Talk:London

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2014

Template:Edit London In the Education section, please update the university rankings of UCL, ICL and KCL to read: A number of world-leading education institutions are based in London. In the 2013 QS World University Rankings, University College London (UCL) is ranked 4th in the world, Imperial College London 5th, and King's College London 19th.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2013|title=QS World University Rankings - Overall for 2013|accessdate=18 March 2014</ref>

Done.

Wildlife

Will have to look up Wildlife! - including pigeons. Also the large parks of London! Some work here!

Improving the Infobox Montage

Greetings all. I'm of the opinion, shared by many, that the montage in the infobox of the London article can be improved. It is certainly lacking compared to those of other major cities. As I've remarked previously, such is the renown of London's landmarks and skyline that the current three photos alone don't suffice. It's also imperative that a montage isn't over complicated by too many images, or presented in an incoherent manner. In terms of aesthetics, a clean border between images is imperative. Here are four examples from the articles of Paris, Tokyo, Chicago and New York respectively:

Below are montages I've created for London in a similar vein, as examples of what can be done. Each montage includes five images, the same amount as the Tokyo and Paris articles, and notably less images than montages for various other cities in the UK or worldwide. Included in each is a recent skyline image of the City, accompanied by four photos of notable/recognisable places. One can spend all day deciding which of London's many landmarks and locales are worthy of inclusion, as such there are bound to be omissions that won't make everyone happy. The examples below include the Palace of Westminster (seat of parliament), the London Eye (most popular paid attraction), Buckingham Palace (principal workplace of the monarchy), Canary Wharf (major financial centre), St Paul's Cathedral (notable as an iconic structure) and Tower Bridge (notable as an iconic structure):

What are your opinions on the matter? Can a consensus be reached so that we can implement a montage worthy of this good article and wonderful city. Cheers Southlondoneye (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If (A) is the first image and (D) the fourth, my order of preference would be 1st: (C), 2nd: (B), 3rd: (D), 4th: (A). I like that (C) gives prominence to Big Ben and the tube sign, neither of which is well represented in the images in the article body. Cheers, Ham II (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree, from the choice given. But they are all big buildings/things seen from a distance. London's buses & taxis are distinctive, especially in international terms, & one shot of one of those with people too would be good. The article's bus photo isn't bad. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, they're much appreciated. I didn't include any of our icons in the demonstrative examples (routemasters, black cabs, red phone box etc) as infobox montages generally focus on buildings and cityscapes. Plus it was already difficult deciding which landmark(s) to omit! Of the four I posted, C is also my preferred one. Southlondoneye (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the montage should be changed as I made a new discussion here. PS I like the second version best. (N0n3up (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC))

From an artistic perspective I think C is the most attractive option, although as others have commented, one image ought to include people-sized objects (as per your Tokyo, Chicago and NY examples). In (C) maybe you could replace the London Eye with a wide-angle image of people/buses/taxis in Trafalgar Square? Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think a picture of Tower Bridge is essential. It is the most iconic image of London. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

London Lead Section

Hi All.

I was wondering of senior editors opinions on this particular "London" section.

On the London Lead section I wanted to add that:

London is ranked as the most influential city in the world

Source http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2014/08/14/the-most-influential-cities-in-the-world/ — Ciybersal 11:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I do not think that this is suitable for the lead. It is not clear exactly what the statement means (even though Forbes decribe how they arrived at it). This source is one of reasonable quality and providing there are no conflicting sources this fact might, in my opiunion, be included, somewhere in the body of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would surely apply here too. That's to say, it wouldn't be acceptable to say "London is ranked as the most influential city in the world", but it might be acceptable to say "Forbes ranks London as the most influential city in the world". I agree that this doesn't belong in the introduction though. The intro should just summarise the article, really. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Would also need dating to 2014 rather than being a present-tense "is". --McGeddon (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. On that basis maybe we should add something. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

London remains the undisputed leader in the rankings of the "smartest" cities in the world.

