This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

In my opinion, this article is already close to an FA level.

You may want to take some time improving the quality and selection of the pictures in this article. I would recommend using a fuctional picture in the "Districts" section, in place of the current one. The London at night picture is intersting, but I question the encyclopedic value of it, especially when there is another ariel picture right above it. Why not use a picture to comment on the various parts of London?

Also, the pictures in the history section need some attention. The St. Paul's Cathedral picture is not set beside text that talk about the Cathedral, nor is the Queen Victoria picture. Someone not familiar with London would question what the significance of Queen Victoria is to London. I would recommend changing some of the descriptive text, or replacing the pictures altogther.-- P-Chan 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I just made my own change.-- P-Chan 21:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like this has been pretty much taken care of. DJR ( talk) 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is filled with useless facts and is inaccessible for authors in the edit-mode! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.79.67 ( talk • contribs) 2006-06-15 00:30:24

You can edit it by going to: London/Infobox and then hitting edit/ wangi 09:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Which facts do you consider useless? -- Dave A 10:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to agree it's useless and a waste of space. I mean there are bits about the City of London and Greater London ect. which are poitnless, because the "city of london" and "greater london" both have there own articles, and if anyone wants to find out the population or whatever of those two districts then they can simply go onto the page about them not add them onto London's! Jackp 12:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is now at {{ Infobox London}}. I tend to agree that the City of London section should be removed, but the rest of it seems reasonable. JPD ( talk) 15:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This came up in the recent peer review. It was suggested that London is the only major city without an infobox, and therefore should have one. I pointed out that "London" itself is not actually a city... it's not really anything - more of a "concept". Infoboxes are fine for all the subarticles like City of London, Greater London, City of Westminster etc., but London itself does not have any official information, because it encompasses two many conflicting governmental and geo-political structures. Compare this infobox to that of New York City. They have a flag, a seal, a motto, a nickname, official statistics etc. etc. None of those exist / are relevant to "London" - only to the sub-articles of London.

I am personally unsure about the need for an infobox. However, 95% of people who read the article will be completely unaware of the ambiguity surrounding London, so some other compromise is needed. I personally reckon we should put something together like what you see on Christianity articles - a template that provides links to all the relevant structures. DJR ( Talk) 11:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I prefer the current infobox which I think shows that the City of London, Greater London and the metropolitan area are distinct entities at a glance. I don't think any of the facts are useless - to me, they provide useful statistics and links to relevant authorities which would probably take a long time to find in the main body of the article.

The London Portal provides links to all the relevant London articles - maybe we could make a more prominent link to this at the top of the page? -- Dave A 11:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The current infobox should stay as is. MRSC 00:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is really no need for a whole section of “leisure” in London, the articles within the leisure section should be merged into “Society and Culture”. Jackp 12:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Err yes there is, it is showing that London has tourism. Although with your merger seggestion, maybe it could become a sub-section. Simply south 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh... i have to reply after the merger has happened...!! Simply south 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not terribly bothered about the merger, but I wish Jack would ask first and edit later for these sorts of things. Moving on, if we are to have this mammoth section, I propose moving Education to its own section, as is the case with many other city articles. -- Dave A 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask first from now on! Oh, and Simply south, if people want to know about the tourism in London, then they can simply visit " Tourism in London". Jackp 10:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I should stop missing links. Me=bad Simply south 11:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The link to the tourism article wasn't very obvious before; I've made it more so by adding it to the Further information links for the Economy section. -- Dave A 11:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I support moving education to its own section, and am not too concerned about whether the merge stays or not. Mentioning that London has has a large tourism industry belongs in the economy section. JPD ( talk) 10:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that tourism should just be mentioned, with a {{main}} link, in the economy section, though I'm not sure there is enough stuff about education to justify its own section. Having said that, "socitey and culture" is getting pretty obese now... we might want to sort that out one way or another. DJR ( Talk) 11:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Education subsection is currently as long as the Demographics and Transport sections. The Parks subsection could possibly be incorporated into Geography, also. JPD ( talk) 11:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just create "Parks in London"? Simply south 11:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

