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

Greetings all. I have been actively looking to improve the quality of London's district (neighbourhood) articles, along with others. The starting point with most are the lead paragraphs, many of which are lacking uniformity and/or containing slight inaccuracies. I wish to build a consensus going forward with which we can build uniform, concise and coherent openings to our district articles.

Below are suggestions I wish to highlight, please feel free to challenge, refine or agree in order to build a consensus and move forward:

Corrections to be considered

Most articles refer to places as districts in the lead sentence (Placename is a district of nw/n/s/se/sw/e/w London...) and this is currently accepted as the standard for district articles. However:

Referring to districts of London as 'towns' in the lead sentence

Some articles (I'll use Welling as an example here) erroneously refer to them as a "town" in the lead sentence. The term town is a specific categorisation for which districts of London do not qualify. Many parts of London were villages or towns, and are still sometimes colloquially referred to as such, but they definitively ceased to be so on becoming part of Greater London in 1965.

As such, I propose that articles for districts in London should open with the (Placename is a district of...) format, in the interest of accuracy and uniformity. Districts' histories as villages/towns should be introduced later in the lead and elaborated in the main article:

• Welling is a town... ✘
• Welling is a district... ✔

Referring to districts of London as 'suburbs' in the lead sentence

Some articles (I'll use Penge as an example here) refer to them as a "suburb" in the lead sentence. This is not factually incorrect, as neighbourhoods in London are often referred to as such. However, there is ambiguity as to what definitively constitutes a suburb, and this results in a lack of uniformity across London district articles. For instance, Penge is referred to as a suburb in the lead but none of the neighbourhoods surrounding it are.

Again, in the interest of accuracy and uniformity, I propose that articles for districts in London follow the (Placename is a district of...) format.

• Penge is a suburb... ✘
• Penge is a district... ✔

Referring to the affluence of districts in the lead sentence

Some articles (I'll use Notting Hill as an example here) refer to them as "affluent districts" in the lead sentence. This is not factually incorrect, as neighbourhoods in London like Notting Hill are indeed affluent. However, there is a marked inconsistency in this approach: most of London's more affluent districts don't refer to their affluence in the opening sentence, and none of London's most deprived neighbourhoods refer to their deprivation in the lead sentence.

As such, the affluence of a district shouldn't be mentioned in the opening sentence, but mentioned briefly in a subsequent lead paragraph and elaborated further in the main article.

• Notting Hill is an affluent district... ✘
• Notting Hill is a district... ✔

Listing nearby districts in the lead paragraphs

Some articles (I'll use Wimbledon as an example here) cumbersomely list nearby districts in the lead. These should be removed from the lead and listed in the main body of the article under 'Geography', preferably with a compass.

Proposed examples of 'good practise' with respect to lead sentences

Below are examples of lead sentences that I believe to be 'good practise'. The lead paragraph makes reference to their location in London (eg. east London), their position with respect to Charing Cross (miles & km), their role as the administrative centre of a borough (if applicable) and their status with respect to the London Plan (if applicable). All mentions of the London Plan will include an updated reference to the current London Plan.

Five examples for each category:

Metropolitan centres & administrative centres

• Bromley is a district of south east London, located 9.3 miles (15.0 km) south east of Charing Cross. It is the administrative centre of the London Borough of Bromley, and identified as a major metropolitan centre in the London Plan.
• Ealing ( /ˈiːlɪŋ/) is a district of west London, located 7.9 miles (12.7 km) west of Charing Cross. It is the administrative centre of the London Borough of Ealing, and identified as a major metropolitan centre in the London Plan.
• Hounslow ( /ˈhaʊnzloʊ/) is a district of west London, located 10.6 miles (17.1 km) west-southwest of Charing Cross. It is the administrative centre of the London Borough of Hounslow, and identified as a major metropolitan centre in the London Plan.
• Ilford is a district of east London, located 9.1 miles (14.6 km) east-northeast of Charing Cross. It is the administrative centre of the London Borough of Redbridge, and identified as a major metropolitan centre in the London Plan.
• Romford is a district of east London, located 14.1 miles (22.7 km) northeast of Charing Cross. It is the administrative centre of the London Borough of Havering, and identified as a major metropolitan centre in the London Plan.

Major centres & administrative centres

• Brixton is a district of south London, located 3.8 miles (6.1 km) south of Charing Cross. It is the administrative centre of the London Borough of Lambeth, and identified as a major centre in the London Plan.
• Camden Town ( /ˈkæmdən/ ^ⓘ), often shortened to Camden, is a district of north west London, located 2.4 miles (3.9 km) north of Charing Cross. It is the administrative centre of the London Borough of Camden, and identified as a major centre in the London Plan.
• Catford is a district of south east London, located 5.2 miles (8.4 km) south east of Charing Cross. It is the administrative centre of the London Borough of Lewisham, and identified as a major centre in the London Plan.
• Hammersmith is a district of west London, located 4.3 miles (6.9 km) west-southwest of Charing Cross. It is the administrative centre of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and identified as a major centre in the London Plan.
• Wandsworth ( /ˈwɒnzwərθ/) is a district of south west London, located 4.6 miles (7.4 km) south west of Charing Cross. It is the administrative centre of the London Borough of Wandsworth, and identified as a major centre in the London Plan.

Major centres

• Dalston ( /ˈdɔːlstən/) is a district of east London, in the London Borough of Hackney. It is located 4 miles (6.4 km) north east of Charing Cross, and identified as a major centre in the London Plan.
• East Ham is a district of east London, in the London Borough of Newham. It located 8 miles (12.9 km) east-northeast of Charing Cross, and identified as a major centre in the London Plan.
• Eltham ( /ˈɛltəm/) is a district of south east London, in the Royal Borough of Greenwich. It is located 8.7 miles (14.0 km) east-southeast of Charing Cross, and identified as a major centre in the London Plan.
• Peckham ( /ˈpɛkəm/) is a district of south east London, in the London Borough of Southwark. It is located 3.5 miles (5.6 km) south east of Charing Cross, and identified as a major centre in the London Plan.
• Wimbledon ( /ˈwɪmbəldən/) is a district of south west London, in the London Borough of Merton. It is located 7 miles (11.3 km) south west of Charing Cross and identified as a major centre in the London Plan.

Others

• Tottenham ( /ˈtɒtnəm, ˈtɒtənəm/; locally /ˈtɒʔnəm/) is a district of north London, in London Borough of Haringey. It is located 8.2 miles (13.2 km) north-northeast of Charing Cross.
• Blackheath is a district of south east London, in the Royal Borough of Greenwich and the London Borough of Lewisham. It is located 6.5 miles (10.5 km) east-southeast of Charing Cross.
• Deptford ( /ˈdɛtfəd/ DET-ford) is a district of south east London, in the London Borough of Lewisham. It is located 4.7 miles (7.6 km) east-southeast of Charing Cross.
• Golders Green is a district of north London, in the London Borough of Barnet. It is located 5.5 miles (8.9 km) north west of Charing Cross.
• Hampstead ( /ˈhæmpstɪd/ or /-stɛd/), commonly known as Hampstead Village, is an district of north west London, in the London Borough of Camden. It is located 4 miles (6.4 km) northwest of Charing Cross.

