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 |
Greetings all. I have been actively looking to improve the quality of London's district (neighbourhood) articles, along with others. The starting point with most are the lead paragraphs, many of which are lacking uniformity and/or containing slight inaccuracies. I wish to build a consensus going forward with which we can build uniform, concise and coherent openings to our district articles.
Below are suggestions I wish to highlight, please feel free to challenge, refine or agree in order to build a consensus and move forward:
Most articles refer to places as districts in the lead sentence (Placename is a district of nw/n/s/se/sw/e/w London...) and this is currently accepted as the standard for district articles. However:
Some articles (I'll use Welling as an example here) erroneously refer to them as a "town" in the lead sentence. The term town is a specific categorisation for which districts of London do not qualify. Many parts of London were villages or towns, and are still sometimes colloquially referred to as such, but they definitively ceased to be so on becoming part of Greater London in 1965.
As such, I propose that articles for districts in London should open with the (Placename is a district of...) format, in the interest of accuracy and uniformity. Districts' histories as villages/towns should be introduced later in the lead and elaborated in the main article:
Some articles (I'll use Penge as an example here) refer to them as a "suburb" in the lead sentence. This is not factually incorrect, as neighbourhoods in London are often referred to as such. However, there is ambiguity as to what definitively constitutes a suburb, and this results in a lack of uniformity across London district articles. For instance, Penge is referred to as a suburb in the lead but none of the neighbourhoods surrounding it are.
Again, in the interest of accuracy and uniformity, I propose that articles for districts in London follow the (Placename is a district of...) format.
Some articles (I'll use Notting Hill as an example here) refer to them as "affluent districts" in the lead sentence. This is not factually incorrect, as neighbourhoods in London like Notting Hill are indeed affluent. However, there is a marked inconsistency in this approach: most of London's more affluent districts don't refer to their affluence in the opening sentence, and none of London's most deprived neighbourhoods refer to their deprivation in the lead sentence.
As such, the affluence of a district shouldn't be mentioned in the opening sentence, but mentioned briefly in a subsequent lead paragraph and elaborated further in the main article.
Some articles (I'll use
Wimbledon as an example here) cumbersomely list nearby districts in the lead. These should be removed from the lead and listed in the main body of the article under 'Geography', preferably with a compass.
Below are examples of lead sentences that I believe to be 'good practise'. The lead paragraph makes reference to their location in London (eg. east London), their position with respect to Charing Cross (miles & km), their role as the administrative centre of a borough (if applicable) and their status with respect to the London Plan (if applicable). All mentions of the London Plan will include an updated reference to the current London Plan.
Five examples for each category:
Metropolitan centres & administrative centres
Major centres & administrative centres
Major centres
Others
The proposals above would ultimately unify the lead sentences of London's district articles in an informative and concise manner.
Ultimately, comments on a district's character (eg. suburban, affluent, deprived etc) should not be made in the lead sentences. Subsequent paragraphs in the lead can be used to briefly introduce the district, with referenced synopses of its history, character, applicable wards (etc) before the main article.
Please let me know if you agree, disagree, or have input of your own, so that we can achieve a consensus and move forward with improving London's district articles. As a member of London's district taskforce, I ultimately wish to see far more pages attain good and featured article status! Cheers Southlondoneye ( talk) 13:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone. My apologies for coming late to this discussion. Thanks for the varied and informative comments made. From what I have seen so far I agree with most of the conclusions reached. I would need to comment though on the assertion made by Southlondoneye that Welling (using his/her example, ceased to be a town in 1965. This erroneous belief (to throw back his/her adjective) has caused so many naming problems. A town is a town because people say and think it is a town, not because a piece of legislation say otherwise. In this case, I could ask where exactly did it say anywhere that Welling stopped being a town in 1965? The same question could be asked about numerous other parts of GL. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 04:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There are named locations, or places, be they towns, villages, hamlets etc, inside and outside of Greater London boundary, and there are official administrative divisions in and out of London too. I understand in the UK there is an official city status that City of London, City of Westminster, Bristol, York and others have, and others like Reading, and Croydon etc don't. There is an official District status too, although some, included London divisions are called boroughs, many are called districts too, see Districts of England. Places like Eltham and Welling are not official "districts" like Sevenoaks in Kent is. I got the impression the words borough and district are to be thought of as the same meaning, this may not be the case but they are at least very similar. While all London divisions are boroughs, others differ. In nearby Kent there is Sevenoaks District, and Borough of Dartford, and Gravesham a local government district with borough status. Greater London is a county split into boroughs, like Kent and any other county, the only difference is some divisions are called boroughs and some districts.
I have always thought of the word district as meaning an official area with defined boundaries and adminastration/government. The articles District and Districts of England describe the word as such. The disambiguation page District (disambiguation) has a one line mention saying district can also be another word for neighbourhood, so why not use neighbourhood? I suppose the word is not used as much in UK?
although this is London not say Kent, we will always have things like, "Sidcup is a district in the London Borough of Bexley" if the rule applied to Kent we would have articles like "Swanley is a district in the Sevenoaks District" - Also locations near the London Border, next to areas called districts could read "Ruxley is a district in the London Borough of Bexley....overlapping into the Sevenoaks District of Kent. The use of the word district would be confusing, or at least not immediately clear.
Why shouldn't town, village, hamlet, suburb, settlement, or neighbourhood be used for locations within Greater London?
