Talk:London/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

City of London Area

The page lists the area of the City as 2.7 square kilometers and 1.6 square miles. While 1.6 linear miles is roughly the equivalent of 2.6 linear kilometers, that's not the case when it comes to area. 1.6 square miles is roughly the equivalent of 4.1 square kilometers. This schoolboy mistake crops up all over Wikipedia. So which is correct, and does this then throw off the density information? 86.0.203.120 21:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the answer but the City of London article specifies the area as 1.0 square mile, or 2.6 square km.--Paul 14:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This website http://www.a-london-guide.co.uk/sightseeing/london-areas/index.html mentions: "To a Brit, the 'City' doesn't mean the whole of London but simply the 'Square Mile' (actually 1.08 square miles) as it is colloquially known.". So I presume the "1.0 square mile, or 2.6 square km." on the City of London article is correct. --Donar Reiskoffer 14:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Another source is the Encylopaedia Brittanica, which is not the most error-free source but still ... It cites 2.9 km² and 1.1 sq mi. --Donar Reiskoffer 14:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is there not an Olympic section to this article?

There really should be an Olympic section to this article simply because the Olympic games are going to transform the city and therefore there should be an Olympic section in this article and not just a seperate article.87.113.30.69 13:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is information already all about London in the Olympic Games in a seperate article. There is too much going on to squeeze into the London article. See London 2012 Olympic bid. However, a brief mention is viable. Simply south 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

See Also:

This article is in desperate need of a brief mention at least of the Olympic games.87.113.24.112 21:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a brief mention in the Sports section. --Dave A 11:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the article needs to have more than a brief mention.87.112.75.254 15:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Beijing article - the Olympics are only mentioned where relevant, and then only briefly, because the article already has to talk about a lot, and because there is a comprehensive and separate article available at 2008 Olympics. The same is true here - the Olympics will have a big impact on sport, on the transport network and on the districts of London (i.e. east London), and it's mentioned in those sections, but it isn't going to change the government or the layout of the economy, nor will it affect demographics, education or much else in the article. --Dave A 16:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that the Olympic Games will transform thw whole of the East End of London, a large bit of the city. Also the games are not only in the East of London they are across the whole city. In the west for example Wimbledon, where the tennis will be hosted. Also the Olympics will have an effect on the economy as the value of propert will rise with the arrival of the Olympics, the economy will also be affected due to the large number of tourists. In other words the Olympic games will have a huge effect on London and as the UK as a whole. Therefore it is vital that this article has an Olympic section.87.113.24.102 19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Olympics will probably "transform" Beijing more than they will London, and yet the Beijing article is fine mentioning the Olympics where relevant with a link to the detailed article. Yes, there will be a big effect on the Lower Lea Valley, but all of those plans are mentioned in the London 2012 Olympic bid article, and don't need repeating here - this is an article about the *whole* of London, not just part of East London. The Districts section of this article already talks about the regeneration of the Thames Gateway and Lower Lea Valley; going into more detail in this article would just destroy its conciseness.
The effect of the Olympics on any other part of the city will not be significant enough to mention in this article. Such mentions are better off in the relevant article for that area (e.g. Wimbledon).
The Economy section here is for discussing the make-up of the economy of London - financial services etc. This make-up will not be substantially altered by the Olympics - yes, there will be more tourists, but that will just mean a change in the figures mentioned as appropriate.
There's no point repeating information here that is already perfectly at home in the 2012 Summer Olympics and London 2012 Olympic bid articles. A new Olympics section is just not necessary - however, if you think that the Olympics should be mentioned and linked somewhere in the article where it would be relevant, then that's another matter. --Dave A 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You fail to understand my point, I do not expect there to be an exact copy of the London 2012 article but I do expect a small sub-section in this article. Also I don't know why you keep on going on about Beijing, I never said anyhting about Beijing and also the Olympic games will transform both cities hugely. In conclusion the Olympic games will affect the whole of the city for many years to come. So a sub-section is vital. Shall I write it myself?87.112.68.209 14:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand Dave's point. The Olympics does greatly affect cities, but not to the extent that it deserves a subsection. There is no similar subsection in Beijing, Sydney or Atlanta. I would suggest that there shouldn't be one at Athens, either. JPD (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have any idea how much the Olympic Games will transform London. The fact that some of the other Olympic cities do not have a sub-section on the Olympics is irrelevant. Just because they don't have a sub-section it doesn't mean London shoudn't have one. We have to start somewhere and why not here? I would suggest that you two do a little bit more research on the London Olympics and see how much the city will change and then, and only then, can you comment on how much the games will transform the city. Until then I would suggest that you start making plans for an Olympic sub-section.87.113.85.249 10:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I would like to point out that you are 100% wrong, Athens does have an Olympic Games section. So guess what it looks like your argument has been destroyed. Oh, I love being right. No excuses now there has to be an Olympic sction.87.113.85.249 12:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your rather odd and misplaced arrogance doesn't lend any more credence to your argument.
I am extremely familiar with the London Olympics, having already studied the bid document in great detail, attended presentations by the bid organisers and worked for company that contributed to the bid. The Olympics will have a big impact on transport, on sports and will increase tourist numbers and spend. It will also totally transform the Lower Lea Valley, as already mentioned in this article. We've already covered those bases. What else is there to mention? The Olympics isn't going to change the location of London's districts, or the nature of its economy, or its climate, or its existing history, or its method of governance, or its demographic make-up, or its education system, or its literature, or its shopping and entertainment districts. All that's left to talk about is a detailed description of exactly how the Olympics will affect sport and transport, and how it will transform the huge brownfield site in Stratford, and that's exactly what the 2012 Summer Olympics and London 2012 Olympic bid articles are for.
Additionally, a major factor in the success of the London Olympic bid was that it took advantage of a committed projects, which would have gone ahead without the Olympics - such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, upgrades to the Underground, extensions to the DLR and general regeneration of the Thames Gateway. The Olympics was a means of coupling all of these projects together, providing a focus and impetus for their progression, and underpinning their future success. My point is that we don't need to talk any more about such projects because they're already embedded either in this, main article or in the appropriate sub-articles.
I would also like to point out that I never said that Athens didn't have an Olympic games section!! Read my responses above. I said that Beijing did not have such a section for its 2008 games. Athens is different because it has already held the Olympics, and because it was a much smaller city than London with more scope for change to be made. I'd also venture that the Athens article is inferior to this article in quality - it hasn't achieved good article status like this one has. And, as was pointed out to you, Sydney and Atlanta don't have dedicated subsections for the Olympics. Neither does Barcelona, Seoul or Los Angeles. The reason is that these articles mention the effects of their Olympics where it is appropriate, not just gratuitously. --Dave A 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you did say Athens had an Olympic section, "I would suggest that there shouldn't be one at Athens". Secondly, what have you got an Olympic section? It would take all of 10 minutes to type. I don't see what you have against the Olympic games. You could of easily typed an Olympic section in the time that you've been debating this. At the end of the day the facts are the following: this article lacks an Olympic section, Athens has an Olympic section therefore we should have one and lastly the Olympic games will transform a large area of the city and provide a legacy for the people of London. So either you can type this sub-section or shall I type it?87.112.67.49 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not write an Olympics section. Darqknight47 is spot on with his analysis. The games will have an impact, but not one that would justify a separate section. The Athens article is not improved by inclusion of a separate section, and this article wouldn't be either. There have been a number of events in London's history that have had a significant impact on the city, some of them much more so than the Olympic games will. But the article isn't split into different events - it's a holistic look at the city. A section on the games would be out of place and awkward, and detract from the attempt to write an encyclopedic article that respects the subject. --SiobhanHansa 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a simple answer to your comment, you are wrong, it would not be out of place and I want at least 10 different people to tell me that it would be a bad idea and then I will not write the sub-section.Mushimight 22:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should take some time to think about basic Wikipedia codes of conduct before producing ultimatums such as the one above. Furthermore, you have absolutely no right, on Wikipedia or otherwise, to say "you are wrong". Not only is this rude and against the spirit of Wikipedia, but it simply detracts from your argument and any legitimacy it may have. Being a wiki, there is nothing to stop you writing a sub-section. However, when there is clear consensus from a number of experienced editors, then that consensus is what remains. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you do so and persist, you will be blocked from editing. It is as simple as that. DJR (T) 22:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
As Djr xi says, we work by consensus, not ultimatum. It would be easy to dicuss this if you paid attention to what we were saying. Dave did not say that Athens did not have an Olympics section. It was I that said that Athens should not have the section, fully aware that it does have it at the moment. It does not add to the article. Living in the East End, I know that the Olympics will have a great effect, but if you think they deserve a section, I suggest you are underestimating the importance of all the other material contained in the article, as well as not understanding how the article is laid out. JPD (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, what I said was not intended to be an ultimatum. Secondly, you have failed to give good reasons as to why the article shouldn't have an Olympic section. Also compare the size of London's article to Paris'. For such a large city it is quite a small article. In other words there is room for a sub-section. Also why are all of you so set aginst an Olympic section?87.112.85.183 10:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Paris is too long. The London article has recently been shortened quite a bit because it was thought to be too long. Apart from that, the article is not and should not be presented in terms of events (current or otherwise), but discusses the city in terms of topics like geography, history, economy, etc. The effect of the Olympics on these aspects of London should be mentioned in these sections, not separated out into a section of its own. JPD (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Mushimight needs to take a look at some Wikipedia style manuals such as Guide to writing better articles, Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style.
Other than that, it's been explained a number of times exactly why we are against having an Olympic section. We've provided appropriate reasons and we have a general consensus. I suggest that Mushimight's time would be better spent elsewhere, rather than in a somewhat futile debate here. --Dave A 12:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. If it is such a concern and you must write something, why not put it in the East London article? Simply south 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mushimight has also given you several reasons why this article needs an Olympic section and obviously there is a stalemate but you are not willing to move from your position and neither is Mushimight. So lets call it quits. Also in answer to Simply South's suggestion: the games will affect the whole city, not just the east, for example tennis at Wimbledon and football at Wembley. But before I go I would just like to say that it was very rude of Dave A to tell Mushimight what he or she should be doing with his or her time. Next time Dave A says something like that I think he or she should think about what people who are just looking at this website would think if they saw what he wrote.87.114.29.72 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The people are revolting, they want a section on the London Olympics and the preparation. 81.129.56.101 12:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? What exactly is the purpose of the articles 2012 Summer Olympics and 2012 Summer Olympic development ??? DJR (T) 15:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This article needs:

  • Palace soldiers (with that black caps)

Another question posed (or more)

where exactly is the centre of London? Is it Piccadilly Circus? Or is there no actual centre of London (ignoring the whole area inside the inner ring road)? Simply south 16:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's usually considered to be around Trafalgar Square (there's a small paragraph to this effect in the Area subsection of "Defining London"). This is where road distances on signs around the country are usually measured from. --Dave A 16:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a plaque outside Charing Cross station which confirms this (to the left of the Thistle Hotel on a post at the start of Villiers Street if memory serves). MRSC 19:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The exact center of London is the statue of King Charles I on Charing Cross Square. There's a plaque on the pavement a few feet behind the statue which says: "On the site now occupied by the statue of King Charles was erected the original Queen Eleanor's Cross, a replica of whch stands in front of Charing Cross station. Mileages from London are measured from the site of the original cross." You can see a picture of this plaque here: [1]. So I guess the plaque referred to by Mrsteviec is near the replica of Queen Eleanor's Cross, but the actual official centre of London is still the king's statue behind which the plaque I linked to is located. For examples of official city centre in other countries, check Kilometre Zero. It's odd that the official centre of London would have a plaque bearing the name "City of Westminster" by the way. Oh well, another of London's idiosyncracies I guess. Hardouin 20:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is Charing Cross Square? And why is it odd that a plaque in the City of Westminster should bear the legend "City of Westminster"? I think the Charles staue is actually just off of Trafalgar Square on the Whitehall side. Badgerpatrol 23:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It's odd because you'd assume the centre of London would be in the City of London. Thanks/wangi 17:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a small arrow mark on the rear of the equestrian statue of Charles the First, that indicates the exact spot to measure distances from. - Hardouin/Badgerpatrol - There isn't an area called "Charing Cross Square", the Charing Cross was erected where Charles 1st statue now is, and gave it's name to the area. The Statue is on the south side of Trafalgar Square, seperate to the main square. It's on a little traffic island and "looks down" Whitehall towards Parliment. Purely conjecture but perhaps it's regarded as the centre as the politcal centre moved from the City of London to the City of Westminster. I shall try to get a photo of the arrow on the rear when next near Trafalgar Sq. LiamVictor 00:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a section in the article which displays all the pros and cons of London then gives it an overall mark and should this be done for other cities?

Yes?No?87.113.26.73 17:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. See WP:NOR and WP:V among others. Badgerpatrol 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But is it not a good idea?87.113.26.73 17:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

For another website mabye. Jooler 17:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please explain basically what the rule is? Because i have asked 19 other cities whether there should be a pros and cons section.87.113.26.73 17:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow the links that I have indicated above. And please try and avoid posting the same material to multiple talk pages in future- it's called spamming and is generally frowned upon. Badgerpatrol 17:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
No no no. Its an awful idea which has no place on wikipedia or in any other encyclopedia. siarach 17:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To the original poster, have a look at global cities... I think that's an article based around what you're thinking. Although of course it's not based on users opinion, it's based on verified sources. Thanks/wangi 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article?

Has this article ever been nominated? It's very, very good. I'd think it a logical choice for featured status. Moncrief 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's achieved good article status and has had a few peer reviews. The quality of the article has increased dramatically in the last few months. One of the things which I think would prevent it from achieving featured status right now is the lead section, which gets edited time and time again and keeps slipping - either by losing some of its conciseness, or by using unsourced statements which aren't backed up by anything in the article. The thing which grates with me is the sentence "London is an international leader..." - international finance is fine because it's sourced, but everything else is dodgy. We can't prove that London is an international leader in any of those areas, although we can say they contribute to its global city status. I change that sentence from time to time to reflect this, but it keeps ending up back here again! I'll try it now and see what happens...
Saying that, I do think it's not far off from featured status, as long as its overall conciseness and quality can be maintained. --Dave A 16:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Should there be an architecture section?

