Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Using WikiProject tags

Why having the WikiProject tags in articles is bad and why they should be at the top of talk pages (if at all);

  1. When potential readers see it, they may feel obligated to visit and agree to the WikiProject in order to contribute.
  2. Talk is a page for comments about how to improve the article. The article namespace is not a good place for this.
  3. Whenever we make articles we should try to make it as useful to readers as possible. Ugly tags detract from the article and are not intended for mere readers anyway; WikiProject tags are for contributors who want to majorly add to a set of articles. These people will visit talk anyway.
  4. These tags are self-conscience and considerations on how Wikipedia articles will look in print form are important (these tags will have to be removed before a print version is made, so it is best to limit their use).
  5. WikiProjects are for a set of users to agree on a set of guidelines. Nobody else is bound by those guidelines. However the tag implies that those guidelines should be followed in order to contribute. This is very unwiki.
  6. The major WikiProjects (Countries, Elements and Sports) do not have these type of tags in articles (the talk pages od converted element articles mention who did the conversion and that the conversion was based on WikiProject Elements).
  7. Probably more reasons.

PS I simply watch each of the articles I convert. I then reformat contributions made to the converted articles in order to make sure they don't stray too far from the WikiProject guidelines. That way I don't intimidate potential contributors, and can keep some consistency. --mav

Underground line article benchmarks

"Every London Underground line should have an article of the same level of quality of Central Line."

It's not that I want to blow my own trumpet, but Bakerloo Line and East London Line are far more interesting: they have more than one paragraph of text! While a listing of stations is desired information, it's not the most vital part of an article on a tube line. After all, anyone can grab that information from the LT site in map form. -- Tarquin

Place naming conventions, Part the One

Not convinced by the long and ugly naming conventions of this Project. Probably a better idea to stick with shorter names until ambiguities arise. A compromise is to use "X, London" instead of "X, London, England". --The Cunctator

I agree - Khendon 07:31 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Pointfullness of area articles

Please tell me why, whenever I look at an area of London, all I see is a list of areas near the one I'm interested in, and no info on the actual area. Who ever is doing this, it strikes me as a massive waste of time. If I, for example, look up 'Tooting', I want to know something about the place, not just that it is 'near Balham' (which in turn is 'near Tooting'!) It's all extremely frustrating!

Oh my gosh, I'm new and I added a bit to Twickenham, not knowing about all this - yes, it is a bit offputting for potential contributors; feel I'd better run away and hide. (You can find most of what you want to know at http://www.london.gov.uk/approot/london/links.jsp).

It doesn't help that it's not all that straightforward - eg somewhere it says Middlesex only exists for administrative purposes. Mmm, well, it went away and came back and went, but it still forms part of the (unofficial) postal addresses of places such as Wembley, Uxbridge, Teddington, Hampton, Hounslow, which are now regarded (not necessarily by the residents) as Greater London.

Then there's Kingston on Thames (postcode KT1); the main town of the Royal Borough of Kingston on Thames, but also the county town of Surrey - oh and Richmond upon Thames is in Surrey, but is also a borough .....

As a local, I might be able to answer some questions, but I doubt I could format it in the way you want. (I've only just managed to discover what a talk page is!) -Mrsuk 28/5/03 17:02 BST

Underground station article naming, Part the One

The naming convention is wrong as regards underground and tube stations: "Underground stations: as Piccadilly tube station" Actually tube stations are constructed by driving a tube through the ground and then building a railway inside. Local services are provided by the underground which is constructed by cut and cover. I have been able to correct the Limehouse entry despite some difficulty from someone with the tag Pcb21. Unfortunately far from listing the nearest stations some quite far away Bow Church Road DLR station were included, and others nearer (but not nearest) were ignored - e.g. All Saints DLR. Harry Potter