An article "Parks in London" may or may not be a good idea, but this is not the issue here - the issue is how the parks are mentioned in this article. Jackp's comment above concerning Tourism in London is actually not relevant either. JPD ( talk) 11:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JPD that Education is long enough (and significant enough) to warrant its own section. I think I'd support the creation of a Parks in London sub-article - that way we can cut down the size of that subsection, and then make it a subsection of Geography instead. Some city articles also make Sport a section in its own right. If these changes were made, the Society section would be more manageable and we'd probably conform better to the guidelines from Wikiproject:Cities and thus stand a better chance of gaining FA status... -- Dave A 11:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the article was extended. Well, there is no need for that! The article was fine as it was, and since when did Sport not belong in the "Society and Culture" section? Jackp 11:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was not extended - the headings were reordered. In fact, the article is shorter than it was before, thanks to the truncation of the Parks and gardens subsection. I moved Sport and Education because the Society and culture section was bloated. Take a look at the guidelines of Wikiproject:Cities where Education and Sport are generally treated as sections in their own right, and at some other featured cities where Education is almost always its own section, and Sport is sometimes its own section. Some examples are Boston, Massachusetts (education is Level 2), Canberra (education is L2), Johannesburg (education and sports are both L2), Kolkata (education and sports are both L2), San Jose, California (education and sports are both L2), Seattle, Washington (education is L2) and Sarajevo (education and sports both L2).

I'm not saying we have to have the same outline as other cities, but the recurring theme is that Education at the least deserves its own Level 2 section. Given the varying positions on Sport, I would accept that as a subsection of Culture, but I would move it to the end of the section as is standard practice with other articles - otherwise the whole Culture section feels disjointed, with the "arts" broken up by Sport. -- Dave A 12:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to promoting Education and moving Sport to the end of the Culture section (but still within it?) -- Dave A 19:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The only objection so far (even to giving Sport its own section) seems to have been Jack's misunderstanding that the number of sections is an indication of the length of the article. I say give them both their own section. JPD ( talk) 09:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've re-promoted Education for now... -- Dave A 10:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Question: if I am writing about a figure and I want to say that he was born in London, for example, would it be more proper to write it as "London, England" or "London, United Kingdom"? Vintner 05:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

" London, United Kingdom" is probably more "officially" correct because England doesn't really have its own political status. However, " London, England" is widely used and understood, and is still correct. If your figure was born before 1800, then the UK did not exist at the time and it's safer to use England, which is guaranteed to be correct from about AD 900 onwards. -- Dave A 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you much. Vintner 17:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we would like London to reach featured article status. I think to make progress towards this goal, we need to identify the key deficiencies of the article in order to remedy them. The advice page at User:AndyZ/Suggestions provides a useful summary of the requirements.

One of my main concerns is the use of weasel words and peacock terms, and I've been trying to strip some of these out of the article. However, I think the lead section falls down hard on the following paragraph:

London is an international leader in finance, politics, education, culture, entertainment, fashion and the arts. It is widely regarded as one of the world's major global cities, and has been an important settlement for nearly two millennia.

We have no source for London's "international leadership" on anything other than finance, and "widely regarded" is a terribly weaselly term. I propose the following rewording of this important paragraph:

An important settlement for nearly two millennia, London is an international leader in finance and its activities in politics, education, entertainment and fashion contribute to its perceived status as a global city.

This is only a starting point, so I welcome any comments on how to deal with it. I'd also encourage people to point out other flaws in the article which would derail it on the way to FA status, so that we can deal with them. -- Dave A 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the other 3 "major cities" NYC Paris Tokyo, you'll find they say exactly something like "It is widely regarded as one of the world's major global cities." Skinnyweed 19:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

None of which have gained FA status... -- Dave A 14:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably before this goes on you should look at WP:WIAFA. Simply south 17:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that someone disliked my lead section edit... please could they make their objection known here - thanks! -- Dave A 23:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

The current edit war over which section goes where... Simply south 13:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Style changes

It seems patently obvious to be that the basic format on infobox_city is pretty crappy, especially when taken relative to other such as infobox_country. On that basis, I took it upon myself to take the best parts of all the different infoboxes I could find, inversely combine it with all the things I don't like about the current one, and after a day's work I've ended up with this. I personally think it is a vast improvement, but before changing the {{ infobox London}} template I figured it would be prudent to get some feedback. I think that the information in my infobox provides more clarity and contextual relevance, and the links are also a lot better. Most importantly, however, are the aesthetics. The current one really isn't great in that department. Anyway, feedback would be appreciated. DJR ( talk) 17:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the current infobox. The style of the one shown here is less pleasing on the eye. MRSC 06:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh. And there is far too much info relating to the City of London. This version creates more confusion. MRSC 07:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry DJR, I have to second that. I see that you've taken pains to make sure "City" is linked, but it still isn't that clear at a glance, and I think it just creates confusion. The current infobox feels less cluttered. My main beef is that I don't think there's a need for the column headings of "Component" and "Institution", and that showing both census and estimated population figures is hard on the eye - too many numbers next to each other in that space. Despite the controversy, I also think including a Met area population estimate is useful for people comparing with other cities. -- Dave A 08:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered about the content - that can be edited by anyone. It's more about the general style. I really think the current one, and infobox_city in general, is very poor in terms of aesthetics, and this is a marked improvement. Feel free to add/remove content where you think it's appropriate ( User:Djr_xi/London infobox) - for example I shall add a "Media" section - but my concern is the look, not the content. DJR ( talk) 10:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the style is an improvement. The layout is easy to read on the existing version and titles and indentation are more clear. MRSC 10:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To follow with more constructive criticism. My specific objections to this infobox are:

