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 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

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

Possible merge with Birmingham? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.40.174 ( talk) 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes I have....meant Evening Standard, not Independent: "An influential American magazine has named London the global capital of the 21st century" from http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389580-details/London+is+the+world+capital+of+the+21st+century...+says+New+York/article.do. Darkieboy236 ( talk) 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Can people refrain from making superlatives about their city? By the way, the New York magazine article actually asked the question, "is London the 'new' capital of the world?" If you actually read the article the article goes on to say that the New York vs. London debate is moot because Beijing will be the new capital of the world in a decade. Any source can make a claim to any major world city as the "capital of the world" but there is nothing close to a consensus so why don't we remove those claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afranklin107 ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is irrelevent. What makes a city the "capital of the world"? In my sense, it is nothing but an ego trip. Every city thinks it's capital of "something" However, if it is applied to a single city, the city would have had to have earned it. New York is regarded as the capital of art, finance, real estate and has been the powerhouse behind the worlds largest economy. So, I would have to say New York is the "capital of the world".However, there is no such thing as a "source" for this argument, and claiming there is one is ignorant nonesense. Thank you. ( ITOMIC ( talk) 07:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC) )

Yes, this discussion is strange. The Global Cities research project at the University of Loughborough proclaims London the leading Global City. In effect, that surely means the city is indeed the 'capital of the world'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.179.162 ( talk) 22:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we've let this debate die and we don't want to resurrect it. As ITOMIC said, every city thinks it's capital of something—and quite right too. Anyone for Rio de Janerio? - Pointillist ( talk) 22:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

An assembly or a parliament does not constitute a government.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

So what does one say if there's no answer?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Is consensus what matters? Surely, encyclopedically one is interested in fact. England may or may not have formal status as a nation. It is, IMHO, a jurisdiction while the UK is a nation which means a country. Capital may mean the seat of government, in which case the city of Westminster is probably that; the monarch lives there and the parliament is there too. There is, as far as I know, no governmental institution in the city of London.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

London should only be seen as the capital of the UK - reinstating the original was not the consensus of the debate above. Anyone else wish to to support my view of removing capital of England statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucallmemadam ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read the status section you will see reasons why London can be described as the capital of England. On what basis do you claim that it is not? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible merge with Birmingham? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.40.174 ( talk) 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would not suggest useing city comissioned "studies" to base facts on. As I stated in the discussion below, London did a study on itself and found out that it (with no suprise) was the worlds financal capital. What makes this study void however is the fact it contradicts other independant sources, includeing one from New York. It is NOT reliable information. Thank you. ( ITOMIC ( talk) 07:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC) )

Another yank who cannot accept when the US is 2nd best at something? Oh and its called FOOTBALL, not soccer as you use your FOOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.40.194 ( talk) 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• What makes the following reliable sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi I checked your page for information related about LONDON and i advice to place a link Star Shipping International International Shippers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunwest seo ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the current lead section, it currently ties itself up in knots regarding what London actually is - just because London itself does not hold City Status. Instead, it uses the phrases "conurbation" and "urban area" - but both of these are wrong too! The Greater London Urban Area is NOT the same as London - it includes towns like Watford and Woking which are outside London.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to use "city" with a small "c", meaning a large settlement (whilst noting that it doesn't hold City Status) - similarly to Leeds, and then state that it's the same thing as the GLA area and the Region of England? Fingerpuppet ( talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would. Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk) 13:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure that the peculiarly British and historical reasons for London not being classified as a city are that relevant to its status in the world. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 13:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone put Baby P in the article. This isn't a caring town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.66.104 ( talk) 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No comment until now, even more evidence of a town that doesn't care about its people.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.66.104 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There's already plenty of coverage of Baby P on Wikipedia. I haven't checked the article on the London Borough of Haringey, but it might be relevant to mention the crime and the resultant enquiries in there. But to be perfectly honest, the death of one child is not a significant event in the history or demography of an entire city. We're writing an encyclopedia, not misery lit or a call to change the world. AlexTiefling ( talk) 15:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very sad about Baby P, but that does not have anything to do with London article. There's an article for him here on wikipedia. -- 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 21:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy between the facts of the metro system and how it compares to other world systems. To say it is the largest, longest, biggest, or any other such superlative is technically false. For example, the New York subway has 468 stations (200 more than London), over 1100km of track (more than double London's) and roughly 1.5 million more daily boardings (4.5 million to 3 million). Moreover, New York claims over 20 lines compared to London's 11. While New York's metro system includes double tracking in multiple locations (for "express" trains)and some overlapping lines, to say London's is the largest system is misleading at best and completely false at worst. I recommend this be updated to 'one of the largest, most extensive, systems in the world,' not 'the largest.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aibur ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As of 1st January 2009, the London Underground is the largest underground system by route-length. It is not false to suggest that it is therefore the largest, as 'route-length' is probably the most important category in comparing the size of different metro systems.

