Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:LONDON)
Jump to: navigation, search

Naming conventions for lists of things in boroughs[edit]

Hi, I have recently been working on articles related to places and stuff in the London Borough of Bexley (where I'm from), and I've come across an issue (no doubt familiar to others as it applies to most other boroughs) in that the articles about lists of things in Bexley do not disambiguate precisely between Bexley and the London Borough thereof. To the local ear it is very unclear as the town within the borough is one of the more prominent. The same issue led to the recent renaming of all sub-categories (at this CfD) related to London boroughs, proposed by User:BrownHairedGirl and mentioned above. I notice on the naming conventions page for this project it advises: "For other articles, lists and categories, use the short form of the borough name e.g. Economy of Croydon, List of people from Westminster and", but I really feel that the same rationale should apply to these articles, as the longer form names of the borough provide more clarity (see the CfD for a more articulate exposition of this case). This is not necessarily the case in Tower Hamlets and possibly some others, but I would probably suggest renaming those ones as well for consistency.

In the case of Bexley, this would apply to Parks and open spaces in Bexley, List of districts in Bexley, List of schools in Bexley, Grade I and II* listed buildings in Bexley, List of public art in Bexley (List of people from the London Borough of Bexley is already changed, but I can change it back if there is strong opposition), but I suppose some boroughs would have more than 6 articles. Nonetheless, in my opinion the arguments used in the CfD discussion apply equally here. Does anyone have any thoughts? Jdcooper (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping.
In general I think that this is a good idea, which will clarify the scope of articles which do cover the whole borough. However, I have two concerns:
  1. Care should be taken to check the actual scope of each article before it is renamed. For example, it's unclear whether the List of people from Greenwich refers to the town or to the wider borough (which includes other areas such as Woolwich, Blackheath, Eltham and Thamesmead). If the current list has a narrower focus, it might not always be appropriate to widen its scope.
  2. It leaves unresolved the question of how to unambiguously name articles which refer only to the area, rather than the wider borough.
That second point isn't a reason to hold off the rename, but it would be handy to have a solution. However, I can't think of anything better than List of people from Greenwich, by which I mean the area historically known as Greenwich rather than wider London Borough of Greenwich ... which is silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Well in the case of that list, the entries include people from the whole borough (Eltham, Blackheath etc.) Judging from the template Template:London people and the article Lists of people from London, it appears that these articles were created specifically for that purpose, as a sensible way to organise lists of Londoners. It's true that the article doesn't make that clear, but then the article is in pretty poor shape generally (as indeed are the ones for most of the other boroughs). If there were articles with unclear scope (such as the Economy of Croydon page mentioned in the naming conventions discussion), then I agree that it may not make sense to move them, or at any rate they should be examined on a case by case basis. However, all the boroughs I believe have "listed buildings" "parks and open spaces" "people from X" and other articles which certainly fall within the scope of this discussion.
As for "People from Greenwich (town)", they should be included on the article of the town in question. Unusually, Greenwich doesn't have a "Notable residents"-type section, but Lewisham does. As for Bexley, it doesn't because I was unable to establish from sources that any of the people on the borough-wide list were from that area specifically. Obviously it's possible to imagine cases where the sources are unclear as to which they mean, but I don't think that should mean that we imitate their lack of clarity! In cases where someone is described as (for example) "from Bexley", we should err on the side of the larger area, as if wrong, we are still right. Whereas if it means "Welling, Bexley Borough", then adding them to the smaller area is incorrect. Jdcooper (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I will start working on these pages tomorrow evening if no-one objects before then.. Jdcooper (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Ham and User:Armbrust, I notice the move request discussion you had here. I'm sorry to reopen "old wounds", but were you aware of the issues mentioned here at the time of that RM discussion? If not, I fear that the naming convention you decided on creates a fair amount of ambiguity (though perhaps not in the case of Barking and Dagenham). If you were, I would appreciate if you would add your thoughts to this discussion! Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
That RM was closed more than 3 years ago, and I just closed it (I didn't participate in the discussion, and also have no opinion on the matter). If you feel the current situation is unsatisfactory, than you should initiate another RM. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Just come across this as the ping was to my old username, which I had to change for the Single Unified Login switchover. This is very far from being a "wound" as far as I'm concerned – I'm quite happy to discuss it! As it happens, I've been thinking for some time that the convention should change, and indeed I was heavily involved in the CfD discussion which resulted in changing the convention for categories to "...in the London [etc.] Borough of..." My argument in the original RM was above all about consistency and I firmly approve of the move you're proposing, which would bring the titles of lists and categories in line with each other. Ham II (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok great, I'll get started on the Move Request. Do you think any of the articles listed here might be exceptions? Jdcooper (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't. Face-smile.svg Ham II (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jdcooper, Ham, Armbrust, and BrownHairedGirl: It looks good to me. Although I could not see any exceptions... Being a natural devils advocate, have thought about the implications of any exceptions that might get through unnoticed. Conclusion is that it doesn’t matter. For example take :List of public art in Ealing. It is quite obvious that it really should be titled List of public art in the London Borough of Ealing and previous editors have already sub-categorised the art featured in the article into the towns or villages within this Borough. Think we have firm consensus that these changes should go ahead. WP is still work in progress and if we have not dotted every single i or crossed every single t, that is a minuscule price to pay in return for clear, unambiguous, uniformity. It will make easier for future editors to know where to place things. Aspro (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I have made a list of all the articles in question. Does anyone have any arguments against submitting a Move request for them? Jdcooper (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Request listed at Talk:Grade I and II* listed buildings in Bexley. Jdcooper (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell Tower fire[edit]