Is there an official "town" or "village" status that locations in Greater London never have, were they abolished, like all civil parishes were in London?
Why is "District" the word of choice when it is not an unambiguous word, it is used for official divisions in general and in name in Kent and elsewhere, it gives me the impression these areas have official boundaries and perhaps are official divisions, when they do not.
Is there another word we could use? area, neighboourhood, suburb, place, settlement, location? or something else?
I notice the words used for lists are as follows areas, places and districts ( List of areas of London, List of places in the United Kingdom, List of districts in Lewisham)
I don't have an answer, I'd just like to know why some words like town and suburb are not advised but the word district is the word we should use, when to me it could be unclear meaning. Carl wev 19:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above responses concerning the term 'district'. In the examples above, I used the term because it's by far the most commonly used in various London articles, and become the de facto convention.
The purest terms that can be used are area or neighbourhood:
It's noteworthy that, as mentioned by Carl wev , other articles use the term 'area' ( List of areas of London and Template:Areas of London). It's also noteworthy that in the 2016 London Plan, the term 'neighbourhood' is used.
The terms village and town are specific categorisations for which areas of London do not qualify. This stands even though many have been so in the past, and some still bear the term (eg. Kentish Town). There's a discussion about what actually constitutes a 'village' or 'town' in the UK 'how to write about settlements' talk page. Southlondoneye ( talk) 23:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for the feedback in the previous discussion on London districts.
I have taken time to compile table of London's 'district-level' articles, drawn from 15 different London boroughs, arranged according to what each 'district' is referred to in the lead.
As you can see, the most prevalent terms are 'district' and 'area', with scattered use of other terms. Personally I believe this to be rather incoherent, and there was a broad consensus in the previous discussion against the term 'district' being used.
Going forward, I simply ask if you support:
- Use of the term area:
- For the term 'area' to take priority in the lead sentence (exceptions where applicable), with other terms subsequently used in the appropriate context.
- Use of the term district:
- For the term 'district' to take priority in the lead sentence (exceptions where applicable), with other terms subsequently used in the appropriate context.
- Keeping the status quo:
- Keeping things as they are below, with places referred to as 'area', 'district' or anything else in a random manner.
(Note: I have not altered the term for any article listed)
What is the preference of fellow WikiProject London members going forward?
Thanks again for your input. Southlondoneye ( talk) 09:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Every coordinate in the ceremonial county of Greater London was formerly in another county such as Surrey, Kent, etc. Why do we not have both fields in the template?
Traditional county appears to be the phrase chosen by government to represent a currently existing Historic county — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.16.231 ( talk) 17:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Historic v Traditional counties, looks like both terms are used as one redirects to the other but I would prefer to use the term which is the article title Historic (possibly what they are officially called?) I see the point about giving the impression of them no longer existing. If historic is the official term the government and others use, we have to use it too, whilst mentioning the other. If it's not, it could be brought up at the talk page of the article itself more than here.
A better explanation of a locality's present and past status or position can be written in the prose of the article than a single word in an infobox. But I still like to try and get infoboxes filled out correctly, I find them useful. As this is about London, the Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England don't apply here, the current and actual county in an official sense and/or the ceremonial county for all places would be Greater London (possibly excluding anything inside the City of London?). The historic county would be one of Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Surrey. Both of these could go in the infobox easily I'm sure. I'm not sure if there would be a way to show, or if we should for example the difference between Bromley and Lewisham. Both were in Kent in the past, both are in Greater London now, but Lewisham was in the County of London where as Bromley was not, however, no one may care about this anyway, although it does interest me. Places that have altered their county eg Knockholt (read article) may be hard to sum up in an infobox clearly too. Carl wev 20:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently been working on articles related to places and stuff in the London Borough of Bexley (where I'm from), and I've come across an issue (no doubt familiar to others as it applies to most other boroughs) in that the articles about lists of things in Bexley do not disambiguate precisely between Bexley and the London Borough thereof. To the local ear it is very unclear as the town within the borough is one of the more prominent. The same issue led to the recent renaming of all sub-categories (at this CfD) related to London boroughs, proposed by User:BrownHairedGirl and mentioned above. I notice on the naming conventions page for this project it advises: "For other articles, lists and categories, use the short form of the borough name e.g. Economy of Croydon, List of people from Westminster and Category:Buildings and structures in the London Borough of Merton", but I really feel that the same rationale should apply to these articles, as the longer form names of the borough provide more clarity (see the CfD for a more articulate exposition of this case). This is not necessarily the case in Tower Hamlets and possibly some others, but I would probably suggest renaming those ones as well for consistency.