1. The syntax is needlessly complicated. Use simple solutions where possible.
2. "London" appears inside the infobox but on most other infoboxes the title appear outside on top. See New York City or Westminster.
3. The image caption and "Location" title hug each other with no white space between them. All other titles suffer from lack of white space around them.
4. "Country" and "Region" and other titles hug the left side with no margin. All other infoboxes have some white space, it is pleasing on the eye.
5. Co-ordinates use different justification to all other elements.
6. There are things needlessly underlined which are not links.
7. Items have been indented or "-" used for no clear reason. Poor use of space.
8. Word wrap causes "Mayor of London", "City municipal HQ" etc. to be indented on the first line but not on the second. Looks odd.
9. Geography section is a mess of figures.
10. "Wider population" wraps needlessley.
11. Image caption style is inconsistent.

I propose leaving the current infobox as it is. MRSC 10:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttle about new infobox

1. Not sure what you mean.

2. You yourself have said "there is no benefit to uniformity for uniformities sake". I think it looks one hell of a lot better with the city's name inside the box than outside. As I said, there are fundemental flaws with the infobox_city template.

3. Easily remedied.

4. ditto, though I disagree. The current infobox looks tacky because of the excessive white space. Infoboxes should be full of concise information, not pointless gaps

5. er... do they?

6. can easily be remedied, and underlining is used to illustrate a separate subheading. but I will remove it.

7. completely disagree. Look at United Kingdom or any page that uses {{ infobox country}}. It is a much superior template to {{ infobox city}} (what the current London one is based on) in many ways, and the use of indents makes increases contextual clarity and stylistic quality.

8. a) on high resolution monitors (which you can simulate by making your browser text size smaller), everything fits on one line. b) the box can just be widened.

9. Geography sections generally are. The figures provided here are contextually clear and are qualified with estimates vs. census data.

10. don't know what you mean... perhaps see 8a. but I'm not sure.

11. with what?

Issues with current infobox Rather saying this infobox is better, I am going to state what is wrong with the current one:

• London appears outside the infobox, which is pointless (we can see the page title) and looks stupid (on all infoboxes, not just this one).
• The formatting of the current infobox is very very basic and looks very bland.
• The structure of headings overlaps far too much - location and government in particular.
• The current infobox does nothing to illustrate how London itself is govered. It simply states information that the reader is expected to put into context. The entire "Government" section is a) misleading, b) confusing and c) lacks information.
• Using shaded titles within shaded titles looks very poor and is once again unnecessarily confusing. The "Geography" section in particular is a stylistic shambles.
• The whole infobox seems to lack proper subdivisions, and does not display information clearly relative to each other.
• Finally, the captions on the current infobox are incompatible with certain browsers (namely versions of Yahoo! browser) when viewed in high resolution in larger text size.

I appreciate that when viewing in lower resolution, the current infobox does not look quite as crap as I thought, but when viewed in high-res with large text, it is a nightmare. DJR ( talk) 10:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the template in response to some of your criticisms and re-formatted certain sections. DJR ( talk) 11:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this updated template better than the first version, and I'd be prepared to see it replace the current one once it's been decided whether to keep Media in there or not. However, one comment: I think the "incumbents" section is confusing as it stands. Instead of keeping it separate from the previous sections, I suggest placing the names directly underneath the relevant titles above, rather than repeating the titles in this new section. That way I think it's more obvious that Ken Livingstone is in charge of Greater London and David Brewer is in charge of the City of London. -- Dave A 14:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I've also fine-tuned the margins and padding in a couple of areas. Media can be removed / services added based on what happens below. DJR ( talk) 14:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement although the style of the two image captions are still not consistent with each other, "incumbent" has no space between it and the person, the size of area in the geography section should increase in scale - at the moment it goes down and then up again from GL>City>GLUA>LCB, "Wider Population" should read "Wider population" and should not wrap. Still not convinced this template stylistically offers any improvement. MRSC 17:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The two image captions are consistent with each other - I'm not sure on what basis you are saying otherwise. As for geographic increases with scale, this is in exactly the same order as the current infobox - it is the most sensible format. I don't see any need for increases by scale. And I still don't know what you mean by "wrap". "Current incumbent" does seem to be saying the same thing twice though, so I've changed that. DJR ( talk) 17:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The caption for the map has a smaller font size than the one for the photo. When he's talking about wrapping, it's when the text continues onto a new line.