Conclusion

The proposals above would ultimately unify the lead sentences of London's district articles in an informative and concise manner.

Ultimately, comments on a district's character (eg. suburban, affluent, deprived etc) should not be made in the lead sentences. Subsequent paragraphs in the lead can be used to briefly introduce the district, with referenced synopses of its history, character, applicable wards (etc) before the main article.

Please let me know if you agree, disagree, or have input of your own, so that we can achieve a consensus and move forward with improving London's district articles. As a member of London's district taskforce, I ultimately wish to see far more pages attain good and featured article status! Cheers Southlondoneye ( talk) 13:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Can see where you coming from but district is a local government boundary. It may enclose areas that has some Social Housing, middle-class home ownership properties and some expensive Des-Res properties. Non inhabitants in that triage would consider themselves as belonging to one homozygous neighborhood. Gerrymandering continues to this day and those boundaries may change at anytime due to the whim of a politician. To suggest (as in your example), Penge is now one homozygous neighborhood would be misleading. Aspro ( talk) 19:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone. My apologies for coming late to this discussion. Thanks for the varied and informative comments made. From what I have seen so far I agree with most of the conclusions reached. I would need to comment though on the assertion made by Southlondoneye that Welling (using his/her example, ceased to be a town in 1965. This erroneous belief (to throw back his/her adjective) has caused so many naming problems. A town is a town because people say and think it is a town, not because a piece of legislation say otherwise. In this case, I could ask where exactly did it say anywhere that Welling stopped being a town in 1965? The same question could be asked about numerous other parts of GL. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 04:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Why "district"?

There are named locations, or places, be they towns, villages, hamlets etc, inside and outside of Greater London boundary, and there are official administrative divisions in and out of London too. I understand in the UK there is an official city status that City of London, City of Westminster, Bristol, York and others have, and others like Reading, and Croydon etc don't. There is an official District status too, although some, included London divisions are called boroughs, many are called districts too, see Districts of England. Places like Eltham and Welling are not official "districts" like Sevenoaks in Kent is. I got the impression the words borough and district are to be thought of as the same meaning, this may not be the case but they are at least very similar. While all London divisions are boroughs, others differ. In nearby Kent there is Sevenoaks District, and Borough of Dartford, and Gravesham a local government district with borough status. Greater London is a county split into boroughs, like Kent and any other county, the only difference is some divisions are called boroughs and some districts.

I have always thought of the word district as meaning an official area with defined boundaries and adminastration/government. The articles District and Districts of England describe the word as such. The disambiguation page District (disambiguation) has a one line mention saying district can also be another word for neighbourhood, so why not use neighbourhood? I suppose the word is not used as much in UK?

although this is London not say Kent, we will always have things like, "Sidcup is a district in the London Borough of Bexley" if the rule applied to Kent we would have articles like "Swanley is a district in the Sevenoaks District" - Also locations near the London Border, next to areas called districts could read "Ruxley is a district in the London Borough of Bexley....overlapping into the Sevenoaks District of Kent. The use of the word district would be confusing, or at least not immediately clear.

Why shouldn't town, village, hamlet, suburb, settlement, or neighbourhood be used for locations within Greater London?

Is there an official "town" or "village" status that locations in Greater London never have, were they abolished, like all civil parishes were in London?

Why is "District" the word of choice when it is not an unambiguous word, it is used for official divisions in general and in name in Kent and elsewhere, it gives me the impression these areas have official boundaries and perhaps are official divisions, when they do not.

Is there another word we could use? area, neighboourhood, suburb, place, settlement, location? or something else?

I notice the words used for lists are as follows areas, places and districts ( List of areas of London, List of places in the United Kingdom, List of districts in Lewisham)

I don't have an answer, I'd just like to know why some words like town and suburb are not advised but the word district is the word we should use, when to me it could be unclear meaning.  Carl wev  19:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternatives to 'district'

I agree with the above responses concerning the term 'district'. In the examples above, I used the term because it's by far the most commonly used in various London articles, and become the de facto convention.

The purest terms that can be used are area or neighbourhood:

• Placename is an area of [n/s/e/w] London...
• Placename is an neighbourhood in [n/s/e/w] London...

It's noteworthy that, as mentioned by  Carl wev , other articles use the term 'area' ( List of areas of London and Template:Areas of London). It's also noteworthy that in the 2016 London Plan, the term 'neighbourhood' is used.

The terms village and town are specific categorisations for which areas of London do not qualify. This stands even though many have been so in the past, and some still bear the term (eg. Kentish Town). There's a discussion about what actually constitutes a 'village' or 'town' in the UK 'how to write about settlements' talk page. Southlondoneye ( talk) 23:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

In the UK, the term "city" is reserved and is in the grant of the crown, whereas settlements that are not cities may usually decide for themselves whether to describe themselves as "town", "village" or "hamlet". Generally though, towns and villages have town councils and parish councils respectively, whereas hamlets have neither. There are oddities though, such as Queen's Park civil parish, which is within the City of Westminster. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Great points, thanks. Southlondoneye ( talk) 03:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose the imposition of uniformity. London has a complex, idiosyncratic quality as it has grown organically over time. It does not have a uniform tidy nature and so to impose one would tend to distort our content. I consider places like Richmond, Kingston and Hammersmith to be towns and villages, not districts, because that is their history. Andrew D. ( talk) 20:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That's an honest assessment. A large number of areas in London indeed have a history of being a town or village. I'm not advocating for strict uniformity, but basic consistency. For instance, using prominent examples: Chelsea, Mayfair and Marylebone are referred to as 'affluent areas' (Placename is an affluent area..) whereas Belgravia, Knightsbridge and St James's are referred to as 'districts' (Placename is a district..). In these instances, I propose that the term 'affluent' is removed from the lead sentence and that there is a basic consistency on whether to call them 'districts' or 'areas' in this case. Cheers Southlondoneye ( talk) 07:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't always agree with Andrew D., but he's absolutely right here. Greater London isn't a city in the usual sense, but a de facto county, and trying to uniformly impose an artificial division like "neighbourhood" would be totally inappropriate to its nature. Whether it suits your sensibilities or not, Romford is a town within the London Borough of Havering, Bishopsgate is a ward within the City of London, Botany Bay is a village within the London Borough of Enfield, the City of Westminster is a city within Greater London. I'll go so far as to say that if you do start trying to impose this unilaterally without getting consensus for each article on which you impose it, you're extremely likely to be blocked for disruption. ‑  Iridescent 20:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

