased density based on the accessibility of and to the metropolitan core, I would argue for the inclusion of the larger population figure based on such a radius. Certainly it would more accurately reflect the true scale of population in the London area, and provide a more accurate figure for comparison with other similarly-sized world cities.I will be publishing the 60-mile radius data in the next 4-6 weeks, and ask for opinions for including that statistic once that has been completed. 68.37.54.53 ( talk) 03:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)(point first raised by E.a.weinstein (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that a footnote on the Article says:
Is it not a bit odd that the lead that London is the capital of England without any qualification? It gives all the appearance of editors choosing the source they prefer. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
23:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
http://filesmelt.com/dl/3987401_460s.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus6767 ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is being let down by the current infobox image which is inferior to the more comprehensive New York City page montage. The City of London is given too much prominence at the expense of other landmarks (no St. Pauls!), on the Paris page La Defence is only in the far distance of a panoramic photo. The File:Londoncollage2011.png is similar to the NYC image and has been added a few times by various editors since it was created in December, only for it to be immediately reversed by Rangoon11 usually on the grounds that the previous image is "longstanding".-- Paul011089 ( talk) 18:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The skyline choice currently on Wikipedia seems quite limited. My personal favourite (of Canary Wharf) is (1).
An equivalent one of the City would be in my view preferable, but the only one I can locate is called File:Cityoflondonatnight10.jpg and is currently pending deletion. Perhaps, when it is deleted, someone will replace it with a daytime shot? I have searched famous arial views of London ( Parliament Hill, London, Primrose Hill, Alexandra Palace and the London Eye for good skyline pics with no luck. Perhaps an updated version of (2) could be used?
I like how the complex layers of buildings contrast both each other and the moody sky, but think the completed towers and minimal crane impact would imprve the photo further.
In response to an earlier (now banned, but I thought it was a good point they raised!) user's request for the inclusion of St Paul's, the best of a bad bunch are (3) and (4).
I apologise profusely for the terrible formatting! What does anyone else think? -- ThunderingTyphoons! ( talk) 17:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Urgh, this formatting's even worse than I thought! Would someone please be able to fix it and explain to me where I went wrong? Sorry guys. -- ThunderingTyphoons! ( talk) 17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, just thought I'd dive in (I've never been involved in image montages before, so take what I say with a grain of salt). I think, at the small size we're dealing with, the current is far better than the new. I've lived in London my whole life and I (genuinely) had no idea that was the Emirates Stadium until I read the discussion. I know that's the Westfield logo, but I'm pretty sure that's only because I'm a Londoner. I'd like something transport, but that bottom-right photo isn't the way to do it. From the images above, (1) of Canary Wharf is the only one I'd consider including. Here's my suggestions: • Keep most of the images from the current montage • If possible, update the skyline one to include The Shard • Add something London transport ( NB4L, Tube?) • Include (1). Cheers, Alex Muller 10:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Sports", London has six teams in the Premier League, not five
86.41.116.83 ( talk) 02:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
London is considered, rated or ranked a world "first" or leader in several fields that are not included in the opening paragraph, fields that are mentioned in other city wikis. Here are two examples; are these select fields worthy enough to be mentioned in the opening paragraph:
In May 2012, London was crowned as the world's premier sporting city in a study conducted by the industry-prestigious SportBusiness Group, at the SportAccord convention in Quebec. [1] The study was reported worldwide by many respectable news outlets, such as the BBC [2] and Herald Sun [3], and is cited in numerous government publications worldwide, such Singapore [4] and Australia. [5] Away from this particular ranking, London has often been described as the (or a) world sporting capital, from as far away as the Sydney Morning Herald. [6] Is this statement worthy of inclusion in the opening paragraph?
The wiki page on New York City makes this same assertion in its opening paragraph. If you look at the source provided, [7] NYC ranks 3rd in the world and London ranks 2nd. With an even higher ranking than New York (who deems this statement noteworthy enough to include in its initial paragraph), would it not be even more noteworthy for London to do the same? The expensiveness of London's real estate market is an extremely noteworthy aspect of this city, which includes the world's most expensive residential property. [8] With all things considered, are these two points at least worthy of inclusion in the opening paragraph?