PS Would it be possible to indent the "Incumbent" part with a dash, as with the headings for the statistics rows? That way it shows straight away that the incumbent we're talking about is the current mayor. -- Dave A 18:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. Not sure what happened with the captions - they were the same earlier... I must have messed something up in the middle. Took a while to figure out that "wrap" business too - should all be sorted out now though. I reckon it looks pretty good. DJR ( talk) 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that the new style has grown on me. Personally, I'd be fairly happy to see it replace the current infobox now. -- Dave A 19:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The recent changes have brought the style up to an acceptable standard. There are a few text changes I'd want to make but the style is ok now. MRSC 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Media and services

Whichever BBC opt-out or ITV station is available in London really is not 'essential' infobox information and therefore does not warrant an entry in the infobox. Likewise for services. Does any other city infobox include this level of information? I think not. That is why I propose to lose this information from the London infobox. Best regards, WikiWitch 12:35, 21st June, 2006 (BST)

It is useful, relevant information and does no harm. It isn't like there is an economy of space and Wikipedia is not paper. The fact that it doesnt appear on other city infoboxes is irrelevant, perhaps it should be? And even if not, there is no benefit to uniformity for uniformities sake. The information should only be removed if it is not relevant or does harm. In this case it is neither. MRSC 11:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. The infobox should hold 'essential' city facts like population, land, economic data etc. Services and in particular, local TV opt-out info is irrelevant in comparison. Whether it does "no harm" by being there really is not an acceptable justification for it's inclusion. WikiWitch 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On one hand, going on the basis that information should only be removed "if it is not relelvant or does harm", we should summarise the entire article into the infobox, which is quite obviously not the purpose of an infobox. On the other hand, what exactly is "essential infobox information"? There is no definition either way, but basic sensibilities have to come in at some stage to stop infoboxes just becoming mini-Portals. I personally don't think media information is of enough general interest to merit its inclusion - people who know about London would know already, and people who don't know about London wouldn't give a rats arse what ITV franchise they receive. IHMO, the purpose of an infobox is to provide important, relevant information in a consise manner. I don't think media info is really very important in the wider scale of things. DJR ( talk) 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that irrelevant information would be harmful as it detracts from the essential points. However, including services and media which are London-wide does not detract from the other points in the infobox. MRSC 12:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm in agreement with DJR. Media information for sure should go. Does anyone else have a point of view? WikiWitch 12:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. Whilst I think the media information is useful, I don't think it's "important enough" to be in the infobox. My suggestion is to place a sentence in the body of the text saying something like "local television is provided by...". I only think it should be a sentence though (in the Economy section, with the rest of the media information) as we already have the Media in London subarticle. -- Dave A 14:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, we should have an overview of all media in the dedicated "Media in London" section - it is both relevant and useful there. It is not however essential for the infobox. And what about services (Police, Fire, Ambulance etc) - is that really essential information also? I suggest that is removed from the infobox also. WikiWitch 18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

We have text information on the various services under Government, so I wouldn't keep it in the infobox either. -- Dave A 19:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

We could always make a "Part of the Series on London" template to stick in somewhere - that'd cover all this stuff in one foul swoop. Something along the lines of {{ Christianity}}. I'll put something together once we've replaced the current infobox. DJR ( talk) 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea. We have a lot of sub-articles to keep track of now... -- Dave A 19:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Final decisions

Based on the views expressed above, I think we are in a position where a change in infobox style has been suitably agreed. It appears that there is some degree of consensus that media/services links should not be in the infobox. Upon confirmation of consensus regarding these details, I will update {{ Infobox London}}. DJR ( talk) 21:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The deed has been done. All individual London place articles have services listed in their infobox, so that should not be an issue. DJR ( talk) 14:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

City of London gov

I'm inclined to think this section should be removed from the infobox as this article is talking about London as a whole and by including the Corporation of London and Lord Mayor we are implying their significance to all of London is greater than it really is. The information is repeated in the relevant articles. MRSC 11:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. JPD ( talk) 15:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but surely now this page simply usurps Greater London? This infobox is supposed to be generalised for all of London - otherwise there would be no point in the Greater London page. DJR ( T) ( WC) 21:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed University of London and University College London links from the “see also” section, since they are already mentioned in the education section on the London page. Jackp 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you edit the references section. Its no more than a link farm as it stands. Links 101 facts about London. What place does that have in an encyclopedia? stupidcupid 26 june 2006