In the above post you're conflating matters. This topic does not pertain to wards (eg. Bishopsgate), which are clearly defined entities. This topic does not pertain to city status (eg. the City of Westminster) which is a clearly defined status, or to Botany Bay which is technically a hamlet and referred to as such. This topic specifically pertains to the neighbourhood-level articles of London. Whether it suits your sensibilities or not, Romford today is not a town. Romford was a town. I have no qualms about it being referred to as a town in the article, but leading an encyclopaedic article with a falsity is not advisable. I typically pause to seek a group consensus before proceeding to make wholesale changes (eg the London infobox montage), asking of people's opinion in a polite manner. Nothing disruptive about that approach. Southlondoneye ( talk) 02:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, 39 edits to article space on 22 and 27 April across around 35 London 'districts'. Some push-back at Talk:Bexleyheath ( here) and some discussion here at Talk:Croydon. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: Many of the article edits (eg. Bermondsey, Kidbrooke, Camberwell, Lee etc) were not to add the term district (as it was already present), but to improve the grammar of the lead. I started with the aim of slowly improving the quality of London's 'area-level' articles, and observed that the vast majority of London articles use the term 'district' in the lead sentence. This points to there having been some sort of consensus and drive to do so in the past. This is why I started to implement the term in further articles, but paused to create this discussion before doing so in a wholesale manner. Southlondoneye ( talk) 16:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Do we have a consensus of opinion yet for leaving things as they are? Also, that trying to impose a US style of nomenclature and taxonomy upon and overriding, the current and well understood European nomenclature and taxonomy, will lead to confusion and un-clarity on all UK articles. It will make them difficult to edit, as we will have to translate our edits into American speak whilst at the same time allowing factual inexactitudes to multiply. Aspro ( talk) 14:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone who lives in London, the term 'district' sounds strange to me. I looked at Kingston upon Thames as an example of what I've always thought of as being a town, and found that this change had been made by Southlondoneye. Kingston is a quintessential example of a town (as is nearby Richmond) and many other places and areas in London. Many of them have clearly distinct town centres. The word 'district' just sounds wrong. Urban centre, area, town, all sound fine. District does not. The other thing I noticed was the introduction of a piped link to South London behind 'south west London'. Both this, and the robotic and uniform language used above (in the 'Proposed examples of 'good practise' with respect to lead sentences' section), were for me sleep-inducing examples of bureaucratic lingo taken from something like the London Plan, which isn't surprising, as the language probably was taken from there (see for example List of sub regions used in the London Plan - surely the term South-West London has a longer history than just 2008 to 2011?). I'd prefer articles on London to give a flavour of their history and unique character in the lead, rather than a soulless 'district' sentence that can be churned out by rote for each article. There is consistency, and then there is crossing the line into blandness. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  I have tried 'area' in the Kingston upon Thames article here. If there is to be conformity, we should use as broad and plain a term as possible, allowing other terms (such as district, town, neighbourhood) to be introduced in subsequent sentences. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  My edit was reverted here with the rationale that Kingston is (for some) a district within the borough. @ LynwoodF: to alert them to this discussion. It is frustrating that the article Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames states that "The main town is Kingston upon Thames". Kingston upon Thames can be many things depending on what perspective you are considering it from. From the perspective of the borough, it is a district. It can legitimately be described as a town. It can also be described as an 'administrative centre' and as a 'major metropolitan centre'. Why should district take priority in the lead sentence. Is it not better to use as broad a term as possible ('area') and then use the other terms in the appropriate context? Carcharoth ( talk) 15:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  (As mentioned above) I started with the aim of slowly improving the quality of London's 'area-level' articles. Grammar, references, updates and so forth. I observed that the vast majority of London articles use the term 'district' in the lead sentence, which points to there having been some sort of drive to do so in the past. This is why I started to implement the term in further articles, but paused to create this discussion before doing so in a wholesale manner. Note, I am for the use of the term 'area' in lead sentences, with other terms used in their appropriate contexts therein. Southlondoneye ( talk) 16:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Whatever your aim. Your proposals don't come over as an improvement. The problem IMHO is that as WP has more US editors, and the original categories were based on US terminology and they were used until more appropriate categories got created. Thus, some articles contain historic WP inexactitudes . If we follow your proposals -what next? Should we rename all the Kings and Queens of Britain as 'Presidents' of the UK so it fits in with the US understanding of head of State? Aspro ( talk) 22:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

London's area-level articles started by using the term 'place'. The term 'district' was implemented by local editors later. Thanks for your input though. Southlondoneye ( talk) 08:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there were in the past 'Urban Districts', Rural Districts and also Postal Districts in what is now Greater London - where there is a 'specific official/historical usage.

A London Borough can be a rather large area - we need a term to describe 'a smaller area which has something of a distinct identity but can have somewhat fluid boundaries' - eg Theatreland, the Canary Wharf area, the South Kensington Museums area... Jackiespeel ( talk) 22:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn

• Thanks for all responses given. I withdraw the above proposal following the feedback given. Below is a new section in which the current situation can be assessed. Cheers Southlondoneye ( talk) 08:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for the feedback in the previous discussion on London districts.

I have taken time to compile table of London's 'district-level' articles, drawn from 15 different London boroughs, arranged according to what each 'district' is referred to in the lead.

As you can see, the most prevalent terms are 'district' and 'area', with scattered use of other terms. Personally I believe this to be rather incoherent, and there was a broad consensus in the previous discussion against the term 'district' being used.

Going forward, I simply ask if you support:

• Use of the term area:

For the term 'area' to take priority in the lead sentence (exceptions where applicable), with other terms subsequently used in the appropriate context.

• Use of the term district:

For the term 'district' to take priority in the lead sentence (exceptions where applicable), with other terms subsequently used in the appropriate context.

• Keeping the status quo:

Keeping things as they are below, with places referred to as 'area', 'district' or anything else in a random manner.

(Note: I have not altered the term for any article listed)