In the case of Bexley, this would apply to Parks and open spaces in Bexley, List of districts in Bexley, List of schools in Bexley, Grade I and II* listed buildings in Bexley, List of public art in Bexley ( List of people from the London Borough of Bexley is already changed, but I can change it back if there is strong opposition), but I suppose some boroughs would have more than 6 articles. Nonetheless, in my opinion the arguments used in the CfD discussion apply equally here. Does anyone have any thoughts? Jdcooper ( talk) 11:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
We need photographs of the burnt-out (or burning) Grenfell Tower for the Grenfell Tower fire article please. Mjroots ( talk) 05:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Is this really needed, seems very poor and I would suggest it be deleted under list craft, it's just going to duplicate notable residents from other articles such as, Barnet, Mill Hill, Arkley, ect. Govvy ( talk) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The article Crime in London is now outdated and relying on very old statistics and does not account for the more recent rise in crime since 2015. We also have a few styling and wording issues. Any help would be much appreciated. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I've written a new page London Black Atheists and I took the liberty of adding it to the project, if that's ok and someone feels like rating it on the talk page, that would be great, thanks. Mramoeba ( talk) 21:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I am a little confused I thought Selhurst was in South Norwood, shouldn't these two articles be merged or not? Govvy ( talk) 16:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Comma vs parentheses. Please see Talk:Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall)#Requested move 2 October 2017. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been asked before. Is it appropriate for people that were born in an area before the creation of the present boroughs to be categorised within the borough structure? For example, Category:Footballers from the London Borough of Newham contains loads of people that were born before Newham existed. I'm not sure I have an opinion either way, I was just wondering what was standard. If this is fine, the cat(s) should have a note to that effect though. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure where to bring this up. Bringing it up here as it could concern the name and placement of areas anywhere in London. On 25 October, 5 days ago, a user moved Belvedere, London to Belvedere, Greater London. The user had edited the article a bit before, concerning the description of which county the place is and was in, but there was no discussion held about the title of the whole article. When I questioned it, they told me it's Wiki policy to use the names of the ceremonial counties, in this case it is Greater London. My own experience, and looking at Category:Areas of London shows there are literally hundreds of locality articles that use "Xxxxx, London" title, but no other article, other than Belvedere uses the title "Xxxxx, Greater London". I don't know where any discussion or policy regarding titles of locations in London/Greater London, but looking at the category of areas in London I see it is universal to use "Xxxxx, London". I wanted to get the input of more users, and shown where the policy is if there is one. Up to this point the user only seems concerned with the title of the Belvedere article, and not any others although hundreds use the other way "Xxxxx, London" which they say is incorrect.
The issue is whether the short hand or long hand should be used. We seem to be moving in the direction of using "people from the London Borough of Bexley" not "People from Bexley", But for boroughs in place titles we use short hand, like Grove Park, Lewisham. Also unlike London in Manchester for example we use the long titles such as Denton, Greater Manchester. It looks odd to have only one article use Greater London and all others just London. Unless the whole policy for all London places title is altered, Belvedere would need to be moved back and this would need have the help of an admin or someone with higher user privileges as the old title already exists. Although I think the current way is fine I didn't want to start an edit war on my own, and would need the help of an admin to alter it anyway, I the user may have a point, maybe, so I thought I'd ask for input.
Things that may or may not be relevant or brought up are.
Carl wev 17:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I have not yet been able to view in-depth biographical details of Catherine Cooper Hopley, and certain details such as the date of her death are somewhat ambiguous. She apparently lived in Twickenham (some sources say Tickenham), and died around April to May of 1911. Brief death notices in American and New Zealand papers mention she was arrested as a spy while in the United States, yet longer sources do not mention this, only that she was trapped behind a blockade, and suspected of spying. If someone with access to British newspapers, obituaries, or other records could shed some light on this, I'd be much appreciative. Thanks, --Animalparty! ( talk) 01:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
CATHERINE PRE/2 HOPLEY
which should have picked up anything with or without a middle name or initial. Searching purely on "C. C. Hopley" would be a hopeless timesink since there would be so many false-positives—while it's not Smith or Price, Hopley is a reasonably common name. Besides, both book reviews and death notices—which would be the main thing you're looking for—would almost certainly use the first and last name at minimum, particularly for a woman. (If her herpetology was noteworthy enough that she was given a £100 award from the Civil List—which was real money in those days—you might want to get on to the Zoological Society of London, as they'd almost certainly have quite a bit about her in their archives.) ‑
Iridescent
17:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Please see Talk:List of areas of London#RFC Project to cleanup the child pages of this page -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_London
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 16:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm noticing that a lot of the articles in Category:Streets in the City of Westminster have neither coordinates nor a {{ Coord missing}} template. Is there a bot or a semi-automated process behind this that's somehow overlooked these (and other borough?) street articles? -- Gapfall ( talk) 19:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
coord missing|London}}
. This template is normally added to articles by
The Anomebot2 (
talk ·
contribs) and the botop is
The Anome (
talk ·
contribs). --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
23:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Was wondering if someone could take a look at Greenwich Pier? It's not supported by any citations to reliable sources, and has been tagged as such since 2009. If the assessment is that pier is not really notable for a stand-alone article, then maybe it should be taken to WP:AfD. I'm not sure what notability guidelines structures fall under, or if it's considered notable just because Greenwich is a World Heritage Site. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been working through local government pages in England and moving pages where appropriate to reflect their common recognisable name. For the London Councils it seemed appropriate to address the issue all at once, and avoid causing any major disruptions.
As it stands the article names all follow the convention of District Name London Borough Council. However, this is not the WP:COMMONNAME for London councils. All but possibly one London Borough council have rebranded and renamed to follow the convention of District Name Council, consciously omitting 'London Borough' from their name. As a consequence, the question of moving the 32 borough council pages needs to be raised. Bellow I have created a table with links to the various council official websites to show how London Borough has been dropped from the names of Councils.
