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)

Highest temperature in October

Is currently 26 degrees. Tomorrow is the 1st October and the forcast is 29 degrees. I will probably be on to update! Cls14 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

London Moves Ahead Of New York

http://www.gfsnews.com/article/3089/1/EU_financial_centres_plunge_in_rankings, That's all the important index's now and the article should reflect that. 10:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that this index is a measure of competitiveness, not the relative size or importance of financial centres. I still think that it is most accurate to say 'the leading financial centre alongside New York', as New York remains a larger centre for a number of key areas, e.g. equities. In my view this index certainly merits a mention in the Economy section though.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Chinatown

An IP is insisting that this document produced by local government is unreliable. If reasons are not produced, backed by reliable sources, the information should be restored. Nev1 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I just looked for other sources and found this from Reuters which does in fact contradict the existing source: [1]Rangoon11 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It makes the situation interesting, but both Westminster City Council and Reuters can be considered reliable sources, the question is which is correct? But since it doesn't look like it's going to be a clear cut case, I don't have an issue with leaving out the claim. Nev1 (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the Reuters source actually comments that London's Chinatown is relatively small (as well as stating that the Paris one is the largest, as the IP claimed) makes me fairly certain that the Westminster City Council source is incorrect. I haven't been able to find any other source describing London as the largest.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)