![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
In my opinion, this article is already close to an FA level.
You may want to take some time improving the quality and selection of the pictures in this article. I would recommend using a fuctional picture in the "Districts" section, in place of the current one. The London at night picture is intersting, but I question the encyclopedic value of it, especially when there is another ariel picture right above it. Why not use a picture to comment on the various parts of London?
Also, the pictures in the history section need some attention. The St. Paul's Cathedral picture is not set beside text that talk about the Cathedral, nor is the Queen Victoria picture. Someone not familiar with London would question what the significance of Queen Victoria is to London. I would recommend changing some of the descriptive text, or replacing the pictures altogther.-- P-Chan 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The infobox is filled with useless facts and is inaccessible for authors in the edit-mode! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.79.67 ( talk • contribs) 2006-06-15 00:30:24
Well, I'd have to agree it's useless and a waste of space. I mean there are bits about the City of London and Greater London ect. which are poitnless, because the "city of london" and "greater london" both have there own articles, and if anyone wants to find out the population or whatever of those two districts then they can simply go onto the page about them not add them onto London's! Jackp 12:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
There is really no need for a whole section of “leisure” in London, the articles within the leisure section should be merged into “Society and Culture”. Jackp 12:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Err yes there is, it is showing that London has tourism. Although with your merger seggestion, maybe it could become a sub-section. Simply south 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh... i have to reply after the merger has happened...!! Simply south 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll ask first from now on! Oh, and Simply south, if people want to know about the tourism in London, then they can simply visit " Tourism in London". Jackp 10:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we just create "Parks in London"? Simply south 11:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I see the article was extended. Well, there is no need for that! The article was fine as it was, and since when did Sport not belong in the "Society and Culture" section? Jackp 11:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Question: if I am writing about a figure and I want to say that he was born in London, for example, would it be more proper to write it as "London, England" or "London, United Kingdom"? Vintner 05:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously we would like London to reach featured article status. I think to make progress towards this goal, we need to identify the key deficiencies of the article in order to remedy them. The advice page at User:AndyZ/Suggestions provides a useful summary of the requirements.
One of my main concerns is the use of weasel words and peacock terms, and I've been trying to strip some of these out of the article. However, I think the lead section falls down hard on the following paragraph:
We have no source for London's "international leadership" on anything other than finance, and "widely regarded" is a terribly weaselly term. I propose the following rewording of this important paragraph:
This is only a starting point, so I welcome any comments on how to deal with it. I'd also encourage people to point out other flaws in the article which would derail it on the way to FA status, so that we can deal with them. -- Dave A 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably before this goes on you should look at WP:WIAFA. Simply south 17:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The current edit war over which section goes where... Simply south 13:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems patently obvious to be that the basic format on infobox_city is pretty crappy, especially when taken relative to other such as infobox_country. On that basis, I took it upon myself to take the best parts of all the different infoboxes I could find, inversely combine it with all the things I don't like about the current one, and after a day's work I've ended up with this. I personally think it is a vast improvement, but before changing the {{ infobox London}} template I figured it would be prudent to get some feedback. I think that the information in my infobox provides more clarity and contextual relevance, and the links are also a lot better. Most importantly, however, are the aesthetics. The current one really isn't great in that department. Anyway, feedback would be appreciated. DJR ( talk) 17:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really bothered about the content - that can be edited by anyone. It's more about the general style. I really think the current one, and infobox_city in general, is very poor in terms of aesthetics, and this is a marked improvement. Feel free to add/remove content where you think it's appropriate ( User:Djr_xi/London infobox) - for example I shall add a "Media" section - but my concern is the look, not the content. DJR ( talk) 10:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose leaving the current infobox as it is. MRSC 10:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Rebuttle about new infobox
Issues with current infobox Rather saying this infobox is better, I am going to state what is wrong with the current one:
I appreciate that when viewing in lower resolution, the current infobox does not look quite as crap as I thought, but when viewed in high-res with large text, it is a nightmare. DJR ( talk) 10:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the template in response to some of your criticisms and re-formatted certain sections. DJR ( talk) 11:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Done, and I've also fine-tuned the margins and padding in a couple of areas. Media can be removed / services added based on what happens below. DJR ( talk) 14:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The two image captions are consistent with each other - I'm not sure on what basis you are saying otherwise. As for geographic increases with scale, this is in exactly the same order as the current infobox - it is the most sensible format. I don't see any need for increases by scale. And I still don't know what you mean by "wrap". "Current incumbent" does seem to be saying the same thing twice though, so I've changed that. DJR ( talk) 17:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Done and done. Not sure what happened with the captions - they were the same earlier... I must have messed something up in the middle. Took a while to figure out that "wrap" business too - should all be sorted out now though. I reckon it looks pretty good. DJR ( talk) 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Whichever BBC opt-out or ITV station is available in London really is not 'essential' infobox information and therefore does not warrant an entry in the infobox. Likewise for services. Does any other city infobox include this level of information? I think not. That is why I propose to lose this information from the London infobox. Best regards, WikiWitch 12:35, 21st June, 2006 (BST)
Based on the views expressed above, I think we are in a position where a change in infobox style has been suitably agreed. It appears that there is some degree of consensus that media/services links should not be in the infobox. Upon confirmation of consensus regarding these details, I will update {{
Infobox London}}.