In my opinion, this would also help the article titles conform better to MOS:PRECISION, whereby article names should be precise enough define the article scope, but no more precise than that. Depending on responses, I may start a WP:RMC, post to WP:RMT, or take no action at all. As the pages are all covered by this Project Group it seemed the appropriate place to start a discussion. ToastButterToast ( talk) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, all. We need people weighing in at Talk:Emma Portman, Viscountess Portman#Accuracy. It's about when Portman dies and therefore the accuracy of the viscountess title. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
We need some input on Duwayne Brooks. An IP editor, possibly connected to Brooks, keeps adding unsourced material. If accurate, the material should be in. Anyone able to help source, or monitor, or guide an IP editor? Bondegezou ( talk) 17:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Talk:BOAC Flight 712#Katz which members of this Wikiproject are invited to contribute to. Mjroots ( talk) 15:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Please leave me LONDON HOLBORN meetup details on my talk page.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 12:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Please see the proposal here. Ham II ( talk) 09:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
There is an ongoing request for comment at Talk:University of London which maybe of interest to members of this wikiproject. Aloneinthewild ( talk) 11:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated List of public art in the City of Westminster for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ham II ( talk) 07:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I created a new page, Embassy chapel, that displays an interesting and underrated feature of London history: before Catholicism was legal, English Catholics were able to worship at the Embassy chapels of foreign governments, like the French, Portuguese, or Sardinian embassy. Four London churches today have roots in those embassies ( Church of St Anselm and St Cecilia, St Etheldreda's Church, Church of our Lady of the Assumption and Saint Gregory, St James's, Spanish Place. The page also talks about other embassy chapels around the world, which provided religious havens to persecuted religions thanks to diplomatic immunity. I've linked a lot of resources but I don't have much time to fill in the page. Any and all help is welcome. Eccekevin ( talk) 18:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed some {{ WikiProject London}} talk page banners using the "needs-image=yes" and "needs-infobox=yes" options (where the banner has been added by the User:Evad37/rater assessment tool), which the template ignores: it has "needs-photo" instead, and doesn't have anything for an infobox. Should the template be updated to include these? -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 09:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
|needs-photo=
is the only form shown in the documentation; I have checked the template source, and there are no aliases for that (nor are there any infobox parameters). If people are using other parameters, they should be directed to the template documentation. They should also be requested to
WP:PREVIEW their edits in order to ensure that the template is displaying as per their intentions. I see far too many people who guess at the names of WikiProject parameters - sometimes even the names of the templates themselves.Emily Ratajkowski, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trillfendi ( talk) 00:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to raise the following for discussion. Obviously, London has 32 boroughs which developed over time, in many cases from ancient hamlets. As they grew, and London expanded, the hamlets became namesakes of metropolitan boroughs and later London boroughs. So far, so easy. When looking through the articles for, e.g. Greenwich, Lambeth, Kensington, Chelsea, Lewisham (the "towns", not the boroughs), they all have citations for population. This seems in many cases been defined as the sum of populations of wards - this is often in the footnotes for the references. However, nothing in the references actually confirms that those wards officially make up "Lewisham" for example ("Lewisham central" that is). I have a suspicion that this was derived in part from the former metropolitan boroughs. Unless I'm wrong, a place name such as "Chelsea" or "Lewisham" have more sentimental relevance, but does not have any relevance for e.g. a census or town administration. They use the wards. Unless someone knows of sources that confirm without doubt what wards can be summarised to town places in such a way, I propose to delete those population references as they are effectively WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
One of your most famous patients. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Burnt Oak tube station#Opening, renaming and comment there. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 16:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello would it be at all possible if any editors in this project can take a look at Southwark Playhouse there has been a lot of edits made to it in relation to a current play on its stage since 13 Feb. I have my own doubts if this is suitable content for a building article. Thanks Chricon79 ( talk) 22:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Adele is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adele (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 01:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Charles Dickens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Charles Dickens until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 02:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Winston Churchill (1940–2010) that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 23:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments invited as to how best to divide up Wikipedia's 9th biggest article, at 445k bytes. Please comment here. Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 02:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:William Shakespeare is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:William Shakespeare until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 08:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I have recently been editing articles of towns and districts within Greater London, where I added at least one additional "distance to" on top of just Charing Cross in the lead. For example, in Kingston upon Thames I added, after the Charing Cross distance, "2.6 miles (4.2 km) south-east of Twickenham, 5.1 miles (8.2 km) north-east of Walton-on-Thames, and 5.8 miles (9.3 km) north-west of Sutton." The same was done in other outer towns, with sometimes one additional destination and other times two.
My edits were reverted by two users (see my talk), with one of them saying it violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. But, there are many UK articles with multiple distances from/to in the lead - I gave Basingstoke and Sale, Greater Manchester as examples. Then I was told by one of them that it wouldn't be suitable for a conurbation like London, and while I agree to some extent, it should be noted that I only made these edits to towns in outer Greater London, and outside the London postal districts. Uxbridge, Sutton, etc. (for which I gave distances to Slough, and Epsom/Croydon/Kingston respectively). I find it perfectly suitable for these, because they are outlying towns with their own identities (i.e. outside London post town). The West Midlands is also a conurbation but I see multiple distances in articles like Dudley and Brierley Hill, and it works very well from an encyclopaedic perspective.
