Talk:London

Climate Data

The Climate data charts (temperature highs and lows, etc) has a title that says it is for Helsinki, not London - Anyone know if it is the title that's incorrect or the data?

The figures for average snowfall in London are plainly wrong. I don't know the correct figures, but 46.7cm in an average Winter is too high by a factor of three, at least. In a typical Winter, London will have one or two snowfalls that persist on the ground, with each snowfall consisting of 2 to 15 cm. It's not unusual for no snow at all to fall in London over an entire Winter and any individual fall of more than 15cm is exceptional, to the point of triggering newspaper headlines and urban paralysis. 82.35.103.182 (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Most visited city?

Section London#Tourism refers to London as most visited of the world. However, Tourism has a list of cities by visitors, and Paris is #1. Has London taken over the #1 spot, and that list is old news, or what? 82.141.73.142 (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before at length, please look back through the archive.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The debate began few months ago but hasn’t been closed. Euromonitor (a London-based private institute) base their calculations on official datas (almost every city provide annualy an official report about tourist economy). The problem is there : they count for Paris (and apparently just for Paris in the main cities) only partial datas (hotels arrivals) and ignore the rest of the official figures to extrapolate an average. On the tourism article, we counted 15.1 million by extrapolation, though it seems a little bit underestimate : Paris municipal office furnishes a global figure of 17 million international tourists per year. On every case, we’re far from the 7.7 million counted by Euromonitor, and a little bit above the London figures (14.6 million). I said to Rangoon11, who disagree, that I won’t remove this source on this article without other agreements. The question is not if the Euromonitor figures reflect reality – they don’t – but if, despite the fallacious comparison, we can accept it as a reliable or simply valid source. I don’t think so, but other opinions would be welcomed to close the debate. Moreover, the comparison could be fallacious for another reason : we compare here Greater London (27 million domestic and foreign tourists in 2010) to Paris intra-muros (28.2 million in 2010), and not to Greater Paris (around 42 million). Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I recently contacted the author of the study about the Paris case, and good news, they're going to examine the problem, we should have a response soon. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a very precise answer from Euromonitor. Indeed, they count for Paris only hotel arrivals. The problem is the same for some other cities. Actually, there is two main methodologies : CVBs can count all the tourists in the city or they can count only hotel arrivals with partial but very precise data (which allows economic studies monthly and precisely). Paris CVB furnishes both (14.4 million for hotels and 28.2 for all accommodations), but in the second case, the city doesn't furnish the part of foreign tourists (however, the city, like I said, furnished an approximate number of 17 million foreign tourists on a total of 27 million few years ago). Euromonitor bases its study on precise statistics. Consequently, the study is faithful to the official data but compares different statistics from different methodologies. For a better clarity, they will mention it on the next edition of the study. To come back to the subject of this topic, I think the problem is solved now. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting and thanks for posting. However since the current source still supports the text as written I think that it can remain as is for now. Depending upon what is stated in the next Euromonitor survey - and it sounds like they may give a more detailed breakdown - perhaps we can present the information with some sort of qualification, either in the text or a foot note.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To mention that London "has the most international visitors of any city in the world" when we know it's not the case is not a honest approach. The study compares statistics which are not comparable and we jump to fallacious conclusions, that's difficult to ignore it. The study currently doesn't mention it, but will in the next edition, so I think the contrary : we should wait for this edition. In every case, it won't change anything about the London and Paris case, but the study will be more reliable and usable for other cases (like the number of tourists of small cities which don't offer public informations). Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

On another note, why is the Paris article part of the Geography portal, Europe portal and European Union portal and the London article is not part of any of these portals? Let's have some consistency, please. London is also part of Europe and the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.233.153 (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There's obviously an omission. Done. En-bateau (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protect the London page.

{{edit semi-protected}}

This template is for requesting specific edits to the page, to request protection please visit WP:RFPP--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 December 2011

The climate data for London is wrong. Please change the record high for April, because in 2011 it reached 28 degrees Celsius. Also, the record high for October is incorrect as it should be 30 degrees Celsius as on 1st October 2011 it reached 30 degrees in the centre of London.

Spanner pig (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for these? Based on this those are incorrect. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request December 2011

Please add short info about 'pods' (the so called ultra system) - in my, other, news-editors, Wikipedia articles, users, and specialists this is probably the newest, and most advanced RPT system in London. Ok, it is short now, but working well for months(and bus service on this line was cancelled). -for e.g. - "Transport in London also include 'pods' ULTra system."

It is probably the symbol of "new, and modern London" as well - as far as I remember that type of similar pods was in sci-fi games, films.

Link? EDIT: Do you mean this?-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It can be as well. But I added the hyperlink to Wikipedia article, please check references: [1]

OK? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice, but - in my opinion - is hard to treat this as the "air" section(unless there are hidden transformer plane ;-) ). This not the "counter" at Heathrow, rather some new way of transport, and if it work as the bus replacement, it can be easily adopted everywhere else, like DLR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.70.254 (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the request was completed, until the pods are put in more places in London (the subject of this article) than just a single airport, they can probably stay in the "air" section. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Population data issues