Eh? This I don't get. You have a problem with the popular nomenclature "tube" because that should only properly refer to deep cut tunnels rather than the shallow cut and cover tunnels or over ground tracks; but you are quite happy for the word underground to refer to lines and stations located on the surface. London Underground themselves used the advertising slogan "It's Quicker By Tube" and their website is http://www.thetube.com/
I am prepared to live with the compromise that the rail network is called the London Underground, even if that gives a misleading impression. Not so long ago I had to wait over a month for the circle line to Holborn, so I don't think we can give any credence to LU adverts. There are different regulations governing the tube and the underground which newcomers to London sometimes don't appreciate, and can at times use the word tube incorrectly. Surely it is not the role of wikipedia to encourage such confusion? Harry Potter.
I am surprised you got to Holborn so quickly on the circle line :-). I reverted your Limehouse edit, Harry, because it talked about someone dying at the hands (tentacles?) of a sea monster at the age of 94. Thus I reverted, assuming your attempts to write an encyclopedia were as poor as they have historically been. I apologize for missing your change to the name of the tube stations. However as it happens I do not think it is the right change. The agreed standard was to use XXX tube/DLR station. as this is quite compact and follows what people actually call the things. The nearest places were detected by getting gridpoints for all tube stations and computing distances between the area of London and each tube stations. If these are wrong then perhaps the point chosen to represent Limehouse was not the best. Pcb21 08:29 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Yeh it surprised me too! As for the tube/underground debate, some people are aware of the distinction, others maybe not. The fact is that it is inaccurate to descibe Bow Road as a tube station. Indeed it may a point to use the term Underground Station, rather than underground station, using the proper name from London Underground. As I recall there are different bye laws regarding tube and underground. This of course may have changed by now. I have some memory of them being challenged a few years ago perhasp by people with wheel chairs or push chairs. I will try and find out more about that. As for inaccuracies in the system, these are likely using any such globalist sytem. I don't see this as an argument for banning such techniques, but for realising their limitations and realising that it is most helpful if people with local knowledge apply that knowledge. Some place names change: e.g. the old Island Gardens DLR station used to be North Greenwich Railway station. As for Westferry DLR station what a misnomer: there is no "West Ferry". There was a single ferry at the bottom of tghe Isle of Dogs. Two roads led there East Ferry Road and West Ferry Road. By removing the substantive word, but leaving the qualifier, DLR have created confusion! Limehouse station is much more in Ratcliffe, and West Ferry is more in Limehouse. I gad a brief look across other London locations, and there seem to be similar problems elsewhere. But I don't see any point in getting our knickers in a twist. Sooner or later people take on developing a site. look at Whitechapel, for instance. Yes, riddled with inaccuracies. i.e. the reference to "The basal population of poor English country stock" is erroneous in that it omits the evry important Huguenot community which went there from the seventeenth century. No reference to Spitalfields, weaving etc. Or what seems to me the first demoinstration against institutional racism which took place there in 1787. But all these will take time to work on. Harry Potter

Place naming conventions, Part the Two

I really think that putting places in the format [[Place, London]] or (even worse) [[Place, London, England]] is silly . If there is ambiguity about placenames (as is the case with Soho) then of course the "London" is necessary, but unless there is ambiguity it just confuses things and is contrary to how other placename articles are named. This arguement that "many places have been named after places in London" seems irrelevent to me - many places have been named after places in Holland, but that doesn't mean we have [[Amsterdam, the Netherlands]]. Unless somebody convinces me otherwise, I'm going to move all places currently with an unnecessary "London" and change the guidelines here. --Camembert

Go for it. I've already moved Camden, for example -- Tarquin 13:35 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well, no objections, so I'm going to change the page and start moving things around. --Camembert 23:24 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