DJR (
talk)
21:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think this section should be removed from the infobox as this article is talking about London as a whole and by including the Corporation of London and Lord Mayor we are implying their significance to all of London is greater than it really is. The information is repeated in the relevant articles. MRSC 11:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed University of London and University College London links from the “see also” section, since they are already mentioned in the education section on the London page. Jackp 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you edit the references section. Its no more than a link farm as it stands. Links 101 facts about London. What place does that have in an encyclopedia? stupidcupid 26 june 2006
"the whole point in changing it was to not use the infobox class - it looks crap and the format screws up on high-res monitors." The thousands of infoboxes that do use the infobox class would tend to disagree with you. If you have a technical issue with it, take it up on the monobook.css talk page. Hacking in loads of inline CSS is Not Good. ed g2s • talk 11:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read up on the advantages of using CSS to separate style from content, especially in a frequently re-used resource such as Wikipedia. The infobox class serves a very important purpose. ed g2s • talk 12:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on {{ infobox country}} and many other geography-related infoboxes, font sizes should be shrunk. On top of simple standardisation, it reduces the clutter of the box and stops wrapping. Furthermore, no user as any right to decide that "this version is better", especially when the said version has been re-instated in the face of previous consensus. To say "do not change font size" in such explicit terms suggests either there has been some consensus to this degree (this talk page seems, in fact, to suggest the opposite), or that a user has more rights than another to determine what is right. Wikis are free to edit... as was so wonderfully displayed during the period when the new infobox was implemented. DJR ( T) ( WC) 09:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need this section to be included in the page? Since there is already Tall buildings in London, there is no need for another section in the article. And most of London's architecture isn't truly rare (well, some of it). And the buildings mentioned all have there own article. An architecture section does not belong in any city article. Jackp 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant idea, it works! Jackp 05:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is vital that there is an architecture section for London simply because London is one of the few places were you can see the new and the old living side by side. For example the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace, Nelson's Column, 10 Downing Street, Hampton Court Palace, Westminster Cathedral, Tower Bridge, St Paul's Cathedral... and then there is the new the Gherkin, the Millenium Dome, Chanary Wharf Tower, Tower 42 (the Natwest Tower)... and more will be built for example the Shard of Glass (London Bridge Tower) but that is not all, London's skyline is set to change drastically over the next decade or two and soon it will have as many tall and modern buildings as Shanghai and New York, maybe even more. So yes keep the architecture section for London is one of the finest places in the world to witness breathtaking buildings and monuments, and it's set to get a lot better. 87.112.70.125 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
After looking at the article I have come to the conclusion that an architecture section is vital and should be part of the main article. Who agrees? 87.112.70.125 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"London has the largest student population of any British city (about 378,000).[23] " Isn't this kind of obvious, given that it's overwhelmingly the largest city in Britain, one assumes it has the most of most things. "the largest number of rodents", "the largest number of angry old men", "the largest number of social misfits" and so on. Shouldn't we have a list of "largest number of xxxx things" and have done with it? MarkThomas 10:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there are too many sub-sections under "culture and society". Someone should really consider trying to break them into paragraphs, and put them under the sub-section of "arts and entertainment" under society and culture. Jackp 08:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Defining London be apart of Geography? Since it's about that, due to the fact that it talks about London's area ect. Jackp 08:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Where exactly are the borders of North London, South London, East London and West London? I am trying to design a template on each of these or do you think it is not worth it? Simply south 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between these two? Why wouldn't areas close to the city centre be classed as a suburb? Simply south 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add any vague statements about what temperatures are often reached. It is not necessary to include statements about the obvious fact that the temperature is often above the average maximum temperature for the month - that is the nature of an average. Relevant information that could be added (with references) is things like the average number of days over 30 per year, the highest ever recorded temperature, etc. JPD ( talk) 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
In the article you get the impression that the income numbers are for individuals, but the source says that the numbers are for households. Could someone perhaps re-formulate the section? Poktirity 13:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I’ve shortened the “Culture section”, it was getting lengthy and most of it is something that could have been found in a travel brochure. The people who are going to read this can be put together easily (unless they have no blains whatsoever). It looks better with two or three sections, another way it looks tacky. 202.6.138.33 12:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
"CIty within a CIty". This is wrong. It wold be more accurate to say giving it distinctive status as the only completely autonomous borough in London. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.250.155 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 August 2006.
