![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
At the end of the status section that says "...'the most important town...' and many other authorities..." there are three references the first two both say "HC 501 0304.PDF (PDF). Parliament Publications." However, they link to different sites. Does anyone know if they are the same publication which can be seen in the first of the two, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubacc/501/501.pdf ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 June 2008
Possible merge with Birmingham? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.192.40.174 (
talk)
18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure, haha. A London based newspaper calls London "Capital of the World". Every son in the world calls his mother the most beautifulest. But that doesnt make here Miss World. I removed the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.97.3 ( talk) 12:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The claim of London being the World's capital has got a reliable source. Fact is fact, you can't remove it just because you don't agree with it. Signsolid ( talk) 15:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Get real. Nobody in the world would claim London to be a "Capital of the world" except Londoners of course. It is not even "The capital of Europe". The same mentality can be found when England is perpetually claimed to be a favourite in World cup tournaments (among British press). But everybody seeing them loosing in the quarterfinals. AGAIN : There should be widely accepted sources other than London based newspapers to verify this claim. Rembember? This is meant to be an encyclopedia and not kindergarden advertisement. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 17:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Lear21 your reasons for removing the well sourced and reliable claim made by The Independent, a major British newspaper, seems to be full of distane for London and especially England, if going by your comments made earlier. As I stated earlier one cannot remove well sourced and reliably sourced factual information from Wikipedia simply because it conflicts with your own political opinions. I noticed you are a major contributor to the Berlin article and I hope your edits are not based a preference for Berlin either because your are from Berlin or German. I have never made any negative edits to any German or Berlin related articles. Signsolid ( talk) 01:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The Term "Capital of the world" is a claim or sentence which is used internationally in several thousands publications in a wide variety of fields. The claim/sentence cannot be reduced to ONE study because of it´s overarching usage. It would be therefore misleading. Here are the Google Results for the combination : "Capital of the world" AND a city: New York, 1.430.000 ; London, 657.000 ; Paris, 465.000 ; Los Angeles, 404.000 I think this makes the argument even clearer. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 08:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I bring can bring references for 10 different major cities including the mentioned term. Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia and not a weekly mag from NYC nor a London based promotion brochure. Lear 21 ( talk) 12:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I correct myself, there are probably Hundred "Captitals of the world": Google list for the term "capital of the world". all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 21:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The Google list proofed pretty well, that the name is by no means exclusive. I removed the claim and will do so in the future. If anybody is interested in a decent article he/she has to do this as well. I´m wondering about myself that I still argue seriously after reading this ridiculous claim. Nobody in the world nicknames London the "Capital of the world" not even Europe. Don´t be surprised if my next comments are more straightforward. Lear 21 ( talk) 14:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I count user Lear 21 & Johnbod as two editors arguing against (including more than thousand references). And I count user Bsrboy and Signsolid arguing to keep a claim about London refernced by a London source. Note that Wikipedia is based on arguments and proof and not on wishful dreams. If there are not at least Hundred different internationally gathered sources supporting the claim, the claim will be removed tomorrow. Lear 21 ( talk) 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Just encase some of you are not fully aware, this dicsussion is about whether we should mention in the article that a recent study by The Independent showed London as the capital of the world, not just saying "London is the capital of the world". bsrboy ( talk) 18:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add that it was
user:JdeJ who was the one who edited the United Kingdom article using a source from the Financial Times claiming the United Kingdom's GDP had fallen behind France's GDP. If this user is stating that newspaper articles aren't reliable enough sources then they are a hypocrite. Also from this user's contributions list it's not hard to see they are anti-British and pro-French.
Signsolid (
talk)
21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This entire discussion is irrelevent. What makes a city the "capital of the world"? In my sense, it is nothing but an ego trip. Every city thinks it's capital of "something" However, if it is applied to a single city, the city would have had to have earned it. New York is regarded as the capital of art, finance, real estate and has been the powerhouse behind the worlds largest economy. So, I would have to say New York is the "capital of the world".However, there is no such thing as a "source" for this argument, and claiming there is one is ignorant nonesense. Thank you. ( ITOMIC ( talk) 07:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC) )
Yes, this discussion is strange. The Global Cities research project at the University of Loughborough proclaims London the leading Global City. In effect, that surely means the city is indeed the 'capital of the world'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.179.162 ( talk) 22:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
London is not capital of England as suggested in the opening paragraph - it is capital of the UK only. England is not a sovereign state. The same applies to Wales, Scotland etc - they are not sovereign states and should not be referred to as countries ([User:ucallmemadam], 1 Aug 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucallmemadam ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reinstated London as the capital of England as this was the consensus view after a length debate. Does anyone know and easy way to restore the references to the bit in the 'status' section? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
London should only be seen as the capital of the UK - reinstating the original was not the consensus of the debate above. Anyone else wish to to support my view of removing capital of England statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucallmemadam ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think some of the values in the climate chart are incorrect, particluarly the summer average max values. 28 in August!! The previous style of graph (grid like - see Paris page for exmaple) was clearer and had the correct data in it.
The rainfall in the chart is completely unclear as well. 81.157.198.134 ( talk) 07:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I dont think having all these images is encyclopedic. Other cities like New York, Paris, Shanghai all have ONE image in the infobox. Having 10 images is unnecessary Nikkul ( talk) 12:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to remember to not even go to look at this article as it has nearly crashed my computer each time. Hate to think what it does to those with even less speedy systems or who have to pay for downloading time from their own pockets. Article presently is at 134k with a recommended 30-50k for main article text. Please see Wikipedia:Article size for ideas about dealing with article size issues and suggestions. Banje boi 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Possible merge with Birmingham? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.40.174 ( talk) 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I must say I'm impressed. The photographs on this page are amazing!!! Nfitz ( talk) 03:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Seen this picture floating on the Canary Wharf page, is there space for this too, or one too many. Either way amazing.