Yes? No? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebaronoflondon (talkcontribs) 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign.

There already is something similar at London#Built environment. Interesting to mention though. Simply south 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is already an Architecture in London sub-article, and as Simply south says, the Built environment section provides a summary which links into that article. There was a discussion in June on this (see Architecture above), although I just noticed that someone added to it recently. The sort of information that they suggest placing here would be much better placed in the Architecture in London article. --Dave A 11:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Europe's most populous city

London is easily the most populous city in the EU. Should we not say so in the article? Normalmouth 07:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been a big problem and comes up frequently - the current statement that London is "one of the largest and most populous cities in Europe" was designed to avoid arguments over different definitions of the city compared to other European cities. There was an extensive discussion on this only a short time ago - see above. --Dave A 11:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean Europe most populous REGION! Almost the whole ENGLISH territory is a metropolitan area, so that one can't easily distinguish ,for example, Liverpool from Manchester and Leeds, and so forth. I think the ACTUAL 'London' is the one that lies in the central part of its 'greater regional' area'.

Re the last comment above: Of course you can easily distinguish the cities of Liverpool from Manchester from Leeds! What a ridiculous comment and as for your "the whole ENGLISH territory is one metropolitan area" couldn't be further from the truth. Have you ever been to England?!

Greater London is the "old city". London refers to just about all settlement loosely connected to the London conurbation within the M25 Circular. I resent you calling the whole english territory a metropolitan area. Have you ever visited or lived in my country? A very large proportion of the land usage in the UK is rural. There are several major conurbations - London, Leeds, Manchester/Liverpool area, Tyneside, Cardiff, Southampton, Birmingham/Coventry area, Edinburgh, Belfast and Glasgow. Outside of those areas, which hold the vast majority of the population, over 90% I believe, there are small cities, old market towns and small villages dotted around the place. On the Scottish highlands you'd be hard-pressed to find any settlement for miles in some areas, and a similar situation is in the remotest parts of the Welsh mountains and the Irish wilds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.156.203 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
London isclearly THE most populous city in Europe wether we consider the 'city' proper or the metropolotan area. With almost 8m people within Greater London (smaller than the urban area) it is far ahead of any other city in europe (unless we count Moscow, which would stillbe less populous than London). If we count teh Metropolittan area, it is still more polulous than the secon (Paris, with about 10m). One should also point out that London is one of the LARGEST cities in teh world, twice as large as New York (we are talking). Darta are not easy to come by when we deal with population, but the fact that London is both the Largest and most populous city in Europe is blatant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.238.147 (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

600,000 Immigrants

It is alledged by the government that they Greatly underestimated the amount of migrant workers who were let into the UK and that the original figure of 15,000 was more like 600,000!! This makes sense as to the increase in population of London as the majority of these migrant workers would have gone to London to search for work. From 7.1 million in 2001 to approx 7.5 million in 2005. The government now expects around 360,000 more people when new countries are made part of the EU this year. If this keeps up does anyone reckon, in the next few years, London could once again reach the 8,000,000 mark? dj_paul84 17:04, 25 August 2006

Where does your 15, 000 figure come from? And I don't think it necessarily follows that all new immigrants with potentially meagre resources would automatically head to London, the most expensive city. Badgerpatrol 16:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the 600,00 figure is that it's for arrivals. Many of those 600,000 will have been seasonal agricultural workers who have since left again. The figures show that only 14 per cent came to London (see here, p. 18). The 15,000 estimate was for net migration. The ONS population data published the other day stated that net migration from all EU states was 74,000 in 2004-05 (see here), so much lower than 600,000. In other words, don't believe all that you read in the tabloids. Cordless Larry 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

15,000 was the original prediction for the number of migrants that would come from the new members of the European Union, e.g Poland, Latvia etc. which joined in 2004. However, the number of imigrants who did in fact come to the UK is predicted to be around the 600,000. However, I don't really see what this has to do with the London article.Thebaronoflondon 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although 15,000 was a net predidiction, whereas the 600,000 is a gross figure, not taking account of departures, so they're not strictly comparable. But anyway, you're right, this isn't the article to discuss this in. Cordless Larry 21:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious Observance/Attendance

Hi. I've reworded the sentence regarding religious observance among London's christians being very low. It is factually incorrect because it places all the denominations in one group. Roman Catholic and Christian Orthodox churches are never anything other than packed in London. It is Anglican churches which have a very low general attendance. Iamlondon 01:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for a citation on your change. Is there data available to back up this claim? Thanks, Gwernol 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll do my best for a citation/citations. I'll go look via Bishops' Conference website. I reworded though because it gives the impression that basically London's christians are one group lacking diversity, and don't attend church. There are two churches on my road, one Anglican, one Catholic. Average weekly attendance at the Catholic one = 2,700 (All services). Average weekly attendance at the Anglican one = Circa 100 (All services, with average Sunday attendance being less than 50). Other than the vast and famous churches of either denomination the above figures would be a good representation of this status quo. But if necessary I can back it up with solid figures. Best, Iamlondon 02:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok...http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/statistics/2004provisionalattendance.pdf
http://www.london.anglican.org/TheLondonChallenge
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/cathstats/2003stats.htm
Circa 64% of London is nominally Anglica = 5,120,000. Figures of Anglican attendance for London per week = 82,000 ( 1.6% ). Attendance rates for Catholics in London (as for Anglicans) match the national average for the Catholic Church. QED the Catholic churches in the city consistently experience much much higher attendance rates.
The UK's entire Catholic Church attendance rate = 22.8% whereas the Church of England's =1.2% (the Catholic Church's attendance rate is thus 19 times higher than its Anglican counterpart's)
Hope that suffices, Iamlondon 03:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox lines

The infobox geography class seems to be good enough, but is there any way of removing the horizontal lines without using the <br> function? I'm thinking in particular of the Geography section, where Area/Population/Density would surely be better without lines between them and the City/Greater London title. Only a minor issue really, but it'd be nice if it could be fixed. DJR (T) 21:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is easier to read like this. However, I've made it clearer they are sub section titles. MRSC 09:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

substituting infobox London

Copied from User talk:Grcampbell:

Hi,
I noticed you've subst:ed infobox London into the actual London article. While it is obviously a single-use template, the entire purpose of its creation was to avoid having the main London article filled with yet more text and thus size. I'm not sure if there's a Wikipedia guideline regarding this, but I think the matter should be discussed at Talk:London first. I have copied this message there, and would appreciate discussion to continue there. Regards, DJR (T) 08:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Now here I agree. Removing the infobox from the article is a good idea for these reasons. I recommend withdrawing the tfd. MRSC 09:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Template namespace Templates are used to duplicate the same content across more than one page. You can change a template in one place and it will immediately propagate to the pages that use it.. This is not the case for the template in question, being that it is a single use template. Others like it have already been deleted and others are up for deletion. One such example is Template:Scotland infobox. The Template:Infobox Country was no good for the Scotland article and a simple solution was found. --Bob 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a policy for policies sake to me. If single use templates really must not exist in the template space it can move to London/Infobox and be linked in from there. MRSC 16:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It was moved from London/Infobox to the template space, because having it in the mainspace is against policy for good reason. Single use templates may or may not be a good idea, but using a fake subpage is definitely a bad alternative. JPD (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Either alternative is ok with me. This is not the only example of a large article broken up in this way. e.g. List of postal districts in the United Kingdom. MRSC 16:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the original template in the article. This will cause the TFD message to reappear and will generate some discussion at the deletion page. MRSC 16:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

John Lennon Day

Okay dudes, we HAVE to put this thing in here. I mean if it's going to be an international holiday, like Martin Luther King Jr. Day then we HAVE to put this in here, you guys got three days to do it, or I'll put it in here myself. -The Bird

Why's that relevant to the London page? Looking at your talk page, you have a history of vandalism, plus the John Lennon Day page has been deleted, so please don't add a reference to it. Cordless Larry 11:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

infobox titling

While the standard does indeed appear to have the title outside the box, doing so causes the title to overlap the infobox on several browsers thus partially hiding it. There have already been many discussions about the merits of standardisation, and I can't help thinking that this is yet another example of where standardisation does not work. The same issue was experience on the United Kingdom article, and the only resolution was the include the title in the infobox (see article). I'd personally like to see this issue resolved on infobox_city so that there is still standardisation, but time is precious and I have little! DJR (T) 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree that a systemic solution is required, but this must have a standard look with the title appearing outside the box. It must be possible to achieve as, for example, it works properly on other infoboxes e.g. template:Infobox London place. MRSC 21:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up the heading

I've cleaned up the heading. There is no need to have "London is a leader in arts, culture ect." because everyone knows this and being a major global city, London is obviously good enough to need that sentence to suport it. Also, the bit about demographics and its diverse population is mentioned in the artice, under the demographics section. The reason I removed it is because the heading seems to promote London rather than give info and facts.

No thanks, Jack. There is less info and facts in your version. JPD (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What facts where missing in my version? How about you find away to make it shorter or shove it into an irrelevant section in the article, you're very good at that, especially on Sydney's page.

Hit the road Jackp - haven't you noticed that we are all working together to always remove your edits. They only last a few minutes, why do you bother?. Also, please sign your comments, even when using your not-so-secret IP. --Merbabu 13:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Largest city in EU

I reverted Darqnight's change as there is no statistical doubt that London is the largest city in the EU by population and this is more precise and important than the vague statement it was replaced with. More discussion on his talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkThomas (talkcontribs)

Reverted the latest absurdly commented change; Cacares Spain for goodness' sake! It's a collection of hamlets. MarkThomas 13:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The following statement is both factually wrong and controversial:
London is the largest and most populated city in the European Union.
It is factually wrong because London is not the largest city in the European Union. There are several municipalities in Europe whose territory is larger than Greater London. The city of Cáceres in Spain, for instance, covers an area of 1,768 km², vs. 1,579 km² for Greater London. This has already been discussed on this talk page.
It is also controversial ("most populated city") because different measurements (city proper, urban area, metro area) put London and Paris either above or below the other in terms of total population. This is explained in detail at Demographics of London. That's why Darqknight47's edit which states that London is "one of the largest and most populated cities in Europe" is more neutral and less controversial. Hardouin 13:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem I have is that there does seem to be a very persistent pattern stretching back here that any claim that London is the largest city in the EU, something widely accepted and believed internationally, is edited out by non-British EU citizens. Could this be POV acting itself out? The claims for example of user Hardouin about Paris have been emphatically proven false many many times on WP; there is no doubt whatever amongst population demographers internationally that London is a larger city than Paris in population by all reasonable measures. You practically have to include the whole of Northern France to get anywhere near. The Cacares point is mere semantics; everyone knows London is bigger than Cacares and just what that means. Otherwise perhaps the City of London is in the wrong place and should move to Spain? What we have here could be a long running emphatic anti-English and anti-London bias and POVery thinly dressed up as factual controversy, from French and other continentals with a chronic inferiority complex. Against this background, I suggest we vote instead and seek arbitration. Clearly the repeated downgrading edits on London's status are unacceptably false. MarkThomas 13:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There also seems to be an anti-Russian POV since any reference to Moscow being the largest city in (non-EU) Europe gets removed. Cordless Larry 13:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we see sources on the Moscow thing please Cordless? The independent (and non-British being German) site Population.de gives a Moscow figure of 10.4m for example, London at 7.1m and Paris at 2.1m. These are the administrative districts, but in the case of Moscow, there are not more than 1.5m people living in the surrounding exurbia; in the case of London, roughly 6.5m in the exurbia and Paris, 4.9m. This gives urbanity/conurbia figures of London 13.6m, Moscow 11.9m and Paris 7.0m. I've seen no expert sites that seriously challenge this breakdown, despite endless unsupported claims from EU people on WP. MarkThomas 14:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, well I was just referring to the administrative districts, and I was going by Population.de. I'm wary that including surrounding areas is a potential minefield. That's how we got the argument with Paris in the first place. We also need to bear in mind List of cities by population (which reminds me, what about Istanbul?). Cordless Larry 14:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if we're talking Greater Europe Istanbul is a more serious challenger. I think it has more people than Moscow and way way more than the pathetic and declining backwater of Paris. Although I suppose it depends on if you count Turkey as Europe, not that I have any desire to open that hornet's nest. (smirk) MarkThomas 14:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Population of the Paris urban area at the 1999 French census: 9,644,507 (official source). Population of the London urban area at the 2001 UK census: 8,278,251 (official source). Contrary to what MarkThomas claims, London is thus certainly not "the largest in the EU by population on all agreed measures". It is the largest by some measurements, but not by others, so it's better to leave the neutral sentence of Darqknight47. As for the accusation of "chronic inferiority complex", it debases its author more than the persons to whom it is addressed. Hardouin 14:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. We've all seen this pre-selected biased "statistics" before. London is at least 40% bigger than Paris. Not only that, but people have jobs there and actually go to work, as opposed to just rioting in the streets and screwing their secretaries. No bias intended. :-) MarkThomas 14:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that London is bigger than Paris, there's no need for attacks such as the one above. Cordless Larry 14:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Just my idea of a joke Cordless, take it back of course. MarkThomas 14:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The matter is quite simple.
When using the definition of "city", then London clearly is the largest city in the EU. Although some people will argue that Greater London is a region, it is not defined as such by the EU. The EU defines it as a city which gives EU residents living in Greater London the opportunity to vote in the elections for the government and mayor of Greater London. In contrast, an EU citizen cannot vote for the Scottish parliament as it is defined by the EU as a region and not as a city (logically so).
When using the definition of "metropolitan area", there is only one neutral statistic that is harmonized across the EU, and that is the Eurostat definition of Larger Urban Zone. This definition is not as generous as some London forumers may wish to see, but it does give the London LUZ 11.6 mio inhabitants versus 11 mio for the Paris LUZ. Both INSEE and National Statistics have agreed to this LUZ defintion. Note there is also an older FUR definition of Eurostat that gives London something like 13-14 mio inhabitants and Paris 12 mio inhabitants, so also on this basis the statement remains correct.
Note the INSEE definition of "urban area" (continuously built-up area) is considered irrelevant by Eurostat as it has more to do with planning issues than with what constitutes a functional city. 16:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)JGG 17:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, JGG. I saw that this is the basis of the new Largest cities and metropolitan areas in the European Union (Eurostat) article that you've created. Cordless Larry 19:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has been progressing reasonably well but it is not quite finished. It is not yet fully balanced out. I need to add a table for the Larger Urban Zones that are combinations of multiple cities (such as Randstad), because otherwise it is not really fair to our German and Dutch friends. It just takes a lot of time to extract the data from the Eurostat database.JGG 20:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope this gets sorted out. There seems to be a lot of bias on wikipedia and comments from people like Mark Thomas aren't helpful. And no we’re not on wikipedia to joke around. 194.193.75.62 11:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So what's it going to be people?? MrBobla 23:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