The 'Number of Lines' an underground system has, is probably the worst way to compare underground systems. This is because, for example, the Northern Line in London would be considered 4 different lines in Tokyo, due to its various branches.

Having more stations does not indicate that a system is larger. It only means that its station-count is higher. The number of stations in a system does not determine the system's size. The overall length of the system does. Mkimemia ( talk) 09:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not then be specific and state that the London Underground has the longest route-length in the world.

I cannot see what is gained by adding 'country' and 'Sovereign Nation' to the opening sentence, and suggest that they are removed. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - image was removed from {{ Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}. Franamax ( talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I originally was just trying to correct usage of the {{ convert}} template for population density, but in trying to verify the data, I ran across a few issues, related to population, area and density:

• Ref. 16 [5] is broken. It's in the Wayback Machine, but the associated XLS and CSV files are not. The closest I could find is here (table 1.13). These figures are slightly different than shown in this article, and at Greater London. Additionally, the pop density figure in this article is for Greater London - or maybe not, I'm not clear on how you define and speak of your City-of, Inner, Outer, Greater. etc. Londons.
• Ref. 86 [6] apparently supports the statement "more than ten times that of any other...", or else the preceding numeric data on pop density - but it is singularly uninformative in a quantitative sense, being a coloured chart which provides no actual numeric data that I can see.
• And further to the "more than ten times..." statement, consulting this appears to falsify the statement (see "North West") - though admittedly outdated. However, I question the wording in any case, since no other region of Britain is composed exclusively of a single densely-populated urban area.