links to Transport in London, Parks in London and many others are included in some of the sections on the page, there for they don't need to be included under "see also". I've also removed the glossy info from the heading on the page, and did a bit of a clean up under built environment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.35 ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It looked like glossy garbage trying to promote the city, and it does add value to the article, it’s just making it smaller and leaving out of the tourist brochure crap, which this article is full of. And what is the significance of the parks and gardens section? It’s not big enough to have its own section, it should be added under leisure and culture, geography or built environment now that would suffice. And when regarding to the city as a whole, it’s a rather small part of it. I’m going to easily work it into the text. And the beginning is rv fluff, and doesn’t belong in this article, and it doesn’t even have a source to back it up. And the pictures have been removed because this article has a tedious array of photos, and it’s making it look like a photo gallery. Also, please state your reasons on why you continue to add the links to separate articles, when they’re already included on the page in certain sections and sub-subsections.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.35 ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Just curious. London has a population of around 7 million. However, does this only cover the city centre, or where is it meant to cover? I am now finding also the Greater London area may have 25 million people, depending on the source. Simply south 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's discuss this here rather than continuing to edit war the article itself.
I ran the Google search that was used as a citation for this name of the Viking colony: [4]. This does return 510 hits, but most are not in English. Restricting the search to just English results [5] reduces the number returned to just 21. Of these only 7 are actually in English. One of these is this Wikipedia article. The remaining ones don't provide (as far as I can see) a reliable source that the name of the Viking colony was Lundunaborg. I believe we need a better source before we add this to the article. Other thoughts? Gwernol 16:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem refering to Heimskringla is that you're refering to an historical document, written in Old Norse, with modern translations. Even so, looking at Harald Harfager's Saga I see London refered to as Lundúnum in both the Modern Iclandic and Old Norse versions:
Thanks/ wangi 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the article was recently changed to say "2nd most populous city in the European Union (Paris is the most populous urban area) [1]". However, upon looking at the citation for that apparent fact I noticed that the citation is actually just a mirror of Wikipedia's article on Paris. Should this even be citated? The mirror of the Paris article doesn't even cite sources itself. Thanks for anyone who can shed some light on this. Falc 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the rankings altogether. London, Moscow, and Paris can outrank each other, depending on criteria used. London is the most populated municipality in the European Union, but not in Europe (Moscow is the most populated municipality in Europe). In terms of urban area, the London urban area is the second most populated in the European Union (behind Paris), and the third most populated in Europe (behind Moscow and Paris). Then in terms of metropolitan area, the London metropolitan area is the most populated in the European Union, but only the second most populated in Europe (behind Moscow). And then, if we consider that Istanbul is part of Europe (which is a tricky subject given that half of Istanbul is on the Asian side of the Bosphorus), it screws the rankings even more. So I replaced everything with a more vague "one of the largest and most populated cities of Europe". If people want to discuss London's rank vis a vis Moscow, Paris, or Istanbul, they can do so in the demographics section. It would take too much space in the introduction. Hardouin 01:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion continues in Talk:London...