North_Rhine-Westphalia as a connurbation is equivalent to the London cities and has a population of 18 million. It's in the EU. --Aroberts 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

London as a Global Financial Centre

I've been discussing this with MarkThomas and it seems we both agree that the opening paragraph needs a little adjustment with regards to London's financial power. It's more than just Europe's main financial centre... it's a global leader and is rivalled only by New York, as clearly shown in the PDF citation. Although it might be difficult to prove that London is outright number 1, there are certainly no other cities besides New York which can match its level of financial power.

With this in mind, I propose the following change -

"an important settlement for around two millenia, London is now one of the world's most important financial and business centres".

Wjfox2005 17:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Cordless Larry 16:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
As always with the opening burst portions of key pages, there are many interpretive difficulties, as we can see from the debates above, and it gets changed so often maybe it should at least be semi-protected. But putting that to one side, how about incorporating this proposal into a slightly enhanced opening para as follows, which aims to resolve some semantic and factual difficulties in the current para and nicify the flow:

"London (pronounced [ˈlʌndən]) is the capital city of England and of the United Kingdom. An important settlement for nearly two millennia, London is now one of the world's most important financial and business centres[1] and its status in business, politics, education, entertainment, media, fashion and the arts make it one of the world's major global cities." MarkThomas 17:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised we have "world's" twice there, so how about this:

"London (pronounced [ˈlʌndən]) is the capital city of England and of the United Kingdom. An important settlement for nearly two millennia, London is now one of the most important financial and business centres[1] and its status in business, politics, education, entertainment, media, fashion and the arts make it one of the world's major global cities." MarkThomas 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

From a purely stylistic standpoint I prefer "world's" where it first appeared. How abot this:
"London (pronounced [ˈlʌndən]) is the capital city of England and of the United Kingdom. An important settlement for nearly two millennia, London is now one of the world's most important financial and business centres[1] and its status in business, politics, education, entertainment, media, fashion and the arts make it a major global city. --SiobhanHansa 18:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This seems fine - 'global city' already conveys 'world' so isn't needed there. The only thing I would change about this is that I would say that 'London is one of the world's most important financial ...' and remove the 'now'. To me this reads as though it has only recently happened when London's eminence in this regard must stem from at least Victorian times. Matthew 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Or... "London (pronounced [ˈlʌndən]) is the capital city of England and of the United Kingdom. An important settlement for nearly two millennia, London is now one of the world's most important financial and business centres[1] and its involvement in politics, education, entertainment, media, fashion and the arts contribute to its status as a major global city." Note I've removed the word "business" which has already been used earlier in the sentence. Wjfox2005 19:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your change Wjfox2005 as it's not yet agreed in this discussion and I think on such an important page it would be best for all to agree a new format and then change it. I'm starting to like the para and think the most recent one is good, but still feel it doesn't read all that well. Can some good editor come up with an entirely fresh one that flows better and conveys the significance of London without getting mired in the comparison points? MarkThomas 18:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree on a new format then? I'm rather keen to see the current one changed. Wjfox2005 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective, please change it asap because it reads so much better than what is there right now. JGG 20:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Energy policy

I see someone has created an Energy policy section to the article. I have mixed feelings about this - it's useful information which doesn't seem to be anywhere else in Wikipedia, but in its current location I think it's getting undue prominence. I wonder if the Administration section which talks about the GLA should incorporate this, as energy, transport, housing etc. are areas with strategies laid out by the Mayor. --Dave A 21:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This deserves one or two sentences, not three paragraphs. Also, the section does not comply with the standard heading layout for city articles. --Paul 01:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the section to Greater London Authority. If anyone wants it discussed in this article, a few sentences in the Administration section should suffice. JPD (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Status of Heathrow Airport