So, is there ay better wording and referencing that could be brought to bear? And is there any distinction between London and Greater London, at least as far as the area, pop, and pop density figures apply? I'm not familiar with the topic(s), else I would try my own fixes. Thanks for the help! Franamax ( talk) 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ich muss in Englisch einen Aufsatz über 2 Sehenswürdigkeiten in London schreiben. Bitte helft mir!!! Bitte in meine deutsche Diskussionsseite schreiben.-- K.A.R.R. ( talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about this article. It's currently a GA, but even from a cursory glance at the lead I'm confident that this article would fail a GA-review. We have several outstanding "citation needed" tags, as well as dead links and uncited claims. London is a Top priority for several wikiprojects, and is one of the most important cities in human history. Perhaps users who frequent this page could apply some collective TLC? -- Jza84 |  Talk  15:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, we need a 'quality drive' on this article. We should aim to restore the GA level of quality and move towards submission for FA. cheers Kbthompson ( talk) 11:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be a link on the climate for London snowstorm. -- 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, actually. You've blanked my user page twice already to draw attention to this belief of yours. But all the new weather stuff you've been trying to put in is from the past 9 years. In the description of a city that is 20 centuries old, the heaviest snow in 20 years is pretty much irrelevant. The Great Smogs are relevant because they led to the Clean Air Acts; they've had a lasting impact on the life of the city. But it's too early to say if this week's, or even this decade's weather will do that. I'd guess not, but WP:CRYSTAL says I mustn't put my belief about the future into the article text. (To other users: I don't want to get dragged into a one-person edit war here. What's the consensus on updating the 'climate' with recent weather news stories?) AlexTiefling ( talk) 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with you, AlexTiefling. The anon IP has also been changing the stats in the climate section, deleting conversion templates and replacing proper references with "www.weather.com", which hardly constitutes a reference. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Smog does not have something to do with climate, climate usually means average temperature and precipitation for past 30 years. You could put smog on Geography or any other. If you want to include it, fine. But stop changing anything else! The temp + precip. is 100% true! -- 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Truth is not the criterion for inclusion. Verifiability and notability are our criteria - and for article content, relevance is important too. I've never heard climate defined in terms of 'the past 30 years'. Climate is about the general patterns of weather in a region - rather than specific incidents like this week's. And the correctness of putting the smog in the climate section wasn't my point; my point was the incidents have to have a lasting effect in order to be relevant to a general article about the city, like this one. AlexTiefling ( talk) 09:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If facts about smog is going to be on the climate fact, then about the snowstorm should also be included. It can't be like you want! The snowstorm is very important in our history, even if it's for a week. It should at least be a link about it, not a whole fact. -- 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 01:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The smog has historical importance, as displayed by the fact that it led to legislation. Why do you think the recent snow is equally important? And why should it be the only snowfall in the entire history of the city to be mentioned? Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The numeric IP user above has repeatedly added the snow back in, and has now removed the smog as well. I'm getting confused by all the different revisions. Could some kind person restore this article so that the climate section looks the way it did before last Monday's snow, please? Many thanks. AlexTiefling ( talk) 19:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I placed a WP:3RR warning on his talk page. I definitely think this is a case of Recentism and anon is not taking account of the historical perspective. -- Triwbe ( talk) 20:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. He's at it again, though. We have nothing about the 19th century frost fairs; why should we have one week's worth of snow? (Tangential thought, though: is there enough information out there for a good secondary article about London's weather?) AlexTiefling ( talk) 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Both about the snow and smog is on the climate fact now... stop changing please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.226.22 ( talk) 15:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits will continue to be reverted until you provide justification here as to why the snowstorm is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that made the "snowstorm", as this user inexplicably refers to it, important was the fact that the media went on about it at inordinate length - in a way that they never did with *more significant* snow events more than a couple of decades ago. Mentioning it in the article as some kind of significant event is ludicrous. Suggesting that it is of equal historical importance to the smog of 1952 is even more ludicrous. Bear in mind that the 2009 snow was the most snow London had had for only eighteen years; if you're going to mention it as significant, you'll have to mention the 1991 snow too, since there was more of that. And so on all the way back. 90.201.20.16 ( talk) 13:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing a link to the website British Destinations. As webmaster of the site, I believe that its destination articles and itineraries provide an invaluable source of information to users of Wikipedia who may be considering a trip to London and Great Britain. The aforementioned link has already been deleted several times, been called spam and such forth, but it is no such thing and instead is a wealth of information or possible British tourists. Therefore could it be permanantly placed in this and perhaps other articles to which it is related? (the url is http://www.britishdestinations.wikispaces.com) 203.171.199.62 ( talk) 09:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I have a number of concerns with that: first, there's a clear conflict of interest; secondly this is an encyclopaedia and not supposed to provide specific travel information to readers - there's a travel wiki for that; next up, its inclusion appears to conflict with wiki policy on the inclusion of external links; and finally, nothing here is 'permanent'. The article is the result of consensus by many editors, it would appear that that consensus is that it is an inappropriate link for wikipedia. I hope that helps clarify why your link is being removed. Kbthompson ( talk) 09:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm the user who previously deleted this link. Allow me to explain my reasoning. Firstly, as webmaster of that site, you have a conflict of interest which means that it may be inappropriate for you to add material relating to the site. Secondly, although it may be useful, utility is not a criterion for inclusion. Thirdly, while it may be useful, it's still advertising. And fourthly, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and so adding information aimed at travellers does not enhance the site or help it serve its purpose: to be an encyclopedia. AlexTiefling ( talk) 09:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your contributions. I understand and condede your points. Thank you again! 203.171.199.111 ( talk) 10:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Any idea what is wrong with the last part of this section? I commented out the incomplete sentence at the end. I checked back as far as "Revision as of 09:58, January 31, 2009" and it is the same. Quebec99 ( talk) 04:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the paragraph about science and research and development in London. Could anybody please add that the cited reference (No. 123) at the end of the paragraph was retrieved on february 21, 2009 ? I am quite busy with work these days and have not enough time to learn how to add that piece of information and do it properly. Many thanks in advance. Roibeird ( talk) 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"It is also ranked 4th in the world in number of billionaires (United States Dollars) residing in the city.[91] London ranks as one of the most expensive cities in the world, alongside Tokyo and Moscow.[92]"