May I suggest that for places outside the US (and Canada?), we use parentheses for disambiguation, as is the usual Wikipedia rule? I understand that American placenames are an exception, because if I understand correctly, Americans really do talk of "Boston, Massachusetts" and the like in everyday speech, whereas British people wouldn't talk of "Soho, London" at all, as far as I am aware. -- Oliver P. 11:54 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I certainly don't object to that (though the whole parentheses vs. comma debate is one I personally am trying to avoid...) --Camembert
I think it would be much better to have something consistent across the world (or even beyond - Sea of Tranquility, Moon. I do not see why we should be influenced by how Americans or British people really do or apparently do talk. We would not write Russian place names in Cyrillic because that's how Russians write. And with commas there is more scope placing increasing large geographic defintions one after another, whereas parentheses can get a bit clumsy. But in the end I feel that because so much has been done on this score in the US, then it seems more sensible to follow them. Ultimately I don't care that much but want consistency, and changing the whole of the US seems a lot of work even if it is found acceptable. --Harry Potter 18:26 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Underground station article naming, Part the Two and Railway station naming

The railway station names are in a mess - some are "Place station", some are "Place rail station" and some are "Place railway station". Which is the correct format and does anyone object to moving a lot of them over? Timrollpickering

Hmm. I think King's Cross railway station, to go with King's Cross St. Pancras tube station. But this isn't Offical Policy, of course.
James F. (talk) 16:38, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
But, if we have railway and tube stations in the same complex, call it Euston station, and make it an article about both. Morwen 17:22, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
We have Clapham Junction, Blackfriars station and Fenchurch Street railway station to name but three. It's not exactly consistent. Timrollpickering 17:23, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, only the first one I'd rename. Blackfriars isn't just a railway station, its a tube station too - and Fenchurch Street has no tube. Maybe they should just all be at 'X station'? Morwen 17:26, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
Those were just three grabbed at random. We also have London Bridge rail station, Charing Cross railway station but Cannon Street station. All three are both tube and rail - and I think Charing Cross tube really needs a page of its own given the lengthy history of the station and multiple name use. Timrollpickering 17:34, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, we do have separate articles about London Bridge railway station and London Bridge tube station, and Charing Cross tube station and Charing Cross railway station. Its only when the article covers both the railway and tube stations that I'm saying it should be at X station. Morwen 17:37, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
How about using the following formula for all London stations:
"Place tube station" for tube only
"Place station" for combined tube and rail
"Place railway station" for rail only
and where the tube and rail stations merit separate articles use the distinction. We can list all manner of rail stations out of line with this but I think it best to move to one consistent format. Timrollpickering 17:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that would be fine. This is what I am aiming for. Morwen 17:45, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
The other question is DLR stations. I think we should keep articles about interchanges with DLR and tube stations at XXX tube station. DLR is not technically part of the tube, but it acts like it is. Obviously we'd keep DLR-only stations at XXX DLR station. Morwen 17:47, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
There's a further question about railway stations that are outside of London, which does crop up on the Thameslink page already. This probably isn't the best place to discuss it (anyone know where is?) but how about applying the same standard to all UK railway stations for further consistency? Timrollpickering 11:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I just edited the history section of London Underground and got rather irritated by all the inconsistencies there (but not irritated enough to fix any ;o) . Though I'd vote for XXX station in all cases (overground, tube, DLR and even Tramlink), unless disambiguation is required. OwenBlacker 22:52, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
In the case of CLapham Junction. It is a junction, there just happens to be a station there too. Mintguy (T) 17:27, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As it happens I created Clapham Junction station, then later someone created Clapham Junction and it overtook my creation in edits, so I merged them at Clapham Junction to preserve most of the edits. Mintguy (T) 17:29, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Given that we're talking about station names - what about apostrophes? On the actual tube map, they use apostrophes, but they don't appear on signs:
Personally, I'd go for the forms with the apostrophes...
James F. (talk) 18:53, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think we need to have something to use as an authorative source to determine each one individually - which in pactice means either the Tube Map, the signs at the stations, an official edict by London Underground or something else. I don't think trying to apply a single rule to each one would work. Timrollpickering 20:21, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Certainly, a standard would be a Good Thing; I suggest that we use the Tube maps' naming (in GIF, PDF formats); this means that we would use "St." over "St" and apostrophes.
Any objectors?
James F. (talk) 21:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Seems reasonable enough to me. Timrollpickering 23:06, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And a possible explanation as to why the London Underground names messy, after observing them on the train home yesterday. A lot of the stations have older signs visible and show evidence of not having been updated in years (this is especially evident on the Hammersmith & City Line where in many places the old tiles and line maps still think it's part of the Metropolitan Line) but the more recent signs, posters and tube maps seem to follow a consistent standard - so it's King's Cross St. Pancras for example. However on the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan Line platforms (at least) there are still ancient tiles that ommit the punctuation because of the way they're designed.
It's only a guess but I assume London Underground has determined a clear standard for each station name and uses it in all the modern literature. But station upgrades cost money and replacing signs, tiles and indicator boards all over the system just because someone has determined that an apostophre should be there is rather foolish when you've got essential maintenance, line extensions and train stock replacements all begging for cash. Timrollpickering 10:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm with James F.'s suggestion of using the tube map's naming conventions. Easy to look up, easy to keep consistent. OwenBlacker 22:52, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Names should re-direct to boroughs