We're back to Heathrow being downgraded again. Yesterday I was watching an episode of the US TV show "The West Wing" - President Bartlett, known as a (carefully checked by the scriptwriters) font of usefull facts, says "did you know that Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport?" to a bored staffer when landing there in Air Force One. Now I'm not attempting to cite WW as the source, but there does seem to be very widespread international agreement that it is the world's busiest INTERNATIONAL airport. What's wrong with saying so? The usual correction is that O'Hare, Atlanta, etc, are busier but they handle internal US traffic a lot. MarkThomas 17:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the current wording that's wrong rather than the current intent - Heathrow is verifiably the world's busiest airport with regard to international passengers, but this isn't quite the same as being the world's busiest international airport. O'Hare and Atlanta are both international airports and both carry more people in total, making them both of them busier international aiports than Heathrow, but not as busy with regard to international passengers. What was said on The West Wing is just a lazy way of saying this, and because it's lazy it's not actually correct. Matthew 17:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have changed that paragraph. If we talk about international transport hubs, I think it is worthwhile to mention the port of London. More important than the argument how to phrase Heathrow's status, it is important to mention London is the largest aviation hub in the world. This is calculated by the number of passengers using the airports of the respective metropolitan areas of cities.JGG 16:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Is this worth taking onto the Global city page too? It currently lists Atlanta as being the busiest city, aviation-wise, because it looks only at the largest airport. There's a table at the bottom of that article - you'll see what I mean. Matthew 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes that table is very misleading. It is a table about the largest airports by passenger traffic. As the article is about cities and what makes them global cities, it would be more relevant to rank by: "cities by airport passenger traffic". Of course, for someone making a tranfer flight, you would look at what is the largest airport. But not when you evaluate to what extent cities are connected to the rest of the world, here all airports traffic volume can be added up.JGG 20:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, good paragraph edit, but "six international airports"? Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, City - which are the other two? MarkThomas 12:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Luton must be one of them. It's offically called London Luton. Cordless Larry 12:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It may be called London Luton, but it's not in London. Luton is in Bedfordshire. I don't think even the widest definition of London includes that! It does "serve" London though. The 6th could be London Southend I think they're international, mainly charter flights I think. --Siobhan Hansa 13:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I know, but then Stansted's not in London either and they still call it London Stansted. Cordless Larry 13:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I've read somewhere that Biggin Hill is London's sixth airport... Simply south 14:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and there are about fifteen helipads and God knows how many little airfields, but they hardly qualify on a list of leading international airports! Let's make it five and leave it at that. So changed. MarkThomas 15:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I could go with five, even though Luton is a bit of a stretch despite the renaming, but Southend - come on! We could start throwing in Oxford and Southampton. How about we make it five? MarkThomas 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we go with "served by five airports"? Then we could include Luton without it sounding ridiculous. Six seems a stretch. Cordless Larry 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Stansted possibly even further out of London than Luton. Simply south 15:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree six was a strech because Southend is not very developed yet. Five is probably the right number of international commercial airports. By the way, with regards to private jet airports, I noticed the article on Farnborough has become completely out-of-date. They have built a pretty new airport there over the last two years with very impressive buildings... http://www.tagaviation.com/services/farnborough.php. JGG 15:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahh the power of marketing, I'd forgotten Stansted was so far out! Served by is more literal, might be a touch pedantic though. I hadn't meant to open up a debate, I think either wording works. Looks like a good change by Mark. --15:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
LON is the IATA city code for airports serving London, see that article for the list of the six recognised "London" airports. /wangi 16:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Wangi, I think Biggin Hill is just an emergency landing strip that big jets can use. It was used for example recently when they had the fluid bomb alerts. Personally I don't think this makes it one of "London's international airports" - the LON code is just a technicality really. MarkThomas 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sister cities

Paris is not a sister city of London. Those two cities only sign a partnership in 2001. Paris have only one sister city : Rome. 84.103.176.225 02:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I always thought this was funny, taking into account recent history. Paris and London really behave like real sisters, they just can not do without each other. Europe would be so boring without their sisterly relationship! JGG 15:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Paris is undoubtedly the home of European culture, combining the Teutonic, Romantic and Slavic cultures [there are others, but those are the three main EU groups] in a beautiful mingle of cuisine, music, art and architecture, but London is the business capital of the EU by far, and is growing faster than Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai, New York and the other financial capitals of the world. Soon it is likely to become the indisputable leader in global finance, investment and banking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.156.203 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Economy

I would like to beef up this part of the London article and insert sub-titles. Any opposition or concerns? JGG 23:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for it, according to comments on the WP:FAC page. Simply south 19:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Langdon Park

Does this exist as a suburb\area\district of London? Around the station here seems to be a few things referring to it - a school, the park itself, a leisure centre, possible a community centre and a road. Simply south 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Little England?

I believe it may be more suitable to show London on a map of the UK or simply Europe, rather than on a map of England. The form of the UK is easily recognized by non-British, which is not the case for England.

A further question is whether we should actually have a traditional geographical map. Why not a map showing London as a node in the global urban framework? I particularly like Figures 3 and 4 on http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb157.html, but there are many similar maps that show London as part of the global urban network. Such map would tie in very well with the introduction which describes London as one of the command centres in the world, being extremely well connected and being very cosmopolitan.JGG 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Look at the articles for other Capital cities such as Rome, Paris or Berlin and the location of the cities is shown on a map of the nation rather than simply a region within the nation - and by 'nation' i mean Sovereign state so pedants neednt pipe up with any talk of England being a nation because it isnt anymore than is Bavaria, Britanny or Texas. London is significant because it is the capital city of the UK, not because it is the capital of England. Change the map. siarach 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
England is not a region. It is a country. --LiamE 16:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
No more so than any of the above mentioned regions, which were also once sovereign states in their own right before becoming part of a greater nation. Indeed given that Texas and Bavaria have far more recent histories as independent states than does England one could quite easily say England has less claim than the aforementioned. I always find it amusing the way we in the UK think that we have some special situation where we have a number of nations within one when it is no different many other nations. Anyway this is beside the point. The point is that London should be shown on a map of the UK (the nation of which it is a capital), not of England (the region of which it is a capital, within the nation) to bring the article into line with those of other major capitals which rightly show the cities in the context of their nation rather than local region or any other provincial option. siarach 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Rubbish. By that reasoning France and Germany et al are no longer countries as they are part of the EU. The countries are currently in union but retain their country status. If you know otherwise hurry along and inform the British Government because they obviously have it all wrong. [2] When you're done there there's only the rest of the world to tell. Perhaps you can start with OED, the purveyors of the English lexicon, as they have it wrong too. They define England as "the country forming the southern part of the United Kingdom." --LiamE 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Population number looks wrong

The population number is listed at 8,600. Should it be 8.6m? Leo vegoda 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're looking at the population for the City of London (i.e. The Square Mile) at the heart of London's financial district. The Greater London population is given just below it at 7.5 million. --Siobhan Hansa 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little research. The population of 8600 is probably correct for that borough. For the whole area of Inner London, it is around 2.7-2.8 million. However, i think this refers to just beyond the Circular Roads. Anyway see this ONS document for popn figures. Simply south 17:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Londoner. Merge?

I think the article Londoner should not be merged since it actually is a disambiguation article. There's also an ongoing discussion on whether it is valuable to write separate articles on natives of cities/towns (apart from the category: Category:People from London or more general Category:People by city or town in England or lists like List of people from New York. Brz7 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to say i disagree as well. Brummie has its own page, so why not Londoner? Simply south 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Complement EU

On December 16, 2004, The World Factbook, a publication of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) added an entry for the European Union. [3] According to the CIA, the European Union was added because the EU "continues to accrue more nation-like characteristics for itself". Their reasoning was explained in this small statement in the introduction:

The evolution of the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's supranational organization of 25 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history... ... for such a large number of nation-states to cede some of their sovereignty to an overarching entity is truly unique... ... the EU ... has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded. Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries.

I might add that EU citizens have EU- numberplates, -passports, drivinglicense, the EU institutions, and regular election. I hope you support the small extension I made... all the best Lear 21 19:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say that I wholly disagree with its inclusion. In no way is the EU a sovereign state - it is not a country and any of its members can leave it should they wish. I personally would like it removed. DJR (T) 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The ingredients of a country-like nature are very convincing and the article refers to London as the biggest city in the EU. all the best Lear 21 21:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. The EU is neither a country or a soverign state, so its inclusion in the line describing the country is misplaced, therefore it should be removed. --Bob 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The UK is half sovereign, the other half is the EU. Lear 21 00:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only is that a vast simplification of a much more complex issue, but it is factually incorrect and violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:CITE. The EU is not a country, and suggesting its "sovereignty" over its member states is comparable to that of the United Nations' of its members. The CIA have a long and illustrious history of getting things wrong - if they have suggested that the EU constitutes a sovereign, supernational country then this will be another example to add to the collection. DJR (T) 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Poor use of English

This page is incredibly wordy and does not read very fluidly. Can we all please remember that long words were for making us look clever at school. In the adult world their over-use makes us all look pompus and frankly a bit thick.