The latest Forbes list is now out, and London is up to 2nd - with many Russian billionaires going backwards. reported here. I can't find the specific ref in Forbes, but the group of articles does go on at some length arguing that London is now one of the cheapest cities (in comparative USD). Those couple of sentences could do with some work - thoughts? Kbthompson ( talk) 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The audio clip containing the pronounciation of "London" does not work. Is it me, or should this be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.137.234 ( talk) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed resently that there is no disanbiguous london at the top of this page. There are many different "London"'s on wikipedia, but the search of "London" only comes up with this. Anyone want to make it? Cainine ( talk) 01:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that as well; I just added a hatnote with a link to London (disambiguation). Cheers, Rai• me 02:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

London is in England. Why is the Welsh version of London on the page? There isnt the Scots version, or the Irish version (spoken in N.Ireland, part of the UK, still...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.166.68 ( talk) 22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Bill Bertram won't object to me removing his panorama from the parks and gardens section. It was too similar to his superior excelllent panorama in the cityscape section.-- Tom dl ( talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The text in this section is illiterate and meaningless. I'm fairly sure that London has more than 570 buildings. I'm equally sure that it has far fewer than 570 buildings that could reasonably be considered skyscrapers; in fact, looking out of my window, I can't count more than about ten at the absolute most, mostly in Canary Wharf. Skyscrapers are conspicuous in London by their almost complete absence; if there's going to be any text in this section, wouldn't it make more sense to say something about the buildings that actually characterise the landscape here? 90.201.20.16 ( talk) 12:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to discuss which city is truely the largest center for fiance. The london wikipedia page claims it to be london and I adamently state that is incorrect. And I state my reasons below.

--The orginal report that stirred up claims that New York would lose it position as the worlds largest financial center said that would happen in "10 years" in regulations weren't changed. It obviously has not been 10 years.

--Most stories printed about the subject have stated New York is "probably" still the financial capital.

--London printed a report that claimed that it was the financial leader. However New York City printed its own report that completely contradicted it. Therefore neither can be used as a reference source, as it previously was for London's case.

-- http://www.citywire.co.uk/Selector/-/news/newspaper-summaries/content.aspx?ID=312719 is one of the only independant sources I could find on the subject. And it claims New York is the leader. Due to this, I have printed Cinco Dias as the refernced and downgraded Londons stance from frist to second on the article.

I have been following this debate closely, and while there is no clear winner, there is a lot more evidence to back up New York then London.

Any thoughts? ( ITOMIC ( talk) 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for raising this. It looks like the claim for London shouldn't be relied on. But that doesn't mean the claim for New York is any more reliable. IMO when there's no clear winner and comparisons depend on what definitions you use, it is more encyclopedic to leave the question open and just point to the main documented perspectives, e.g. "measured by Foo, London appears to be larger^[a][b][c] but in terms of Bar, London has been second to New York since 1977^[x][y][z]."

This sort of argument comes up all over Wikipedia (e.g. Oxford vs Cambridge, Lithium vs Potassium, Termagant vs Hormagaunt, etc) and can generate a load of unnecessary effort and angst. Imagine how tricky it would be to prove "London is warmer than New York" (or vice versa) without agreed definitions. However, if you are quite sure that by most recognised measures New York is a bigger financial center than London, go ahead and find the sources. But I don't think you can use Conco Días: it's published in Spanish, it has a circulation of only 33,996 readers (per List of newspapers in Spain#Special-interest newspapers), and so far it hasn't been considered notable enough to have en entry on either the English or even the Spanish Wikipedia ( here). - Pointillist ( talk) 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However, people keep reverting it to say "London is the largest". And no, I feel it would not be right to leave it out. for the longest time, New York, not london, was the clearcut financial leader. It is London that is trying to steal the crown away from New York, not the other way around, so if there is not enough sources to back London up, it should REMAIN the second largest financial center. Also, I do not feel the amount of circulation a source has is relevant, as it was important enough for CityWire to publish a story on it claiming it as fact. It is still a good independant source backing up New York, and that is what is important.

