Jump to content

Talk:London: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 292: Line 292:
Both these statements contain verifying references already footnoted. However, we now have the appearance of two editors who are looking for various reasons to do away with the probability or evidence of Briton settlements and/or the date 43 AD, from the Lede. One says he does not think it notable, and the other says it is unsupported speculation. Both seemed a bit too bully to initiate discussion rather than edit war, so I'm initiating it here for further explanation. Regards, [[User:Philip Mexico|Philip Mexico]] ([[User talk:Philip Mexico|talk]]) 14:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Both these statements contain verifying references already footnoted. However, we now have the appearance of two editors who are looking for various reasons to do away with the probability or evidence of Briton settlements and/or the date 43 AD, from the Lede. One says he does not think it notable, and the other says it is unsupported speculation. Both seemed a bit too bully to initiate discussion rather than edit war, so I'm initiating it here for further explanation. Regards, [[User:Philip Mexico|Philip Mexico]] ([[User talk:Philip Mexico|talk]]) 14:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|Philip Mexico}} The article says {{tq|''"Although there is evidence of scattered Brythonic settlements in the area, the first major settlement was founded by the Romans after the invasion of 43 AD"''}} while the material you're edit-warring against multiple editors over says {{tq|''"probably close to an already existing [[Celtic Britons|Celtic Briton]] village or settlement – around the year 43"''}}. Which is not at all the same, meaning that ''"probably close to an already existing Celtic Briton village or settlement"'' is pure unsourced speculation (see [[WP:OR]]/[[WP:SYNTH]]) and against the rules here. Which is why I have reverted you... -&nbsp;'''Tom'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 15:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|Philip Mexico}} The article says {{tq|''"Although there is evidence of scattered Brythonic settlements in the area, the first major settlement was founded by the Romans after the invasion of 43 AD"''}} while the material you're edit-warring against multiple editors over says {{tq|''"probably close to an already existing [[Celtic Britons|Celtic Briton]] village or settlement – around the year 43"''}}. Which is not at all the same, meaning that ''"probably close to an already existing Celtic Briton village or settlement"'' is pure unsourced speculation (see [[WP:OR]]/[[WP:SYNTH]]) and against the rules here. Which is why I have reverted you... -&nbsp;'''Tom'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 15:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
::Pardon me, but what do you see as the significant distinction in the import of those two sentences? Unless you are splitting hairs, such as one saying "settlements" (plural) and the other "settlement", which I should think would be easier to correct than edit war to delete all of the data about Britons and 43 AD from the Lede. [[User:Philip Mexico|Philip Mexico]] ([[User talk:Philip Mexico|talk]]) 15:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:36, 22 December 2016

Template:Vital article

Good articleLondon has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 22, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
April 19, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 11, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 1, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 3, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 18, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
May 29, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 10, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 12, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
November 4, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article


Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2014

Template:Edit London In the Education section, please update the university rankings of UCL, ICL and KCL to read: A number of world-leading education institutions are based in London. In the 2013 QS World University Rankings, University College London (UCL) is ranked 4th in the world, Imperial College London 5th, and King's College London 19th.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2013|title=QS World University Rankings - Overall for 2013|accessdate=18 March 2014</ref>


Done.

Wildlife

Will have to look up Wildlife! - including pigeons. Also the large parks of London! Some work here!

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2015

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 135 external links on London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your a huge help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:5C2:100:908:A56C:83EB:F3CE:FED2

Cluttered lead

The lead is badly cluttered with a bunch of rankings. Can we remove a bunch of them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Britons, 43 AD founding in Lead

As the body of the article states:

Although there is evidence of scattered Brythonic settlements in the area, the first major settlement was founded by the Romans after the invasion of 43 AD.

Perring, Dominic (1991). Roman London. London: Routledge. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-203-23133-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

This seems sufficient to justify the explanation in the lead:

It was founded – probably close to an already existing Celtic Briton village or settlement – around the year 43 by the Romans, who named it Londinium (7)

Both these statements contain verifying references already footnoted. However, we now have the appearance of two editors who are looking for various reasons to do away with the probability or evidence of Briton settlements and/or the date 43 AD, from the Lede. One says he does not think it notable, and the other says it is unsupported speculation. Both seemed a bit too bully to initiate discussion rather than edit war, so I'm initiating it here for further explanation. Regards, Philip Mexico (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Philip Mexico: The article says "Although there is evidence of scattered Brythonic settlements in the area, the first major settlement was founded by the Romans after the invasion of 43 AD" while the material you're edit-warring against multiple editors over says "probably close to an already existing Celtic Briton village or settlement – around the year 43". Which is not at all the same, meaning that "probably close to an already existing Celtic Briton village or settlement" is pure unsourced speculation (see WP:OR/WP:SYNTH) and against the rules here. Which is why I have reverted you... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but what do you see as the significant distinction in the import of those two sentences? Unless you are splitting hairs, such as one saying "settlements" (plural) and the other "settlement", which I should think would be easier to correct than edit war to delete all of the data about Britons and 43 AD from the Lede. Philip Mexico (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London&oldid=756186835"