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
In my opinion, this article is already close to an FA level.
You may want to take some time improving the quality and selection of the pictures in this article. I would recommend using a fuctional picture in the "Districts" section, in place of the current one. The London at night picture is intersting, but I question the encyclopedic value of it, especially when there is another ariel picture right above it. Why not use a picture to comment on the various parts of London?
Also, the pictures in the history section need some attention. The St. Paul's Cathedral picture is not set beside text that talk about the Cathedral, nor is the Queen Victoria picture. Someone not familiar with London would question what the significance of Queen Victoria is to London. I would recommend changing some of the descriptive text, or replacing the pictures altogther.-- P-Chan 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The infobox is filled with useless facts and is inaccessible for authors in the edit-mode! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.79.67 ( talk • contribs) 2006-06-15 00:30:24
Well, I'd have to agree it's useless and a waste of space. I mean there are bits about the City of London and Greater London ect. which are poitnless, because the "city of london" and "greater london" both have there own articles, and if anyone wants to find out the population or whatever of those two districts then they can simply go onto the page about them not add them onto London's! Jackp 12:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
There is really no need for a whole section of “leisure” in London, the articles within the leisure section should be merged into “Society and Culture”. Jackp 12:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Err yes there is, it is showing that London has tourism. Although with your merger seggestion, maybe it could become a sub-section. Simply south 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh... i have to reply after the merger has happened...!! Simply south 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll ask first from now on! Oh, and Simply south, if people want to know about the tourism in London, then they can simply visit " Tourism in London". Jackp 10:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we just create "Parks in London"? Simply south 11:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I see the article was extended. Well, there is no need for that! The article was fine as it was, and since when did Sport not belong in the "Society and Culture" section? Jackp 11:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Question: if I am writing about a figure and I want to say that he was born in London, for example, would it be more proper to write it as "London, England" or "London, United Kingdom"? Vintner 05:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously we would like London to reach featured article status. I think to make progress towards this goal, we need to identify the key deficiencies of the article in order to remedy them. The advice page at User:AndyZ/Suggestions provides a useful summary of the requirements.
One of my main concerns is the use of weasel words and peacock terms, and I've been trying to strip some of these out of the article. However, I think the lead section falls down hard on the following paragraph:
We have no source for London's "international leadership" on anything other than finance, and "widely regarded" is a terribly weaselly term. I propose the following rewording of this important paragraph:
This is only a starting point, so I welcome any comments on how to deal with it. I'd also encourage people to point out other flaws in the article which would derail it on the way to FA status, so that we can deal with them. -- Dave A 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably before this goes on you should look at WP:WIAFA. Simply south 17:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The current edit war over which section goes where... Simply south 13:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems patently obvious to be that the basic format on infobox_city is pretty crappy, especially when taken relative to other such as infobox_country. On that basis, I took it upon myself to take the best parts of all the different infoboxes I could find, inversely combine it with all the things I don't like about the current one, and after a day's work I've ended up with this. I personally think it is a vast improvement, but before changing the {{ infobox London}} template I figured it would be prudent to get some feedback. I think that the information in my infobox provides more clarity and contextual relevance, and the links are also a lot better. Most importantly, however, are the aesthetics. The current one really isn't great in that department. Anyway, feedback would be appreciated. DJR ( talk) 17:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really bothered about the content - that can be edited by anyone. It's more about the general style. I really think the current one, and infobox_city in general, is very poor in terms of aesthetics, and this is a marked improvement. Feel free to add/remove content where you think it's appropriate ( User:Djr_xi/London infobox) - for example I shall add a "Media" section - but my concern is the look, not the content. DJR ( talk) 10:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose leaving the current infobox as it is. MRSC 10:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Rebuttle about new infobox
Issues with current infobox Rather saying this infobox is better, I am going to state what is wrong with the current one:
I appreciate that when viewing in lower resolution, the current infobox does not look quite as crap as I thought, but when viewed in high-res with large text, it is a nightmare. DJR ( talk) 10:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the template in response to some of your criticisms and re-formatted certain sections. DJR ( talk) 11:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Done, and I've also fine-tuned the margins and padding in a couple of areas. Media can be removed / services added based on what happens below. DJR ( talk) 14:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The two image captions are consistent with each other - I'm not sure on what basis you are saying otherwise. As for geographic increases with scale, this is in exactly the same order as the current infobox - it is the most sensible format. I don't see any need for increases by scale. And I still don't know what you mean by "wrap". "Current incumbent" does seem to be saying the same thing twice though, so I've changed that. DJR ( talk) 17:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Done and done. Not sure what happened with the captions - they were the same earlier... I must have messed something up in the middle. Took a while to figure out that "wrap" business too - should all be sorted out now though. I reckon it looks pretty good. DJR ( talk) 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Whichever BBC opt-out or ITV station is available in London really is not 'essential' infobox information and therefore does not warrant an entry in the infobox. Likewise for services. Does any other city infobox include this level of information? I think not. That is why I propose to lose this information from the London infobox. Best regards, WikiWitch 12:35, 21st June, 2006 (BST)
Based on the views expressed above, I think we are in a position where a change in infobox style has been suitably agreed. It appears that there is some degree of consensus that media/services links should not be in the infobox. Upon confirmation of consensus regarding these details, I will update {{
Infobox London}}.