Almost every paragraph of this article needs re-wording. If it is to be used as an educational tool it should be easy to read and understand. Those looking for a lesson in vocabulary have plenty of options available to them and this is not designed to be one of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.2.159 (talkcontribs) .

Sometimes long words are useful because they capture a specific idea. For example "conurbation" does not mean the same thing as "extended urban area" that you replaced it with. A much better idea (since London actually is a conurbation) would have been to link conurbation to its article, like this: conurbation. That way people who didn't know what it meant would have the opportunity to learn new knowledge and the original intent of the article would be preserved. I'm all for simplicity, but accuracy is also important. By the way, there is no call for launching into incivility in your edit summaries or here. You can make you point perfectly well without attacking others. Gwernol 21:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Conurbation could be replaced by metropolitan area, although this would lose some meaning. We may be guilty of trying to fit too much information into a short space (a common faux pas in academia) but I think you might be right in this instance.

However for the sake of readability it might be wise to hint at what conurbation means while using it. eg. "London is made up of many smaller towns and settlements that grew to become the London we know today. At the heart of this conurbation is..." Otherwise its use may be incomprehensible to the average reader.

This article is likely to be read by many people whom have English as their second or third language and they should not be expected to read another article in order to understand a single sentence in this one. We should try to make this article easy to understand as well as accurate and succinct. Over use of long words can discredit the article especially used too readily. However I do apologise if anyone was offended by my contribution. Is it possible that Americanisation has left you more sensitive to blunt English pros Gwernol? : ) SC

Pronounced what?

The first line of this article contains useless information, why is it there?EditorNo.235 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What's useless about it? I understood it and I believe that many others would too.Cameron Nedland 14:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Editor, it is useless. I feel most people coming to this page would have no clue as to what ˈlʌndən means and I highly doubt many of time would be bothered to trail through the pronunciation pages to work out the correct pronunciation. It should really have both with something like this luhn-duhn added. DavidB601 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Pronunciation guides like luhn-duhn are worse than useless, particularly in an international context, as different people will read them in different ways. Using the IPA is helpful for those who care enough about pronunciation to know it already or bother looking it up, and is easily ignored by those who don't care. JPD (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
'luhn-duhn' doesn't mean nearly the same thing to Polish or Spanish person. Plus it's not consistent, it implies that the two vowels are pronounced the same.Cameron Nedland 20:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It rhymes with undone hence L'Undone would be the best way to show how it is pronounced. 87.194.35.230 11:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That rhyme isn't quite right (maybe it's just my accent) plus L'undone looks Italian or something.Cameron Nedland 14:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not just your accent (although the fact that it could be is a reason not to use it), it's the stress on a different syllable. JPD (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Crime

What is the relative crime rate in London? I'm assuming less than cities of comparable size in the US, but I don't have a feel for what London crime is like.Cameron Nedland 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As a rule, the rate of violent crime is quite low in the whole of the UK in comparison to the US (possibly related to the gun issue), although it is not necessarily the case that crime rates in general are lower. A useful reasonably recent report comparing international crime rates (within the EU and selected non-EU countries, including the US) and compiled by the Home Office can be found here. One statistic that stands out from a quick glance is the comparative homicide rate per 100k population:
  • London 2.6
  • Paris 2.0
  • Berlin 2.34
  • Moscow 18.34
  • Tokyo 1.21
  • New York 8.65
  • San Francisco 8.10
  • Washington DC 43.87 (this is not a typo, it is as written, although I presume it must be a mistake on their part).
Those are a 5-year average 1997-2001; the US figures exclude the terrorist victims of the September attacks. However, the overall number of crimes reported in the US seems to be only about twice that of England and Wales (note that E+W, Scotland and NI have separate legal and justice systems) despite the population differential. There's no useful comparative data at a municipal level, from what I could see anyway. Although differences may be partially explained by different police protocol and legal definitions, it is by no means clear that these would systemically inflate the US figure alone. Hope that helps. Badgerpatrol 01:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, thank you very much. So it is still definitely "locked doors & locked cars" but you could walk alone at night in most parts of town, right? Excuse my ignorance I'm from a very small town & our last murder was six years ago, & that was committed by some guy who was just passing thru town, so i don't have a good feel for serious crime.Cameron Nedland 14:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Like all major cities, it is most definitely "locked doors and locked cars"! By the same token, and speaking personally, I have lived in or around London for a number of years, and I have never felt threatened at all in any way whatsoever. One distant associate of mine was mugged once, several years ago, and of course one hears of a couple of break-ins to cars and the like. That's about it. Like everywhere else, London has "good" and "bad" areas, and it pays to be reasonably alert. It is certainly true however that one can freely walk in the city centre and most other areas at night without the likelihood of trouble. Having said that, I also do not really feel uneasy in the centre of most American cities, the only exception being Washington DC, which I first visited several years ago and felt was a little bit unsettling after dark (I've since been back and found the situation much improved). Anyway, that's just my subjective view. The bottom line is that, by the standard of other major cities, London is perfectly safe. Badgerpatrol 18:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks a lot. Why did you italicize 'centre'?Cameron Nedland 20:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Because a) in most cases, I've only really been to the city centres!; b) on the occasions where I've visited outlying areas it has on occasion been a little bit dodgy (I'm thinking of parts of NY in particular); and c) because all cities will always have rough parts, it's best to compare analogous areas so as to get a decent cross comparison. Badgerpatrol 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, duh. I feel dumb now. Sorry.Cameron Nedland 14:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Do the rate of violent crime statsics include insidence of asthmatics being given asthma attacks? 87.194.35.230 12:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No, violent crime in English (if that is not your native language) means murder, rape, and other such acts.Cameron Nedland 00:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think he may have been joking, Cameron. As far as I'm aware, the stats don't include asthma attacks, people fainting from heatsroke on the tube; cardiac arrests caused by having to hand over £3.20 for a pint; drivers' deaths caused by gridlock-induced boredom on the North Circular, etc etc.... ;-) Badgerpatrol 12:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think so too, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. You gave some pretty funny examples btw. :-)Cameron Nedland 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the commentators above are being a tad optimistic. Violent car-jackings, shootings, stabbings and random murder have all been on the increase in British cities, including London, over the last few years. There have been a number of particularly savage and well-publicised murders in recent years of foreign visitors to London, mostly in parks or at night getting into or out of cars. Some areas such as Tottenham, Streatham, Brent and Staines are particularly dangerous. MarkThomas 07:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Famous" Londoners

I've removed this section - it has been added a few times already by an IP account. It's probably fair to say that it's a cut'n'paste from somewhere else... And what does "famous" mean? Thanks/wangi 21:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For your informaiton (whoever you are) I added all the names for famous Londoners and it certainly was not a cut'n'paste. In fact it took me a good part of one hour of my time to find all those names so who are you to dictate what goes on the page? What does famous mean? Em...people who have made a major contribution to history and the country!! I shall be adding the information again thank you.

