Talk:London

This article uses British English dialect and spelling. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

okeydokey

I normally like to vandalise wikipedia, but this article is just beautiful (pub landlord style crying.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.110.104 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Status section

At the end of the status section that says "...'the most important town...' and many other authorities..." there are three references the first two both say "HC 501 0304.PDF (PDF). Parliament Publications." However, they link to different sites. Does anyone know if they are the same publication which can be seen in the first of the two, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubacc/501/501.pdf ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 June 2008

Capital of the World?

Sure, haha. A London based newspaper calls London "Capital of the World". Every son in the world calls his mother the most beautifulest. But that doesnt make here Miss World. I removed the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.97.3 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The claim of London being the World's capital has got a reliable source. Fact is fact, you can't remove it just because you don't agree with it. Signsolid (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Get real. Nobody in the world would claim London to be a "Capital of the world" except Londoners of course. It is not even "The capital of Europe". The same mentality can be found when England is perpetually claimed to be a favourite in World cup tournaments (among British press). But everybody seeing them loosing in the quarterfinals. AGAIN : There should be widely accepted sources other than London based newspapers to verify this claim. Rembember? This is meant to be an encyclopedia and not kindergarden advertisement. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Capital of the World, if there was another source that published this sort of information and London wasn't at the top then fair enough, but we shouldn't remove it just because the Independant is based in London. I'm sure that they don't use biasm. bsrboy (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lear21 your reasons for removing the well sourced and reliable claim made by The Independent, a major British newspaper, seems to be full of distane for London and especially England, if going by your comments made earlier. As I stated earlier one cannot remove well sourced and reliably sourced factual information from Wikipedia simply because it conflicts with your own political opinions. I noticed you are a major contributor to the Berlin article and I hope your edits are not based a preference for Berlin either because your are from Berlin or German. I have never made any negative edits to any German or Berlin related articles. Signsolid (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Term "Capital of the world" is a claim or sentence which is used internationally in several thousands publications in a wide variety of fields. The claim/sentence cannot be reduced to ONE study because of it´s overarching usage. It would be therefore misleading. Here are the Google Results for the combination : "Capital of the world" AND a city: New York, 1.430.000 ; London, 657.000 ; Paris, 465.000 ; Los Angeles, 404.000 I think this makes the argument even clearer. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Google search results is definately no way of measuring it. The only way I could see it getting removed was if there was a reliable recently published source stating a city other than London. As of yet no one has provided such a report. Maybe if we cannot reach an agreement here, which I doubt we will, we could try RFC. bsrboy (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The google hits are not very helpful - all these cities are on the Independent list, and the first page for New York reveals several occurences with modifiers such as "economic", "cultural", "murder", "cocaine" ....." Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we all know how an RFC would go! A single local (ie UK) newspaper survey should not be used to ref what is anyway a pretty silly claim in the lead of such an important article. This article recently failed at FAC - stuff like this puts that goal further away. "Financial capital" of the world is a totally different matter. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Article entitled "London is the world capital of the 21st century... says New York". bsrboy (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I bring can bring references for 10 different major cities including the mentioned term. Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia and not a weekly mag from NYC nor a London based promotion brochure. Lear 21 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are able to do so, then please copy and paste the URL here. bsrboy (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I correct myself, there are probably Hundred "Captitals of the world": Google list for the term "capital of the world". all the best Lear 21 (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I correct myself too, can you produce any reliable references in English? bsrboy (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Google list proofed pretty well, that the name is by no means exclusive. I removed the claim and will do so in the future. If anybody is interested in a decent article he/she has to do this as well. I´m wondering about myself that I still argue seriously after reading this ridiculous claim. Nobody in the world nicknames London the "Capital of the world" not even Europe. Don´t be surprised if my next comments are more straightforward. Lear 21 (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If there's consensus to have it in the aritlce, would you still remove it? bsrboy (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I count user Lear 21 & Johnbod as two editors arguing against (including more than thousand references). And I count user Bsrboy and Signsolid arguing to keep a claim about London refernced by a London source. Note that Wikipedia is based on arguments and proof and not on wishful dreams. If there are not at least Hundred different internationally gathered sources supporting the claim, the claim will be removed tomorrow. Lear 21 (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But there isn't more than a thousand references. Wikipedia is based on WP:consensus, which means, we, and other editors discuss the pros and cons of the sentence and come to a conclusion on whether it should be included or not. At the moment there isn't consensus, so it should stay as before. bsrboy (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This should not be included on this way. At most it should be phrased as "A british newspaper has called the british capital the Capital of the World", which is, well, quite lame. The fact that local newspapers tend to oversell their own city does not make for very encyclopedic content, and most certainly not for unbiased neutral independient reliable content. It would be different if there were sources from other countries saying that this newspaper's assesment is correct and that London is really the Capital of the World, or if they were sources about how London is famous for overselling itself as Capital of the World, but that's not the case here. (new york is the one famous for overselling itself, I think)