We need photographs of the burnt-out (or burning) Grenfell Tower for the Grenfell Tower fire article please. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

List of people from the London Borough of Barnet[edit]

Is this really needed, seems very poor and I would suggest it be deleted under list craft, it's just going to duplicate notable residents from other articles such as, Barnet, Mill Hill, Arkley, ect. Govvy (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Well the article could definitely use some work, especially with sourcing, but that's not in itself a reason to delete. We should have a List of people from London, but obviously that would be too big, so that's why the articles exist for individual boroughs. Maybe the people on the list would be duplicated from the articles about individual localities in the borough, but that's ok. It's informative to have an article about all the people from nearby localities too, I think. Jdcooper (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Use some work? List of people from Hertfordshire got deleted, and who is going to look up a list of famous people in a London Borough, it's too vast a subject to be contained to a list, there would be over 10,000 names from history to present. I don't think this should be, I am going to PROD. Govvy (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
If it has over 10,000 names, then it would be appropriate to split it into Lists of people from individual localities. But it doesn't. There are literally thousands of articles with lists of people from specific places or areas. They are neither indiscriminate nor trivial. If you want to delete it, take it to AfD, but I highly doubt the proposal would succeed. Jdcooper (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Jdcooper - the reasoning is sound. Edwardx (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Dam at List of ppl in London, I think the whole lot should be deleted, very un-wikipedia, unsourced, massive violation of WP:BLP when you don't have citations. If unsourced, you should never reveal where people live if they are the living! That violates privacy laws and multiple times I've had to remove names which have been unsourced. List of people from Westminster to start with is a complete violation of BLP with out citation per name they whole thing should be deleted on that grounds. Govvy (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that all these articles need better sourcing. I don't agree that saying that people are from, or live in, a particular town is invading privacy laws, especially when it's sourced information ie. already in the public domain. I would add that finding a source is a better way to improve the encyclopaedia than just removing the information. Jdcooper (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Crime in London[edit]

The article Crime in London is now outdated and relying on very old statistics and does not account for the more recent rise in crime since 2015. We also have a few styling and wording issues. Any help would be much appreciated. AusLondonder (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

London Black Atheists[edit]

I've written a new page London Black Atheists and I took the liberty of adding it to the project, if that's ok and someone feels like rating it on the talk page, that would be great, thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Selhurst vs South Norwood[edit]

I am a little confused I thought Selhurst was in South Norwood, shouldn't these two articles be merged or not? Govvy (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

They look similar, and they also have exactly the same co-ordinates listed. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Govvy: They are two adjoining districts in the the LB of Croydon. South Norwood can be considered as the areas immediately adjacent to Portland Road S.E.25 and South Norwood Hill (to the point where it meets Church Road when it becomes Upper Norwood). Selhurst is to the south-west of South Norwood, is relatively smaller and is more or less bounded by Whitehorse Road and Selhurst Road. Both areas carry the S.E.25 postcode but some of Selhurst may fall under a CR code (Croydon). Perversely, Selhurst Park is right where the two areas meet and is sometimes considered to be South Norwood rather than Selhurst itself.
Here is a link to google map of the area which may help. I also looked at the London A-Z to check my information. Eagleash (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't sure if there was overlapping information going on, where it might be considered that the same information is on both pages, it really does feel that way with the infoboxes know. I looked at both because one editor changed South Norwood to Selhurst for the location of used Crystal Palace FC. Govvy (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)