moved from Talk:London Borough of Croydon

I propose that names such as Croydon, Southwark etc should as defualt be re-directs to the London boroughs of the same name, as opposed to being about the historic "core" areas of the boroughs, unless there is good reason to do otherwise. As references to these names are far more likely to refer to the boroughs than the core areas.

And that the present articles about the core areas of London boroughs should be moved to something like say Southwark, Southwark or Southwark (town).

Anyone agree/disagree G-Man 13:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well if no-one objects, then I'll asume its ok to do that then G-Man 12:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it may depend on what is most linked to. With Camden for example it us much more likely to be a reference to Camden Town than to LB Camden. With Southwark and Lambeth it is more likely to be the other way round. Secretlondon 18:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think Brent should be about the borough too [if it isn't already], and probably Westminster. What about Hackney? Morwen 18:50, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
I've just been looking at the Hackney mess, since I live there. Obviously the London_Borough_of_Hackney is fine, though it needs much filling out, but the Hackney piece is covering the old LCC area, which is, in my view, an obsolete definition. And most people will simply type 'Hackney' on a search and come up with this page, not the borough.
I was wondering if a 'systemic' approach could be taken to disambiguating these terms. If we just look at Hackney (the same applies to, for example, Islington) , there are three distinct meanings:
1) The modern borough (valid)
2) The LCC borough (obsolete, in my opinion)
3) The neighbourhood roughly surrounding the town hall (valid, but should probably be called Hackney Central or something like that.)
The criteria of validity should be to do with what people say when you ask them where you live. They will generally either refer to the modern borough or their immediate neighbourhood (or their postcode come to that), not the old LCC borough - unless this happens to coincide with their neighbourhood (for example, Stoke_Newington - slight muddle between the modern N16 and the old LCC borough, here. Very little of N16 was destroyed in the blitz, but a lot of the LCC borough was).
One approach would be to provide a data structure leading from London_County_Council that points up to the modern borough, and down to the 'neighbourhood' entries. (The modern borough entry would also point down to the neighbourhoods, but they usually do that already...).
[Later entry - Oops, I've just discovered that we have old LCC listings under the heading of 'Metropolitan borough of...'. There just isn't enough cross-linking. So all we need to do is wikify the whole thing a lot more. We need those disambiguation pages, frankly.]
But If necessary, useful info could be provided on the old LCC borough if this was of historical interest (Poplar comes to mind straight away - this is an encyclopedia after all, and London history is important). Explicit disambiguation pages should also be provided.
Oh, and yes - names should re-direct to boroughs where applicable, but with a disambiguation link, if my rough schema above were to be followed.
It's a bit of work, but I think it would unmuddy the waters a lot.
Tarquin Binary 12:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Does eveyone agree that this should happen? G-Man 12:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not 100% convinced. As someone who grew up living near "Croydon", for me the term has long meant the large town. In particular the railway stations called "Croydon" relate to the town, whilst Norbury, Selhurst, Waddon etc... have stations of their own names. And I'm think I'm right that road signs for "Croydon" similarly refer to the town. There's a strong case to have pages for all the towns that gave their names to boroughs - in particular for things like the histories of the towns it can be very complicated if the only place to put them is the history of a wider political entity.
Maybe as a compromise keep Croydon as a redirect to the London Borough of Croydon and put the old contents of Croydon up at Croydon, London, Croydon town or something. I agree it needs more content - I can always dig up some of the town's history and put it there (the railway in particular has some stuff). Timrollpickering 00:29, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thats pretty much what I had proposed G-Man 17:15, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