It would also be different if it was a more concrete claim based on measurable evidence like "Bangalore the software outsourcing capital of the world" from Wired News, or "Jamaica has now been classed the murder capital of the world" from BBC, or simply world-wide agreement on its capitality for a certain characteristic, like "Hollywood - Movie Capital of the World" or "Las Vegas - Entertainment Capital of the World".

Also, there is a lot of possibility of confusion with nicknames, like this list of 100 different nicknames for New York, where one of them is "Capital of the World" and the list includes nicknames like "The Center of the World" or "The First City of the World". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the article on New York City lists "Capital of the World" as one of the nicknames. But seriously, the number of refs is pointless... If someone can find an international opinion poll done by some reputable source then it might warrant some mention; but a newspaper with a circulation of 200,000! Please. The National Enquirer has circulation over 1 million and I would hope we don't use it as a single source for any controversial claims! -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 02:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I was born in London and have lived in and around it all my life and I am always pleased to see London promoted in a positive way but to call London or, indeed any city, 'The Capital of th World' is ludicrous. It only serves to devalue the authority of the article and promote a partisan approach to Wikipedia.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Martin above, using names of that kind for any city is inherently POV. I've seen some study that named London the "ugliest city in the world" and I've seen at least two or three studies calling the English the most unpleasant people in Europe. I hope we all can agree that neither of those "titles" should be added to Wikipedia. There are always all kinds of surveys on more or less everything (Icelanders are the sexiest in Europe, I just read) and just because we can "source" it to various newspaper I see no reason to fill Wikipedia with that kind of nonsense.JdeJ (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just encase some of you are not fully aware, this dicsussion is about whether we should mention in the article that a recent study by The Independent showed London as the capital of the world, not just saying "London is the capital of the world". bsrboy (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of that and my answer would be no. And two small corrections, the study was made by the Indenpendent and it did not show London to be the Capital of the World, it claimed London to be the Capital of the World. I don't see any need for us to inlude anywhere that newspapers have claimed the English to be the most unpleasant either, I simply see no point in including more or less biased and non-verifiable titles invented by various newspapers with a rather limited circulation. JdeJ (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that it was user:JdeJ who was the one who edited the United Kingdom article using a source from the Financial Times claiming the United Kingdom's GDP had fallen behind France's GDP. If this user is stating that newspaper articles aren't reliable enough sources then they are a hypocrite. Also from this user's contributions list it's not hard to see they are anti-British and pro-French. Signsolid (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Or the user has changed their mind. JdeJ, do you think newspapers, like The Times and the Independent, who claim ecomoical facts can be used as references in articles under any situation? Please explain what you think. bsrboy (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I find it almost absurd that some users fail to see the difference between these two cases. The size of an economy is a measurable fact and can thus be verified. The title "capital of the world" is not measurable, it is just an empty claim that cannot be verifiable. This should not be too hard to grasp. As for mw being "anti-British" or "pro-French", everybody is free to check my contributions (around 3000-4000) very few of which deal with either the UK or France and almost none of which are positive or negative towards either country. The user Signsolid, however, has a long history of lying about any user opposing him. As he is almost never able to debate using facts and verifiable arguments, he usually resorts to personal insults and vandalism. I've seen it far too many times to be surprised by it anymore. JdeJ (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about anybody's opinions. Let's keep to the subject matter in hand here, not bitching about other users please. bsrboy (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gladly, that's the way I usually interact with other users on Wikipedia. In that matter, I repeat what has been said by many users already. That a newspaper in London decides to call London the Capital of the World is hardly notable in any way, nor is it encyclopedic. There are many countries in the world where it is commonplace for newspapers to make up all sorts of claims about how their own country/city is the best in the world, and we usually don't include such non-verifiable and subjective claims.JdeJ (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found another source [1], but although lear inparticular has said that there are plenty of references for New York being the capital of the world, he hasn't produced any. I found that reference there by typing "London capital of the world" into google, but I couldn't find any references for New York. bsrboy (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you won't find any scholarly reference of any city being the "Capital of the World". Not London, not New York, not Tokyo. There is no capital of the world and the title itself is meaningless, the fact that a London-based newspaper decides to claim so or that a London-based columnist decides to write it doesn't alter the fact one bit. A quick search on Google returned "references" of the same quality for "capital or the world" for cities such as Rome, Paris, Belgrade, New York, Lyon, Helsinki and Athens. Needless to say, I don't suggest calling either of those cities capital of the world either, but it would be just as (un)justified. I'd like to remind all users that Wikipedia is about verifiable facts and not personal opinions. JdeJ (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read The Independent article? It cites a New York magazine as the source of the article, meaning any reference above to the idea of a London newspaper promoting London from its own information is a bit ludicrous. Darkieboy236 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but have you read the article? It states quite clearly that "The survey was carried out by The Independent", and does not cite any New York magazine as the source of the claim. JdeJ (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have....meant Evening Standard, not Independent: "An influential American magazine has named London the global capital of the 21st century" from . Darkieboy236 (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we were discussing the article in the Independent all, for all its errors, I give them credit for clearly stating that they made the survey themselves. "An influential American magazine" sounds very vague. May I once again remind users about what Wikipedia is and what it is not? WP:WIN and WP:NOT#OR. JdeJ (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Capital of England