	Placename is an area...	Placename is a district...	Placename is a neighbourhood...	Placename is a place...	Placename is a suburb...	Placename is a town...
Barnet	Brent Cross Colindale Finchley Friern Barnet Golders Green The Hale Totteridge Woodside Park	Colney Hatch Edgware Brunswick Park		Whetstone	Cockfosters Hendon Mill Hill
Brent	Alperton Brent Park Dollis Hill Harlesden Kilburn Neasden Queen's Park Tokyngton Wembley Willesden	Kingsbury Wembley Park			Brondesbury Sudbury
Camden	Belsize Park Bloomsbury Gospel Oak Hampstead Highgate Kentish Town St Pancras West Hampstead	Camden Town Chalk Farm Dartmouth Park Fitzrovia Holborn Primrose Hill Somers Town St Giles Swiss Cottage
Croydon	Addington Addiscombe New Addington Selsdon Shirley Upper Norwood	Kenley Pollards Hill South Norwood Thornton Heath	Waddon Woodside	Coombe		Coulsdon Croydon Norbury Purley
Hackney	Hackney Wick Haggerston Stoke Newington	Dalston Hackney Central Homerton Hoxton Lower Clapton Manor House Shoreditch South Hackney Stamford Hill Upper Clapton
	Placename is an area...	Placename is a district...	Placename is a neighbourhood...	Placename is a place...	Placename is a suburb...	Placename is a town...
Islington	Barnsbury Clerkenwell De Beauvoir Town Pentonville Tufnell Park	Archway Canonbury Finsbury Highbury Holloway Islington
Kensington & Chelsea	Brompton Chelsea North Kensington West Brompton	Earl's Court Holland Park Kensington Notting Hill South Kensington
Merton	Colliers Wood Lower Morden	Bushey Mead Copse Hill Cottenham Park Mitcham Morden Summertown Wimbledon		Merton Park	Raynes Park
Newham	Manor Park Upton Park	Canning Town Custom House East Ham Forest Gate Little Ilford Plaistow Silvertown	Beckton West Ham	North Woolwich
Redbridge	Chadwell Heath Hainault Wanstead	Gants Hill Goodmayes Loxford Newbury Park Redbridge Seven Kings				Woodford
	Placename is an area...	Placename is a district...	Placename is a neighbourhood...	Placename is a place...	Placename is a suburb...	Placename is a town...
Richmond	Ham North Sheen Twickenham Whitton	Ham Kew Mortlake			East Sheen	Richmond Teddington
Southwark	Denmark Hill Dulwich Elephant and Castle	Bankside Bermondsey Camberwell East Dulwich Newington Peckham Rotherhithe Walworth		Nunhead
Tower Hamlets	Blackwall Cubitt Town Millwall Poplar	Bethnal Green Bow Bromley-by-Bow Cambridge Heath Limehouse Mile End Shadwell Stepney Wapping Whitechapel
Waltham Forest	Chingford Mount Leytonstone Whipps Cross	Chingford Highams Park Leyton South Chingford				Walthamstow
Westminster	Bayswater Belgravia Marylebone Mayfair Paddington Pimlico Soho Westminster	Covent Garden Knightsbridge Lisson Grove Maida Vale St James's St John's Wood

What is the preference of fellow WikiProject London members going forward?

Thanks again for your input. Southlondoneye ( talk) 09:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your extensive work and the evidence you provide. I would personally support the status quo. As other contributors noted above, areas in London have evolved in their own ways and are thought of locally and described in media using different words. In LB Bexley, for example, various areas are commonly referred to as "towns", and I gather this is the same for other areas on the outskirts of the city. More than anything our text should reflect the sources used to write the article, which need not be consistent. Jdcooper ( talk) 10:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Semi-cleanup. I appreciate the work that's gone into the above, and the desire for some kind of consistency, which I support. However, London resists such attempts at conformity. I'd agree that "place" is horribly vague and should go, and "neighbourhood" just feels too American (although it is starting to be used a bit). "District" should probably be reduced but not eliminated - there is the potential for confusion with formal "Districts" but at the same time common usage means that there will be former Districts that are best referred to as districts. As an example of a district that should be nuked, take the first on the list - Colney Hatch"is the historical name for a small district within the London Borough of Barnet...Colney Hatch refers to a loosely defined area". In fact if anything that should be the exact opposite - it is currently a small area in the current borough of Barnet but historically referred to a bigger area of the old Southgate but has since been trimmed to fit modern council and postal boundaries.
  Likewise "suburb" has a limited place for those post-WWII estates without much history to them, mostly fringing the M25, whereas I'd keep "town" for the places with a clear identity as such (generally those absorbed in 1965 from surrounding counties). Conversely, I think the default for inside the North/South Circular should be "area" unless there's an "obvious" alternative - the two cities are clearly exceptions, but there will doubtless be others. Le Deluge ( talk) 11:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Think we are working towards writing up a guideline or policy to make it easier for editors.
  

First: We have Districts of England. It lists those districts which have recognized legal identity. All other 'districts' are ephemeral and can be magic'ed up by anyone for any purpose (e.g. property developers) So not encyclopedic.

Second: It appears that the original creators of Category:Districts of London by borough, Category:Districts of the City of London etc., were just following their noses, without considering the confusion it could wrought in the future – like as of now! We can use a 'bot' to convert all these cats to 'Area'. A similar thing was done on Wikimedia Commons a few years back, . Districts of London was redirected to List of areas of London for reasons of encyclopedia clarity and correctness. We should not be taking one step forwards and two steps back.

Third: Towns of London should be easy. They are the original towns that existed before London swallowed them up. So if we take Covent Garden for instance which is in the table above. It is not a town but neither a district. The two nearest towns are Strand and Westminster. Covent Garden is an 'area' which even the Covent Garden Area Trust agrees with. The 'district' that all three fall into is the London Postal District of WC2. Our American and other foreign cousins may say “But isn't Covent Garden a knighthood?” Would be, if Covent Garden didn't have sub-areas (very local neighbourhoods).

Fourth: Other websites appear to have taken WP's word and are repeating our factual inexactitudes in their articles, leading new editors to read them and contribute to the confusion in terms by adding them back into to WP articles which where originally correct in the first place.
To sort this out we have to go back to basics and nuke the London 'districts' otherwise we are building on sand. It really is not rocket science and not too late to go for the pimple and burst it.
Aspro ( talk) 16:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh? On your "Third" - neither Westminster nor the Strand are towns - I'm struggling to think of any towns within the North/South Circular (except Kentish/Camden <g>). Just stick to areas in the centre. And postal districts aren't "districts" in any normal sense of the term. I know some parts of London obsess over which postcode they're in but for encyclopedic purposes I don't think they're particularly helpful other than "the boundaries of area X correspond to postal district Y" in the text somewhere, but X should be the primary topic, and not Y. In terms of the cats, the way to do it would be to take the categories to WP:CFD - but frankly those cats are the least of our worries at the moment. Le Deluge ( talk) 09:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

To save you the struggle: Towns in London. We need to have some historic congruence, rather than splatter WP with cultural populism's. 18:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I was noting 'specific technical usages.' There is a distinction to be made between 'District' (upper case) and 'district' (lower case) - the former is 'official' and the latter 'an area with a theme or identity but slightly vague boundaries.' (Covent Garden, legal London, Theatreland...)

Probably some of the places further out the London Transport area can be considered 'autonomous towns' in their own right. Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Every coordinate in the ceremonial county of Greater London was formerly in another county such as Surrey, Kent, etc. Why do we not have both fields in the template?