It also seems people are linking to "articles" simply echoeing the study done by London, which claims it to be the world financal capital. These are not real sources, as they do not explain WHY it's the world's largest financial center, they only echo a study wich you just agreed whould not be considered realible. Until someone can find an study independant from London claiming it to be the world's financal capital, it should remain second. I deleted these "sources" and took out any mention of being the "world financal center". IT should not be mentioned if there is no reliable sources.

Thanks! ( ITOMIC ( talk) 19:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Am I the only one to find it amusing to be having a discussion of which is the world's largest financial centre right now? Wouldn't "smallest" financial centre be better, or "largest amount of negative money" or something? :)

I can find this in The Economist:

"As a centre for international finance, London heads the league. Its foreign-exchange markets are huge, with over twice New York's share of trading; it dominates off-exchange dealing in derivatives; and last year it hosted the most new share issues, by value." [7]

Now The Economist is a British paper, but it's generally seen as, umm, reliable. Since the "leader" title will depend on what you measure and how you measure it, perhaps it would be better to avoid the picky details and just say "London ranks with New York as the leading financial centre in the world" or some such wording. Franamax ( talk) 19:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It all depends on how you measure it.. Cause there are hundreds of conflicting reports. Some for New York, Some for London. I just think since it's London chaseing New York, New York should be the one to retain the title until proven otherwise.

But that works just fine. I already deleted the picture that REPEATEDLY claimed it was the largest.. And speaking of the economist, I found they said THIS as well.

"New York, still number one in global financial terms by many measures (see chart 1), has recently acknowledged the competition it faces from other centres

They also made a spiffy graph: http://media.economist.com/images/20070915/CSR892.gif

Clearly, it shows New York is still in the lead. And if you consider this a reliable source. I will use it in support of New York. -- However, if you still feel it is not enough, tell me, and I'll happily accept a neautral approach, makeing a statment similar to what was said above. ( ITOMIC ( talk) 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

• If there are two statements in the Economist ( ITOMIC's one nominating New York and Franamax's nominating London) that's a good argument for taking the neutral "depends on what/how you measure it" route and mentioning both points of view. That's what the 2006 NY Times article seems to be doing. It gives readers more to consider and investigate, but that's probably a good result if there isn't an absolutely correct answer. A well-written and sourced neutral statement is much less likely to be overturned by partisan editors, too. The sources have to be unimpeachable, too: the Economist is probably neutral on this issue, but the Daily Mail might not be, and an individual blog probably isn;t notable enough to be used anyway. Pointillist ( talk) 21:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Franamax's never states London is "number 1". It just states that its foreign-exchange markets are bigger then New York's. Which they are, but that is only one small area of finance. My quote clearly states that the economist believes New York is "number 1". I tried accessing the page Franamax quoted for more info, but it’s blocked to only premium members, which makes it a bad source to begin with. I still firmly believe, after talking to economists themselves, that New York is still the financial capital of the world, as most studies end with New York "probably" still being in the lead. Consider also the fact that it was London chasing New York, and I feel that New York should retain its crown until some concrete numbers are made available from reliable independent researchers supporting London’s claim. The only proof London has is a bunch of British articles blindly backing up London's unreliable claim, which was completely conflicted by New York's own study. I have made two independent references, one is Cinco Dias, ignoring the fact it’s not in English (which is irrelevant) and now the economist, which even gives a visual graph to make it clearer. I have also supplied two other links to articles which make the same conclusion. So while taking a neutral approach would be the most diplomatic, I do not think it is the right or accurate one. The London page now supports my conclusion, and while it is still open to editing by 3rd parties, I still strongly feel it should remain this way until proof is supplied to prove otherwise. ( ITOMIC ( talk) 03:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

(undent) Hmm, where to start with all this? I'll try some points in order:

• When 1/3 of all your (undeleted) edits are on a single topic, and you use phrases in the discussion like "adamently [sic] state that is incorrect", "trying to steal the crown", and you're placing hidden-comment threats into the article [8] [9] [10] - those are signs of a situation that usually doesn't end well. Please just step back a bit and think about this. We're not here to "win" anything, other than having the best possible articles.
• When you state above that a "page [is limited to] only premium members" and that fact "makes it a bad source to begin with" - sorry, you are completely and totally wrong. The acceptability of a source derives from its reputation for reliability and neutrality. Availability online is not material, although if a source of equal quality is also available online, we would prefer to use it. Our readers and our editors are always free to visit a local library to verify any cited source. Or you could send me an email asking for the fulltext or visit our WP:LIBRARY and ask for a copy. The Economist has an impeccable reputation, I've read it for 25 years or so, if I quote from it, you can believe it's there. You can ask over at the reliable source noticeboard if you're unsure on this. Or check at a library, if you find I'm lying or distorting words, then my reputation here will be shattered. Ideally though, us article editors properly summarize and restate the material in the reliable sources so that our readers are able to trust the text we ourselves write.
• Looking into this a little more, all I can find in the article itself before you began this series of edits is an image caption here, saying "The City of London is the world's largest financial centre". The entire rest of the article in that revision is neutral as all get out and just says NY-London-Tokyo when mentioning global financial centres. Was that your only problem? Couldn't you have just changed the caption rather than deleting the whole image and going off on a tear? Was there something else in the actual article that I'm missing?
• And returning to the subject of editors properly summarizing the sources they've read, I notice that here you introduce text saying that "New York controls 40% of the world's finances while London controls 20%". Now I don't read much Spanish, but I do notice the many occurences in the linked article of "mercado de hedge funds". Call me stupid, but it looks to me like they are talking about the hedge fund market. Please review this immediately, as it looks to me now as though you have introduced a blatant falsification into our article. I intend to remove your statements pending your response here on the talk page.
• And on review of the other text and sourcing you've inserted, I have some concerns that you're cherrypicking just a bit to support a POV statement. I see that at least in the history you have inserted a sources from a nytimes blog. It's a little tiresome to have to review all of your edits and sources, I hope that you can bring a little more discussion here to the talk page first so that many eyes can see and many minds can comment.
• And finally, I think that a large part of this problem may be in the exact definition of "world largest financial centre", which as noted, I don't think should be claimed here anyway. By the chart linked by ITOMIC above (Economist 2007Sep), NY has a greater proportion of employees and economic contribution to the city (and yes I did read the article behind the chart, and it discusses NY and London on equal terms). However, keep in mind that much of NY's weight is concerned with the strictly American domestic market, which is vast. We should bear in mind the distinction between "largest" and "largest global" financial centre. On the first, NY, on the second, pretty much a tossup, see for instance yet another fun chart from The Economist. [11] (email me if you want the full context)

I'm thinking that we should largely go back to the state a few days ago, minus the incorrect image caption, and minus the extraneous discussion about who is the winner. It was all pretty neutral, just discussing the three main cities, I can't find anything in the history to warrant this great discussion about who is better than who. Can we just restore the image with a better caption? Franamax ( talk) 04:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reinserted the City of London picture to the economy section, which should not have been removed in the first place. Besides, London is the world's largest financial centre, liked or not, and I have given the reference stating that in the article. Aogouguo ( talk) 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Having seen no response from ITOMIC regarding the incorrect presentation of the Dias study, I've gone ahead and reworded the body text to what will hopefully be an acceptable form. And although it always pains me to remove sources, I have done so since they are not necessary to the reworded version - the details can be seen here.

I've tried to introduce what I think is very important wording. New York is an important finance centre in global terms, but also dominates the vast (vast!) American domestic market for finance. Vast. This means that in absolute terms, New York "handles more money" and thus employs more people, makes more profit &c, as the chart linked above by ITOMIC makes clear (it's included in one of the Economist articles I used as a source). BUT, when it comes to "largest" as in where do all the people and companies in the world look first to do their transactions, then certainly London is right up there and possibly at the top. Tokyo, being the other candidate in the top three, also has the benefit of a huge domestic market.

So in terms of our global readership, London should indeed be noted as one of the top centres. I've found no sources to definitively state that London is largest overall, just one saying that by some international measures it is clearly the largest. Hopefully we're getting close to the end of this, but if there are more problems, we should deal with them now. Franamax ( talk) 02:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The cino dias article is explained here: http://www.citywire.co.uk/Selector/-/news/newspaper-summaries/content.aspx?ID=312719 in english.