-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I am missing in this article a map that shows where in England (or where in the British Isles) this city is located. Maybe something like the map shown in Greater London. What good is an article on a city, if it doesn't tell you where to find that city? Johan Lont ( talk) 12:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Should this article have a health section included? Signsolid ( talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Just revisiting this page this morning and noticed a Samuel Johnson quote had been added at the head of the article. What do you guys think of this? I admit it adds something, but opening with a quote seems like something more suited for a novel than for an encyclopedia article. Might it also be an NPOV problem, kind of like the "capital of the world" debate? Perhaps it belongs in another section of the article... Lone Skeptic ( talk) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I see the quote has been deleted. I think we should find a home for it somewhere in the article. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be quite obvious that such a quote by definition is POV and unsuitable. A quote is always the opinion of a single person and often contains a POV, and who should decide which quote to use. Why not start the article with a quote by Jane Austen instead, ""Nobody is healthy in London, nobody can be.". Obviously I'm not suggesting such a thing, but it would be no less appropriate than the Johnston quote. If we want to have a section called quotes about London, then that's the place to put such quotes. Personally I think it would be a bad idea, but it would at least be a lesser evil than starting with any quote. JdeJ ( talk) 08:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course a quote is POV! That is why it is stated as a quote. It would be quite wrong to state, 'If you are tired of London ...' as fact but WP policy on NPOV cannot possible be held to apply to quotes just as it does not apply to pictures, any of which is, quite literally, a point of view. On that basis no pictures should be allowed. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see anything in this article mentioning poverty in London at the moment, it seems to be a very positive article, which is good. but whereas articles for most countries mention how many people are under the poverty line this doesn't seem to, and neither does the article for the whole of England. Having lived in London in not great conditions I know that there are a lot of people(and not all illegal immigrants) who don't have enough money to buy healthy food, clothes, and who work very long hours to survive. I think this article is biased without putting in at least a couple of sentences with some figures on this. Average standard of living is much less equitable than most other cities I've lived in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.42.233 ( talk) 23:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was recently working on the Paris article, and there noticed an un-sourced and rather pompous claim that The Paris urban area is Europe's biggest city economy, and is fifth in the world's list of cities by GDP. The author of this statement insists that we leave the phrase as it is, and provided a "source" that is a study - based on estimates - undertaken by a single organisation that is not at all the source of France's demo-economical data; there is only one, the INSEE. I do not at all condone this practice of trumpeting selective studies as "facts" that are nothing of the same.
Then I come here to the Economy section and find an un-sourced London has the 4th largest city economy in the world after Tokyo, New York City and Los Angeles. Where do you get these numbers? Is your source the same? I hope not.
If your source - if it exists - is as selective as that used for the Paris article, I suggest either finding a world-wide-accepted (and here we're talking government level) comparison between the world's city spreads/GDP's, otherwise we should (humbly) modify both articles (not to mention others) to use more generalist terms to describe a city's rank in the 'world of riches'.
The above sort of selective "greater than thou" game has resulted in years of edit and revert wars between the above two articles - namely the Economy of Paris article - and I would like to put an end to it.
Generalist terms are perfectly acceptable: for the Paris article, based on all the studies I've seen, I think a "estimated to be among the top ten" language would be appropriate, if it was needed at all. What do you think? Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Further verified by this source which is based on figures from The Economist. Hope that helps. The Suave 20:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the London coat of arms that used to be here some time ago?... Also I wonder if London has a flag, and if someone could put them in the article. Energyfreezer ( talk) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It says that Hulk Hogan is the Mayor!?!?!? -- 71.225.111.4 ( talk) 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
An accent section has recently been added to the article. While I can see that this might be valuable, as it stands it's completely unreferenced. Should I remove it? Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 10:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between the date when New York became more populous than London. The History section of the New York article puts it at 1948 while the demographics section of the London article puts it at 1925. Which one is it? I've created a similar section on the New York talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliwalla ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
While the pictures on this article are extremely good, they increase the page size to the extent that it 1) is very slow to load even on a fast connection and 2) crashes the WikiEd gadget (for me at least). I propose trimming down the pictures very slightly -
I'm rubbish at placing the images, so I'm not going to attempt it myself.
I'm not sure how much this would save, but causing gadgets to crash surely isn't desired page behaviour? Brilliantine ( talk) 23:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We all know that the London article is frequently the victim and one of Wiki´s prime examples of teenager enthusiasm. I suggest another sentence for the intro: "London and its inhabitants are known for ongoing exaggeration and superstitions (lies) in all matters of live." I found it to be always funny when England claims itself as a soccer top favorite in several tournaments while constantly losing in the quarterfinals.
There's nothing wrong with stating if something is the leader in its field. If it is it is and if it's got sources then there's no problem with it because the article is here to state facts and if it's a fact then what's wrong with it? All other articles mention when something is the leader in its field so why shouldn't this article be allowed to state the facts? Usergreatpower ( talk) 00:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The source comes from a London authority. As with several lists and rankings originating from the London region, London finds itself (surprisingly) always on NO. 1. This is clever marketing but nothing else. A mother finds its baby always the most important thing in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.21.230 ( talk) 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It makes no difference where the source is from so long as it's reliable, and the London authority is considered reliable, considering it's a part of the British government. Most articles on places are going to have sources which originate from that area for the obvious reason that most things written about that area will come from the area itself. I see nothing wrong with the sources whatsoever. The majority of sources for the Berlin article originate from Berlin, just as most here orginate from London. If facts state London is number 1 at something and it's backed by reliable sources then there's nothing wrong with that. ALL other articles do the same because facts are facts and there's nothing wrong with stating facts from reliable sources. You may not like that London is the leader in whatever field but that doesn't change the fact that it is and edits to remove such content due to dislike of a fact is basically vandalism. Usergreatpower ( talk) 05:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I would not suggest useing city comissioned "studies" to base facts on. As I stated in the discussion below, London did a study on itself and found out that it (with no suprise) was the worlds financal capital. What makes this study void however is the fact it contradicts other independant sources, includeing one from New York. It is NOT reliable information. Thank you. ( ITOMIC ( talk) 07:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC) )
Another yank who cannot accept when the US is 2nd best at something? Oh and its called FOOTBALL, not soccer as you use your FOOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.40.194 ( talk) 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In the "Rise of Modern London" section, I deleted a fragment about how racial integration was smoother in London than elsewhere in England. The sentence had a reference at the end but the online source only supported what was being said in the first half of the sentence (which was actually about race riots in London). In fact, London had worse race relations than everywhere else throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and the far-right gained all their successes in Greater London until fairly recently. Even today, Barking & Dagenham is the BNP capital of the country. It is an urban myth in England that London is so much more civilised than everywhere else, which is probably what prompted this part of the article. Epa101 ( talk) 09:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! This is from the previous FAC about unreliable sources...
I will check these and remove these as I go along! -- The Helpful One (Review) 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I recent IP editor has removed the wording relating to London as the capital of England. This wording was added by consensus after a very long series of discussions ending in http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:London/Archive_8§ion=14
It was generally accepted that there is no definitive answer as to whether London is the capital of England or not. It depends on the meaning of the word 'capital', which is defined differently in different places, and on which other authorities you accept. The previous wording reflected this fact and was very well referenced, including two dictionary definitions and parliamentary sources.