I would like to see the views of others regarding this. I believe it would be perfect to have at least one more destination after just Charing Cross. -- MetrolandNW ( talk) 12:48, 22 August 2019 (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 |
Greetings all. I have been actively looking to improve the quality of London's district (neighbourhood) articles, along with others. The starting point with most are the lead paragraphs, many of which are lacking uniformity and/or containing slight inaccuracies. I wish to build a consensus going forward with which we can build uniform, concise and coherent openings to our district articles.
Below are suggestions I wish to highlight, please feel free to challenge, refine or agree in order to build a consensus and move forward:
Most articles refer to places as districts in the lead sentence (Placename is a district of nw/n/s/se/sw/e/w London...) and this is currently accepted as the standard for district articles. However:
Some articles (I'll use Welling as an example here) erroneously refer to them as a "town" in the lead sentence. The term town is a specific categorisation for which districts of London do not qualify. Many parts of London were villages or towns, and are still sometimes colloquially referred to as such, but they definitively ceased to be so on becoming part of Greater London in 1965.
As such, I propose that articles for districts in London should open with the (Placename is a district of...) format, in the interest of accuracy and uniformity. Districts' histories as villages/towns should be introduced later in the lead and elaborated in the main article:
Some articles (I'll use Penge as an example here) refer to them as a "suburb" in the lead sentence. This is not factually incorrect, as neighbourhoods in London are often referred to as such. However, there is ambiguity as to what definitively constitutes a suburb, and this results in a lack of uniformity across London district articles. For instance, Penge is referred to as a suburb in the lead but none of the neighbourhoods surrounding it are.
Again, in the interest of accuracy and uniformity, I propose that articles for districts in London follow the (Placename is a district of...) format.
Some articles (I'll use Notting Hill as an example here) refer to them as "affluent districts" in the lead sentence. This is not factually incorrect, as neighbourhoods in London like Notting Hill are indeed affluent. However, there is a marked inconsistency in this approach: most of London's more affluent districts don't refer to their affluence in the opening sentence, and none of London's most deprived neighbourhoods refer to their deprivation in the lead sentence.
As such, the affluence of a district shouldn't be mentioned in the opening sentence, but mentioned briefly in a subsequent lead paragraph and elaborated further in the main article.
Some articles (I'll use
Wimbledon as an example here) cumbersomely list nearby districts in the lead. These should be removed from the lead and listed in the main body of the article under 'Geography', preferably with a compass.
Below are examples of lead sentences that I believe to be 'good practise'. The lead paragraph makes reference to their location in London (eg. east London), their position with respect to Charing Cross (miles & km), their role as the administrative centre of a borough (if applicable) and their status with respect to the London Plan (if applicable). All mentions of the London Plan will include an updated reference to the current London Plan.
Five examples for each category:
Metropolitan centres & administrative centres
Major centres & administrative centres
Major centres
Others
The proposals above would ultimately unify the lead sentences of London's district articles in an informative and concise manner.
Ultimately, comments on a district's character (eg. suburban, affluent, deprived etc) should not be made in the lead sentences. Subsequent paragraphs in the lead can be used to briefly introduce the district, with referenced synopses of its history, character, applicable wards (etc) before the main article.
Please let me know if you agree, disagree, or have input of your own, so that we can achieve a consensus and move forward with improving London's district articles. As a member of London's district taskforce, I ultimately wish to see far more pages attain good and featured article status! Cheers Southlondoneye ( talk) 13:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone. My apologies for coming late to this discussion. Thanks for the varied and informative comments made. From what I have seen so far I agree with most of the conclusions reached. I would need to comment though on the assertion made by Southlondoneye that Welling (using his/her example, ceased to be a town in 1965. This erroneous belief (to throw back his/her adjective) has caused so many naming problems. A town is a town because people say and think it is a town, not because a piece of legislation say otherwise. In this case, I could ask where exactly did it say anywhere that Welling stopped being a town in 1965? The same question could be asked about numerous other parts of GL. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 04:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There are named locations, or places, be they towns, villages, hamlets etc, inside and outside of Greater London boundary, and there are official administrative divisions in and out of London too. I understand in the UK there is an official city status that City of London, City of Westminster, Bristol, York and others have, and others like Reading, and Croydon etc don't. There is an official District status too, although some, included London divisions are called boroughs, many are called districts too, see Districts of England. Places like Eltham and Welling are not official "districts" like Sevenoaks in Kent is. I got the impression the words borough and district are to be thought of as the same meaning, this may not be the case but they are at least very similar. While all London divisions are boroughs, others differ. In nearby Kent there is Sevenoaks District, and Borough of Dartford, and Gravesham a local government district with borough status. Greater London is a county split into boroughs, like Kent and any other county, the only difference is some divisions are called boroughs and some districts.
I have always thought of the word district as meaning an official area with defined boundaries and adminastration/government. The articles District and Districts of England describe the word as such. The disambiguation page District (disambiguation) has a one line mention saying district can also be another word for neighbourhood, so why not use neighbourhood? I suppose the word is not used as much in UK?
although this is London not say Kent, we will always have things like, "Sidcup is a district in the London Borough of Bexley" if the rule applied to Kent we would have articles like "Swanley is a district in the Sevenoaks District" - Also locations near the London Border, next to areas called districts could read "Ruxley is a district in the London Borough of Bexley....overlapping into the Sevenoaks District of Kent. The use of the word district would be confusing, or at least not immediately clear.
Why shouldn't town, village, hamlet, suburb, settlement, or neighbourhood be used for locations within Greater London?