London is not capital of England as suggested in the opening paragraph - it is capital of the UK only. England is not a sovereign state. The same applies to Wales, Scotland etc - they are not sovereign states and should not be referred to as countries ([User:ucallmemadam], 1 Aug 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucallmemadam (talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own governments: the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. England, however, does not, so London isn't the capital of England. There was a massive discussion about this. I don't know what the end result was and I don't know where to find it either. 86.29.130.14 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the Status section in the article, where this issue is considered. There is no definitive answer to the question as to whether London is the capital of England and both views are supported by authoritative sources.Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated London as the capital of England as this was the consensus view after a length debate. Does anyone know and easy way to restore the references to the bit in the 'status' section? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Climate Chart

Hi, I think some of the values in the climate chart are incorrect, particluarly the summer average max values. 28 in August!! The previous style of graph (grid like - see Paris page for exmaple) was clearer and had the correct data in it.

The rainfall in the chart is completely unclear as well. 81.157.198.134 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up. I've tried to reolve some of these problems: I have rounded the precipitation data up to the nearest whole number, so it should be easy to read now; I have linked the reference to the correct URL (before it was to an article about August 2003); and I have corrected the values for the max temperatures in summer (you were quite right, 28 is ridiculous!). You can see the source for yourself here. Thanks, bsrboy (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Image

No other city article has so many images

I dont think having all these images is encyclopedic. Other cities like New York, Paris, Shanghai all have ONE image in the infobox. Having 10 images is unnecessary Nikkul (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

New York is well known for its sky line and Paris is well known for the Eifel Tower, but with London it's difficult to have one picture to sum it up. Also the picture for Paris is actually bigger than the one for London. bsrboy (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

think the pictures are pretty damn good, as it is --Rockybiggs (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OMG - waaay too huge

I'll have to remember to not even go to look at this article as it has nearly crashed my computer each time. Hate to think what it does to those with even less speedy systems or who have to pay for downloading time from their own pockets. Article presently is at 134k with a recommended 30-50k for main article text. Please see Wikipedia:Article size for ideas about dealing with article size issues and suggestions. Banjeboi 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the (text only) prose length is only 53K, which is within the limits under Wikipedia:Article Size. Between the many pictures and some of the charts, there is over 80K of extras, but I don't see that hacking them down would improve the article much. It does take a while to load, but it's policy-compliant as it now stands. Horologium (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest "hacking" anything but perhaps some form of splitting the article would benefit all concerned. Banjeboi 03:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has many spilts already suchs as History of London, Etymology of London, Geography of London, Sport in London, football in London,Economy of London etc etc etc. Plus there was a recent cull, please see page history--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that "recent cull" took the size from about 142k down to 137k when i tagged it with {{very long}}. Personally I'm not able to load the article so I can't really help here anymore. If anyone is interested see WP:Split for some assistance. Banjeboi 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The wait makes it all the more enjoyable when you read it... unless it crashes your computer, which is like 1% of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs) 19:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I've viewed this article on multiple machines of differing specifications and haven't personally had any problems loading the article, - in fact, it's no slower than any other article I've viewed on Wikipedia. There's so many sub articles pertaining to different aspects of the city, anymore would become complicated and totally unnecessary. Entangle (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazing photographs

I must say I'm impressed. The photographs on this page are amazing!!! Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Seen this picture floating on the Canary Wharf page, is there space for this too, or one too many. Either way amazing.