My attempts to restore this balanced and well-referenced consensus view have been thwarted continual reversions by an anonymous editor who refuses to enter into any discussion on the subject. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 08:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Think the population for Greater London may need updating a little, BBC posted an article about a month ago saying that the population of greater London was 7.56 million http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7639338.stm Dav matt ( talk) 22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Does the section mentioning the importance and size of the financial industry in London need an update? Considering the recent turmoils in the finance and banking sectors? Not to mention the stock market.
I would like to eventually support this article but I have some suggestions that I would like to post here not on the FAC page so it doesnt clutter it up or harm its chances of passing.
OK, I understand better than anyone how a reviewers comments sometimes do not make the article better ;) I think this is a great article and my comments were really nitpicky stuff so I am going to support. Great job! NancyHeise talk 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The recent FAC nomination of this article has been withdrawn by the nominator. Please leave the {{ fac}} template at the top of this page to enable proper archiving of the recent FAC, which should happen within several days. Thank you. Maralia ( talk) 13:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi I checked your page for information related about LONDON and i advice to place a link Star Shipping International International Shippers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunwest seo ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking through the current lead section, it currently ties itself up in knots regarding what London actually is - just because London itself does not hold City Status. Instead, it uses the phrases "conurbation" and "urban area" - but both of these are wrong too! The Greater London Urban Area is NOT the same as London - it includes towns like Watford and Woking which are outside London.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to use "city" with a small "c", meaning a large settlement (whilst noting that it doesn't hold City Status) - similarly to Leeds, and then state that it's the same thing as the GLA area and the Region of England? Fingerpuppet ( talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone put Baby P in the article. This isn't a caring town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.66.104 ( talk) 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
No comment until now, even more evidence of a town that doesn't care about its people.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.66.104 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It's very sad about Baby P, but that does not have anything to do with London article. There's an article for him here on wikipedia. -- 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 21:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between the facts of the metro system and how it compares to other world systems. To say it is the largest, longest, biggest, or any other such superlative is technically false. For example, the New York subway has 468 stations (200 more than London), over 1100km of track (more than double London's) and roughly 1.5 million more daily boardings (4.5 million to 3 million). Moreover, New York claims over 20 lines compared to London's 11. While New York's metro system includes double tracking in multiple locations (for "express" trains)and some overlapping lines, to say London's is the largest system is misleading at best and completely false at worst. I recommend this be updated to 'one of the largest, most extensive, systems in the world,' not 'the largest.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aibur ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see what is gained by adding 'country' and 'Sovereign Nation' to the opening sentence, and suggest that they are removed. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I originally was just trying to correct usage of the {{ convert}} template for population density, but in trying to verify the data, I ran across a few issues, related to population, area and density:
So, is there ay better wording and referencing that could be brought to bear? And is there any distinction between London and Greater London, at least as far as the area, pop, and pop density figures apply? I'm not familiar with the topic(s), else I would try my own fixes. Thanks for the help! Franamax ( talk) 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Ich muss in Englisch einen Aufsatz über 2 Sehenswürdigkeiten in London schreiben. Bitte helft mir!!! Bitte in meine deutsche Diskussionsseite schreiben.-- K.A.R.R. ( talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about this article. It's currently a GA, but even from a cursory glance at the lead I'm confident that this article would fail a GA-review. We have several outstanding "citation needed" tags, as well as dead links and uncited claims. London is a Top priority for several wikiprojects, and is one of the most important cities in human history. Perhaps users who frequent this page could apply some collective TLC? -- Jza84 | Talk 15:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It should be a link on the climate for London snowstorm. -- 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Smog does not have something to do with climate, climate usually means average temperature and precipitation for past 30 years. You could put smog on Geography or any other. If you want to include it, fine. But stop changing anything else! The temp + precip. is 100% true! -- 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If facts about smog is going to be on the climate fact, then about the snowstorm should also be included. It can't be like you want! The snowstorm is very important in our history, even if it's for a week. It should at least be a link about it, not a whole fact. -- 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 01:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Both about the snow and smog is on the climate fact now... stop changing please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 15:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The only thing that made the "snowstorm", as this user inexplicably refers to it, important was the fact that the media went on about it at inordinate length - in a way that they never did with *more significant* snow events more than a couple of decades ago. Mentioning it in the article as some kind of significant event is ludicrous. Suggesting that it is of equal historical importance to the smog of 1952 is even more ludicrous. Bear in mind that the 2009 snow was the most snow London had had for only eighteen years; if you're going to mention it as significant, you'll have to mention the 1991 snow too, since there was more of that. And so on all the way back. 90.201.20.16 ( talk) 13:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing a link to the website British Destinations. As webmaster of the site, I believe that its destination articles and itineraries provide an invaluable source of information to users of Wikipedia who may be considering a trip to London and Great Britain. The aforementioned link has already been deleted several times, been called spam and such forth, but it is no such thing and instead is a wealth of information or possible British tourists. Therefore could it be permanantly placed in this and perhaps other articles to which it is related? (the url is http://www.britishdestinations.wikispaces.com) 203.171.199.62 ( talk) 09:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Any idea what is wrong with the last part of this section? I commented out the incomplete sentence at the end. I checked back as far as "Revision as of 09:58, January 31, 2009" and it is the same. Quebec99 ( talk) 04:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the paragraph about science and research and development in London. Could anybody please add that the cited reference (No. 123) at the end of the paragraph was retrieved on february 21, 2009 ? I am quite busy with work these days and have not enough time to learn how to add that piece of information and do it properly. Many thanks in advance. Roibeird ( talk) 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
"It is also ranked 4th in the world in number of billionaires (United States Dollars) residing in the city.[91] London ranks as one of the most expensive cities in the world, alongside Tokyo and Moscow.[92]"
The audio clip containing the pronounciation of "London" does not work. Is it me, or should this be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.137.234 ( talk) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed resently that there is no disanbiguous london at the top of this page. There are many different "London"'s on wikipedia, but the search of "London" only comes up with this. Anyone want to make it? Cainine ( talk) 01:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
London is in England. Why is the Welsh version of London on the page? There isnt the Scots version, or the Irish version (spoken in N.Ireland, part of the UK, still...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.166.68 ( talk) 22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Bill Bertram won't object to me removing his panorama from the parks and gardens section. It was too similar to his superior excelllent panorama in the cityscape section.-- Tom dl ( talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The text in this section is illiterate and meaningless. I'm fairly sure that London has more than 570 buildings. I'm equally sure that it has far fewer than 570 buildings that could reasonably be considered skyscrapers; in fact, looking out of my window, I can't count more than about ten at the absolute most, mostly in Canary Wharf. Skyscrapers are conspicuous in London by their almost complete absence; if there's going to be any text in this section, wouldn't it make more sense to say something about the buildings that actually characterise the landscape here? 90.201.20.16 ( talk) 12:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to discuss which city is truely the largest center for fiance. The london wikipedia page claims it to be london and I adamently state that is incorrect. And I state my reasons below.