Is there an official "town" or "village" status that locations in Greater London never have, were they abolished, like all civil parishes were in London?
Why is "District" the word of choice when it is not an unambiguous word, it is used for official divisions in general and in name in Kent and elsewhere, it gives me the impression these areas have official boundaries and perhaps are official divisions, when they do not.
Is there another word we could use? area, neighboourhood, suburb, place, settlement, location? or something else?
I notice the words used for lists are as follows areas, places and districts ( List of areas of London, List of places in the United Kingdom, List of districts in Lewisham)
I don't have an answer, I'd just like to know why some words like town and suburb are not advised but the word district is the word we should use, when to me it could be unclear meaning. Carl wev 19:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above responses concerning the term 'district'. In the examples above, I used the term because it's by far the most commonly used in various London articles, and become the de facto convention.
The purest terms that can be used are area or neighbourhood:
It's noteworthy that, as mentioned by Carl wev , other articles use the term 'area' ( List of areas of London and Template:Areas of London). It's also noteworthy that in the 2016 London Plan, the term 'neighbourhood' is used.
The terms village and town are specific categorisations for which areas of London do not qualify. This stands even though many have been so in the past, and some still bear the term (eg. Kentish Town). There's a discussion about what actually constitutes a 'village' or 'town' in the UK 'how to write about settlements' talk page. Southlondoneye ( talk) 23:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for the feedback in the previous discussion on London districts.
I have taken time to compile table of London's 'district-level' articles, drawn from 15 different London boroughs, arranged according to what each 'district' is referred to in the lead.
As you can see, the most prevalent terms are 'district' and 'area', with scattered use of other terms. Personally I believe this to be rather incoherent, and there was a broad consensus in the previous discussion against the term 'district' being used.
Going forward, I simply ask if you support:
- Use of the term area:
- For the term 'area' to take priority in the lead sentence (exceptions where applicable), with other terms subsequently used in the appropriate context.
- Use of the term district:
- For the term 'district' to take priority in the lead sentence (exceptions where applicable), with other terms subsequently used in the appropriate context.
- Keeping the status quo:
- Keeping things as they are below, with places referred to as 'area', 'district' or anything else in a random manner.
(Note: I have not altered the term for any article listed)
What is the preference of fellow WikiProject London members going forward?
Thanks again for your input. Southlondoneye ( talk) 09:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Every coordinate in the ceremonial county of Greater London was formerly in another county such as Surrey, Kent, etc. Why do we not have both fields in the template?
Traditional county appears to be the phrase chosen by government to represent a currently existing Historic county — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.16.231 ( talk) 17:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Historic v Traditional counties, looks like both terms are used as one redirects to the other but I would prefer to use the term which is the article title Historic (possibly what they are officially called?) I see the point about giving the impression of them no longer existing. If historic is the official term the government and others use, we have to use it too, whilst mentioning the other. If it's not, it could be brought up at the talk page of the article itself more than here.
A better explanation of a locality's present and past status or position can be written in the prose of the article than a single word in an infobox. But I still like to try and get infoboxes filled out correctly, I find them useful. As this is about London, the Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England don't apply here, the current and actual county in an official sense and/or the ceremonial county for all places would be Greater London (possibly excluding anything inside the City of London?). The historic county would be one of Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Surrey. Both of these could go in the infobox easily I'm sure. I'm not sure if there would be a way to show, or if we should for example the difference between Bromley and Lewisham. Both were in Kent in the past, both are in Greater London now, but Lewisham was in the County of London where as Bromley was not, however, no one may care about this anyway, although it does interest me. Places that have altered their county eg Knockholt (read article) may be hard to sum up in an infobox clearly too. Carl wev 20:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently been working on articles related to places and stuff in the London Borough of Bexley (where I'm from), and I've come across an issue (no doubt familiar to others as it applies to most other boroughs) in that the articles about lists of things in Bexley do not disambiguate precisely between Bexley and the London Borough thereof. To the local ear it is very unclear as the town within the borough is one of the more prominent. The same issue led to the recent renaming of all sub-categories (at this CfD) related to London boroughs, proposed by User:BrownHairedGirl and mentioned above. I notice on the naming conventions page for this project it advises: "For other articles, lists and categories, use the short form of the borough name e.g. Economy of Croydon, List of people from Westminster and Category:Buildings and structures in the London Borough of Merton", but I really feel that the same rationale should apply to these articles, as the longer form names of the borough provide more clarity (see the CfD for a more articulate exposition of this case). This is not necessarily the case in Tower Hamlets and possibly some others, but I would probably suggest renaming those ones as well for consistency.
