This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article is within the scope of the Paralympics task force. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
It is requested that an image or photograph of a London city skyline for the infobox be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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!
The main image
I know some of you are already having this discussion, but do you think you could just decide on a main collage?
Please ensure your decision is anything but the horrible current one.
Collage
I removed the collage and added various pictures to a sub-infobox so they can be changed individually. It also allows each image to be expanded individually. I personally think the infobox is too long with that many pictures and would prefer removing the picture of St. James's Park as it's least recognisable. Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 14:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rob, I really don't think the skyline shot is any good, for the reasons set out on your talk page. Someone just pointed and clicked. Or so it appears imho. Why is the selection of images on Commons so limited and unartistic for all subjects - not just London? Flickr is so much better! A P Monblat (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is free use images only.
There are many pictures, just they're not easy to find.
Thanks Rob, of those selected above 053 is best. But I took the liberty earlier of replacing the 2012 City one with what I think is a great one of Canary Wharf - the way the buildings are lines up with the river in front really works for me. A P Monblat (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can indent comments with colons.
I think a picture of the City of London is more relevant as it is the heart of the city. I don't think London's second financial district deserves the principal position in the article. I would be fine with 053.
Also, the one you added is fairly large. Possibly it could go next to the Shard, and then we could move Buckingham palace down and remove St. James's Park? Though we might then be putting too much emphasis on the city's skyline then. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When my route used to take me across Waterloo Bridge, I discovered I wasn't the only pausing to enjoy one of the best easily-accessible views of London. So I'd like to nominate File:City_of_London_skyline_at_dusk.jpg. It may have some compositional flaws, but it's a very recognisable picture of London (complete with red double-deckers, even), more so - for me, anyway - than night pictures of Canary Wharf or File:London_(Panorama)_(8162101805)_cropped.jpg. NebY (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's out of date and a little dark. The picture will be small, thus needs to be fairly clear. I don't think night, or evening shots are ideal. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer NebY's choice, of the two and think we should use it for the forseeable future; but I think we should look out for an even better one, and deploy it if and when it becomes available. A P Monblat (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There probably is free-use images elsewhere we could look at. I will put NebY's suggestion for now as we all agree it is okay. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rob and AP! I confess, the picture is less impressive at infobox size so agree we should still keep our eyes open for a better one. NebY (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it only really comes into its own when full screen size. I found an excellent one flickr - is there any way it can put on Commons? Here is a link to it [1]A P Monblat (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With a Flickr account, you should be able to ask the photographer to licence it. (If you do, could you request the right-hand side only? Then you'd be spared my heartfelt agreement with the first para of Tower Bridge#Reaction and a diatribe on the excrescence at 20 Fenchurch Street besides.) NebY (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found a better one: it's not of the City, but is a skyline one with a great foreground. It has a lot of views which proves people like it. Here it is [2]. If there is agreement, could someone get this photo on to Commons in the manner described by NebY? A P Monblat (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a particularly good image, and nor is it really the best skyline shot. Canary Wharf is not the typified London skyline. If you have a particular view in mind, I'm happy to go out there and shoot it. We don't need to fuss about with contacting Flickr users trying to get them to licence their images. Ðiliff «» (Talk)11:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever exact location is used to photograph the City of London towers, I think zoom is required to bring them closer (and from a suitable angle, Canary Wharf could also be seen quite clearly in the background - with enough zoom). The roof of the shopping centre mall near St Pauls is one possible vantage point. There are an awful lot of artistically taken shots of London out there, and it seems a missed opportunity to put any basic ones up in the infobox. (A picture tells a thousands stories.) A P Monblat (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. Another possiblity would be to simply retake the classy-looking 2008 shot from an earlier collage from the viewing gallery atop City Hall (you took this shot, Diliff). But this time with all the new towers included - here it is. A P Monblat (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not use photos with such extreme zoom as this suggestion, or heavily processed ones such as this one mentioned earlier. They're not faithful and realistic images of London; someone standing in the very same spot would not see that London and would declare Wikipedia to be extremely misleading. NebY (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point about not overdoing the zoom. I am happy to trust to Diliff's judgement, bearing this point in mind, having just looked through the his previous work.A P Monblat (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; this way it's much more straightforward to update and change selections, plus we don't suffer the image degradation shown in Wackslas's recent montages. Also, the points made by No such user back in December and January above still stand, especially the problem of images forcing the infobox text information down. Indeed, I could happily lose that floral display, even if it did mean the abolition of the monarchy removal of Buck House. NebY (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the {{Photomontage}} template excellent for making montages out of separate files for the Birmingham article and have some draft examples in my sandbox here. You have to create crops of the images to fit and remain in proportion, but you need to do that for the montage to look neat and professional anyway. There are also guidelines for making montages for UK cities from the UK geography wikiproject here. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cropped the images in photoshop and reuploaded them, marked as derivative works so that the original photographer is still correctly credited. I have wondered since whether the crops would be better in wikipedia image space than commons though. We don't really want commons filled up with different crops of the same images. I found that single panorama with a 5:2 or 6:2 aspect ratio, with two landscape shots with 3:2 aspect ratios and three portrait shots with 3:4 aspect ratios gave a nice balanced montage. You have to crop to the exact aspect ratios though or you get thick black lines where the images don't fit and it looks a mess. JimmyGuano (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The images are making the infobox quite large. I think we should either remove an image, my preference being St. James's Park, or place two images next to each other, as with the Shard and Buckingham Palace, which would require replacing two images with ones with more vertical ratios. Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 21:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I think we have agreed upon the top image being a skyline, and that the current one is the best on commons, but not ideal. As for the rest of the collage, I think we should change one of the two palaces to two vertical images so it looks more like a collage rather then a list of images. I don't think we want any more then 3 rows of images because the infobox shouldn't be primarily images. Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 12:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All three are good images, but I think we should leave out St Pancras - highly impressive though the building is, I doubt if it is that well known internationally (well only in France and Belgium being a Eurostar terminus). Also, at thumbnail sizing, at it is not at its best. The other two are both iconic (how quickly the Eye has attained that status!), and can be seen clearly as thumbnails. A P Monblat (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your mention of "iconic" raises a point which has been bothering me. As I understand the general principles, as well as MOS:IMAGES particularly and various parts of WP:ISNOT too, we include images to inform, not to decorate. That can actually militate against including "iconic" images; if everyone knows London has red double-deckers and recognises pictures of red double-deckers, then the added value of a picture of a red double-decker is vanishingly small. Skylines are informative, I think, and pictures of the entire river frontage of the Palace of Westminster are arguably more informative than pictures of the Victoria Tower (Big Ben). I have similar problems with several of the images in the article.
I do think we need to prune them, as we're suffering WP:SANDWICH effects on wide screens and filling entire mini-tablet screens with images. It might not be very hard; I think we could soon agree to lose two of the three images at the start or lower right of London#Geography as having little information content and being virtually indistinguishable from images of other large conurbations. But I hesitate to start hacking without consensus - I respect the effort fellow editors have put effort into finding and adding images, it's just that the total effect of all those efforts is a little too much. NebY (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we could lose two of the aerial images in the geography section. Regarding the point about "iconic", I agree we should not "decorate" the article as such with pretty iconic pictures just because they are pretty. However, to the extent that images in the infobox are there to educate, I feel editors should work on the principle that readers will (rightly) assume that the photos represent the key features of London (which may or may not be iconic, but often are). So the City, the seat of Government, the residence of the monarch, the major Cathedral, a major tourist attraction - given the importance of tourism to London - such as the Eye or Tower Bridge are suitable for inclusion. If such images as these are not in the infobox, readers may assume they are not important. In a sense the infobox images are education for beginners, whilst the photos in the actual sections can be more advanced educationally - but not too advanced! So, as an example, the St Pancras image would sit well in the transport section, but not perhaps the infobox. Hope all this makes sense to people A P Monblat (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because editors who aren't interested in the infobox discussion but have added images might have missed this bit, I've started a new discussion below - apologies for the repetition. NebY (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skyline
I'm going to start again at the bottom becaues I have no idea where to re-insert myself into this discussion. These are my thoughts. I think we already have a pretty good selection of high quality images of London, although as pointed out, some of the skyline images are now out of date (such as the one taken from City Hall in 2008). I know from experience that it's difficult to get a good vantage point for cityscape views of London, and that vantage point on the rooftop balcony is not easy to access under normal circumstances, it is usually only open to the public (I believe) during the Open House weekend, which is coming around again on the 20th and 21st of September. Getting a good shot from there does rely on nice weather, but lets see if we can do so. I'll probably be giving it a go myself, but in case I don't manage to, other locals may like to try their luck at getting a suitable photo. Wackslas, the Houses of Parliament image you keep using in your collage is inferior to the main lead image for the article on that subject. I'm not just saying that because it's my image. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)12:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Until such time as a really good skyline shot including the City becomes available, I wonder whether cropping the current one (a bit but not too much) might not be a useful way of enabling the various buildings etc to be easier to discern at thumbnail size. I'd be happy to take on this little task, if others (eg NebY,Diliff, Rob etc) agree. A P Monblat (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! And I wonder if the smaller file size will improve page loading times - I know nothing of those aspects. I'm ignorant too about Commons protocols for such edits. I'd rather assumed you'd upload the cropped version under a new name; as it is, the cropped version's replaced the full version on several other pages on en.wiki and elsewhere. Hope that's OK. NebY (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I should check the other pages on which this ubiquitous picture appears to ensure that it displays properly; I'm glad to say that it looks OK on all pages, both the English and the other language pages. However, I too am no expert in these matters, and was wondering why the file size has become smaller: if anyone knows the answer, I'd be interested to know. Diliff, Rob, anyone else? A P Monblat (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I see, thanks. Well, I should have some time in the next week or two to try to get a nice skyline shot. I'm still not sure what kind of shot we're actually looking for though. I don't think that view from Golden Jubilee bridge is really the best view of London's skyline though, as Waterloo bridge is pretty ugly and obscures much of the river and foreground. The view from Waterloo bridge is better. The central part of this image is a better skyline view IMO. Perhaps a nice dusk shot (taken a little earlier in the evening so we get both the city lights and a bit of a blue afterglow in the sky) would be a good compromise? Pleasant lighting is important for a good skyline shot (London may have long periods of overcast, hazy weather but that doesn't make it the best conditions to illustrate it), but once dusk sets in, it doesn't matter so much what the weather was like during the day, it's easier to get an aesthetic view of the skyline. These are just my thoughts anyway. I don't mean to appoint myself official skyline photographer but it seems that we've been waiting a while for something better to appear. I'm happy to give it a go but I'd rather we settle on what we want from the photo before I make a trip in and photograph it. Ðiliff «» (Talk)00:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're game to put in the effort, I'm sure you'll come up trumps. Sorry for not responding sooner; I finally took a look when I was there on Friday afternoon and was surprised to realise just how close to Victoria Embankment the current picture's viewpoint was (then saw the Flickr notes do say it was from the Embankment). Waterloo Bridge isn't all that ugly, but from it you do have a much clearer view of the tree-lined bank and have Blackfriars Bridge picked out in red and white, though a bit more distant and you might lose it at dusk. It's striking how much the skyline's changed already. Oh, while you're there, you might enjoy a look at the current east face of Covent Garden, now stealing the thunder of the Trafalgar Square Yodas. NebY (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While we await the new photo by Diliff, I wonder whether the attached might be worth using as a stopgap for the infobox City skyline shot. I found it on Flickr and was able to transfer it to Commons (using Flinfo) as there was no copyright restriction on this particular image. I then cropped it, in the hope of making it more suitable for the infobox. Whilst still not totally ideal, this 2014 shot has two advantages over the 2012 one in use now: the bridge does not cut across the middle of the picture; and it contains the two latest towers. Thoughts? A P Monblat (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the current infobox top picture is a pretty fantastic photo, and one of the few angles that can show both the city skyline and the Shard in the same frame without being too wide. Obviously I'm not going to be able to beat it as far as getting on a hot air balloon, but I think there's probably still some merit to a regular 'ground level' shot taken from around Blackfriars Bridge, so I'll still go ahead and take it. Apologies for the delays, I still intend to do it at some point in the near future, but I'm more than happy with the current infobox image. Ðiliff «» (Talk)05:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the shot from the hot air balloon is great, especially as, in addition to including the City, it highlights the Shard, London's tallest and almost certainly most notable skyscraper. However, I am glad Diliff is pressing ahead with his photo, as I am sure it will add further to the article. For my part, I don't see any overriding reason why both could not be included in the montage. A P Monblat (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Wen
I have removed this alleged nickname because there is no reliable source cited either in this article or the Great Wen article to show that this nickname is in current use by a significant proportion of the population. No doubt this term has been used, along with a thousand others but we should only show significant and widely-used current nicknames. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only people familiar the "The Great Wen" through history would know the phrase. It has no common usage whatsoever. London's smog ended with the 1956 Clean Air Act. Since then the nickname "(Big) Smoke" has been in terminal decline. I have never heard anyone in conversation use it. The nominal Cockney character in Manchester-based soap Coronation Street used to say it but even that was 20 years ago. You might be able to find some 70+ year olds still using it and many younger people would know what was meant but outside Minder re-runs you wont hear it now.TheMathemagician (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Smoke" is still a familiar enough term to be used as a magazine supplement title, a TV drama series title and a film title], just to pluck three quick examples from the interweb. It would be hard to prove that it is or isn't in current use, especially if my guess is right that it's mainly used in terms of visiting or travelling to or from London (e.g. going back to the Smoke, escaping the Smoke). NebY (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skyline header images
The skyline images at the top urgently need to be changed back to incorporate some more modern, representative and less dull views of the city, as was the case before. The current image of the City from behind the bridge at the very top of the page, which almost acts as a signature for the city for the whole web, is particularly drab and functional, and is doing a London a disservice on the web compared to all its counterparts.