--The orginal report that stirred up claims that New York would lose it position as the worlds largest financial center said that would happen in "10 years" in regulations weren't changed. It obviously has not been 10 years.
--Most stories printed about the subject have stated New York is "probably" still the financial capital.
--London printed a report that claimed that it was the financial leader. However New York City printed its own report that completely contradicted it. Therefore neither can be used as a reference source, as it previously was for London's case.
-- http://www.citywire.co.uk/Selector/-/news/newspaper-summaries/content.aspx?ID=312719 is one of the only independant sources I could find on the subject. And it claims New York is the leader. Due to this, I have printed Cinco Dias as the refernced and downgraded Londons stance from frist to second on the article.
I have been following this debate closely, and while there is no clear winner, there is a lot more evidence to back up New York then London.
Any thoughts? ( ITOMIC ( talk) 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the reply. However, people keep reverting it to say "London is the largest". And no, I feel it would not be right to leave it out. for the longest time, New York, not london, was the clearcut financial leader. It is London that is trying to steal the crown away from New York, not the other way around, so if there is not enough sources to back London up, it should REMAIN the second largest financial center. Also, I do not feel the amount of circulation a source has is relevant, as it was important enough for CityWire to publish a story on it claiming it as fact. It is still a good independant source backing up New York, and that is what is important.
It also seems people are linking to "articles" simply echoeing the study done by London, which claims it to be the world financal capital. These are not real sources, as they do not explain WHY it's the world's largest financial center, they only echo a study wich you just agreed whould not be considered realible. Until someone can find an study independant from London claiming it to be the world's financal capital, it should remain second. I deleted these "sources" and took out any mention of being the "world financal center". IT should not be mentioned if there is no reliable sources.
Thanks! ( ITOMIC ( talk) 19:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC))
Yes. It all depends on how you measure it.. Cause there are hundreds of conflicting reports. Some for New York, Some for London. I just think since it's London chaseing New York, New York should be the one to retain the title until proven otherwise.
But that works just fine. I already deleted the picture that REPEATEDLY claimed it was the largest.. And speaking of the economist, I found they said THIS as well.
They also made a spiffy graph: http://media.economist.com/images/20070915/CSR892.gif
Clearly, it shows New York is still in the lead. And if you consider this a reliable source. I will use it in support of New York. -- However, if you still feel it is not enough, tell me, and I'll happily accept a neautral approach, makeing a statment similar to what was said above. ( ITOMIC ( talk) 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC))
I have reinserted the City of London picture to the economy section, which should not have been removed in the first place. Besides, London is the world's largest financial centre, liked or not, and I have given the reference stating that in the article.
Aogouguo (
talk)
23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Given the differences of opinion, this was an unusually polite debate by ITOMIC and Franamax. Many thanks for being so careful! Pointillist ( talk) 21:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
== MASTERCARD SURVEY shows London to be the no 1 global center of commerce 2009. Mastercard is American. ==
http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/insights/studies/2008/wcoc/index.html PN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.178.89 ( talk) 02:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a huge bit of white space in the lead of this article. I suspect it's something to do with the collapsable list in the infobox, but it's definitely there (I'm using IE8, Windows Vista). Anybody else see it? -- Jza84 | Talk 13:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
London-плохой! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.178.119.164 ( talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if London exists. There's greater London and the city of London but what is London? Should this page actually be a disambuguation (that crazy, Wikipedia made-up word) page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have removed an uncited statement attributing 'some' possible derivations of the name London to Anglo-Saxon language. I know from my schoolboy Latin that Roman occupiers used the name Londinium—at least 400 years before the existence of any language that could be termed Anglo-Saxon. (I believe the first recorded use was by Tacitus (lib xiv, ch xxxiii) in the year 61 C.E., though it may well have been founded a century earlier.) We can readily assume the Romans adapted a Celtic (British) antecedent but there is absolutely no way the name could have been coined by Angles, Saxons or Jutes. Cheers Bjenks ( talk) 09:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The list of artists mentioned in the music section is growing out of hand again. Would people support a trim and, if so, which artists should be kept/removed? Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
None of the other 'global cities' mentioned in the introduction of this article (New York, Paris, Tokyo) cite the other three in addition to presenting a link to the article on global cities, so why should London? In the interests of consistency, and also to avoid focusing too much on three other cities in the opening paragraphs of an article on an entirely different one, I've removed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.88.125.129 ( talk) 08:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to notice that Buckingham Palace isn't mentioned in the article. Is there any particular reason for this? It could probably fit into the architecture section or could do with a mention in the history section. Nev1 ( talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Having just reverted out a change in the figures in the infobox as not in accordance with the reference, looking at the figures reverted to some of those do not appear to stack-up with the reference either. The reference appears to have changed this year so cannot be 2001 census data. Also the figures quoted in the infobox appear to be different to that in the text which is supported by a different reference. Can someone look over the figures in the infobox and the section on ethnic groups and reconcile the situation. Keith D ( talk) 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do the architecture and parks and gardens sections come under the economy header? Surely they would be better placed under society and culture. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that this must have been discussed before but I can find no record on this talk page of it. London (apart from the City) may not be a city according to our strange British customs but in ordinary language it is called a city here and throughout the world. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the article has a section called " Emergency Services In London", consisting solely of links to other articles. Is it appropriate to have this section? The emergency services would perhaps be better mentioned in the governance section. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is in general very good. However, I can't find anything about Tourism, besides a few lines in the Economy section. Of course Wikipedia must not become a Lonely Planet, but a section with information about the main sights (London Eye, Tower of London & Tower Bridge, Big Ben/Houses of Parliament, etc.) and other activities, like shopping, visiting theatres and bus and boat tours. I think this could best be done in only one or two paragraphs. I'm not a native English speaker and I'm not an inhabitant of London er even the UK, so I don't think I'm the one who should make up such a section, but I think it would be a good (and needed) addition to the current article. Greetings, 77.167.224.101 ( talk) 19:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Due to recent high levels of vandalism to the article, I have semi-protected it for one month, meaning that unregistered editors and new accounts cannot change it. Nev1 ( talk) 21:51, 26 August 2009 (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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