According to a study by International Financial Services, London is still the world's second financial capital after New York, despite its more flexible regulations and tax advantages, Cinco Días reports. New York runs 40% of the total global assets in funds while London controls only 20%, according to the report.'

And it was written faily recently considering the financal termoil of the market. I did not present anything "incorrectly", I stated every my sources stately clearly and accuretly. This is a debateable issue to begin with, but the articles that claim london to be the largest seem to only reference the unreliable commissioned report done by london, and if they do have independant research, it is usually no older then 2007. Either way, the London article IS now more accurate, as it failsely claimed it to be the largest before hand and linked to unreliable reference.

I understand The Economist is reliable, but it also has a page indicateing that New York, not london, is the largest financial center, and I cannot access the page you cited.

And yes, when makeing a source, make sure its avilible to everyone, not just you. That way it will be less debatable.

Thank you. ( ITOMIC ( talk) 18:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

ITOMIC, you didn't say "Citywire says that Cinco Dias says..." you made a direct claim in the article that Cinco Dias is an "independant [sic] researcher" (it's not, it's a newspaper, and it was describing a study by a third party) and that New York "controls 40% of the world's finances" when actually reading the piece you use as a source would make clear that's not true at all. It is talking about hedge funds. The fact that Citywire published a two-sentence bit that misread the source they quoted (but even then made clear they are talking only about investment funds, not financial services in general) does not make up for your own misreading of the sources. Bring this stuff up on the talk page, fine, but don't just uncritically throw everything into the article you can find that might support a position you've already decided on. It's your job as an editor to properly read and evaluate sources before you change the article.

And if you really feel that strongly about sources being "available to everyone", please go ask at WP:RSN, you will find lots of people willing to explain WP:V and WP:RS, especially the bit that says It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet. I've already told you three different ways you can view the sources. Franamax ( talk) 19:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The page i referneced from The Economist clearly stated "New York is number 1 in a number of measurments". I dont know how I can further analyze that statment. Cino Dias reported information on research, not directly research, that was my fault, as I don't know spanish... but if citywire also misread that is their fault. I cannot assume research to be incorrect unless I'm looking for incorrections. I was told above that if i found sources, to post them in the article. And I did, and I still feel I have a valid one in the economist, which I referenced.

However, the article the way it is, though still I feel is partionally incorrect, is fine with me. I have stated my reasons for feeling it is incorrect in my posts above.

Thanks. ( ITOMIC ( talk) 20:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Btw, Franamax, your link to BBC doesn't work. I'm not sure what the reference is attached to, but be careful when referenceing the BBC when it comes to anything to do with America, they have admitted Anti-American bias in the past.

Also, I found an EXCELLENT article compareing London and New York but TAKEING INTO CONSIDERATION the global financal crisis. It makes a very good read.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20090208/FREE/302089969

( ITOMIC ( talk) 02:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't know what you mean by "your link to BBC", maybe you could review the page history and supply a specific diff? And I think I've given you enough pointers on reliable sourcing already, if you think the BBC should be excluded on all matters American, don't tell me, tell the noticeboard.

That is an amusing article though, it reflects the first comment I made in this thread. :) It also illuminates a question that came to me when looking at the "Where finance matters" chart you found in The Economist, which has an asterix, defining London as "The City" only. That's just a specific part of the downtown area. The Crain's article citing employment in London of 500,000 makes clear how much of the industry resides outside of "The City". Franamax ( talk) 05:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the differences of opinion, this was an unusually polite debate by ITOMIC and Franamax. Many thanks for being so careful! Pointillist ( talk) 21:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the half-stars for us both! I will try to presently revisit this article to include links to the freely available charts from the Economist site. I accept ITOMIC's point that whatever we can make linkable, we should do. Franamax ( talk) 22:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Cool! I feel like I'm back in school and just got a star for effort! Thanks! :) ( ITOMIC ( talk) 01:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