The three tallest skyscrapers in Canary Wharf as viewed from Cabot Square: 8 Canada Square (centre-left), One Canada Square (centre), Citigroup Centre (centre-right)

--Rockybiggs (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure! Replace it with the third image in the economy section: Image:Canary Wharf at night, from Shadwell.jpg. bsrboy (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Location of London in England

I am missing in this article a map that shows where in England (or where in the British Isles) this city is located. Maybe something like the map shown in Greater London. What good is an article on a city, if it doesn't tell you where to find that city? Johan Lont (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Health Section

Should this article have a health section included? Signsolid (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It should have a section on Public services, which covers health. bsrboy (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead quote?

Just revisiting this page this morning and noticed a Samuel Johnson quote had been added at the head of the article. What do you guys think of this? I admit it adds something, but opening with a quote seems like something more suited for a novel than for an encyclopedia article. Might it also be an NPOV problem, kind of like the "capital of the world" debate? Perhaps it belongs in another section of the article... Lone Skeptic (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. I'm not sure if it's there for good faith or to perpetuate a biased POV about London. I'm not necessarily saying it should be deleted from the article, but I don't believe that it should be right at the top. I've also not seen any other city articles that open with a quote. TheSuave 19:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree also, it should remain in the article but be moved.Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the quote has been deleted. I think we should find a home for it somewhere in the article.Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be quite obvious that such a quote by definition is POV and unsuitable. A quote is always the opinion of a single person and often contains a POV, and who should decide which quote to use. Why not start the article with a quote by Jane Austen instead, ""Nobody is healthy in London, nobody can be.". Obviously I'm not suggesting such a thing, but it would be no less appropriate than the Johnston quote. If we want to have a section called quotes about London, then that's the place to put such quotes. Personally I think it would be a bad idea, but it would at least be a lesser evil than starting with any quote. JdeJ (talk) 08:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. It's obviously a biased quote. Samuel Johnson lived in London so the quote is obviously his own view of London. Using the Jane Austen quote you mentioned would also be justified. I do think the quote violates WP:NPOV, so I'm going to remove it. TheSuave 12:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course a quote is POV! That is why it is stated as a quote. It would be quite wrong to state, 'If you are tired of London ...' as fact but WP policy on NPOV cannot possible be held to apply to quotes just as it does not apply to pictures, any of which is, quite literally, a point of view. On that basis no pictures should be allowed.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in this article mentioning poverty in London at the moment, it seems to be a very positive article, which is good. but whereas articles for most countries mention how many people are under the poverty line this doesn't seem to, and neither does the article for the whole of England. Having lived in London in not great conditions I know that there are a lot of people(and not all illegal immigrants) who don't have enough money to buy healthy food, clothes, and who work very long hours to survive. I think this article is biased without putting in at least a couple of sentences with some figures on this. Average standard of living is much less equitable than most other cities I've lived in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.42.233 (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Claim - Economy section

Hi. I was recently working on the Paris article, and there noticed an un-sourced and rather pompous claim that The Paris urban area is Europe's biggest city economy, and is fifth in the world's list of cities by GDP. The author of this statement insists that we leave the phrase as it is, and provided a "source" that is a study - based on estimates - undertaken by a single organisation that is not at all the source of France's demo-economical data; there is only one, the INSEE. I do not at all condone this practice of trumpeting selective studies as "facts" that are nothing of the same.

Then I come here to the Economy section and find an un-sourced London has the 4th largest city economy in the world after Tokyo, New York City and Los Angeles. Where do you get these numbers? Is your source the same? I hope not.

If your source - if it exists - is as selective as that used for the Paris article, I suggest either finding a world-wide-accepted (and here we're talking government level) comparison between the world's city spreads/GDP's, otherwise we should (humbly) modify both articles (not to mention others) to use more generalist terms to describe a city's rank in the 'world of riches'.

The above sort of selective "greater than thou" game has resulted in years of edit and revert wars between the above two articles - namely the Economy of Paris article - and I would like to put an end to it.