1. Ceremonial county
2. Traditional county

Traditional county appears to be the phrase chosen by government to represent a currently existing Historic county — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.16.231 ( talk) 17:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the definition of 'county'. It might be more appropriate, in the sentence above, to say that every coordinate is 'also', rather than 'was' in another county. I cannot see how it is possible for us to decide that one meaning of county is the default meaning, because all meanings of the word county are regularly used by the population. A single person does not even have one constantly preferred meaning, and will switch meanings to suit the given situation. That is what has happened on Wikipedia and that is why any attempts to chose a default meaning (such as ceremonial county) will not only inevitably fail (as has happened), but will only compound the confusion. Clumsy though it might be, it seems to me that they only way to overcome this problem is to define the word 'county' each time it is used. On the second point, I think the term 'traditional' is better than 'historic', which implies the no longer exist, but if that description is changed for the London project then it will of course need to change for the whole country. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked into this a bit and got a bit confused. I found these articles, read them for descriptions, I won't put them here...

• Counties of England

• Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England
  • Metropolitan county
  • Non-metropolitan county
• Ceremonial counties of England
• Historic counties of England ( Traditional county of England redirects to this so does not have an article)

Historic v Traditional counties, looks like both terms are used as one redirects to the other but I would prefer to use the term which is the article title Historic (possibly what they are officially called?) I see the point about giving the impression of them no longer existing. If historic is the official term the government and others use, we have to use it too, whilst mentioning the other. If it's not, it could be brought up at the talk page of the article itself more than here.

A better explanation of a locality's present and past status or position can be written in the prose of the article than a single word in an infobox. But I still like to try and get infoboxes filled out correctly, I find them useful. As this is about London, the Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England don't apply here, the current and actual county in an official sense and/or the ceremonial county for all places would be Greater London (possibly excluding anything inside the City of London?). The historic county would be one of Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Surrey. Both of these could go in the infobox easily I'm sure. I'm not sure if there would be a way to show, or if we should for example the difference between Bromley and Lewisham. Both were in Kent in the past, both are in Greater London now, but Lewisham was in the County of London where as Bromley was not, however, no one may care about this anyway, although it does interest me. Places that have altered their county eg Knockholt (read article) may be hard to sum up in an infobox clearly too.  Carl wev  20:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not even as simple as that, as outside the suburban fringes and a few anomalies like Newham that for historic reasons never fell under the MBW or LCC, there wasn't a single 'year zero' transition from the shire counties to Greater London in 1965. Somewhere like present-day Stoke Newington went from its historic status as "Middlesex", to "nominally Middlesex but under the Metropolitan Board of Works" in 1855, to "partitioned between the County of London and Middlesex with the site of the present-day Milton Gardens Estate an exclave of Middx and not subject to the decisions of the CoL despite being completely surrounded by it" in 1889, to "fully integrated with the CoL but as a de facto self-governing Metropolitan Borough" in 1899, to "Greater London" in 1965, to "part of the independent London Borough of Hackney" in 1986, to "Greater London Region" in 1994, to "Greater London" again in 2000. Some things really don't fit neatly into infoboxes. ‑  Iridescent 21:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I was going to add more, but I already wrote too much, some places have changed jurisdiction several times, I suppose the infobox may say something like, "several, see text" which I've seen used in some boxes. If a place is or was on a county border, eg Hatcham (with no infobox) was on the border of Kent and Surrey, both could easily be listed, like multiple phone code or postcode areas are. If a place was in the same county for many centuries, then altered several times during the 1800 and 1900's when new districts kept being made and dissolved, it would make sense to list the county it was for a long time, and then say "plus several others, see text" underneath; you could list them all, just depends how much we want in an infobox or not. Some places are simple, the complicated ones could be dealt with on a case by case basis, following some common sense guidelines, or discussed a bit more in their own article. The issue is relevant to London but also effects more than just London.  Carl wev  07:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for the ping.

In general I think that this is a good idea, which will clarify the scope of articles which do cover the whole borough. However, I have two concerns:

1. Care should be taken to check the actual scope of each article before it is renamed. For example, it's unclear whether the List of people from Greenwich refers to the town or to the wider borough (which includes other areas such as Woolwich, Blackheath, Eltham and Thamesmead). If the current list has a narrower focus, it might not always be appropriate to widen its scope.
2. It leaves unresolved the question of how to unambiguously name articles which refer only to the area, rather than the wider borough.

That second point isn't a reason to hold off the rename, but it would be handy to have a solution. However, I can't think of anything better than List of people from Greenwich, by which I mean the area historically known as Greenwich rather than wider London Borough of Greenwich ... which is silly. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well in the case of that list, the entries include people from the whole borough ( Eltham, Blackheath etc.) Judging from the template Template:London people and the article Lists of people from London, it appears that these articles were created specifically for that purpose, as a sensible way to organise lists of Londoners. It's true that the article doesn't make that clear, but then the article is in pretty poor shape generally (as indeed are the ones for most of the other boroughs). If there were articles with unclear scope (such as the Economy of Croydon page mentioned in the naming conventions discussion), then I agree that it may not make sense to move them, or at any rate they should be examined on a case by case basis. However, all the boroughs I believe have "listed buildings" "parks and open spaces" "people from X" and other articles which certainly fall within the scope of this discussion.