At the end of the status section that says "...'the most important town...' and many other authorities..." there are three references the first two both say "HC 501 0304.PDF (PDF). Parliament Publications." However, they link to different sites. Does anyone know if they are the same publication which can be seen in the first of the two, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubacc/501/501.pdf ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 June 2008
Possible merge with Birmingham? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.192.40.174 (
talk)
18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure, haha. A London based newspaper calls London "Capital of the World". Every son in the world calls his mother the most beautifulest. But that doesnt make here Miss World. I removed the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.97.3 ( talk) 12:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The claim of London being the World's capital has got a reliable source. Fact is fact, you can't remove it just because you don't agree with it. Signsolid ( talk) 15:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Get real. Nobody in the world would claim London to be a "Capital of the world" except Londoners of course. It is not even "The capital of Europe". The same mentality can be found when England is perpetually claimed to be a favourite in World cup tournaments (among British press). But everybody seeing them loosing in the quarterfinals. AGAIN : There should be widely accepted sources other than London based newspapers to verify this claim. Rembember? This is meant to be an encyclopedia and not kindergarden advertisement. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 17:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Lear21 your reasons for removing the well sourced and reliable claim made by The Independent, a major British newspaper, seems to be full of distane for London and especially England, if going by your comments made earlier. As I stated earlier one cannot remove well sourced and reliably sourced factual information from Wikipedia simply because it conflicts with your own political opinions. I noticed you are a major contributor to the Berlin article and I hope your edits are not based a preference for Berlin either because your are from Berlin or German. I have never made any negative edits to any German or Berlin related articles. Signsolid ( talk) 01:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The Term "Capital of the world" is a claim or sentence which is used internationally in several thousands publications in a wide variety of fields. The claim/sentence cannot be reduced to ONE study because of it´s overarching usage. It would be therefore misleading. Here are the Google Results for the combination : "Capital of the world" AND a city: New York, 1.430.000 ; London, 657.000 ; Paris, 465.000 ; Los Angeles, 404.000 I think this makes the argument even clearer. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 08:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I bring can bring references for 10 different major cities including the mentioned term. Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia and not a weekly mag from NYC nor a London based promotion brochure. Lear 21 ( talk) 12:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I correct myself, there are probably Hundred "Captitals of the world": Google list for the term "capital of the world". all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 21:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The Google list proofed pretty well, that the name is by no means exclusive. I removed the claim and will do so in the future. If anybody is interested in a decent article he/she has to do this as well. I´m wondering about myself that I still argue seriously after reading this ridiculous claim. Nobody in the world nicknames London the "Capital of the world" not even Europe. Don´t be surprised if my next comments are more straightforward. Lear 21 ( talk) 14:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I count user Lear 21 & Johnbod as two editors arguing against (including more than thousand references). And I count user Bsrboy and Signsolid arguing to keep a claim about London refernced by a London source. Note that Wikipedia is based on arguments and proof and not on wishful dreams. If there are not at least Hundred different internationally gathered sources supporting the claim, the claim will be removed tomorrow. Lear 21 ( talk) 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Just encase some of you are not fully aware, this dicsussion is about whether we should mention in the article that a recent study by The Independent showed London as the capital of the world, not just saying "London is the capital of the world". bsrboy ( talk) 18:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add that it was
user:JdeJ who was the one who edited the United Kingdom article using a source from the Financial Times claiming the United Kingdom's GDP had fallen behind France's GDP. If this user is stating that newspaper articles aren't reliable enough sources then they are a hypocrite. Also from this user's contributions list it's not hard to see they are anti-British and pro-French.
Signsolid (
talk)
21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This entire discussion is irrelevent. What makes a city the "capital of the world"? In my sense, it is nothing but an ego trip. Every city thinks it's capital of "something" However, if it is applied to a single city, the city would have had to have earned it. New York is regarded as the capital of art, finance, real estate and has been the powerhouse behind the worlds largest economy. So, I would have to say New York is the "capital of the world".However, there is no such thing as a "source" for this argument, and claiming there is one is ignorant nonesense. Thank you. ( ITOMIC ( talk) 07:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC) )
Yes, this discussion is strange. The Global Cities research project at the University of Loughborough proclaims London the leading Global City. In effect, that surely means the city is indeed the 'capital of the world'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.179.162 ( talk) 22:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
London is not capital of England as suggested in the opening paragraph - it is capital of the UK only. England is not a sovereign state. The same applies to Wales, Scotland etc - they are not sovereign states and should not be referred to as countries ([User:ucallmemadam], 1 Aug 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucallmemadam ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reinstated London as the capital of England as this was the consensus view after a length debate. Does anyone know and easy way to restore the references to the bit in the 'status' section? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
London should only be seen as the capital of the UK - reinstating the original was not the consensus of the debate above. Anyone else wish to to support my view of removing capital of England statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucallmemadam ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think some of the values in the climate chart are incorrect, particluarly the summer average max values. 28 in August!! The previous style of graph (grid like - see Paris page for exmaple) was clearer and had the correct data in it.
The rainfall in the chart is completely unclear as well. 81.157.198.134 ( talk) 07:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I dont think having all these images is encyclopedic. Other cities like New York, Paris, Shanghai all have ONE image in the infobox. Having 10 images is unnecessary Nikkul ( talk) 12:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to remember to not even go to look at this article as it has nearly crashed my computer each time. Hate to think what it does to those with even less speedy systems or who have to pay for downloading time from their own pockets. Article presently is at 134k with a recommended 30-50k for main article text. Please see Wikipedia:Article size for ideas about dealing with article size issues and suggestions. Banje boi 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Possible merge with Birmingham? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.40.174 ( talk) 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I must say I'm impressed. The photographs on this page are amazing!!! Nfitz ( talk) 03:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Seen this picture floating on the Canary Wharf page, is there space for this too, or one too many. Either way amazing.