DJR (
talk)
21:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think this section should be removed from the infobox as this article is talking about London as a whole and by including the Corporation of London and Lord Mayor we are implying their significance to all of London is greater than it really is. The information is repeated in the relevant articles. MRSC 11:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed University of London and University College London links from the “see also” section, since they are already mentioned in the education section on the London page. Jackp 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you edit the references section. Its no more than a link farm as it stands. Links 101 facts about London. What place does that have in an encyclopedia? stupidcupid 26 june 2006
"the whole point in changing it was to not use the infobox class - it looks crap and the format screws up on high-res monitors." The thousands of infoboxes that do use the infobox class would tend to disagree with you. If you have a technical issue with it, take it up on the monobook.css talk page. Hacking in loads of inline CSS is Not Good. ed g2s • talk 11:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read up on the advantages of using CSS to separate style from content, especially in a frequently re-used resource such as Wikipedia. The infobox class serves a very important purpose. ed g2s • talk 12:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on {{ infobox country}} and many other geography-related infoboxes, font sizes should be shrunk. On top of simple standardisation, it reduces the clutter of the box and stops wrapping. Furthermore, no user as any right to decide that "this version is better", especially when the said version has been re-instated in the face of previous consensus. To say "do not change font size" in such explicit terms suggests either there has been some consensus to this degree (this talk page seems, in fact, to suggest the opposite), or that a user has more rights than another to determine what is right. Wikis are free to edit... as was so wonderfully displayed during the period when the new infobox was implemented. DJR ( T) ( WC) 09:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need this section to be included in the page? Since there is already Tall buildings in London, there is no need for another section in the article. And most of London's architecture isn't truly rare (well, some of it). And the buildings mentioned all have there own article. An architecture section does not belong in any city article. Jackp 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant idea, it works! Jackp 05:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is vital that there is an architecture section for London simply because London is one of the few places were you can see the new and the old living side by side. For example the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace, Nelson's Column, 10 Downing Street, Hampton Court Palace, Westminster Cathedral, Tower Bridge, St Paul's Cathedral... and then there is the new the Gherkin, the Millenium Dome, Chanary Wharf Tower, Tower 42 (the Natwest Tower)... and more will be built for example the Shard of Glass (London Bridge Tower) but that is not all, London's skyline is set to change drastically over the next decade or two and soon it will have as many tall and modern buildings as Shanghai and New York, maybe even more. So yes keep the architecture section for London is one of the finest places in the world to witness breathtaking buildings and monuments, and it's set to get a lot better. 87.112.70.125 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
After looking at the article I have come to the conclusion that an architecture section is vital and should be part of the main article. Who agrees? 87.112.70.125 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"London has the largest student population of any British city (about 378,000).[23] " Isn't this kind of obvious, given that it's overwhelmingly the largest city in Britain, one assumes it has the most of most things. "the largest number of rodents", "the largest number of angry old men", "the largest number of social misfits" and so on. Shouldn't we have a list of "largest number of xxxx things" and have done with it? MarkThomas 10:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there are too many sub-sections under "culture and society". Someone should really consider trying to break them into paragraphs, and put them under the sub-section of "arts and entertainment" under society and culture. Jackp 08:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Defining London be apart of Geography? Since it's about that, due to the fact that it talks about London's area ect. Jackp 08:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Where exactly are the borders of North London, South London, East London and West London? I am trying to design a template on each of these or do you think it is not worth it? Simply south 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between these two? Why wouldn't areas close to the city centre be classed as a suburb? Simply south 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add any vague statements about what temperatures are often reached. It is not necessary to include statements about the obvious fact that the temperature is often above the average maximum temperature for the month - that is the nature of an average. Relevant information that could be added (with references) is things like the average number of days over 30 per year, the highest ever recorded temperature, etc. JPD ( talk) 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
In the article you get the impression that the income numbers are for individuals, but the source says that the numbers are for households. Could someone perhaps re-formulate the section? Poktirity 13:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I’ve shortened the “Culture section”, it was getting lengthy and most of it is something that could have been found in a travel brochure. The people who are going to read this can be put together easily (unless they have no blains whatsoever). It looks better with two or three sections, another way it looks tacky. 202.6.138.33 12:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
"CIty within a CIty". This is wrong. It wold be more accurate to say giving it distinctive status as the only completely autonomous borough in London. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.250.155 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 August 2006.