As for "People from Greenwich (town)", they should be included on the article of the town in question. Unusually, Greenwich doesn't have a "Notable residents"-type section, but Lewisham does. As for Bexley, it doesn't because I was unable to establish from sources that any of the people on the borough-wide list were from that area specifically. Obviously it's possible to imagine cases where the sources are unclear as to which they mean, but I don't think that should mean that we imitate their lack of clarity! In cases where someone is described as (for example) "from Bexley", we should err on the side of the larger area, as if wrong, we are still right. Whereas if it means "Welling, Bexley Borough", then adding them to the smaller area is incorrect. Jdcooper ( talk) 18:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I will start working on these pages tomorrow evening if no-one objects before then.. Jdcooper ( talk) 23:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Ham and User:Armbrust, I notice the move request discussion you had here. I'm sorry to reopen "old wounds", but were you aware of the issues mentioned here at the time of that RM discussion? If not, I fear that the naming convention you decided on creates a fair amount of ambiguity (though perhaps not in the case of Barking and Dagenham). If you were, I would appreciate if you would add your thoughts to this discussion! Thanks. Jdcooper ( talk) 20:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That RM was closed more than 3 years ago, and I just closed it (I didn't participate in the discussion, and also have no opinion on the matter). If you feel the current situation is unsatisfactory, than you should initiate another RM. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Just come across this as the ping was to my old username, which I had to change for the Single Unified Login switchover. This is very far from being a "wound" as far as I'm concerned – I'm quite happy to discuss it! As it happens, I've been thinking for some time that the convention should change, and indeed I was heavily involved in the CfD discussion which resulted in changing the convention for categories to "...in the London [etc.] Borough of..." My argument in the original RM was above all about consistency and I firmly approve of the move you're proposing, which would bring the titles of lists and categories in line with each other. Ham II ( talk) 07:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok great, I'll get started on the Move Request. Do you think any of the articles listed here might be exceptions? Jdcooper ( talk) 12:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't. Ham II ( talk) 17:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Jdcooper, Ham, Armbrust, and BrownHairedGirl: It looks good to me. Although I could not see any exceptions... Being a natural devils advocate, have thought about the implications of any exceptions that might get through unnoticed. Conclusion is that it doesn’t matter. For example take : List of public art in Ealing. It is quite obvious that it really should be titled List of public art in the London Borough of Ealing and previous editors have already sub-categorised the art featured in the article into the towns or villages within this Borough. Think we have firm consensus that these changes should go ahead. WP is still work in progress and if we have not dotted every single i or crossed every single t, that is a minuscule price to pay in return for clear, unambiguous, uniformity. It will make easier for future editors to know where to place things. Aspro ( talk) 14:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I have made a list of all the articles in question. Does anyone have any arguments against submitting a Move request for them? Jdcooper ( talk) 13:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Request listed at Talk:Grade I and II* listed buildings in Bexley. Jdcooper ( talk) 11:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Well the article could definitely use some work, especially with sourcing, but that's not in itself a reason to delete. We should have a List of people from London, but obviously that would be too big, so that's why the articles exist for individual boroughs. Maybe the people on the list would be duplicated from the articles about individual localities in the borough, but that's ok. It's informative to have an article about all the people from nearby localities too, I think. Jdcooper ( talk) 01:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Use some work? List of people from Hertfordshire got deleted, and who is going to look up a list of famous people in a London Borough, it's too vast a subject to be contained to a list, there would be over 10,000 names from history to present. I don't think this should be, I am going to PROD. Govvy ( talk) 16:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If it has over 10,000 names, then it would be appropriate to split it into Lists of people from individual localities. But it doesn't. There are literally thousands of articles with lists of people from specific places or areas. They are neither indiscriminate nor trivial. If you want to delete it, take it to AfD, but I highly doubt the proposal would succeed. Jdcooper ( talk) 21:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jdcooper - the reasoning is sound. Edwardx ( talk) 22:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dam at List of ppl in London, I think the whole lot should be deleted, very un-wikipedia, unsourced, massive violation of WP:BLP when you don't have citations. If unsourced, you should never reveal where people live if they are the living! That violates privacy laws and multiple times I've had to remove names which have been unsourced. List of people from Westminster to start with is a complete violation of BLP with out citation per name they whole thing should be deleted on that grounds. Govvy ( talk) 17:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that all these articles need better sourcing. I don't agree that saying that people are from, or live in, a particular town is invading privacy laws, especially when it's sourced information ie. already in the public domain. I would add that finding a source is a better way to improve the encyclopaedia than just removing the information. Jdcooper ( talk) 21:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

They look similar, and they also have exactly the same co-ordinates listed. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict)@ Govvy: They are two adjoining districts in the the LB of Croydon. South Norwood can be considered as the areas immediately adjacent to Portland Road S.E.25 and South Norwood Hill (to the point where it meets Church Road when it becomes Upper Norwood). Selhurst is to the south-west of South Norwood, is relatively smaller and is more or less bounded by Whitehorse Road and Selhurst Road. Both areas carry the S.E.25 postcode but some of Selhurst may fall under a CR code (Croydon). Perversely, Selhurst Park is right where the two areas meet and is sometimes considered to be South Norwood rather than Selhurst itself.

Here is a link to google map of the area which may help. I also looked at the London A-Z to check my information. Eagleash ( talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't sure if there was overlapping information going on, where it might be considered that the same information is on both pages, it really does feel that way with the infoboxes know. I looked at both because one editor changed South Norwood to Selhurst for the location of used Crystal Palace FC. Govvy ( talk) 21:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comma vs parentheses. Please see Talk:Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall)#Requested move 2 October 2017. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been asked before. Is it appropriate for people that were born in an area before the creation of the present boroughs to be categorised within the borough structure? For example, Category:Footballers from the London Borough of Newham contains loads of people that were born before Newham existed. I'm not sure I have an opinion either way, I was just wondering what was standard. If this is fine, the cat(s) should have a note to that effect though. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It's normal to categorise by present-day local authority, but contentious. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Nzd It's also anachronistic and incorrect, unless clearly noted accordingly. Being incorrect only leads to confusion and contradictions. Keep to the facts, spell it out, and you won't go far wrong. My 2c/p worth. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. At the moment, it's misleading. If the articles are going to stay in that directory structure, then there should be a clear notice on all the relevant cats and sub-cats stating that the borough wasn't created until X but people born earlier are still listed. I'll see if I can work something up. Cheers, Nzd (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where to bring this up. Bringing it up here as it could concern the name and placement of areas anywhere in London. On 25 October, 5 days ago, a user moved Belvedere, London to Belvedere, Greater London. The user had edited the article a bit before, concerning the description of which county the place is and was in, but there was no discussion held about the title of the whole article. When I questioned it, they told me it's Wiki policy to use the names of the ceremonial counties, in this case it is Greater London. My own experience, and looking at Category:Areas of London shows there are literally hundreds of locality articles that use "Xxxxx, London" title, but no other article, other than Belvedere uses the title "Xxxxx, Greater London". I don't know where any discussion or policy regarding titles of locations in London/Greater London, but looking at the category of areas in London I see it is universal to use "Xxxxx, London". I wanted to get the input of more users, and shown where the policy is if there is one. Up to this point the user only seems concerned with the title of the Belvedere article, and not any others although hundreds use the other way "Xxxxx, London" which they say is incorrect.

The issue is whether the short hand or long hand should be used. We seem to be moving in the direction of using "people from the London Borough of Bexley" not "People from Bexley", But for boroughs in place titles we use short hand, like Grove Park, Lewisham. Also unlike London in Manchester for example we use the long titles such as Denton, Greater Manchester. It looks odd to have only one article use Greater London and all others just London. Unless the whole policy for all London places title is altered, Belvedere would need to be moved back and this would need have the help of an admin or someone with higher user privileges as the old title already exists. Although I think the current way is fine I didn't want to start an edit war on my own, and would need the help of an admin to alter it anyway, I the user may have a point, maybe, so I thought I'd ask for input.

Things that may or may not be relevant or brought up are.

• "Greater London" is the ceremonial county, is "London" accepted as a short hand for this, or should we use Greater London?

• "City of London" is a much smaller county that most of the places concerned are not in. Some are Blackfriars, London is in the City of London, is London an acceptable short hand for the City of London. Will there be confusion as to a place is in Greater London or City of London, does this matter? they are both London aren't they?

• London is a built up area, some may consider localities in outer Greater London not in the built up area and use of "London" to be misleading or incorrect. Places in inner London like Southwark may be considered "London" by some, but outer London, like Chelsfield or Crofton, London, some may not consider these to be "London", but they are definitely Greater London. This may not matter.

• Some places were in different counties before 1965, or 1889, but this may not really matter.

• LONDON is a postal county that some places are not under, but this may not matter, because Royal mail post addresses can be mentioned in the article but are not priority in the title of article.

• Should all article titles use the same format, I imagine they should.