According to Rangoon11 ( talk · contribs) the template Template:Eurovision Song Contest is trivial and keeps removing the template from this article - actually removing it twice ( 1 and 2) in a short period of time which the second rerevert goes against WP:BRD anyway. But come someone please explain that a contest that has been going on since 1956, is watched by 125 million viewers worldwide, and brings tourism to the city hosting the contest, how can it be deemed as a "trivial competition" that doesn't hold any notability to the article? London hosted the contest 4 times in the 58-year history, thus meaning it played host to a notable event. Each time London hosted the contest, tourists came to attend, and they spent money in London which in turn helps the economy of London - and yet it is still trivial? Does the user know the difference between what is trivial and what is notable? We are an encyclopaedia, and suppose to be providing as much notable data that is relevant to the articles subject. How do you expect the general viewer to know that London played host to a notable event if the template is removed? Articles on all host cities are vital to the WikiProject Eurovision, they provide information on the host city to people interesting in Eurovision-related articles. It allows a user to find out more about London if they so wish. Other articles include the templates, so why should this one be any different and not contain the template? Also the Project banner appears to have been removed too, why is that so? Wesley Mouse 18:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not assuming the motives of others. The "its like we're saying" statement is an euphemism, or at least that was the way it suppose to have come across. But one user has explicitly stated the contest is a "joke" that the contest is a "trivial competition", which is basically saying that the contest is a pile of crap and shouldn't get mentioned anywhere. Would you like me to provide diffs for those statements to show that I haven't made things up? Wesley Mouse 19:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The Shard is now the tallest building in Europe. We should have its picture somewhere in the article. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It is extraordinary that the skyline shots are so out of date. I work in the City and it is drastically different from what is on there now. The Heron Tower is now built, the Walkie-Talkie is under construction, as is the Pinnacle, etc. Doesn't reflect well at all.
176.251.26.211 (
talk)
15:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, but isn't the Lead getting a bit over the top? The fourth paragraph with its long list of tourist sites could, to my mind, be taken wholesale into the article. See New York, Tokyo and Paris by way of comparison, all three of which have much tighter, more concise intros. I think we are heading into "let's list everything cool about London in the intro" territory. My proposal is that we do a bit of thinning throughout and basically dump the 4th para, or at least slim it down radically. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 07:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The article states "London generates approximately 20 per cent of the UK's GDP[157] (or $446 billion in 2005); while the economy of the London metropolitan area—the largest in Europe—generates approximately 30 per cent of the UK's GDP (or an estimated $669 billion in 2005)". However, in the Paris Wikipedia article, I read "Paris and the Paris Region, with €552.1 billion (US$768.9 billion) in 2009, produce more than a quarter of the gross domestic product of France". Since, Paris is in the EU, how can London have the largest economy in Europe? In addition, the Economy of London article in Wikipedia states that: "London has the sixth largest city economy in the world, after Tokyo, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Paris with a GDP of $565 billion in 2008." Could you please correct this error?
Well, your figures are based on the PwC that is not really a reliable information since it's an estimate, you just have to read the document and the methodology to understand that, you could also take the city mayors study too ! why not ? it just only show a different picture where London doesn't rank 5th. Also, the European union disagrees with that statement :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_European_Union_by_GDP
As you can see, Paris is way ahead London and because of the economic crisis, I'm not sure London is in a better shape.
What I fail to understand is why the LUZ is ok to calculate the population and not when it's about GDP ????? all of this doesn't make any sens.
Also, I'm afraid there is a huge confusion between what is a metropolitan area, what is an urban area and what is a LUZ in the introduction of the article.
BTW, the largest URBAN AREA is not London, but Paris, it's written here, and it is said by demographia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_urban_areas_of_the_European_Union#Urban_areas_over_750.2C000_inhabitants The rule is simple : Urban areas are contiguous built-up areas where houses are typically not more than 200 m apart or here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population#Urban_areas_.28population_over_2.2C000.2C000.29_ranked_by_2012_projected_population As you can see, both cities have got a A, it means it is a RE-LI-A-BLE population estimates. Maybe you prefer the united nations ? who knows : http://geography.about.com/od/worldcities/a/unlargecities.htm
As for the Metropolitan area you can find a lot of informations here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe As you can see, UN and OECD disagree with Eurostat... not just the university of Avignon.