I think it's generally agreed that good articles on cities don't include lists like this. JPD (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a good alternative place for them JPD? Just been looking at major city articles to see if there are links to such pages without much joy - could it be linked under "See Also"? MarkThomas 18:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see much value in that sort of list anywhere, but there are articles like List of people from New York City, so it would be reasonable to create a similar list for London, and put it under See Also. JPD (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Being a collector, I kind of like them. :-) But also still a bit confused, learning Wikipedia as I go. Is this type of thing better as a category than a page? Help appreciated! MarkThomas 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

See also the discussions here on "notable natives":Talk:London#Londoner_Merge. Brz7 19:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Waste Management

Suggest the page has an extra section about waste management and recycling in the city. Snowman 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Language

What language is spoken in London? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.203.66 (talkcontribs)

Many languages but mainly English. London UK (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably all of them :P Lots of people are keen to show how multicultural London is, and languages are one area of this. RHB 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't live there or have ever been there, but I would bet my soul that the majority speak English.Cameron Nedland 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

City size

Which would be more correct? "One of the most populous cities in Europe" or "The most populous city in Europe"...? Is there any way to sort out this? Simply south 11:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange assertion that London is not the capital of England

Since almost the first edit, this article has stated without debate that London is not the capital of England, now today, suddenly, the article has been modified to remove this statement, with the edit comment that "England doesn't have an independent government or capital yet". This is clearly erroneous. From the time Londinium replaced Colchester as capital of Roman Britain, London has been the principal city of Britain. It can certainly lay claim to have been the capital of England since Winchester relinquished that role in the 11th century (with a possible exception when Charles I moved his court to Oxford during the Civil War). Even after the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800 joined England with Scotland and Ireland, there was no suggestion that London lost the role of capital of England.

Just because Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have their own parliaments based in their capital cities and England does not have a separate, England only, parliament, does not mean that London is somehow not the capital of England. There is nothing incompatible with the London being the capital of England and Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

Incidentally, Ofsted, the organisation responsible for ensuring educational standards in British schools, certainly seems to think London is the capital of England. It is one of the test questions it uses to assess geographical knowledge.

I have changed the article back.DavidCane 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that this was accepted in fact but not enacted in statute, hence London is not technically the capital of England in the same way that London is not technically a city. I don't have any objection to referring to London as the capital of England however- it's fairly manifest. Badgerpatrol 12:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed unclear and unsourced statement from the 'Air' section of 'Transport'

This section contained the following statement:

By annual passenger air traffic (2002 census), London ranks 1st in the world, with around 133,599,000 passengers using London Heathrow Airport, London Gatwick Airport, London Stansted Airport, London Luton Airport and London City Airport in the year 2005.

There are several problems with this.

  • It seems to suggest that a census in 2002 documented the traffic through London in 2005, which is obviously wrong.
  • It talks about a 2002 census without saying what kind of census.
  • It doesn't provide any sources for the information

So I have pulled the statement. If you can provide a source, and clarify what year we are talking about, then I suggest you amend and replace. -- Chris j wood 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

List of bands

I feel this list is rather unwieldy. Would someone like to trim it? --Guinnog 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

At present we have:

London is one of the major classical and popular music capitals of the world and is home to one of the five major global music corporations, EMI.
London and its surrounding Home Counties have spawned iconic and popular artists through the years, including the Cookie Crew, Beatmasters, S'Express, Blazin squad, The Who, The Kinks, The Small Faces, The Rolling Stones, Bad Boys Inc, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Basement Jaxx, Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton, Groove Armada, Cream, Iron Maiden, The Yardbirds, East 17, Genesis, Elton John, MARRS, Yes, Queen, The Clash, Mel and Kim, The Sex Pistols, Betty Boo, Radiohead, The Libertines, Keane, Jamiroquai, Bomb The Bass, Coldplay, Sophie Ellis Bextor and Bernard Butler. London's scene for local live bands can be found in Camden and the West End. London is also home to the first and original Hard Rock Cafe and EMI's Abbey Road Studios. More recently, London has been the centre for the UK's thriving urban music scene, with artists like Dillinja (Drum 'n' Bass / Jungle), So Solid Crew (UK Garage), Dizzee Rascal (Grime) and Roots Manuva (UK Hip Hop) becoming popular.

I am inclined either to trim it to a couple of bands from each period or genre, or to make a new article. My preference is for the former. Either way, I think it lets the article down at the moment. --Guinnog 07:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say make a new article. Anything to keep this article a succinct summary is good. I imagine this list could go on and on... MRSCTalk 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I second that. New article all the way. DJR (T) 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Biggest city silliness

What is it about largest city data that turns sensible people into chest-thumping, flag-waving, "mine's bigger than yours" neanderthals? Does it make any difference to anything at all whether Paris is "really" bigger than London or vice versa? Can't we just accept that the definition of a "city" is inherently vague and state quite reasonably that London is ONE OF the largest cities in the EU? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lfh (talkcontribs) 15:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

How about removing it altogether.

How famous is the Gherkin?

I was wondering whether to include the Gherkin in the list of notable landmarks, in the final paragraph of the opening section (shown below). It's certainly become an icon for those living in the UK. And it's the 2nd biggest landmark in Central London. But is it famous enough outside Britain to be "associated" with London and included in this list?

"London is a major tourist destination, with iconic landmarks including the Houses of Parliament, Tower Bridge, the Tower of London, Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace and the London Eye amongst its many attractions, along with famous institutions such as the British Museum and the National Gallery."

Wjfox2005 14:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well it's known outside Britain, but more to the point, that list talks of landmarks that are attractions. It is definitely a landmark, but not really an attraction. JPD (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Capital city

Didn't this article used to say something different as the first line, eg, the bold claim that London is the capital city of England and the UK - isn't it more accurate to say that it is the traditional and de-facto capital, since Britain does not have a formal constitutional capital city? MarkThomas 10:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Tokyo Sister City Status

Please see Talk:Tokyo#London_Sister_City_Status -- Exitmoose 06:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

On that basis, Tokyo should be removed... partnership cities are not the same as sister cities. DJR (T) 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Elevation

The highest and lowest point of elevation should be listed in the infobox and the geography section. --Kalmia 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious practice

However most London 'Christians' are only nominally so. Religious practice is lower than any oher part of the U.K. or Western Europe and is around seven times lower than American averages.

To be clear, this means Christian religious practice, yes? I would imagine Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs would have a far higher rate of religious observance. Serendipodous 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The way it is written suggests that overall levels of religious practice are lower than the rest of the UK/Western Europe, which could be caused by a high proportion of "non practising" Christians and non religious people, regardless of the levels of practice within Muslim, etc. communities. As for whether this is actually true/what is meant, we would need to have a source! JPD (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

18th century?

Completely missing!!!!!