• Should articles using Borough names use short or long hand. There are two places called Grove Park in London. Grove Park, Lewisham and Grove Park, Hounslow. Should we think about using "Grove Park, London Borough of Lewisham" and "Grove Park, London Borough of Hounslow" or is this getting silly?

 Carl wev  17:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I missed this comment about my BOLD edit that I was not surprised was reverted. An excellent summary by you, thank you. A point overlooked though is wp:commonname that as policy should trump project guidelines. (Where a place is in the title counts as part of its name too). This means that where Belvedere is as referenced by RSs is what we should use, not what the wikiproject London decides, unless they are the same. A google search is a good enough general observation of common usage. Belvedere, London = 13.9m..Belvedere, Greater London = 1.7m..Belvedere, Kent = 5.3m. However, Bexleyheath, Kent = 17.2m..Bexleyheath, London = 3.2m..Welling, London = 7.2m.. Welling, Kent = 29.5m. Whatever happens, there is something wrong somewhere. I think the most important thing is to keep to wp:commonname, meaning local project guidelines based on consensus by a few needs to be rethought. Pinging - user:Nilfanion user:Acapital user:Carlwev Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not yet been able to view in-depth biographical details of Catherine Cooper Hopley, and certain details such as the date of her death are somewhat ambiguous. She apparently lived in Twickenham (some sources say Tickenham), and died around April to May of 1911. Brief death notices in American and New Zealand papers mention she was arrested as a spy while in the United States, yet longer sources do not mention this, only that she was trapped behind a blockade, and suspected of spying. If someone with access to British newspapers, obituaries, or other records could shed some light on this, I'd be much appreciative. Thanks, --Animalparty! ( talk) 01:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Her death was registered here (click the "view the original" to see the actual register) in June 1911 in Richmond, which is very near to Twickenham so would indicate that she lived there, not Tickenham. The terms "Catherine Hopley" or "Catherine Cooper Hopley" don't appear once in the entire Times, Guardian, Observer archive, and the only mention of a "Sarah L. Jones" I can find is a false-positive in a 1980 list of chemistry graduates in the Times. It doesn't appear that she ever came to popular notice on this side of the Atlantic. On a full search of the British Library's newspaper archive, all I can find is:

• very brief reviews of her books (mostly Aunt Jenny's American Pets) and notices of publication in various local papers
• a passing mention of her in the wonderfully-named Trewman's Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser
• a reasonably lengthy (about a quarter of a column) about her views of sea-serpents in Berrow's Worcester Journal
• a long obituary written by her of "the Indian Land Crab which died at the Zoological Gardens on Wednesday"(!!!) in the Guernsey Star
• a note in 1890 that she was to be paid £100 from the Civil List in acknowledgement of her services to the sciences.

Let me know if you want copies of any of them, but there's really not much there.

Neither her death, nor her supposed arrest for spying, appears to have received any public notice at all. (In the case of the spying, it makes me think the story is apocryphal; the mid-19th century was the peak of British gunboat diplomacy and of pressure from both sides to intervene in the American Civil War, and it seems most unlikely that the unlawful detention of a British subject, let alone a female British subject, wouldn't have provoked a full-scale international crisis.) ‑  Iridescent 16:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for digging into this. She is also referred to as "Catherine C. Hopley" and "C. C. Hopley", which might yield more nuggets. I wonder if her books themselves mention arrest, although I suspect it apocryphal myself. The two sources in 'Further reading' may shed some more light (Mullen, 1994, appears to devote a chapter to her), I'll try to locate those. --Animalparty! ( talk) 17:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I searched on CATHERINE PRE/2 HOPLEY which should have picked up anything with or without a middle name or initial. Searching purely on "C. C. Hopley" would be a hopeless timesink since there would be so many false-positives—while it's not Smith or Price, Hopley is a reasonably common name. Besides, both book reviews and death notices—which would be the main thing you're looking for—would almost certainly use the first and last name at minimum, particularly for a woman. (If her herpetology was noteworthy enough that she was given a £100 award from the Civil List—which was real money in those days—you might want to get on to the Zoological Society of London, as they'd almost certainly have quite a bit about her in their archives.) ‑  Iridescent 17:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of areas of London#RFC Project to cleanup the child pages of this page -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_London

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 16:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm noticing that a lot of the articles in Category:Streets in the City of Westminster have neither coordinates nor a {{ Coord missing}} template. Is there a bot or a semi-automated process behind this that's somehow overlooked these (and other borough?) street articles? -- Gapfall ( talk) 19:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Gapfall: Category:London articles missing geocoordinate data is populated by {{ coord missing|London}}. This template is normally added to articles by The Anomebot2 ( talk · contribs) and the botop is The Anome ( talk · contribs). -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 23:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Was wondering if someone could take a look at Greenwich Pier? It's not supported by any citations to reliable sources, and has been tagged as such since 2009. If the assessment is that pier is not really notable for a stand-alone article, then maybe it should be taken to WP:AfD. I'm not sure what notability guidelines structures fall under, or if it's considered notable just because Greenwich is a World Heritage Site. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been working through local government pages in England and moving pages where appropriate to reflect their common recognisable name. For the London Councils it seemed appropriate to address the issue all at once, and avoid causing any major disruptions.

As it stands the article names all follow the convention of District Name London Borough Council. However, this is not the WP:COMMONNAME for London councils. All but possibly one London Borough council have rebranded and renamed to follow the convention of District Name Council, consciously omitting 'London Borough' from their name. As a consequence, the question of moving the 32 borough council pages needs to be raised. Bellow I have created a table with links to the various council official websites to show how London Borough has been dropped from the names of Councils.

Council page	Name on website Otherwise media handle
Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council	London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Council
	Barking and Dagenham – Official Twitter feed of Barking and Dagenham Council.
Barnet London Borough Council	Barnet Council
Bexley London Borough Council	Bexley Council
Brent London Borough Council	Brent Council
Bromley London Borough Council	Bromley Council
Camden London Borough Council	Camden Council
Croydon London Borough Council	Croydon Council
Ealing London Borough Council	Ealing Council
Enfield London Borough Council	Enfield Council
Greenwich London Borough Council	Royal Borough of Greenwich
	Royal Greenwich – Official Greenwich Council account monitored in office hours.
Hackney London Borough Council	Hackney Council
Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council	Hammersmith & Fulham Council
Haringey London Borough Council	Haringey Council
Harrow London Borough Council	Harrow Council
Havering London Borough Council	Havering Council
Hillingdon London Borough Council	Hillingdon Council
Hounslow London Borough Council	Hounslow Council
Islington London Borough Council	Islington Council
Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council	Kensington and Chelsea Council
Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council	Kingston Council
Lambeth London Borough Council	Lambeth Council
Lewisham London Borough Council	Lewisham Council
Merton London Borough Council	Merton Council
Newham London Borough Council	Newham Council
Redbridge London Borough Council	Redbridge Council
Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council	London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
	Richmond Council – News and tips from the council and community
Southwark London Borough Council	Southwark Council
Sutton London Borough Council	Sutton Council
Tower Hamlets London Borough Council	Tower Hamlets council
Waltham Forest London Borough Council	Waltham Forest Council
Wandsworth London Borough Council	Wandsworth Council
Westminster City Council	Westminster City Council