Population of London's Entire Metropolitan Area, or Commute to Work Zone

The way the British government uses census data to determine the population of what most cities call their "metropolitan area" is at small but significant variance with other government's practices. Generally this leads to a rather significant understating of the population of the metropolitan area around London. As best as I can determine using 2001 census data, the population within a 60 mile radius of London would have exceeded 15 million by a few hundred thousand. Surely, considering the size of London, such a radius would not be unwarranted. The 2011 census data is now becoming available and would now place the same area's population well above 16 million. Considering the fact that cities of similar size (New York, Los Angeles, Paris etc) allow a larger geographic area to be included as long as population density within the radius generally reflects significantly increased density based on the accessibility of and to the metropolitan core, I would argue for the inclusion of the larger population figure based on such a radius. Certainly it would more accurately reflect the true scale of population in the London area, and provide a more accurate figure for comparison with other similarly-sized world cities.I will be publishing the 60-mile radius data in the next 4-6 weeks, and ask for opinions for including that statistic once that has been completed.68.37.54.53 (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)(point first raised by E.a.weinstein (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

London is 32 London boroughs, anywhere beyond that is they're own town, city or village. Yes the Commuter Belt goes out to places like High Wycombe and Southend, but this article is just on the city its self, governed by City Hall not County councils like Kent, Essex and Herts. As for New York City, the population is 8 million within its city limits and much more in the whole tri-state region but Tri-state is not just NYC. We must go by the boundaries to be actuate. Likelife (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems Likelife your answering the question what is a city. Even though it isnt being asked. On a related note they should redraw London's boundaries as there's numerous places in counties like Surrey and Hertfordshire which are entirely within London's Urban Area. I think there would be great benefit in new London Boroughs such as the Borough of Watford or the Borough of Staines.

In response to the IP, I think this data would be more useful in the London Commuter Belt article which is about London's metropolitan area and could do with some work (especially a good map). I think just taking a radius would be a bit too simple as some towns like Reading are quite far from London but definetly part of it's metropolitan area (look at a map the urbanization is near continuous) whilst towns such as Oxford, Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Bedford aren't much further away (less than your suggested 60 mile radius) but there is alot less urbanization connecting them and hence lower population density. However your data may take that into account. Eopsid (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Capital city?

"London is the capital city of England and the United Kingdom". I never thought twice about it before ... not until I read some other Wikipedia articles. "London" is usually referring to Greater London, but Greater London doesn't have city status, so de-jure it's not a city and hence cannot be the capital city. According to the section City status in the United Kingdom#Greater_London the City of London and Westminster have city status. The government and the queen is situated in Westminster if I've understood it correctly. That would de-jure make Westminster the capital, wouldn't it? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.119.55 (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well considering that there is an elected mayor and assembly over all 32 boroughs headquartered at one main city hall, I would say that all 32 boroughs make up one city, like the 5 boroughs of New York City make up one city. I can see where you can get confused about it though, and there wasn't always one overreaching government over all of London.Bjoh249 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The word city is used here with its more general meaning here rather than the specific UK meaning as in City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom. Although London is a leading global city it might be worth mentioning that Londoners often refer to it as London Town and use terms like 'in town' when referring to being in London. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Financial Centre

I will try to assume good faith regarding user:MazabukaBloke even though he/she is unable to have the decency of doing likewise.

“It is one of the world's leading financial centres” would suggest it places in the top 5-10, not the top which the references state.

I have amended this sentence to more accurately reflect the references:

“It is the world's leading commercial centre [[2]] and most economically powerful city[[3]] [[4]]”

1) The Mastercard reference [[5]] ranks London as the leading commercial city in the world.

2) The Forbes reference [[6]] ranks London number 1 in its list of “World's Most Economically Powerful Cities”

3) The Zyen reference [[7]] ranks London number 1 as “Global Financial Centre”

I strongly suggest user user:MazabukaBloke carefully reads Wikipedia:Verifiability before blindly reverting my edit and contribute towards discussion. Zarcadia (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted to the pre-edit war text (i.e. "It is the world's leading financial centre alongside New York and has the fifth-largest city GDP in the world (and the largest in Europe).")

This is a wording which is factually accurate and had been stable for some time. To state that London is the most 'economically powerful' city is a real stretch when its total economic output is well under half that of either Tokyo or New York. 'World's leading commercial centre' is very vague - what does commercial mean in this context? Rangoon11 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of entering into an edit war, I'm editing the text to reflect the sources, Wikipedia relies on citing reliable sources to create verifiable articles. Rangoon11 I would appreciate if you would actually address the points I have made above, the excuse that it is "factually accurate" is not acceptable as the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth and "been stable for some time" is not an excuse to prevent improving the article. Zarcadia (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Would someone like to correct the "Expression error" on the Information Box? Surlyduff50 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

This article is being let down by the current infobox image which is inferior to the more comprehensive New York City page montage. The City of London is given too much prominence at the expense of other landmarks (no St. Pauls!), on the Paris page La Defence is only in the far distance of a panoramic photo. The File:Londoncollage2011.png is similar to the NYC image and has been added a few times by various editors since it was created in December, only for it to be immediately reversed by Rangoon11 usually on the grounds that the previous image is "longstanding".--Paul011089 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked St Pauls was in the City of London so your propsed image actually has two images of the City rather than one, as well as two of Canary Wharf where there is currently none.

To be clear, the change of image was reverted because, on balance, the current image is in my view superior. The current montage is in my opinion excellent - I should add that I had no role in its creation - but I am not averse to any change or amendment of it, although more images does not in my mind directly equate with "better".

Some of the images in the new montage I like, some however I don't think are suitable for the infobox. In particular the image of an escalator (which could be from anywhere), of Westfield (a bland shopping mall which only recently opened and is visually generic) and of the Emirates Stadium (not particularly iconic of London and again fairly generic). The image of the London Eye is fine but the present one is in my view clearer.

I also have concerns about whether the images included are in fact free use, the image of the Emirates Stadium looks like it has come straight from a promotional brochure, and the image looking down on the City has been taken from a helicopter. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)