In the case of Bexley, this would apply to Parks and open spaces in Bexley, List of districts in Bexley, List of schools in Bexley, Grade I and II* listed buildings in Bexley, List of public art in Bexley ( List of people from the London Borough of Bexley is already changed, but I can change it back if there is strong opposition), but I suppose some boroughs would have more than 6 articles. Nonetheless, in my opinion the arguments used in the CfD discussion apply equally here. Does anyone have any thoughts? Jdcooper ( talk) 11:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
We need photographs of the burnt-out (or burning) Grenfell Tower for the Grenfell Tower fire article please. Mjroots ( talk) 05:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Is this really needed, seems very poor and I would suggest it be deleted under list craft, it's just going to duplicate notable residents from other articles such as, Barnet, Mill Hill, Arkley, ect. Govvy ( talk) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The article Crime in London is now outdated and relying on very old statistics and does not account for the more recent rise in crime since 2015. We also have a few styling and wording issues. Any help would be much appreciated. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I've written a new page London Black Atheists and I took the liberty of adding it to the project, if that's ok and someone feels like rating it on the talk page, that would be great, thanks. Mramoeba ( talk) 21:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I am a little confused I thought Selhurst was in South Norwood, shouldn't these two articles be merged or not? Govvy ( talk) 16:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Comma vs parentheses. Please see Talk:Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall)#Requested move 2 October 2017. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been asked before. Is it appropriate for people that were born in an area before the creation of the present boroughs to be categorised within the borough structure? For example, Category:Footballers from the London Borough of Newham contains loads of people that were born before Newham existed. I'm not sure I have an opinion either way, I was just wondering what was standard. If this is fine, the cat(s) should have a note to that effect though. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure where to bring this up. Bringing it up here as it could concern the name and placement of areas anywhere in London. On 25 October, 5 days ago, a user moved Belvedere, London to Belvedere, Greater London. The user had edited the article a bit before, concerning the description of which county the place is and was in, but there was no discussion held about the title of the whole article. When I questioned it, they told me it's Wiki policy to use the names of the ceremonial counties, in this case it is Greater London. My own experience, and looking at Category:Areas of London shows there are literally hundreds of locality articles that use "Xxxxx, London" title, but no other article, other than Belvedere uses the title "Xxxxx, Greater London". I don't know where any discussion or policy regarding titles of locations in London/Greater London, but looking at the category of areas in London I see it is universal to use "Xxxxx, London". I wanted to get the input of more users, and shown where the policy is if there is one. Up to this point the user only seems concerned with the title of the Belvedere article, and not any others although hundreds use the other way "Xxxxx, London" which they say is incorrect.
The issue is whether the short hand or long hand should be used. We seem to be moving in the direction of using "people from the London Borough of Bexley" not "People from Bexley", But for boroughs in place titles we use short hand, like Grove Park, Lewisham. Also unlike London in Manchester for example we use the long titles such as Denton, Greater Manchester. It looks odd to have only one article use Greater London and all others just London. Unless the whole policy for all London places title is altered, Belvedere would need to be moved back and this would need have the help of an admin or someone with higher user privileges as the old title already exists. Although I think the current way is fine I didn't want to start an edit war on my own, and would need the help of an admin to alter it anyway, I the user may have a point, maybe, so I thought I'd ask for input.
Things that may or may not be relevant or brought up are.
Carl wev 17:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I have not yet been able to view in-depth biographical details of Catherine Cooper Hopley, and certain details such as the date of her death are somewhat ambiguous. She apparently lived in Twickenham (some sources say Tickenham), and died around April to May of 1911. Brief death notices in American and New Zealand papers mention she was arrested as a spy while in the United States, yet longer sources do not mention this, only that she was trapped behind a blockade, and suspected of spying. If someone with access to British newspapers, obituaries, or other records could shed some light on this, I'd be much appreciative. Thanks, --Animalparty! ( talk) 01:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
CATHERINE PRE/2 HOPLEY
which should have picked up anything with or without a middle name or initial. Searching purely on "C. C. Hopley" would be a hopeless timesink since there would be so many false-positives—while it's not Smith or Price, Hopley is a reasonably common name. Besides, both book reviews and death notices—which would be the main thing you're looking for—would almost certainly use the first and last name at minimum, particularly for a woman. (If her herpetology was noteworthy enough that she was given a £100 award from the Civil List—which was real money in those days—you might want to get on to the Zoological Society of London, as they'd almost certainly have quite a bit about her in their archives.) ‑
Iridescent
17:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Please see Talk:List of areas of London#RFC Project to cleanup the child pages of this page -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_London
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 16:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm noticing that a lot of the articles in Category:Streets in the City of Westminster have neither coordinates nor a {{ Coord missing}} template. Is there a bot or a semi-automated process behind this that's somehow overlooked these (and other borough?) street articles? -- Gapfall ( talk) 19:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
coord missing|London}}
. This template is normally added to articles by
The Anomebot2 (
talk ·
contribs) and the botop is
The Anome (
talk ·
contribs). --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
23:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Was wondering if someone could take a look at Greenwich Pier? It's not supported by any citations to reliable sources, and has been tagged as such since 2009. If the assessment is that pier is not really notable for a stand-alone article, then maybe it should be taken to WP:AfD. I'm not sure what notability guidelines structures fall under, or if it's considered notable just because Greenwich is a World Heritage Site. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been working through local government pages in England and moving pages where appropriate to reflect their common recognisable name. For the London Councils it seemed appropriate to address the issue all at once, and avoid causing any major disruptions.
As it stands the article names all follow the convention of District Name London Borough Council. However, this is not the WP:COMMONNAME for London councils. All but possibly one London Borough council have rebranded and renamed to follow the convention of District Name Council, consciously omitting 'London Borough' from their name. As a consequence, the question of moving the 32 borough council pages needs to be raised. Bellow I have created a table with links to the various council official websites to show how London Borough has been dropped from the names of Councils.
