Talk:List of areas of London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Split[edit]

This list has been split off from the list of places in London, of which it was originally a part. -- Arthur Frayn 14:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist[edit]

Am I being silly, or is there no reflist. Is this intentional? hjuk 14:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

I'm considering splitting this list up and putting it in the various short articles that are linked here {{London places}}. MRSC • Talk 12:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incomplete[edit]

Hello, one important information is missing: How many districts are there? W like wiki (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows - the key word is 'informal'. S a g a C i t y (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup request[edit]

What is with following districts in following boroughs:

... this is an example of the incomplete nature of the list. S a g a C i t y (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the areas that were left. If you provide a full list I will clean too! Huskion (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Saga City, if still active and interested; their post was several years ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thought. Essentially be problem as defined is insoluble. All of England, but particularly London, is a historical mishmash of boundaries which may be ecclesiastical, manorial, juridical, for local administration, electoral, postal, sporting, planning, school catchment areas and so on. Some may seem to have vanished, while others may be estate agents' conceits or names given by developers back to Georgian times. Other may merely by the name of the nearest railway station. So there is no 'list' to work to. So it's multi-layered geography that is continually evolving. All efforts must be on a "least bad" basis. Sorry if this isn't a clear answer but it is where (and when) we are. S a g a C i t y (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Project to cleanup the child pages of this page[edit]

Hello I am new to Wikipedia. I wish to conduct a small project to clean up and create some consistency in the opening paragraph of every area of London. I have noticed recently that there has been some activity, not all of it good, amongst editors on how this should be written. After reading through many of the area pages, and the discussions that have arisen from them etc. I have come to the conclusion that they should begin like so:

A is an area of B London, England, within the London Borough(s) of C (and D). It is located E miles F of Charing Cross. It lies within the Historic County of G... and so on.

Where: A is the area name, B is the compass direction from Central London (or "Central London" if the area is located there), C is the borough it is located within (D is only used if it straddles borough boundaries), E is the distance in miles from Charing Cross, and F is the direction, G is the Historic County the area was within before either of the London boundary changes.

What do people think of this? Do I have to have some kind of admin permission before I commence? Thank you. Huskion (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't see the value of such rigid standardisation. While all London areas should include 'borough' and approx location with London (N-E-S-W), what value is 'standardising' on distance from Ch Cross? (I know it is the traditional 'fixed point', but how is that useful to the reader?). Most of London is going to be in the GLAA, so 'county' is only going to apply to places that were in historic counties. Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you agree that everything apart from the Charing Cross distance should appear in every article? I am definitely open to suggestions, and you are the only person to respond thus far! Finally, isn't it true that every part of London is within the Historic County of either Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Essex or Hertfordshire? Huskion (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure i fully agree with Pincrete, at least, i agree that rigidly sticking to a standard may be wrong, but i do believe that a certain level of consistency in the approach is to be sought. I think that variation in the wording, in the order of information is no bad thing, but i don't think that the suggested information you have is a wrong approach. In particular, i think that giving the historic county is quite useful ~ though it's forty years or something since they were dissolved, their legacy lives on to a degree, and in the thousand years of history they have, forty isn't a huge amount. As far as the distance from Charing Cross, i do agree with Pincrete: Not really useful to the reader; distance from the "centre" of London, sure, but an exact number of kilometres miles isn't either easy to visualise (whereabouts in the area is being measured?) or especially helpful. Hope mine input is a little useful, Huskion, though it feels a bit like waffle. In the end, no you don't need "permission", but do stop for further discussion if you receive any pushback from other editors, after making changes. Happy days, LindsayHello 09:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look in the computing area at articles like 16-bit. Someone decided how a bunch of articles should read, and made a template so that the lead paragraph is written automatically from no more input than the number 16 in this case. Brilliant. I hate it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those facts should be present (except the arbitrary "distance from Charing Cross" thing), and the London wikiproject might want to suggest this as a default "blueprint" for a London area article's lead. But articles need not be worded exactly that way or in that order, since it can make the articles tedious to read in series, which various readers might be doing, place by place. A style point: "historic county" should not be capitalised; that's a common-noun phrase. Historic counties should definitely be included when applicable; this is crucial information in many contexts (for someone like a genealogist, it may even be the no. 1 bit of information they're after).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read my comment above - it is very hard to standardise that which has no standards. Best Wishes S a g a C i t y (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-urban settlement pattern[edit]

Feels very much like an essay. Why are we comparing London to the Midlands? What has this got to do with a list of places? I was tempted to move to Geography of London or delete? MRSC (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sync list and category[edit]

  • Pages in category "Areas of London": 704
  • List of areas of London: 532

Some articles in the category (such as East End of London or Isle of Dogs) will should not appear in the list (or at least not in the main section). MRSC (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

A list exists here, although needs some work to get only the London data. https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/products/os-open-names MRSC (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_areas_of_London&oldid=1206197410"