References are sourced from where they are referenced from - just click on the arrow to find the citation. You will discover that the references are not external links, but citations that verify the factual nature of content in the article. As for the place it has in an encyclopedia... Wikipedia policy states no original research. DJR ( T) ( WC) 22:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"the whole point in changing it was to not use the infobox class - it looks crap and the format screws up on high-res monitors." The thousands of infoboxes that do use the infobox class would tend to disagree with you. If you have a technical issue with it, take it up on the monobook.css talk page. Hacking in loads of inline CSS is Not Good. ed g2s • talk 11:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

From user talk:ed g2s

Hi - you recently reverted my revert of {{ Infobox London}}. Please read the relevant discussion pages before making assumptions about whether or not edits are being made by consensus or not. A check of the history will also illustrate that the "custom" style was implemented per Talk:London discussions and has subsequently been altered without consensus. While edits are fine, I deemed changing changing back to infobox class was clearly not okay as consensus was reached on the basis of not using infobox class for the reasons I stated in my edit summary. Before reverting pages, I ask that you bear in mind that things may not seem as apparent as they look. DJR ( T) ( WC) 11:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I checked the talk page and history first, but looking at the discussions above, I see just one other user who liked your change of style. Please correct me if I am wrong. ed g2s • talk 12:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should a point-size-fits-all policy be used? There is no point in standardising everything for the sake of standardisation. If everything looks the same, people do not pay attention to it. Furthermore, the fact that the infobox has undergone several major edits before the infobox class was added illustrates that it is not forcing an issue - otherwise it would have been reverted. Surely that is patently obvious from the edit history? Changing the style of the infobox is deliberately done to make it look different, and in order to better include information in a more coherent format. This has clearly been achieved. DJR ( T) ( WC) 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read up on the advantages of using CSS to separate style from content, especially in a frequently re-used resource such as Wikipedia. The infobox class serves a very important purpose. ed g2s • talk 12:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

MRSC: "there was no consensus to stop using infobox class, only to make style changes, which are included". The whole purpose of the new style was to fundementally change the infobox away from using the infobox class. The "style changes" are useless on their own because they were designed to be complimentary with the overall infobox. It now looks worse than it did to start with, whereas for a brief period it actually looked good whilst fulfilling all its functions and not screwing up my browser. I really cannot understand why you are so hell-bent on inhibiting any form of change - it is deeply frustrating having to re-argue the same points over and over again. DJR ( T) ( WC) 00:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just re-checked and not once did you make it clear you wanted to move away from the infobox class; you just talked about the City Infobox not being up to scratch and wanted to make style changes. If you had suggested abandoning this perfectly good and widely used resource I would have stopped this sooner. I have nothing against style changes and have even gone to great lengths to properly incorporate your style changes into the template using infobox class. So do not tell me I resist change.

Change needs to be pragmatic and for the good of the Wikipedia. Abandoning perfectly good wiki syntax for one users bespoke and needlessly over complicated work is not good. The results were, in my opinion, an eyesore and needed multiple corrections and changes in order for them to incorporate the most basic elements of design. More worryingly it was difficult to edit because of the volume of syntax floating around. Every minor edit resulted in unexpected results which would not have occurred using infobox class. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia anyone can edit and wiki syntax is supposed to be easy to understand even to those unfamiliar with code.

Every page renders differently on each PC, browser and skin; just because it looked good on your system does not mean it had wider success. It is selfish to try and construct a page purely to render on ones own particular setup. In future use simple solutions for simple problems; they are more likely to benefit the largest group. Article needs and infobox? Use infobox class. Thousands of other editors can manage it. If you think the infobox class is fundamentally flawed that is great. But you should find the right forum for change and comment on it there. MRSC 07:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case then revert it back to its original form. It seemed pretty obvious to me that my proposed change involved not using the infobox class - hence why it didn't use the infobox class. What we have now is worse than what we started with - the "style changes" were based on wider changes, they weren't simply for the hell of it. They're effectiveness in terms of easing readability and improving style is no longer achieved. And, worst of all, the font is too big and adding style="font-size:90%" makes no difference for some reason.

In any case, sorry to have disturbed you. If I had known that there are restrictions on how much you can change things, I wouldn't have wasted a day putting it together. DJR ( T) ( WC) 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Font size

Based on {{ infobox country}} and many other geography-related infoboxes, font sizes should be shrunk. On top of simple standardisation, it reduces the clutter of the box and stops wrapping. Furthermore, no user as any right to decide that "this version is better", especially when the said version has been re-instated in the face of previous consensus. To say "do not change font size" in such explicit terms suggests either there has been some consensus to this degree (this talk page seems, in fact, to suggest the opposite), or that a user has more rights than another to determine what is right. Wikis are free to edit... as was so wonderfully displayed during the period when the new infobox was implemented. DJR ( T) ( WC) 09:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need this section to be included in the page? Since there is already Tall buildings in London, there is no need for another section in the article. And most of London's architecture isn't truly rare (well, some of it). And the buildings mentioned all have there own article. An architecture section does not belong in any city article. Jackp 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The creation of the Architecture section was in response to complaints when I removed a "Major new construction" section which someone else had created. I can understand why you don't think Architecture should be a section in its own right, but it does deserve some mention in the main article - potentially as a small subsection of Geography (something like Built environment, which would explain the generally low-rise nature of London) with a link to an Architecture in London sub-article.