-- Rockybiggs ( talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I am missing in this article a map that shows where in England (or where in the British Isles) this city is located. Maybe something like the map shown in Greater London. What good is an article on a city, if it doesn't tell you where to find that city? Johan Lont ( talk) 12:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Should this article have a health section included? Signsolid ( talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Just revisiting this page this morning and noticed a Samuel Johnson quote had been added at the head of the article. What do you guys think of this? I admit it adds something, but opening with a quote seems like something more suited for a novel than for an encyclopedia article. Might it also be an NPOV problem, kind of like the "capital of the world" debate? Perhaps it belongs in another section of the article... Lone Skeptic ( talk) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I see the quote has been deleted. I think we should find a home for it somewhere in the article. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be quite obvious that such a quote by definition is POV and unsuitable. A quote is always the opinion of a single person and often contains a POV, and who should decide which quote to use. Why not start the article with a quote by Jane Austen instead, ""Nobody is healthy in London, nobody can be.". Obviously I'm not suggesting such a thing, but it would be no less appropriate than the Johnston quote. If we want to have a section called quotes about London, then that's the place to put such quotes. Personally I think it would be a bad idea, but it would at least be a lesser evil than starting with any quote. JdeJ ( talk) 08:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course a quote is POV! That is why it is stated as a quote. It would be quite wrong to state, 'If you are tired of London ...' as fact but WP policy on NPOV cannot possible be held to apply to quotes just as it does not apply to pictures, any of which is, quite literally, a point of view. On that basis no pictures should be allowed. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see anything in this article mentioning poverty in London at the moment, it seems to be a very positive article, which is good. but whereas articles for most countries mention how many people are under the poverty line this doesn't seem to, and neither does the article for the whole of England. Having lived in London in not great conditions I know that there are a lot of people(and not all illegal immigrants) who don't have enough money to buy healthy food, clothes, and who work very long hours to survive. I think this article is biased without putting in at least a couple of sentences with some figures on this. Average standard of living is much less equitable than most other cities I've lived in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.42.233 ( talk) 23:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I was recently working on the Paris article, and there noticed an un-sourced and rather pompous claim that The Paris urban area is Europe's biggest city economy, and is fifth in the world's list of cities by GDP. The author of this statement insists that we leave the phrase as it is, and provided a "source" that is a study - based on estimates - undertaken by a single organisation that is not at all the source of France's demo-economical data; there is only one, the INSEE. I do not at all condone this practice of trumpeting selective studies as "facts" that are nothing of the same.
Then I come here to the Economy section and find an un-sourced London has the 4th largest city economy in the world after Tokyo, New York City and Los Angeles. Where do you get these numbers? Is your source the same? I hope not.
If your source - if it exists - is as selective as that used for the Paris article, I suggest either finding a world-wide-accepted (and here we're talking government level) comparison between the world's city spreads/GDP's, otherwise we should (humbly) modify both articles (not to mention others) to use more generalist terms to describe a city's rank in the 'world of riches'.
The above sort of selective "greater than thou" game has resulted in years of edit and revert wars between the above two articles - namely the Economy of Paris article - and I would like to put an end to it.
Generalist terms are perfectly acceptable: for the Paris article, based on all the studies I've seen, I think a "estimated to be among the top ten" language would be appropriate, if it was needed at all. What do you think? Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Further verified by this source which is based on figures from The Economist. Hope that helps. The Suave 20:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the London coat of arms that used to be here some time ago?... Also I wonder if London has a flag, and if someone could put them in the article. Energyfreezer ( talk) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It says that Hulk Hogan is the Mayor!?!?!? -- 71.225.111.4 ( talk) 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
An accent section has recently been added to the article. While I can see that this might be valuable, as it stands it's completely unreferenced. Should I remove it? Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 10:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between the date when New York became more populous than London. The History section of the New York article puts it at 1948 while the demographics section of the London article puts it at 1925. Which one is it? I've created a similar section on the New York talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliwalla ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
While the pictures on this article are extremely good, they increase the page size to the extent that it 1) is very slow to load even on a fast connection and 2) crashes the WikiEd gadget (for me at least). I propose trimming down the pictures very slightly -
I'm rubbish at placing the images, so I'm not going to attempt it myself.
I'm not sure how much this would save, but causing gadgets to crash surely isn't desired page behaviour? Brilliantine ( talk) 23:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We all know that the London article is frequently the victim and one of Wiki´s prime examples of teenager enthusiasm. I suggest another sentence for the intro: "London and its inhabitants are known for ongoing exaggeration and superstitions (lies) in all matters of live." I found it to be always funny when England claims itself as a soccer top favorite in several tournaments while constantly losing in the quarterfinals.
There's nothing wrong with stating if something is the leader in its field. If it is it is and if it's got sources then there's no problem with it because the article is here to state facts and if it's a fact then what's wrong with it? All other articles mention when something is the leader in its field so why shouldn't this article be allowed to state the facts? Usergreatpower ( talk) 00:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The source comes from a London authority. As with several lists and rankings originating from the London region, London finds itself (surprisingly) always on NO. 1. This is clever marketing but nothing else. A mother finds its baby always the most important thing in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.21.230 ( talk) 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It makes no difference where the source is from so long as it's reliable, and the London authority is considered reliable, considering it's a part of the British government. Most articles on places are going to have sources which originate from that area for the obvious reason that most things written about that area will come from the area itself. I see nothing wrong with the sources whatsoever. The majority of sources for the Berlin article originate from Berlin, just as most here orginate from London. If facts state London is number 1 at something and it's backed by reliable sources then there's nothing wrong with that. ALL other articles do the same because facts are facts and there's nothing wrong with stating facts from reliable sources. You may not like that London is the leader in whatever field but that doesn't change the fact that it is and edits to remove such content due to dislike of a fact is basically vandalism. Usergreatpower ( talk) 05:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I would not suggest useing city comissioned "studies" to base facts on. As I stated in the discussion below, London did a study on itself and found out that it (with no suprise) was the worlds financal capital. What makes this study void however is the fact it contradicts other independant sources, includeing one from New York. It is NOT reliable information. Thank you. ( ITOMIC ( talk) 07:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC) )
Another yank who cannot accept when the US is 2nd best at something? Oh and its called FOOTBALL, not soccer as you use your FOOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.40.194 ( talk) 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In the "Rise of Modern London" section, I deleted a fragment about how racial integration was smoother in London than elsewhere in England. The sentence had a reference at the end but the online source only supported what was being said in the first half of the sentence (which was actually about race riots in London). In fact, London had worse race relations than everywhere else throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and the far-right gained all their successes in Greater London until fairly recently. Even today, Barking & Dagenham is the BNP capital of the country. It is an urban myth in England that London is so much more civilised than everywhere else, which is probably what prompted this part of the article. Epa101 ( talk) 09:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! This is from the previous FAC about unreliable sources...
I will check these and remove these as I go along! -- The Helpful One (Review) 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I recent IP editor has removed the wording relating to London as the capital of England. This wording was added by consensus after a very long series of discussions ending in http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:London/Archive_8§ion=14
It was generally accepted that there is no definitive answer as to whether London is the capital of England or not. It depends on the meaning of the word 'capital', which is defined differently in different places, and on which other authorities you accept. The previous wording reflected this fact and was very well referenced, including two dictionary definitions and parliamentary sources.