Generalist terms are perfectly acceptable: for the Paris article, based on all the studies I've seen, I think a "estimated to be among the top ten" language would be appropriate, if it was needed at all. What do you think? Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, this BBC News article uses information from PricewaterhouseCoopers - [2], although it uses predictions for 2020, so I'm not sure if the London has the 4th largest city economy statement is accurate, as it may not be 4th yet. Tokyo and New York City have the largest city economies, respectively. I'll try and find more information. TheSuave 19:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• I've found some more sources. This source ranks London as the world's sixth largest city economy. The ranking seems to be:
• 1) Tokyo
• 2) New York City
• 3) Los Angeles
• 4) Chicago
• 5) Paris
• 6) London

Further verified by this source which is based on figures from The Economist. Hope that helps. TheSuave 20:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I'd just like to add that my whole point about the PwC report is that it is based on estimates and predictions - not solid fact by any official entity - , the mechanics of which are not disclosed. I don't know about London, but French economical data is taken in communes, départements and régions, and not at all in urban areas - so these economist organisations can only make estimates concocted from pure, official and quite citeable data (see the INSEE) - I think the fact that these reports (article claims) are concocted estimations/speculations by private businesses/organisations should be noted for the better information of the reader, instead of being presented as pure and unaltered official fact, which is not at all the case. See my point? THEPROMENADER 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. I'll try and see if the City of London has published any official reports on the Greater London economy, but it seems unlikely. The PwC statistics seem to be the only ones I can find on the rankings of city economies. However, I believe the current ranking is more or less correct, regardless of whether or not they are official statistics. TheSuave 12:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should note though that the cited report itself mentions other reports that differ greatly with its own. Are we the ones to judge which report is "the best" and promote it as unchallengeable fact? I think not. At the least we should mention that the report comes from a private source, and is based on estimates. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the Economist also used the same PwC report [3]. The author of this report and estimates be mentioned in both articles - as now the reader is persuaded that this 'ranking' conclusion is based on official data and statistics, where it is not. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, I don't think that's true. Nowhere on the article does it say that the reports are official. if the reader wants to check if the claim is official or not, they'll click on the reference to find out. PwC is pretty trustworthy when it comes to economic reports. It's not as if they have some agenda to play around with rankings. At least we have statements with citations to add verification. Not crazy bias like before. Isn't that enough? TheSuave 12:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But that's the whole point - estimates by a single organisation are not undisputable fact - as are official census and economic records. If the rankings indicated are estimated (by a single organisation), they should be indicated as such, with mention of the organisation name. Here I seek clarity and NPOV that will cover all possible 'positions' in the matter. I really could care less if London or Paris comes 'first' in any study; rather, it bothers me that an estimation or prediction is presented as undisputable fact. Is there anything wrong with putting "PwC estimates that X comes X in their listing of the world's richest city GDP's" ? THEPROMENADER 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Right now, maybe it's all we have to go on. Not every city has an organisation like INSEE to publish official data on the economy of metropolitan areas. If you want to add the bit about PwC using estimates, then do it if it makes you happy. Seriously though, do you think every statement concerning data about the city in this article is verified by an official source? I think not. TheSuave 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But again, that's the whole point. Until there is a unanimously-internationally-accepted method of calculating density/wealth, everyone can promote their own method as being the best - and many do, as shown even in the aforementioned report. Until that time, such statistics should be related where they are solidly sourced - that is to say, from the government agency that gathered them. Even PwC pulls the base of its 'calculations' from the INSEE and Greater London institutions - why must we published the juggled numbers of one private institution over official others? To better play the 'greater than thou' game? No matter my misgivings with the immaturity of such an endavour, mention the organisation juggling the numbers in the article, that's all I ask. THEPROMENADER 19:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Without further ado, the best way to clarify this tidbit for both articles is to indicate the source of the estimate, in both articles, to the reader. This way we can leave the 'ranking' as it is in the most clear and NPOV manner possible. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

coat of arms?

What happened to the London coat of arms that used to be here some time ago?... Also I wonder if London has a flag, and if someone could put them in the article. Energyfreezer (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the flag and coat of arms are only relevant to City of London rather than London as a whole. Brilliantine (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm this; Greater London, today also known as London, has its own logo and no coat of arms. THEPROMENADER 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hulk Hulgan???