One of the other reasons for the Architecture section was that there are a number of landmarks mentioned in there which lack any mention in the rest of the article, but yet are still associated closely with London (e.g. Wellington Arch, Nelson's Column, Millennium Dome).

If Architecture in London were created, it would not be the same as Tall buildings in London for obvious reasons. -- Dave A 13:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of incorporating the relevant info into the Geography section. JPD ( talk) 10:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Architecture has now been removed to the new sub-article Architecture in London, and a new Built environment subsection of Geography has been created with an explanation of density and height of buildings in London, and a small paragraph on architecture. -- Dave A 18:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant idea, it works! Jackp 05:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is vital that there is an architecture section for London simply because London is one of the few places were you can see the new and the old living side by side. For example the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace, Nelson's Column, 10 Downing Street, Hampton Court Palace, Westminster Cathedral, Tower Bridge, St Paul's Cathedral... and then there is the new the Gherkin, the Millenium Dome, Chanary Wharf Tower, Tower 42 (the Natwest Tower)... and more will be built for example the Shard of Glass (London Bridge Tower) but that is not all, London's skyline is set to change drastically over the next decade or two and soon it will have as many tall and modern buildings as Shanghai and New York, maybe even more. So yes keep the architecture section for London is one of the finest places in the world to witness breathtaking buildings and monuments, and it's set to get a lot better. 87.112.70.125 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the article I have come to the conclusion that an architecture section is vital and should be part of the main article. Who agrees? 87.112.70.125 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"London has the largest student population of any British city (about 378,000).[23] " Isn't this kind of obvious, given that it's overwhelmingly the largest city in Britain, one assumes it has the most of most things. "the largest number of rodents", "the largest number of angry old men", "the largest number of social misfits" and so on. Shouldn't we have a list of "largest number of xxxx things" and have done with it? MarkThomas 10:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is there to show that there are a lot of students in London, which may not be something people typically associate with the city. How would you reword it? I imagine the alternative is "London has a large student population (about 378,000)". -- Dave A 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Almost 378,000 students study at higher education institutions in London" is a more accurate statement of the figure, but possibly shouldn't be the opening sentence of the paragraph. JPD ( talk) 17:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there are too many sub-sections under "culture and society". Someone should really consider trying to break them into paragraphs, and put them under the sub-section of "arts and entertainment" under society and culture. Jackp 08:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I contracted the Fashion subsection into a paragraph within Entertainment and shopping. I'm not sure the title for that subsection fits particularly well, but the prose flows reasonably well. -- Dave A 11:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Defining London be apart of Geography? Since it's about that, due to the fact that it talks about London's area ect. Jackp 08:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly are the borders of North London, South London, East London and West London? I am trying to design a template on each of these or do you think it is not worth it? Simply south 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Exact borders do not really exist, but if you take a look at the North London, South London, East London and West London articles you'll note they already have maps showing the location... So yeah, not worth your time :) / wangi 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to add - template on railway stations. Simply south 10:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between these two? Why wouldn't areas close to the city centre be classed as a suburb? Simply south 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add any vague statements about what temperatures are often reached. It is not necessary to include statements about the obvious fact that the temperature is often above the average maximum temperature for the month - that is the nature of an average. Relevant information that could be added (with references) is things like the average number of days over 30 per year, the highest ever recorded temperature, etc. JPD ( talk) 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In the article you get the impression that the income numbers are for individuals, but the source says that the numbers are for households. Could someone perhaps re-formulate the section? Poktirity 13:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That figure is also for working households with a representative aged between 20 and 39. The average may be much lower - eg £38,586 [1] or £37,074 [2] instead of £46,288 [3] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I’ve shortened the “Culture section”, it was getting lengthy and most of it is something that could have been found in a travel brochure. The people who are going to read this can be put together easily (unless they have no blains whatsoever). It looks better with two or three sections, another way it looks tacky. 202.6.138.33 12:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"CIty within a CIty". This is wrong. It wold be more accurate to say giving it distinctive status as the only completely autonomous borough in London. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.250.155 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 August 2006.