My attempts to restore this balanced and well-referenced consensus view have been thwarted continual reversions by an anonymous editor who refuses to enter into any discussion on the subject. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 08:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Think the population for Greater London may need updating a little, BBC posted an article about a month ago saying that the population of greater London was 7.56 million http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7639338.stm Dav matt ( talk) 22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Does the section mentioning the importance and size of the financial industry in London need an update? Considering the recent turmoils in the finance and banking sectors? Not to mention the stock market.
I would like to eventually support this article but I have some suggestions that I would like to post here not on the FAC page so it doesnt clutter it up or harm its chances of passing.
OK, I understand better than anyone how a reviewers comments sometimes do not make the article better ;) I think this is a great article and my comments were really nitpicky stuff so I am going to support. Great job! NancyHeise talk 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The recent FAC nomination of this article has been withdrawn by the nominator. Please leave the {{ fac}} template at the top of this page to enable proper archiving of the recent FAC, which should happen within several days. Thank you. Maralia ( talk) 13:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi I checked your page for information related about LONDON and i advice to place a link Star Shipping International International Shippers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunwest seo ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking through the current lead section, it currently ties itself up in knots regarding what London actually is - just because London itself does not hold City Status. Instead, it uses the phrases "conurbation" and "urban area" - but both of these are wrong too! The Greater London Urban Area is NOT the same as London - it includes towns like Watford and Woking which are outside London.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to use "city" with a small "c", meaning a large settlement (whilst noting that it doesn't hold City Status) - similarly to Leeds, and then state that it's the same thing as the GLA area and the Region of England? Fingerpuppet ( talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone put Baby P in the article. This isn't a caring town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.66.104 ( talk) 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
No comment until now, even more evidence of a town that doesn't care about its people.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.66.104 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It's very sad about Baby P, but that does not have anything to do with London article. There's an article for him here on wikipedia. -- 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 21:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between the facts of the metro system and how it compares to other world systems. To say it is the largest, longest, biggest, or any other such superlative is technically false. For example, the New York subway has 468 stations (200 more than London), over 1100km of track (more than double London's) and roughly 1.5 million more daily boardings (4.5 million to 3 million). Moreover, New York claims over 20 lines compared to London's 11. While New York's metro system includes double tracking in multiple locations (for "express" trains)and some overlapping lines, to say London's is the largest system is misleading at best and completely false at worst. I recommend this be updated to 'one of the largest, most extensive, systems in the world,' not 'the largest.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aibur ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see what is gained by adding 'country' and 'Sovereign Nation' to the opening sentence, and suggest that they are removed. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I originally was just trying to correct usage of the {{ convert}} template for population density, but in trying to verify the data, I ran across a few issues, related to population, area and density:
So, is there ay better wording and referencing that could be brought to bear? And is there any distinction between London and Greater London, at least as far as the area, pop, and pop density figures apply? I'm not familiar with the topic(s), else I would try my own fixes. Thanks for the help! Franamax ( talk) 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Ich muss in Englisch einen Aufsatz über 2 Sehenswürdigkeiten in London schreiben. Bitte helft mir!!! Bitte in meine deutsche Diskussionsseite schreiben.-- K.A.R.R. ( talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about this article. It's currently a GA, but even from a cursory glance at the lead I'm confident that this article would fail a GA-review. We have several outstanding "citation needed" tags, as well as dead links and uncited claims. London is a Top priority for several wikiprojects, and is one of the most important cities in human history. Perhaps users who frequent this page could apply some collective TLC? -- Jza84 | Talk 15:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It should be a link on the climate for London snowstorm. -- 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Smog does not have something to do with climate, climate usually means average temperature and precipitation for past 30 years. You could put smog on Geography or any other. If you want to include it, fine. But stop changing anything else! The temp + precip. is 100% true! -- 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If facts about smog is going to be on the climate fact, then about the snowstorm should also be included. It can't be like you want! The snowstorm is very important in our history, even if it's for a week. It should at least be a link about it, not a whole fact. -- 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 01:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Both about the snow and smog is on the climate fact now... stop changing please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 15:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The only thing that made the "snowstorm", as this user inexplicably refers to it, important was the fact that the media went on about it at inordinate length - in a way that they never did with *more significant* snow events more than a couple of decades ago. Mentioning it in the article as some kind of significant event is ludicrous. Suggesting that it is of equal historical importance to the smog of 1952 is even more ludicrous. Bear in mind that the 2009 snow was the most snow London had had for only eighteen years; if you're going to mention it as significant, you'll have to mention the 1991 snow too, since there was more of that. And so on all the way back. 90.201.20.16 ( talk) 13:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing a link to the website British Destinations. As webmaster of the site, I believe that its destination articles and itineraries provide an invaluable source of information to users of Wikipedia who may be considering a trip to London and Great Britain. The aforementioned link has already been deleted several times, been called spam and such forth, but it is no such thing and instead is a wealth of information or possible British tourists. Therefore could it be permanantly placed in this and perhaps other articles to which it is related? (the url is http://www.britishdestinations.wikispaces.com) 203.171.199.62 ( talk) 09:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Any idea what is wrong with the last part of this section? I commented out the incomplete sentence at the end. I checked back as far as "Revision as of 09:58, January 31, 2009" and it is the same. Quebec99 ( talk) 04:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the paragraph about science and research and development in London. Could anybody please add that the cited reference (No. 123) at the end of the paragraph was retrieved on february 21, 2009 ? I am quite busy with work these days and have not enough time to learn how to add that piece of information and do it properly. Many thanks in advance. Roibeird ( talk) 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
"It is also ranked 4th in the world in number of billionaires (United States Dollars) residing in the city.[91] London ranks as one of the most expensive cities in the world, alongside Tokyo and Moscow.[92]"
The audio clip containing the pronounciation of "London" does not work. Is it me, or should this be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.137.234 ( talk) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed resently that there is no disanbiguous london at the top of this page. There are many different "London"'s on wikipedia, but the search of "London" only comes up with this. Anyone want to make it? Cainine ( talk) 01:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
London is in England. Why is the Welsh version of London on the page? There isnt the Scots version, or the Irish version (spoken in N.Ireland, part of the UK, still...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.166.68 ( talk) 22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Bill Bertram won't object to me removing his panorama from the parks and gardens section. It was too similar to his superior excelllent panorama in the cityscape section.-- Tom dl ( talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The text in this section is illiterate and meaningless. I'm fairly sure that London has more than 570 buildings. I'm equally sure that it has far fewer than 570 buildings that could reasonably be considered skyscrapers; in fact, looking out of my window, I can't count more than about ten at the absolute most, mostly in Canary Wharf. Skyscrapers are conspicuous in London by their almost complete absence; if there's going to be any text in this section, wouldn't it make more sense to say something about the buildings that actually characterise the landscape here? 90.201.20.16 ( talk) 12:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to discuss which city is truely the largest center for fiance. The london wikipedia page claims it to be london and I adamently state that is incorrect. And I state my reasons below.