It says that Hulk Hogan is the Mayor!?!?!? --71.225.111.4 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Accent section

An accent section has recently been added to the article. While I can see that this might be valuable, as it stands it's completely unreferenced. Should I remove it? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, we now have one reference but hopefully more can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

PR

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?] - Not sure about this one? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 10:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?] - Can't shorten? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 10:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?] - Seems OK. The Helpful One ^(Review) 11:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: harbour (B) (American: harbor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), isation (B) (American: ization), jewellery (B) (American: jewelry), mould (B) (American: mold), programme (B) (American: program ). -  Done The Helpful One ^(Review) 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The Helpful One ^(Review) 10:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Being taken over by New York in population?

There is a discrepancy between the date when New York became more populous than London. The History section of the New York article puts it at 1948 while the demographics section of the London article puts it at 1925. Which one is it? I've created a similar section on the New York talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliwalla (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This article suggests that 1925 is correct but it says that New York's population was 8 million then, whereas the New York City article suggests that it was only 5,620,048 in 1920 and 6,930,446 in 1930 so I'm confused. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's to do with the difference between the city proper and the urban area? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

According to List of largest cities throughout history, both sources that tracked 20th century data both list 1925 as the year that NYC took over London. Given the rate of immigration into New York (Ellis Island was processing on average almost 1000 immigrants a day at its peak) until the U.S. passed the Immigration Act of 1924, it would certainly have been possible for NYC to grow that quickly. -epicAdam (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But what about the historical population data here? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. Census records for 1920 show that the population recorded for NYC was within the 300 square miles of the city proper, indicating that extraneous "urban area" was not included in their tally. The only explanation I can think of, therefore, is that the census bureau data might in fact be wrong. The Census at this time would have required people to fill out the census questionnaire and return it by mail. Given the number of non-English-speaking immigrants coming into the city, my guess is that this resulted in a massive under count in NYC's official population data. The authors of the more recent books cited on the List of largest cities throughout history probably have gone back and taken this into account by formulating new population estimates based not only on the old census data but on immigration data as well. -epicAdam (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just revisting this, it seems we're left with the discrepancy. Does anyone have any suggestions for making the two articles consistent? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures - too many of them?

While the pictures on this article are extremely good, they increase the page size to the extent that it 1) is very slow to load even on a fast connection and 2) crashes the WikiEd gadget (for me at least). I propose trimming down the pictures very slightly -

• The geography section has maybe 1 or 2 too many.
• The demography section could probably lose one.
• Economy and architecture could each lose one.
• Sport needs to lose one as the section is too short to fit them all in.

I'm rubbish at placing the images, so I'm not going to attempt it myself.

I'm not sure how much this would save, but causing gadgets to crash surely isn't desired page behaviour? Brilliantine (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The page is loading pretty slowly and some of the sections (demography in particular) have too many photos in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a start by removing the image of the Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral. As nice as it is, it's not really representative of London, so I thought it was the best one to remove from the demography section. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

I think the picture of the inside of the O2 arena doesn't add much to the article.

There has to be a better image for the religion section than Lambeth palace? While it is the Archbishop's residence, I can't help but think a picture of an actual place of worship would sit better.

The geography section could lose one of the two satellite images, probably the one of West London. The other one needs to be renamed to 'View of Inner London'.

I think two panaromic views may be one too many - the one of East London is a nice view of the park and palace but not much use as a panorama. There are too many pictures of Canary Wharf/Docklands in the Economy and Architecture sections.

Probably Twickenham of the sport ones should go. Personally, I would get rid of the Wembley one, but I doubt many people would agree with me.

I think the loss of the picture of the bus would not affect the article unduly. Belongs on the '"Transport in London" article rather than the main one.

Sorry not to do any of this myself, but I figure that people might want to discuss it, and whenever I touch a picture box, pages start breaking all over the place. Brilliantine (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the West London sattelite photo, the inside shot of the O2 and the one of Twickenham. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Would it be possible to move the M25 picture up slightly so it sits within the relevant section? Brilliantine (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

London is the world's leading business, financial ....bla bla"

We all know that the London article is frequently the victim and one of Wiki´s prime examples of teenager enthusiasm. I suggest another sentence for the intro: "London and its inhabitants are known for ongoing exaggeration and superstitions (lies) in all matters of live." I found it to be always funny when England claims itself as a soccer top favorite in several tournaments while constantly losing in the quarterfinals.