Last but not least, the study made by mastercard about tourism is flawed, they made this study without understanding that Paris was a little bit more than the inner city... Actually, most of the hotel are in the outskirts of the city... so, Paris is way ahead any other city in the world in terms of tourist. Don't you find weird to have got 29 millions of people visiting UK each year with 20.1 in London only ???? really ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings
BTW, in France it's about 80 millions ! but only 18 millions go there... frankly ! lol
It's a shame ! this article is written by teenagers ! we want reliable information, and all we've got is a stupid and chauvinistic and inaccurate article. A kind of propaganda aimed to show how London is powerful... a dope for you, we all know it !
PS : I just read the introduction... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2F2A:5410:AD3B:E7C8:EC93:113C ( talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello! Please may you change the population of London's urban and metropolitan area's. London's urban area has increased since 2001 from 8,278,251 to 9,086,254 in 2011. And London's metropolitan area has increased from 13,709,000 in 2001 to 15,435,700 in 2011. Powerof97 ( talk) 11:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
About GDP, here’s the situation: one study gives almost equal results for London and Paris (PwC: 565 – 564), two others give a slight (McKinsey: 751.8 - 764.2) or large (Eurostat: 376.5 - 490.9) difference at the advantage of Paris. What’s the methodology here? Pick a unique study and not the most recent (PwC), ignore the others (McKinsey and Eurostat) and draw a peremptory conclusion from a ridiculous difference (565-564) which certainly not intersects the margin of error. How can it be justified? The sentence "London is, along with Paris, Europe's biggest city economy and one of the largest in the world.", as mentioned in the Paris article, would be more adapted.
About the tourism figures, I will be less categorical but still critical: Rangoon, you say that “the tourism figures need to be using the same metrics, and from the same third party source” but you had no problem with Euromonitor for a long time, which precisely collects official sources using different metrics: where’s the study since London doesn’t appear at the top anymore? Did it become less reliable? The Mastercard study is based on aerial traffic and compare, from this criterion, cities with very different accessibility characteristics: London is on an island and naturally has a very important aerial traffic. In Paris, more than 40% of the tourists come from border countries (Parisinfo.com), and not by plane for a large part. The last study (the second) partially proceeded to a methodological correction (20.1 for London, 18.1 for Paris in 2011 ; 16.9 for London, 16 for Paris in 2012). But incidentally, there's a problem : according to the first results, 2012 will be a record year for both cities. Moreover the study has another flaw: we can land in a city to visit another which has no airport or only a local airport. I think the Mastercard study is promising and give guarantee of transparency, and since the methodology is clear, I don’t see why we shouldn’t mention it. But in that state it will not replace official hotel statistics which are the most precise statistics we can have. And since you think that we have to compare figures with same metrics, why shouldn’t we compare Greater London with Greater Paris? The results won’t be the same.
Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 10:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last sentence of the "Late modern and contemporary" section of the History part of the article currently reads "A day after the July 7th terrorist attacks London was awarded the 2012 Summer Olympics, making London the first city to stage the Olympic Games three times." when in fact the Games were awarded to London on July 6th 2005.
Please change "A day after the July 7th terrorist attacks London was awarded the 2012 Summer Olympics, making London the first city to stage the Olympic Games three times." to "A day before the July 7th terrorist attacks London was awarded the 2012 Summer Olympics, making London the first city to stage the Olympic Games three times."
Look at the New York page. You will see no mention of a much more significant event, the September_11_attacks. I think the NY article has got it right, cities are not defined by terrorist actions. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 13:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not know where else to put my edit insertion suggestion.....as there is no previous editing about London's religions.
I would, myself, edit that whole first paragraph about London's "Christianity" (and other beliefs) but it would be a major undertaking, and I do not have that much time. So I will give you the updated facts here, and hope at some time that I see my edit incorporated into the "London" page.