Source. The above sentence is taken exactly as it is from: http://www.ieseinsight.com/doc.aspx?id=1679 while the actual source is: http://www.iese.edu/research/pdfs/ST-0366-E.pdf — Ciybersal 11:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

It is hard to see what this means at all. The sources are not that authoritative. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In the district section of "London" I want to add

London's West End is the world's highest-priced office market

source London's West End continued to be the world's highest-priced office market - See more at: http://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/real-estate-news/united-kingdom/london-real-estate-news/most-expensive-office-markets-in-the-world-2015-cbre-global-prime-office-occupancy-costs-survey-london-office-rents-hong-kong-office-rates-9174.php#sthash.XvMgvpzc.dpuf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciybersal (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

London Economy Section

Hello Senior Editors

I am junior editor. I needed your opinion on the "economy" section of London

I added that the sentence below but it was removed by an editor

London is the world's largest foreign investment destination according to IBM's annual Global Location Trend report and in 2014 the city created more jobs than any other city in the world according to the report. [1]

The City also ranks first in the world as the top target for global investors in 2015 [http://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/real-estate-news/united-kingdom/london-real-estate-news/global-property-investor-data-2015-global-investor-intentions-survey-2015-cbre-london-office-property-investors-new-york-commercial-investors-hong-kong-real-estate-investors-9065.php

I was wondering that if above two sentences are encyclopaedic material and therefore if relevant or not??

Also I added information regarding London real estate (below) with but it was removed.

"""London is also home to one of the world's most expensive and exclusive residential addresses such as the $12,000 per square foot (world's most expensive as of 2013) apartment complex One Hyde Park in Knightsbridge http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mhj45edfjh/one-hyde-park-london-u-k/ ,

the nicknamed "billionaires row" Kensington Palace gardens with July 2015 average property prices at over £42 million and another "billionaires row" at The Bishops Avenue""" http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/31/inside-london-billionaires-row-derelict-mansions-hampstead

I wonder what constitutes advertising on wikipedia as the editor who removed my article stated this as promotional material although my intentions is to add relevant and quality material. I am confused because I added this after reading New York City article on wikipedia (economy section) mentioning commercial property prices in their section and sold prices so I am little confused on the relevancy of this material.

Thanks very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciybersal (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Image change

wouldn't it be more presentable to place the photo image as Palace of Westminster, Buckingham Palace and Central London skyline (in that order) instead of Central London skyline, Buckingham Palace and Palace of Westminster? The same image gets tiring sometimes. Rome, Washington, D.C. and other articles of cities changed their main image caption for something better. It's not really changing anything. I'm not taking away the realistic presentation view of London (if that's anyone's concern. I mean if you want to show realism, why not use an image of eastern London?). And if your problem is to show the skyline for some bizarre reason, then keep in mind that the articles of Paris, Washington DC, Moscow and São Paulo either have their skyline on bottom or don't even have skylines at all. (N0n3up (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC))

Capital of England?

London is the largest city in England and the United Kingdom. It is however the capital only of the UK. There is no capital of England.Royalcourtier (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? England is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and AFAIK, London was its capital before other constituent countries were added. LjL (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wording in climate

Out of curiosity why does the article's climate section currently read: "Despite its reputation as being a rainy city, London receives less precipitation (601 mm (24 in) in a year), than Rome, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Naples and even Sydney in Australia, but those are spread over more days."? [emphasis added]

Given that Sydney is - by a wide margin - the rainiest of those cities, the use of the word 'even' seems rather misplaced. Also according to the figures on the respective Wikipedia articles Sydney has 143.8 precipitation days to London's 109.5, so I believe the statement is factually inaccurate as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.242.133.196 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 December 2015‎ (UTC)

I agree. I think the sentence should be better worded. '.. less than many other European cities' for example, or may missed out completely. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Londonium

Londonium does not even have one hit per Ngram Viewer. It must be highly unsuitable for the intro. 2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)