links to Transport in London, Parks in London and many others are included in some of the sections on the page, there for they don't need to be included under "see also". I've also removed the glossy info from the heading on the page, and did a bit of a clean up under built environment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.35 ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted these changes because they make the lead section *more* weaselly, not less (terms such as "widely considered" are meaningless - see WP:WEASEL) and the other edits were messier than what was already there, without adding any value to the article. -- Dave A 19:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It looked like glossy garbage trying to promote the city, and it does add value to the article, it’s just making it smaller and leaving out of the tourist brochure crap, which this article is full of. And what is the significance of the parks and gardens section? It’s not big enough to have its own section, it should be added under leisure and culture, geography or built environment now that would suffice. And when regarding to the city as a whole, it’s a rather small part of it. I’m going to easily work it into the text. And the beginning is rv fluff, and doesn’t belong in this article, and it doesn’t even have a source to back it up. And the pictures have been removed because this article has a tedious array of photos, and it’s making it look like a photo gallery. Also, please state your reasons on why you continue to add the links to separate articles, when they’re already included on the page in certain sections and sub-subsections.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.35 ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack should stop his tit-for-tat campaign, especially when he doesn't understand what he is saying. However, one or two of his points are valid. The see also section should be trimmed, and we probably should have a reference for the list of contributing factors in the second paragraph. JPD ( talk) 10:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I did wonder if this was Jack. I was composing the following response while you were also posting...

Some of the items mentioned in the "its involvement in..." sentence are fairly removed, but the mention of education, fashion, entertainment and the media are specifically there because they are talked about later in the text - they do not need an external reference. This also applies to the "300 languages spoken" statement which is clearly sourced in the Demographics section later on in the article.

The sentence you replaced it with is much inferior and is inherently weaselly - "It is also one of the worlds major global cities, exterting a strong global influence worldwide". You could reduce that to "it is one of the world's global cities" without losing any information (a global city is inherently a major city, a global influence is inherently both "strong" and "worldwide", and a global city obviously has a global influence!).

I'm also not sure why you object to mentioning the "famous institutions" (British Museum and National Gallery) when you're happy to have the "iconic landmarks".

There's not really any need to arbitrarily move Parks and gardens just for the sake of it. It belongs much better in Geography than it does in Leisure and entertainment, particularly as it follows its counterpart Built environment section. I'm not sure why you don't think a city's parks and open spaces are important; green space is vital to the health of any city and its residents.

This article is far from a tourist brochure; in fact, in this respect, it's superior to some of the featured city articles which have their own "Tourism" section. In this article, the tourism section was carefully edited out following the sort of criticism you are giving this much more well-rounded version.

You might find it useful to discuss changes to the lead section and important changes to the layout of the article in advance here, as both are likely to cause dispute.

I'll give you the "see also" links, as long as they're present elsewhere in the article. Oh, and please sign your talk page comments. -- Dave A 11:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just curious. London has a population of around 7 million. However, does this only cover the city centre, or where is it meant to cover? I am now finding also the Greater London area may have 25 million people, depending on the source. Simply south 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I always thought the 7 million figure was the population of people living within the boundaries of Greater London. Estimates for the metropolitan population conventionally vary from 12 million to 14 million, although in terms of sphere of influence then it would indeed be something in the region of 25 million. DJR ( T) 20:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the c.7m figure (7,172,000 in the Census from April 2001) is the population of Greater London, and in my opinion is the largest unit that the public would actually associate with London (other smaller units being inner London (~2.5m), central London (200k-400k depending on your definition) and the City (about 7k).

We then have the more poorly-defined but larger "urban area" (the continuous built-up area, which could include all of Greater London plus places like Watford, Dartford, Staines, Woking and Epsom), the even larger and even more poorly-defined "metropolitan area" (which is usually the whole south east of England) and the "metropolitan region" which is a term coined by the GLA to describe that sphere of influence - the area which focuses on London as its population/commercial centre (as opposed to Birmingham, Bristol, Leicester etc.), and which covers most of the south east region and a large part of the East of England region.

This is generally explained in Demographics of London. -- Dave A 22:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss this here rather than continuing to edit war the article itself.