--The orginal report that stirred up claims that New York would lose it position as the worlds largest financial center said that would happen in "10 years" in regulations weren't changed. It obviously has not been 10 years.
--Most stories printed about the subject have stated New York is "probably" still the financial capital.
--London printed a report that claimed that it was the financial leader. However New York City printed its own report that completely contradicted it. Therefore neither can be used as a reference source, as it previously was for London's case.
-- http://www.citywire.co.uk/Selector/-/news/newspaper-summaries/content.aspx?ID=312719 is one of the only independant sources I could find on the subject. And it claims New York is the leader. Due to this, I have printed Cinco Dias as the refernced and downgraded Londons stance from frist to second on the article.
I have been following this debate closely, and while there is no clear winner, there is a lot more evidence to back up New York then London.
Any thoughts? ( ITOMIC ( talk) 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the reply. However, people keep reverting it to say "London is the largest". And no, I feel it would not be right to leave it out. for the longest time, New York, not london, was the clearcut financial leader. It is London that is trying to steal the crown away from New York, not the other way around, so if there is not enough sources to back London up, it should REMAIN the second largest financial center. Also, I do not feel the amount of circulation a source has is relevant, as it was important enough for CityWire to publish a story on it claiming it as fact. It is still a good independant source backing up New York, and that is what is important.
It also seems people are linking to "articles" simply echoeing the study done by London, which claims it to be the world financal capital. These are not real sources, as they do not explain WHY it's the world's largest financial center, they only echo a study wich you just agreed whould not be considered realible. Until someone can find an study independant from London claiming it to be the world's financal capital, it should remain second. I deleted these "sources" and took out any mention of being the "world financal center". IT should not be mentioned if there is no reliable sources.
Thanks! ( ITOMIC ( talk) 19:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC))
Yes. It all depends on how you measure it.. Cause there are hundreds of conflicting reports. Some for New York, Some for London. I just think since it's London chaseing New York, New York should be the one to retain the title until proven otherwise.
But that works just fine. I already deleted the picture that REPEATEDLY claimed it was the largest.. And speaking of the economist, I found they said THIS as well.
They also made a spiffy graph: http://media.economist.com/images/20070915/CSR892.gif
Clearly, it shows New York is still in the lead. And if you consider this a reliable source. I will use it in support of New York. -- However, if you still feel it is not enough, tell me, and I'll happily accept a neautral approach, makeing a statment similar to what was said above. ( ITOMIC ( talk) 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC))
I have reinserted the City of London picture to the economy section, which should not have been removed in the first place. Besides, London is the world's largest financial centre, liked or not, and I have given the reference stating that in the article.
Aogouguo (
talk)
23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Given the differences of opinion, this was an unusually polite debate by ITOMIC and Franamax. Many thanks for being so careful! Pointillist ( talk) 21:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
== MASTERCARD SURVEY shows London to be the no 1 global center of commerce 2009. Mastercard is American. ==
http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/insights/studies/2008/wcoc/index.html PN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.178.89 ( talk) 02:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a huge bit of white space in the lead of this article. I suspect it's something to do with the collapsable list in the infobox, but it's definitely there (I'm using IE8, Windows Vista). Anybody else see it? -- Jza84 | Talk 13:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
London-плохой! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.178.119.164 ( talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if London exists. There's greater London and the city of London but what is London? Should this page actually be a disambuguation (that crazy, Wikipedia made-up word) page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have removed an uncited statement attributing 'some' possible derivations of the name London to Anglo-Saxon language. I know from my schoolboy Latin that Roman occupiers used the name Londinium—at least 400 years before the existence of any language that could be termed Anglo-Saxon. (I believe the first recorded use was by Tacitus (lib xiv, ch xxxiii) in the year 61 C.E., though it may well have been founded a century earlier.) We can readily assume the Romans adapted a Celtic (British) antecedent but there is absolutely no way the name could have been coined by Angles, Saxons or Jutes. Cheers Bjenks ( talk) 09:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The list of artists mentioned in the music section is growing out of hand again. Would people support a trim and, if so, which artists should be kept/removed? Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
None of the other 'global cities' mentioned in the introduction of this article (New York, Paris, Tokyo) cite the other three in addition to presenting a link to the article on global cities, so why should London? In the interests of consistency, and also to avoid focusing too much on three other cities in the opening paragraphs of an article on an entirely different one, I've removed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.88.125.129 ( talk) 08:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to notice that Buckingham Palace isn't mentioned in the article. Is there any particular reason for this? It could probably fit into the architecture section or could do with a mention in the history section. Nev1 ( talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Having just reverted out a change in the figures in the infobox as not in accordance with the reference, looking at the figures reverted to some of those do not appear to stack-up with the reference either. The reference appears to have changed this year so cannot be 2001 census data. Also the figures quoted in the infobox appear to be different to that in the text which is supported by a different reference. Can someone look over the figures in the infobox and the section on ethnic groups and reconcile the situation. Keith D ( talk) 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do the architecture and parks and gardens sections come under the economy header? Surely they would be better placed under society and culture. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that this must have been discussed before but I can find no record on this talk page of it. London (apart from the City) may not be a city according to our strange British customs but in ordinary language it is called a city here and throughout the world. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the article has a section called " Emergency Services In London", consisting solely of links to other articles. Is it appropriate to have this section? The emergency services would perhaps be better mentioned in the governance section. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is in general very good. However, I can't find anything about Tourism, besides a few lines in the Economy section. Of course Wikipedia must not become a Lonely Planet, but a section with information about the main sights (London Eye, Tower of London & Tower Bridge, Big Ben/Houses of Parliament, etc.) and other activities, like shopping, visiting theatres and bus and boat tours. I think this could best be done in only one or two paragraphs. I'm not a native English speaker and I'm not an inhabitant of London er even the UK, so I don't think I'm the one who should make up such a section, but I think it would be a good (and needed) addition to the current article. Greetings, 77.167.224.101 ( talk) 19:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Due to recent high levels of vandalism to the article, I have semi-protected it for one month, meaning that unregistered editors and new accounts cannot change it. Nev1 ( talk) 21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)