In my opinion, this would also help the article titles conform better to MOS:PRECISION, whereby article names should be precise enough define the article scope, but no more precise than that. Depending on responses, I may start a WP:RMC, post to WP:RMT, or take no action at all. As the pages are all covered by this Project Group it seemed the appropriate place to start a discussion. ToastButterToast ( talk) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, all. We need people weighing in at Talk:Emma Portman, Viscountess Portman#Accuracy. It's about when Portman dies and therefore the accuracy of the viscountess title. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
We need some input on Duwayne Brooks. An IP editor, possibly connected to Brooks, keeps adding unsourced material. If accurate, the material should be in. Anyone able to help source, or monitor, or guide an IP editor? Bondegezou ( talk) 17:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Talk:BOAC Flight 712#Katz which members of this Wikiproject are invited to contribute to. Mjroots ( talk) 15:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Please leave me LONDON HOLBORN meetup details on my talk page.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 12:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Please see the proposal here. Ham II ( talk) 09:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
There is an ongoing request for comment at Talk:University of London which maybe of interest to members of this wikiproject. Aloneinthewild ( talk) 11:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated List of public art in the City of Westminster for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ham II ( talk) 07:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I created a new page, Embassy chapel, that displays an interesting and underrated feature of London history: before Catholicism was legal, English Catholics were able to worship at the Embassy chapels of foreign governments, like the French, Portuguese, or Sardinian embassy. Four London churches today have roots in those embassies ( Church of St Anselm and St Cecilia, St Etheldreda's Church, Church of our Lady of the Assumption and Saint Gregory, St James's, Spanish Place. The page also talks about other embassy chapels around the world, which provided religious havens to persecuted religions thanks to diplomatic immunity. I've linked a lot of resources but I don't have much time to fill in the page. Any and all help is welcome. Eccekevin ( talk) 18:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed some {{ WikiProject London}} talk page banners using the "needs-image=yes" and "needs-infobox=yes" options (where the banner has been added by the User:Evad37/rater assessment tool), which the template ignores: it has "needs-photo" instead, and doesn't have anything for an infobox. Should the template be updated to include these? -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 09:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
|needs-photo=
is the only form shown in the documentation; I have checked the template source, and there are no aliases for that (nor are there any infobox parameters). If people are using other parameters, they should be directed to the template documentation. They should also be requested to
WP:PREVIEW their edits in order to ensure that the template is displaying as per their intentions. I see far too many people who guess at the names of WikiProject parameters - sometimes even the names of the templates themselves.Emily Ratajkowski, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trillfendi ( talk) 00:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to raise the following for discussion. Obviously, London has 32 boroughs which developed over time, in many cases from ancient hamlets. As they grew, and London expanded, the hamlets became namesakes of metropolitan boroughs and later London boroughs. So far, so easy. When looking through the articles for, e.g. Greenwich, Lambeth, Kensington, Chelsea, Lewisham (the "towns", not the boroughs), they all have citations for population. This seems in many cases been defined as the sum of populations of wards - this is often in the footnotes for the references. However, nothing in the references actually confirms that those wards officially make up "Lewisham" for example ("Lewisham central" that is). I have a suspicion that this was derived in part from the former metropolitan boroughs. Unless I'm wrong, a place name such as "Chelsea" or "Lewisham" have more sentimental relevance, but does not have any relevance for e.g. a census or town administration. They use the wards. Unless someone knows of sources that confirm without doubt what wards can be summarised to town places in such a way, I propose to delete those population references as they are effectively WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
One of your most famous patients. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Burnt Oak tube station#Opening, renaming and comment there. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 16:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello would it be at all possible if any editors in this project can take a look at Southwark Playhouse there has been a lot of edits made to it in relation to a current play on its stage since 13 Feb. I have my own doubts if this is suitable content for a building article. Thanks Chricon79 ( talk) 22:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Adele is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adele (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 01:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Charles Dickens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Charles Dickens until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 02:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Winston Churchill (1940–2010) that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 23:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Comments invited as to how best to divide up Wikipedia's 9th biggest article, at 445k bytes. Please comment here. Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 02:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:William Shakespeare is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:William Shakespeare until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 08:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I have recently been editing articles of towns and districts within Greater London, where I added at least one additional "distance to" on top of just Charing Cross in the lead. For example, in Kingston upon Thames I added, after the Charing Cross distance, "2.6 miles (4.2 km) south-east of Twickenham, 5.1 miles (8.2 km) north-east of Walton-on-Thames, and 5.8 miles (9.3 km) north-west of Sutton." The same was done in other outer towns, with sometimes one additional destination and other times two.
My edits were reverted by two users (see my talk), with one of them saying it violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. But, there are many UK articles with multiple distances from/to in the lead - I gave Basingstoke and Sale, Greater Manchester as examples. Then I was told by one of them that it wouldn't be suitable for a conurbation like London, and while I agree to some extent, it should be noted that I only made these edits to towns in outer Greater London, and outside the London postal districts. Uxbridge, Sutton, etc. (for which I gave distances to Slough, and Epsom/Croydon/Kingston respectively). I find it perfectly suitable for these, because they are outlying towns with their own identities (i.e. outside London post town). The West Midlands is also a conurbation but I see multiple distances in articles like Dudley and Brierley Hill, and it works very well from an encyclopaedic perspective.
I would like to see the views of others regarding this. I believe it would be perfect to have at least one more destination after just Charing Cross. -- MetrolandNW ( talk) 12:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)