I ran the Google search that was used as a citation for this name of the Viking colony: [4]. This does return 510 hits, but most are not in English. Restricting the search to just English results [5] reduces the number returned to just 21. Of these only 7 are actually in English. One of these is this Wikipedia article. The remaining ones don't provide (as far as I can see) a reliable source that the name of the Viking colony was Lundunaborg. I believe we need a better source before we add this to the article. Other thoughts? Gwernol 16:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I thought that good faith would be assumed. The Icelanders have kept the Old Norse names for British towns and that is why most of the sources are in Icelandic. I frankly haven't got the time to look through books for that name ATM. I am insulted by being treated as if I want to add bogus information, and I hereby leave this edit war.-- Isse 18:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say it was bogus information? I just suggested that proper reliable sources be provided to allow for verification. The only thing I was questioning were the sources, not your good faith behind the edits. Gwernol 18:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me why Snorri Sturlusson's Heimskringla [6] is not a reliable source for the Viking name for London?-- Isse 18:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't because I don't read Icelandic (I'm assuming here). That wasn't the provided citation for Lundunaborg that I was questioning, by the way, this was. To conform to the reliable sources guidelines you should find the relevant passage in English from here since English sources are always prefered to non-English ones. Judging by the Heimskringla article it sounds like only some of the tales are considered historically reliable, so it would be helpful to know if the part cited is amongst the "reliable bits", so to speak. Gwernol 18:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Relax, I don't burn to imprint the name on this page. I appreciate that you fight to keep everything 100% historically verifiable, and I apologize for my misguided eagerness to fill in a blank in good faith.-- Isse 18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem refering to Heimskringla is that you're refering to an historical document, written in Old Norse, with modern translations. Even so, looking at Harald Harfager's Saga I see London refered to as Lundúnum in both the Modern Iclandic and Old Norse versions:

• Modern Icelandic
• Old Norse
• English

Thanks/ wangi 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Lundún appears to have existed too. Unfortunately any of the names would be removed as bogus information unless someone can find a document from the Norse settlement in London with either of the names.-- Isse 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the article was recently changed to say "2nd most populous city in the European Union (Paris is the most populous urban area) [1]". However, upon looking at the citation for that apparent fact I noticed that the citation is actually just a mirror of Wikipedia's article on Paris. Should this even be citated? The mirror of the Paris article doesn't even cite sources itself. Thanks for anyone who can shed some light on this. Falc 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. Wikipedia articles are not a valid source for other Wikipedia articles. I'm going to remove that citation and tag the claim as needing a citation. We need an independent reliable source to back up this claim. Gwernol 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted ther edit. I would say the current ref is a reliable source, but perhaps a more recent and neutral one would be preferable. Thanks/ wangi 20:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is just fine with me, a good solution. Thanks, Gwernol 20:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a complaint, but I'm not sure why you'd consider that source non-neutral... it's the official statistics office for the UK, they're not in the habit of disseminating incorrect information just to make UK cities look bigger...! -- Dave A 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as a great source - it's basically an editorial, where are the figures for the other EU cities, what's the source for them? I'm pretty sure the UN has similar stats (for Europe rather than EU) which would make a better ref. Thanks/ wangi 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but many references get their data from secondary sources, e.g. newspapers; the most important issue is whether the reference itself is reliable, which I'd say the Statistics Office is. There is a WP article on this ( Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits) which has links to the source of the figure for each city. It is also notable that supranational agencies like the UN and EU only collect their data from national statistics offices anyway, so ultimately, the figure for London's population has been collected by the UK statistics office, regardless of what list it is used in.

The problem with obtaining stats for Europe rather than just the EU is that there can be some debate over what exactly is included in "Europe" (e.g. do we include all of Turkey or do we exclude Asia Minor; do we include all of Russia, exclude all of it or just include the part west of the Urals), whereas the EU has a rigid definition. -- Dave A 11:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted edits that ended up with "It is also the second or third populous in Europe following just after Moscow and Istanbul" tagged onto the end of the statement. This sort of information is out of place in the lead paragraph - the simple EU stat is enough and we don't have to go into specifics about other cities... Thanks/ wangi 15:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately there are people around with a bee in their bonnet about city sizes, so I'm sure someone else will fiddle with it again in the near future... -- Dave A 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So I see! Thanks/ wangi 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the rankings altogether. London, Moscow, and Paris can outrank each other, depending on criteria used. London is the most populated municipality in the European Union, but not in Europe (Moscow is the most populated municipality in Europe). In terms of urban area, the London urban area is the second most populated in the European Union (behind Paris), and the third most populated in Europe (behind Moscow and Paris). Then in terms of metropolitan area, the London metropolitan area is the most populated in the European Union, but only the second most populated in Europe (behind Moscow). And then, if we consider that Istanbul is part of Europe (which is a tricky subject given that half of Istanbul is on the Asian side of the Bosphorus), it screws the rankings even more. So I replaced everything with a more vague "one of the largest and most populated cities of Europe". If people want to discuss London's rank vis a vis Moscow, Paris, or Istanbul, they can do so in the demographics section. It would take too much space in the introduction. Hardouin 01:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand the point and whilst I think that removing any ranking reference is probably the best idea, I think there was too much discussion of the population figures for the lead, which should be very concise - so I linked the statement into the Demographics section lower down, and put the information in there. However, I'm not sure if people like the style of linking to sections on the same page. -- Dave A 11:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Answered at User talk:Darqknight47. Hardouin 12:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continues in Talk:London...