You might like to join in the skyline discussion above, which is current, and look at some of the discussion over the last couple of months in other sections above. NebY (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the current photo in question is that bad, although it is not ideal by any means. Thankfully, a user has kindly undertaken to take a better photo of a similar scene (but without the bridge blocking the view). This is all documented above, as pointed out by NebY. A P Monblat (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are on stage in a musical, no it isn't. Cite some recent non-ironic examples if you think otherwise. I've never heard London referred to as "London Town".TheMathemagician (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Walking as transportation
Walking may be a form of transportation but the discussion of walking in London isn't about commuting but recreation. On the other hand the short section on cycling does describe the use of bicycles for transportation. Walking can of course also sometimes be a sport, but unless there are objections I'll restore the paragraph on walking to where it was originally, under 'Leisure'.
There is some potential overlap between 'Walking' and the section on 'Parks and gardens', and I'd suggest that this too would be more appropriately placed under 'Culture/Leisure' rather than 'Geography'. Rwood128 (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Walking in this context is more about leisure than transport. Likewise parks are on balance more about leisure than they are about geography. Given that the article (unlike some articles about places) actually has a section covering leisure, it makes sense to use it for these purposes, I think. A P Monblat (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
all of my edits, which i have done with much effort, can not be removed. Many of them are good, but you can not undo all work, including punctuation and capital letters .
Pls see als my works and tell me where are the problems, i will try to revert some of them. For example I added LONDON SCHOOL OF ECoNOMICS image by deleting ROYAL MUSIC one, and this can not be removed.
Have a look to this sentence "London's 43 universities form the largest concentration of higher education in Europe." Here I wrote "world" by removing "europe", like another user who did the same thing. Therefore this is ok.
NebY and others, can someone reply please. If you want revert my edits, please do not remove all of them, which are helpful. Now I have to go to sleep, so maybe i will not be able to reply. So see all of you tomorrow, maybe in evening. Good night! Lopoponsnko (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why the largest concentration of students in the World rather than Europe? -- you need a new citation if this is true (Did you check the USA?). Error: you have deleted member colleges of London University. Then what's wrong with the School of Music image? A selection of London college/schools (secondary schools) should be sufficient. Anyhow you are acting like a vandal with all the reverts and not discussing disagreements. Some of your edits may be reasonable, but not most, as far as I can see. Rwood128 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although User:Lopoponsnko was creating an edit war, I believe that some of his contributions are acceptable, such as the insertions of top further education colleges and insertion of University of Westminster. As regards the East London Mosque, this is considered as the first mosque in EU (not all europe geographically) to broadcast the call to worship. The adjunct of this mosques' aerial image doesn't make a big problem as it can be moved on the left. Furthermore, this edits made by User:GeorgeBurgess24 appears to be removed in mistake. The cancellations of University of London's associates seem to be vandalism. As I explained above, I'm going to modify things that have been undid wrongly. 115ash→(☏)10:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
East London Mosque wasn't even the first in England to broadcast the call to worship, preceded at least by Birmingham Central Mosque in 1985, and it's still a mystery why that detail would make that mosque a suitable image for the article above all others. Besides, that's got to be one of the most indistinct pictures of a religious building we've got, mainly featuring flat roofs, air-conditioning units and adjunct buildings. The schools and FE colleges section has become terribly jumbled: "there are also a number of private schools and colleges in London, including old and famous colleges and schools such as the City and Islington College, Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College, Leyton Sixth Form College, Tower Hamlets College, Bethnal Green Academy, City of London School, Harrow, St Paul's School, University College School, Highgate School and Westminster School." NebY (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume English is not your native language. Your text is riddled with grammatical errors and meaningless sentences. "London contains many mosques." Do you really think that deserves to be in an encyclopaedia entry? An article on London doesn't need the insight that many Muslims live in Tower Hamlets and Newham, add them to articles on those boroughs if you must, together with some census data. "The biggest mosque is East London Mosque, the first mosque in European Union which was allowed to broadcast the adhan and it is also the largest islamic centre in all Europe." Other users have cited factual errors but the sentence structure is no good. Biggest or largest? Should be "the East ..", "the European .." and the and clause on the end is just too clumsy, also "Islamic" should be capitalised. "in all Europe" is not correct either - either "in Europe" or "in all of Europe" (although this is overly wordy). There's far too much detail about various Islamic factions for a general article about London. I could go on but basically you are not improving this article.TheMathemagician (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What to say about mosques
Please can we discuss what we include about London mosques? Three of us have been editing and reverting a single sentence over the last three days.