Per my church's previous Assistant Pastor's wife (who worked for the Christian organization Biblica - before she resigned for reasons she would not disclose to me).....when I talked with her about being upset after reading how totally out of control Britain has become regarding the newspaper-reported rampant teen pregnancies, and since then also reading that the British government has allowed followers of Paganism to become an official religion - Cheryl told me that Britain (and possible the whole British Isles) has been "Post-Christian" ever since Henry the VIII killed the head of the Catholic church, and had many of the catholic churches throughout Britain burned. And I have since read that the Anglican church (which may also be the Church of England) is not based on the Bible at all. The ONLY thing the Anglican "church" follows is 2 books of someone's prayers. THAT'S IT !!! And considering that Henry VIII started the Church of England on what he wanted to do and believe......there is almost no biblical foundation to that religious entity either.
Per CRU's (formorly Campus Crusade for Christ) general website, and newspaper articles......Britain is 87% atheist, 7 to 10% agnostic, leaving only a very few percent other religions, and Chrisitanity (however vague it is over there) at only 5 - 6%. Therefore, Britain is NOT Christian.
However, there IS a small, but growing Christian happening throughout the British Isles, especially in Britain - this new Christianity IS based not on following the dogma of theocratic religion, but with the emphasis of each person learning about how Jesus did His ministry against the Romans, and acceptance of Jesus as Savior. (Jesus' rebellion against the Romans seems to "hit a nerve" with Brits, especially the younger ones - they relate to Jesus more through that angle). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroPointGirl ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Religion demographics section needs to be updated with 2011 census data. It has been updated in the main article Religion in London. Census data can be take from there or is available from the government weblink
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-286262
Hussaintutla (
talk)
12:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
london averages at least 12 inches of snow per year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.19.183 ( talk) 14:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It's been estimated that there are between 300,000 400,000 French people living in London (see here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930), but this article reports only 66,000. What explains the discrepancy? 108.254.160.23 ( talk) 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello Editors for London page,
My Zns Smith and I would like to request to edit info on London’s page. This additional text I have provides important overlooked historical facts regarding London. Thank you.
Zns Smith ( talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a few points to mention here, which I shall list in order:
1) I believe the picture montage in the article's infobox needs to be changed as it is outdated due to a number of recent building that have been built in London as well as leaving out other iconic landmarks and not including providing enough images to give a bigger picture of London. For example, the Heron Tower has already been built in the City of London, as well as others currently under construction such as 122 Leadenhall Street and 20 Fenchurch Street. In addition, The Shard has been completed since 2012 and deserves a place in the montage, already having become a very recognisable landmark, as well as holding the prestigious title of being the tallest building in London. Buckingham Palace is more worthy of being in the montage than the London Eye, being more recognisable, iconic and having been part of the history of London and the United Kingdom for much longer. Likewise with Big Ben, St.Paul's Cathedral, Trafalgar Square, Picadilly Circus, Canary Wharf/Isle of Dogs, Oxford Circus (and its station) etc.
2) The statement that London "is the world's leading financial centre alongside New York City" is contradicted by the article on New York city which states that New York City is the "financial capital of the world". Having looked at the references on the New York City article, many of them are not relevant to the statement made. For example, one reference is from a book with no clear indication of any text that supports the statement, or a an easy way to access it and verify any information without obtaining a physical copy. Another reference, titled "New York Eclipses London as Financial Center in Bloomberg Poll" is also irrelevant, as as it based on an opinion poll, with no other evidence and results that can vary hugely when conducted at other times and in other locations. Furthermore, whilst the reference "Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Centers Development Index (2011)" includes a table, marginally placing New York at the top, the document also comments that "New York and London rank the top two and take an absolute dominant position among the international financial centers". It is absurd to claim New York is the financial capital when both are so far ahead of others and both are labelled as "dominant", as opposed to just New York being called 'dominant' or the 'leading financial city'. Lastly, there is an article in Spanish which cannot be accurately be used as a reference by anyone other than those who are fluent in Spanish and understand the language fully.