---

== MASTERCARD SURVEY shows London to be the no 1 global center of commerce 2009. Mastercard is American. ==

http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/insights/studies/2008/wcoc/index.html PN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.178.89 ( talk) 02:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a huge bit of white space in the lead of this article. I suspect it's something to do with the collapsable list in the infobox, but it's definitely there (I'm using IE8, Windows Vista). Anybody else see it? -- Jza84 |  Talk  13:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, neither in IE8 or firefox3 (at least I think it's 3) in Vista. My display is 1280x800. Nev1 ( talk) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

London-плохой! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.178.119.164 ( talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if London exists. There's greater London and the city of London but what is London? Should this page actually be a disambuguation (that crazy, Wikipedia made-up word) page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Tired of London. . .tired of life? There are many other mugs lining up.  :} Bjenks ( talk) 12:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed an uncited statement attributing 'some' possible derivations of the name London to Anglo-Saxon language. I know from my schoolboy Latin that Roman occupiers used the name Londinium—at least 400 years before the existence of any language that could be termed Anglo-Saxon. (I believe the first recorded use was by Tacitus (lib xiv, ch xxxiii) in the year 61 C.E., though it may well have been founded a century earlier.) We can readily assume the Romans adapted a Celtic (British) antecedent but there is absolutely no way the name could have been coined by Angles, Saxons or Jutes. Cheers Bjenks ( talk) 09:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The list of artists mentioned in the music section is growing out of hand again. Would people support a trim and, if so, which artists should be kept/removed? Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've cut the list back to those mentioned as notable in two reliable sources. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

None of the other 'global cities' mentioned in the introduction of this article (New York, Paris, Tokyo) cite the other three in addition to presenting a link to the article on global cities, so why should London? In the interests of consistency, and also to avoid focusing too much on three other cities in the opening paragraphs of an article on an entirely different one, I've removed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.88.125.129 ( talk) 08:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above; unfortunately articles on cities tend to degenerate into penis contests. The article is about london, keep it about london. Writing about london doesn't detract anything from New York Zaq12wsx ( talk) 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to notice that Buckingham Palace isn't mentioned in the article. Is there any particular reason for this? It could probably fit into the architecture section or could do with a mention in the history section. Nev1 ( talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is odd. It could perhaps also go in the governance section given the Queen's role as head of state. But perhaps under architecture would be best. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Having just reverted out a change in the figures in the infobox as not in accordance with the reference, looking at the figures reverted to some of those do not appear to stack-up with the reference either. The reference appears to have changed this year so cannot be 2001 census data. Also the figures quoted in the infobox appear to be different to that in the text which is supported by a different reference. Can someone look over the figures in the infobox and the section on ethnic groups and reconcile the situation. Keith D ( talk) 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've now checked this and there were indeed discrepancies between the article and the source. We should all keep an eye out for changes to the ethnicity statistics since they seem to be a favourite target for unsourced edits. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do the architecture and parks and gardens sections come under the economy header? Surely they would be better placed under society and culture. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, perhaps better still, create a landmarks heading and include them under that? Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, these have now been moved to the cityscape section by another editor. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that this must have been discussed before but I can find no record on this talk page of it. London (apart from the City) may not be a city according to our strange British customs but in ordinary language it is called a city here and throughout the world. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the article has a section called " Emergency Services In London", consisting solely of links to other articles. Is it appropriate to have this section? The emergency services would perhaps be better mentioned in the governance section. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, and references added. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is in general very good. However, I can't find anything about Tourism, besides a few lines in the Economy section. Of course Wikipedia must not become a Lonely Planet, but a section with information about the main sights (London Eye, Tower of London & Tower Bridge, Big Ben/Houses of Parliament, etc.) and other activities, like shopping, visiting theatres and bus and boat tours. I think this could best be done in only one or two paragraphs. I'm not a native English speaker and I'm not an inhabitant of London er even the UK, so I don't think I'm the one who should make up such a section, but I think it would be a good (and needed) addition to the current article. Greetings, 77.167.224.101 ( talk) 19:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a landmarks section, as suggested above, would be a good place for this. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That idea seems good to me. 77.167.224.101 ( talk) 13:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Due to recent high levels of vandalism to the article, I have semi-protected it for one month, meaning that unregistered editors and new accounts cannot change it. Nev1 ( talk) 21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)