state that the East London Mosque is one of the first in the UK allowed to broadcast the adhan, as no reliable souces (in Wikipedia's terms) have been presented to show that it preceded Birmingham Central Mosque in being allowed to make the adhan audible to the general public in the surrounding streets, let alone those that already by wire or wirelessly broadcast the adhan into the homes of the faithful
describe the Baitul Futuh Mosque as the largest in western Europe, as described and referenced in its article - but I now note that the Mosque of Rome may be larger, so "one of the largest" would be better
remove any mention that the head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community lives in London, as superfluous to London#Demographics and so as not to start filling the article with lists of religious leaders that live in London.
We need to discuss this here rather than in edit comments and I think it would be particularly helpful to hear from uninvolved editors too. NebY (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NebY It seems reasonable to describe Baitul Futuh as one of the largest as there are multiple sources describing Mosque of Rome to be largest and multiple sources describing Baitul Futuh to be the largest.--Peaceworld19:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmadiyya Caliphate is always recognised to as a caliphate, for example as sourced above. Whether it is different in certain aspects or not is not relevant here.--Peaceworld21:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certain Muslims may reject the Ahmadiyya Caliphate, but that only means that they choose not to subject themselves to it. In other words, rejecting a Caliphate is not the same thing as saying that such and such ceases to be a Caliphate. It still remains a Caliphate per se. In fact if you look at external sources, it is always recognized as a Caliphate and its leader a Caliph:
No, many Muslims do not recognise Ahmadis in general or Mirza Masroor Ahmad as Muslims and so do not and cannot recognise him as a Caliph, a successor of the Prophet. The statement that "Ahmadiyya Caliphate is always recognised to as a caliphate" was absurd, untrue if only one person in the world does not recognise him as a caliph. I realise your main interest on Wikipedia is the Ahmadiyya movement, even to the extent of being a Single-purpose account, but this attempt to shoehorn more and more about Ahmadis into this article is disproportionate and leading you into futile exaggeration - futile because your premise that as a religious leader of about 10 million people world-wide including 30,000 in the UK, Mirza Masroor Ahmad should be mentioned in this article is false. NebY (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NebY It doesn't matter whether Muslims recognize him as a Caliph, as it doesn't matter whether they consider Mirza Masroor Ahmad or for that matter Ahmadis as Muslims. If he has been labelled a Caliph per external sources, then per policy, he is. It doesn't need POV authorization. Overlooking the false accusation, could you explain why a brief mention of the largest Caliphate, numbering somewhat 10-20million is UNDUE?--Peaceworld18:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows that Baitul futuh is not the largest.Moreover most of the muslims do not consider this baitul futuh as a "mosque". That caliph Mirza should not be included in an article like this (he is followed just by some people). There are many famous islamic scholar who reside in London, therefore everyone will try to promote their own preferred. Some leaders like Timothy Winter, Abdul Qayuum, Abdul Jabbar are more known and followed than that Mirza. Therefore User:Peaceworld111's must be removed. Truthiseveryminghnj (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is the largest (or one of the largest) per external sources. Whether most Muslims consider Ahmadis Muslims or not is irrelevant. So Timothy Winter, Abdul Qayuum, Abdul Jabbar are more followed, could you give a figure per external sources?--Peaceworld18:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Climate /weather
The two existing paragraphs written in this section are almost in full dedicated to talk about EXTREME temperatures, particularly high ones. They certainly constitute some of the most absurd information about the climate of a city in any Wikipedia's article or indeed of anything written about weather in general, but particularly about London since it is one of the cities with the least temperatures variety in Europe. The graphs in orange and red do not even deserve any comment, someone seems to be obsessed with making London look like Dubai in terms of weather, it is simply absurd.
It sees to have been written by someone fond of hot weather or extreme events or involved in the tourist department of the city to attract visitors fond of hot temperatures (which would be absurd in any case).
It is NOT an informative section AT ALL. There is a clear misleading line going through all that banter-stupidity and rather than writing in a general and informative way there is for instance not even mention of the strong wind that is present in the city throughout the year.
Not allowing the editing of an article like this one, which is BADLY WRITEN, is in effect censoring the very principle foundation of Wikipedia, and certainly not doing any good at all.
therefore it needs to be corrected by whoever is allowed to, or responsible for this article, or deleted. It is getting really to really absurd levels
.svg){kind=logo}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(8162101805)_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