3)Looking at the references for the statement that London "is the world's leading financial centre alongside New York City", there is in fact actually more to suggest that London is the one leading financial centre. It ranks 1st by a sizeable margin in the "Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index 2008". It also ranks (marginally) 1st in "Global Financial Centres 9" with the comment that "London’s position is still regarded by many as virtually untouchable". Forbes' "World's Most Economically Powerful Cities" also ranks London as 1st. Numerous other references I found online such http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london-is-the-world-capital-of-the-21st-century-says-new-york-7179018.html also support this, as even the New York Times themselves pay "homage to London, claiming the financial, cultural and culinary benefits now tower over those of its home city" Furthermore, the highly reliable, relevant and perhaps biggest indicator that London is the world's financial capital is the Global Financial Centres Index http://www.longfinance.net/Publications/GFCI%2012.5.pdf, which ranks London as 1st, a significant percentage above New York, in the most recent (January 2013) rankings yet.
My edit of the London page on 22:21, 25 January 2013 clearly shows the information with all reliable sources. For some reason however, it was undone by MazabukaBloke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishan95 ( talk • contribs)
I think these issues need to be looked at and the relevant wikipedia article edited to amend these points. Kishan95 ( talk) 01:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
As no reason has been given for reverting Kishan95's edit and Kishan95 has given good supporting references, I propose restoring it unless anyone can give a good reason not to. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I have placed a comment on the NYC talk page suggesting we look at this issue. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Others believe that London derived from Slavonic words "Lono" and "don" which being combined means "river bosom" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulnewyork2000 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure it's there because someone thinks it's appropriate, but it simply isn't. We already have that information at wiktionary and it's frankly ridiculous that anyone who could read this article at all ("conurbation" shows up in the first paragraph) can't already pronounce the word. I could see the point at something like Worchestershire where the pronunciation has no basis whatever in the spelling, but London's not even one where the RP and American pronunciation differ at the IPA level.
When consensus-change time comes here or at some obscure corner of the MOS, kindly add my name on the list. — LlywelynII 06:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone add londons flag please 46.19.138.110 ( talk) 16:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
There is an RfC on whether any city should be described as the 'financial capital of the world' at Talk:World_financial_capital. Editors here are welcome to comment. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The RfC has now expired with a clear consensus not to use the term 'financial capital of the world'. I have changed both the London and New York City articles to say 'one of the world's leading financial centres/centers'. Now this argument has been resolved, I suggest that some of the excessive references are removed. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I guess, in Paragraph 3/4: Population, people and demographics, the sentence should start with "As a multicultural city", instead of "A multicultural city". I can`t give any references, its only based on my language comprehension. 93.203.162.137 ( talk) 11:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason for this other than POV to make it look more important? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population gives 34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population gives 21 94.139.28.177 ( talk) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel has restored the statement, which I deleted, that Winchester was the capital of Anglo-Saxon England. He states that his view is based on carefully researched facts, but the source cited is Frank Stenton's standard history, Anglo-Saxon England, which says the opposite: "In the eleventh century the conception of a capital city had not yet taken definite shape anywhere in the west. The centre of government in England was the king's mobile court." (page 539)
Other academic historians take the same view. For example, the article on Winchester in the Blackwell Encylopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, makes no mention of it being the capital. Is there any source by an academic expert which states that Winchester was the capital? Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I could continue, but that's just book titles, never mind hundreds of other books stating this fact but not in the title. Stenton is speaking specifically of only the 11th century, it seems, not the time previous to that. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 21:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Robert Rouse in The Idea of Anglo-Saxon England in Middle English Romance, p.152 quotes another leading historian of Anglo-Saxon England, Barbara Yorke, as saying that speaking of a capital is misleading in the ninth century. He says that Winchester's rise to prominence began under Alfred the Great, and it seems to have replaced Southampton as the seat of royal adminstration in Wessex in the late ninth century. It grew in importance in the tenth and eleventh centuries to become one of the two chief cities alongside London, reaching its zenith immediately after the Norman Conquest. This is very different from saying that Winchester was the capital, an old idea still propagated by popular authors but now regarded by historians as anachronistic. However, as I have no intention of getting into an edit war, no doubt the misinformation will remain. Dudley Miles ( talk) 21:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)