I think the specific sentence you are referring to was merely repeating the source cited. I'm not sure about how good the source is, but there has been quite a lot of back-and-forth on this topic already - which I'm not about to get involved in. It's 'football', not 'soccer', by the way :P Brilliantine (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with stating if something is the leader in its field. If it is it is and if it's got sources then there's no problem with it because the article is here to state facts and if it's a fact then what's wrong with it? All other articles mention when something is the leader in its field so why shouldn't this article be allowed to state the facts? Usergreatpower (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The source comes from a London authority. As with several lists and rankings originating from the London region, London finds itself (surprisingly) always on NO. 1. This is clever marketing but nothing else. A mother finds its baby always the most important thing in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.21.230 (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference where the source is from so long as it's reliable, and the London authority is considered reliable, considering it's a part of the British government. Most articles on places are going to have sources which originate from that area for the obvious reason that most things written about that area will come from the area itself. I see nothing wrong with the sources whatsoever. The majority of sources for the Berlin article originate from Berlin, just as most here orginate from London. If facts state London is number 1 at something and it's backed by reliable sources then there's nothing wrong with that. ALL other articles do the same because facts are facts and there's nothing wrong with stating facts from reliable sources. You may not like that London is the leader in whatever field but that doesn't change the fact that it is and edits to remove such content due to dislike of a fact is basically vandalism. Usergreatpower (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The view should probably be attributed in any case, as the source is not exactly going to be neutral. I'm saying this as a Londoner, btw. Brilliantine (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Race relations vis-a-vis rest of England

In the "Rise of Modern London" section, I deleted a fragment about how racial integration was smoother in London than elsewhere in England. The sentence had a reference at the end but the online source only supported what was being said in the first half of the sentence (which was actually about race riots in London). In fact, London had worse race relations than everywhere else throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and the far-right gained all their successes in Greater London until fairly recently. Even today, Barking & Dagenham is the BNP capital of the country. It is an urban myth in England that London is so much more civilised than everywhere else, which is probably what prompted this part of the article. Epa101 (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy from failed FAC about reliable sources to fix.

Hi there! This is from the previous FAC about unreliable sources...

• What makes the following reliable sources:

• • http://www.gatewaysmoving.com/about_moving_to_london_england_uk.htm (it's a moving company?) Why would you use this for history? Also lacking a publisher -  Done. See this edit. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 12:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/LondonBoroughs.php (Why here and not say.. the Ordinance Maps?) - Can't reference to Ordinance Maps. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 10:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.gardenweb.com/zones/europe/hze1.html -  Done, http://www.rhs.org.uk/news/climate_change/chapter4_5.pdf The Helpful One ^(Review) 10:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 11 is lacking a publisher and page number (Mills, A. "A Dictionary of London Place Names"
• Current ref 43 "Pepys S. The Diary of Samuel Pepys... is lacking a page number
• Current ref 80 Collins English Dictionary is lacking a page number - Can't find it in my copy of the dictionary. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 12:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 81 Oxford English Reference dictionary is lacking a page number
• Current ref 129 Sassen Saskia The Global City is lacking a page number

I will check these and remove these as I go along! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

London as capital of England - one more time

I recent IP editor has removed the wording relating to London as the capital of England. This wording was added by consensus after a very long series of discussions ending in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London/Archive_8&section=14

It was generally accepted that there is no definitive answer as to whether London is the capital of England or not. It depends on the meaning of the word 'capital', which is defined differently in different places, and on which other authorities you accept. The previous wording reflected this fact and was very well referenced, including two dictionary definitions and parliamentary sources.

My attempts to restore this balanced and well-referenced consensus view have been thwarted continual reversions by an anonymous editor who refuses to enter into any discussion on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