links to Transport in London, Parks in London and many others are included in some of the sections on the page, there for they don't need to be included under "see also". I've also removed the glossy info from the heading on the page, and did a bit of a clean up under built environment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.35 ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It looked like glossy garbage trying to promote the city, and it does add value to the article, it’s just making it smaller and leaving out of the tourist brochure crap, which this article is full of. And what is the significance of the parks and gardens section? It’s not big enough to have its own section, it should be added under leisure and culture, geography or built environment now that would suffice. And when regarding to the city as a whole, it’s a rather small part of it. I’m going to easily work it into the text. And the beginning is rv fluff, and doesn’t belong in this article, and it doesn’t even have a source to back it up. And the pictures have been removed because this article has a tedious array of photos, and it’s making it look like a photo gallery. Also, please state your reasons on why you continue to add the links to separate articles, when they’re already included on the page in certain sections and sub-subsections.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.35 ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Just curious. London has a population of around 7 million. However, does this only cover the city centre, or where is it meant to cover? I am now finding also the Greater London area may have 25 million people, depending on the source. Simply south 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's discuss this here rather than continuing to edit war the article itself.
I ran the Google search that was used as a citation for this name of the Viking colony: [4]. This does return 510 hits, but most are not in English. Restricting the search to just English results [5] reduces the number returned to just 21. Of these only 7 are actually in English. One of these is this Wikipedia article. The remaining ones don't provide (as far as I can see) a reliable source that the name of the Viking colony was Lundunaborg. I believe we need a better source before we add this to the article. Other thoughts? Gwernol 16:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem refering to Heimskringla is that you're refering to an historical document, written in Old Norse, with modern translations. Even so, looking at Harald Harfager's Saga I see London refered to as Lundúnum in both the Modern Iclandic and Old Norse versions:
Thanks/ wangi 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the article was recently changed to say "2nd most populous city in the European Union (Paris is the most populous urban area) [1]". However, upon looking at the citation for that apparent fact I noticed that the citation is actually just a mirror of Wikipedia's article on Paris. Should this even be citated? The mirror of the Paris article doesn't even cite sources itself. Thanks for anyone who can shed some light on this. Falc 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the rankings altogether. London, Moscow, and Paris can outrank each other, depending on criteria used. London is the most populated municipality in the European Union, but not in Europe (Moscow is the most populated municipality in Europe). In terms of urban area, the London urban area is the second most populated in the European Union (behind Paris), and the third most populated in Europe (behind Moscow and Paris). Then in terms of metropolitan area, the London metropolitan area is the most populated in the European Union, but only the second most populated in Europe (behind Moscow). And then, if we consider that Istanbul is part of Europe (which is a tricky subject given that half of Istanbul is on the Asian side of the Bosphorus), it screws the rankings even more. So I replaced everything with a more vague "one of the largest and most populated cities of Europe". If people want to discuss London's rank vis a vis Moscow, Paris, or Istanbul, they can do so in the demographics section. It would take too much space in the introduction. Hardouin 01:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion continues in Talk:London...