In my opinion, this would also help the article titles conform better to MOS:PRECISION, whereby article names should be precise enough define the article scope, but no more precise than that. Depending on responses, I may start a WP:RMC, post to WP:RMT, or take no action at all. As the pages are all covered by this Project Group it seemed the appropriate place to start a discussion. ToastButterToast ( talk) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, all. We need people weighing in at Talk:Emma Portman, Viscountess Portman#Accuracy. It's about when Portman dies and therefore the accuracy of the viscountess title. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

We need some input on Duwayne Brooks. An IP editor, possibly connected to Brooks, keeps adding unsourced material. If accurate, the material should be in. Anyone able to help source, or monitor, or guide an IP editor? Bondegezou ( talk) 17:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:BOAC Flight 712#Katz which members of this Wikiproject are invited to contribute to. Mjroots ( talk) 15:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please leave me LONDON HOLBORN meetup details on my talk page.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 12:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 16:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see the proposal here. Ham II ( talk) 09:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There is an ongoing request for comment at Talk:University of London which maybe of interest to members of this wikiproject. Aloneinthewild ( talk) 11:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated List of public art in the City of Westminster for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ham II ( talk) 07:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I created a new page, Embassy chapel, that displays an interesting and underrated feature of London history: before Catholicism was legal, English Catholics were able to worship at the Embassy chapels of foreign governments, like the French, Portuguese, or Sardinian embassy. Four London churches today have roots in those embassies ( Church of St Anselm and St Cecilia, St Etheldreda's Church, Church of our Lady of the Assumption and Saint Gregory, St James's, Spanish Place. The page also talks about other embassy chapels around the world, which provided religious havens to persecuted religions thanks to diplomatic immunity. I've linked a lot of resources but I don't have much time to fill in the page. Any and all help is welcome. Eccekevin ( talk) 18:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed some {{ WikiProject London}} talk page banners using the "needs-image=yes" and "needs-infobox=yes" options (where the banner has been added by the User:Evad37/rater assessment tool), which the template ignores: it has "needs-photo" instead, and doesn't have anything for an infobox. Should the template be updated to include these? -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 09:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Lord Belbury: The template has no parameters for infoboxes (missing or otherwise), and as regards missing images, |needs-photo= is the only form shown in the documentation; I have checked the template source, and there are no aliases for that (nor are there any infobox parameters). If people are using other parameters, they should be directed to the template documentation. They should also be requested to WP:PREVIEW their edits in order to ensure that the template is displaying as per their intentions. I see far too many people who guess at the names of WikiProject parameters - sometimes even the names of the templates themselves.

Perhaps Evad37 ( talk · contribs) should also be requested that their rater tool does not attempt to add invalid parameters. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Having a play around with the rater tool, it looks like it actually already does this very solidly: I can only get it to autocomplete valid parameters. (The banners I've noticed have been eg. this one from User:Edwardx, if they can shed any light on what might have happened.) It seems a forgivable mistake, if a preview or a submitted tool edit doesn't throw up any visible warning about the banner having included invalid parameters.

Whatever's happened there, is it worth adding support for needs-infobox? Infoboxes would be welcome on a lot of London location and biography articles, so having a way to flag that wouldn't hurt. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 13:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trillfendi ( talk) 00:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

For those wondering what this notification is doing here, until I just removed it this article was erroneously tagged as being a mid-importance London article. The accident of birth of being born at the C&W to American parents who then moved back to America doesn't automatically make someone with no connection to the city a London topic, let alone mid-importance (the same significance rating we give to London City Airport, Hampton Court Palace and John Major). ‑  Iridescent 01:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to raise the following for discussion. Obviously, London has 32 boroughs which developed over time, in many cases from ancient hamlets. As they grew, and London expanded, the hamlets became namesakes of metropolitan boroughs and later London boroughs. So far, so easy. When looking through the articles for, e.g. Greenwich, Lambeth, Kensington, Chelsea, Lewisham (the "towns", not the boroughs), they all have citations for population. This seems in many cases been defined as the sum of populations of wards - this is often in the footnotes for the references. However, nothing in the references actually confirms that those wards officially make up "Lewisham" for example ("Lewisham central" that is). I have a suspicion that this was derived in part from the former metropolitan boroughs. Unless I'm wrong, a place name such as "Chelsea" or "Lewisham" have more sentimental relevance, but does not have any relevance for e.g. a census or town administration. They use the wards. Unless someone knows of sources that confirm without doubt what wards can be summarised to town places in such a way, I propose to delete those population references as they are effectively WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL * Derrick Morris ( | talk| history| links| watch| logs| google) AfD discussion

One of your most famous patients. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Burnt Oak tube station#Opening, renaming and comment there. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 16:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello would it be at all possible if any editors in this project can take a look at Southwark Playhouse there has been a lot of edits made to it in relation to a current play on its stage since 13 Feb. I have my own doubts if this is suitable content for a building article. Thanks Chricon79 ( talk) 22:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note The section concerned has been cut back to something much more acceptable. Eagleash ( talk) 03:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Adele is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adele (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Charles Dickens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Charles Dickens until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a requested move at Talk:Winston Churchill (1940–2010) that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  23:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments invited as to how best to divide up Wikipedia's 9th biggest article, at 445k bytes. Please comment here. Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 02:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:William Shakespeare is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:William Shakespeare until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have recently been editing articles of towns and districts within Greater London, where I added at least one additional "distance to" on top of just Charing Cross in the lead. For example, in Kingston upon Thames I added, after the Charing Cross distance, "2.6 miles (4.2 km) south-east of Twickenham, 5.1 miles (8.2 km) north-east of Walton-on-Thames, and 5.8 miles (9.3 km) north-west of Sutton." The same was done in other outer towns, with sometimes one additional destination and other times two.

My edits were reverted by two users (see my talk), with one of them saying it violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. But, there are many UK articles with multiple distances from/to in the lead - I gave Basingstoke and Sale, Greater Manchester as examples. Then I was told by one of them that it wouldn't be suitable for a conurbation like London, and while I agree to some extent, it should be noted that I only made these edits to towns in outer Greater London, and outside the London postal districts. Uxbridge, Sutton, etc. (for which I gave distances to Slough, and Epsom/Croydon/Kingston respectively). I find it perfectly suitable for these, because they are outlying towns with their own identities (i.e. outside London post town). The West Midlands is also a conurbation but I see multiple distances in articles like Dudley and Brierley Hill, and it works very well from an encyclopaedic perspective.

I would like to see the views of others regarding this. I believe it would be perfect to have at least one more destination after just Charing Cross. -- MetrolandNW ( talk) 12:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)