there is no definitive answer as to whether London is the capital of England or not? Surely that means it shouldn't be in the intro? If it's not a concrete fact then it has no place. Having it there is POV. London as the capital of England can be mentioned in the status section where it belongs, where clarification can be ade about the situation, provided of course the refs you claim you have are put in. Reading past discussions, there is certainly not consensus among editors to have England mentioned in the intro. There is dispute about the fact and should most definitely not be in the intro.78.16.213.64 (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There was considered to be a somewhat better case for London being the capital of England than not and it was therefore considered best to leave it as such in the intro. It has been there for some time. Have you read the talk archive? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and the only editor plumming for its inclusion was you from what I was reading. Not having capital of England mentioned doesn't not make London the capital by your one or two definitions(without references btw). But saying it is, means it is true by all measures, which is wrong. Your point of view is OR and not verifiable fact so should not be included. If London is not 100% the capital of England then do not mislead people that it is. It's called NPOV and thats what the intro should have.78.16.213.64 (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you must have missed a bit, there were plenty who said London was the capital of England. Also you will note that, before it was removed, there were several references for the statement under 'status'. London being the capital of England is not my POV it is a position supported by dictionaries and parliamentary sources. It is no more neutral to include London being the capital of England that it is to omit it, which is your POV. What are your reasons for claiming that London is not the capital of England and where is your verification? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well England is not a real country so it can't have a capital in the first place. Even if it did its not notable. Notice how say Dublin doesn't say its the capital and largest city of Co. Dublin, Leinster as well as Ireland? Declaring its status about a consituent part of a state is fine in a sub section but not the opening introduction line. Its not NPOV. It's not an international persepective.78.16.213.64 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it but if you read the archived talk pages you will see several lengthy and detailed discussions about the status of England and London as its capital, with many editors quoting authoritative references for their particular point of view. You have not provided any references to verify that London is not the capital of England. Look at Edinburgh and Cardiff and you will see that they are both capitals.

My real complaint is not with your particular opinion, which does have support, but with the way that that you (or another IP editor) have made a change without references and then started edit warring when I reverted to the previous consensus position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You might like to look at the England article where there has been very extensive debate on the subject and where London is shown as the capital of England. I think England should be put back in the intro and I will do so if no one else does. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

England is very much a 'real country', your opinion notwithstanding. I believe the consensus text should stay. The article for Edinburgh opens by stating that Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland; I don't think anyone much would accept the change if you were to remove that claim, asserting that 'Scotland's not a real country'. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Greater London Population

Think the population for Greater London may need updating a little, BBC posted an article about a month ago saying that the population of greater London was 7.56 million http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7639338.stm Dav matt (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your comment but I'm going to leave it as is at the moment, as I require and exact figure to make the change - and I can't find the exact figure! The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Finance

Does the section mentioning the importance and size of the financial industry in London need an update? Considering the recent turmoils in the finance and banking sectors? Not to mention the stock market.

some comments

I would like to eventually support this article but I have some suggestions that I would like to post here not on the FAC page so it doesnt clutter it up or harm its chances of passing.

• Can we toss the pronunciation help right after "London" in the first sentence? It mucks up the page and I dont think its very helpful. - Looked at some other FA's with Geography, they're all like that: Alanya, Israel, Japan, Peru etc. The Helpful One ^Review 17:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Can the first two paragraphs of History go into a note section instead? - Why do they need to go into the notes section? Aren't they better in the main part of the article? The Helpful One ^Review 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe this is too trivial but there was an expulsion of Jews from England that occured in the 1200's, mostly from London [4] -  Done. Added this information. The Helpful One ^Review 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I really like the rest of the article and it looks like it is really well done. I dont have any more comments. NancyHeise ^talk 00:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand better than anyone how a reviewers comments sometimes do not make the article better ;) I think this is a great article and my comments were really nitpicky stuff so I am going to support. Great job! NancyHeise ^talk 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn

The recent FAC nomination of this article has been withdrawn by the nominator. Please leave the {{fac}} template at the top of this page to enable proper archiving of the recent FAC, which should happen within several days. Thank you. Maralia (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

London Groove wishes to have an external link on the Wikipedia website back to London Groove.

Dear Editor,

My name is Steve Prashad and I’m the owner of a website called London Groove.

We are a nightlife entertainment website that has been established for over 4 years dealing with a range of night clubs in the West End of London and running a range of club nights on weekly basis.

I have visited the London page of the Wikipedia site and I feel that the content of www.londongroove.co.uk would be of interest to your site visitors.

I’d appreciate if could let me know if this would be possible to have a link added to the London page and if so I'd appreciate having the following:

URL : www.londongroove.co.uk Text Link (clickable part of the text) : Nightclubs in London Description : London Groove provides a guestlist booking service for nightclubs in the West End of London for RnB and Funky House night clubs.

Thank you very much for your time and if this is of no interest to yourselves please accept my apologies.

Kind regards,

Steve Prashad Londongroove Tel : 020 8252 1574 Mob : 07968 828 504 E : steve@londongroove.co.uk W : www.londongroove.co.uk

82.5.141.44 (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Add Link to International Shipping company of LONDON under External Link

Hi I checked your page for information related about LONDON and i advice to place a link Star Shipping International International Shippers