With regard to my above suggestions, I've been looking at Hackney again, and the clean-up task is nowhere near as bad as I was thinking earlier - the key being disambiguation. (In the case of Hackney, we are additionally not being helpful to people looking for hackney horses or cabs without disambiguation, anyway.) So, when I get a bit of time, I will have a go at cleaning up my home town :)

Tarquin Binary 13:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The OP here was right, it has to be a re-direct to the Borough page. I experimented with plonking a Hackney disambiguation page in straight away, but there are so many links in from other articles this would just inconvenience users, so now I just have a link to Hackney disambiguation on the Hackney Borough page. Have renamed the original 'Hackney', Hackney Central, but right now it contains a lot of LCC or even modern borough info. I'm happy to do a general clean-up though, so will work on it later.

Tarquin Binary 15:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

London Politics

I've been doing some work on London local government which could be tied into this Wikiproject. See Metropolitan Board of Works, London County Council, Greater London Council, Inner London Education Authority. Then there are the London politicians: List of heads of London government indexes most; John Thwaites, James Macnaghten Hogg, Herbert Morrison, Charles Latham, 1st Baron Latham, Isaac Hayward, Bill Fiske, Desmond Plummer, Reg Goodwin, Horace Cutler, Ken Livingstone, Christopher Chataway, Lena Townsend, Ashley Bramall, Bryn Davies, Frances Morrell, and Neil Fletcher. Dbiv 20:57, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

--- {{SampleWikiProject}}

Station Categories

I've given the underground and docklands categories a major update so that the lists are current as of 10/Oct/04. What would be a good course of action to keep them current in the future apart from quiet monitoring of the three lists?

BesigedB 13:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tram stops

Please can we agree to call the Tramlink alighting and boarding places stops. It is ridiculous to give two low open platforms the elevated title of station. In the days of steam such a place would be called an halt. See this article which mentions Bingham Road Halt - where Addiscombe tram stop is now and Spencer Road Halt - where the Boy Scout hut is now. -- RHaworth 05:45, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Hmm - what about those that used to be railway stations? And there are some current railway stations that aren't much more than that - the current incarnation of Epsom Downs for one. Timrollpickering 10:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Tricky that one - on the one hand, I would say Epsom Downs should be downgraded (pun intended) to the status of 'Halt' but on the other hand, it qualifies for the title of 'Terminus' - often a more prestigious title than mere 'station'. -- RHaworth 13:04, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
I certainly refer to them as tram stops myself and feel we need redirects at the very least with that terminology. I have used tram station so far though as per the guidelines set out, but we can change them, of course. It is important that we have some measure of consistency, however, with the other planned London tram systems and tram and metro systems elsewhere. I'm open to what that should be. Where there are other services, we should just use Xxx station, especially for those where the trams use railway station platforms, but even where they are adjacent to one another. Addiscombe meanwhile should have three separate articles for the tram stop and the two relevant demolished stations (or halt). Mtiedemann 15:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On the passenger-oriented official Tramlink site I could find neither 'station' nor 'stop' used. The more anorak-oriented unofficial site is in no doubt that they are 'stops': http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/info/infra/stops.shtml. -- RHaworth 13:04, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

I agree entirely that these should be called stops. I "corrected" one or two articles not imagining for one moment that there was actually a convention of calling them stations. They always were called stops - ever since London first had trams. The only possible exceptions were in the Kingsway tram subway where present day terminology is inconsistent and I am not 100% sure of the contemporary convention.

My argument is: i) TfL uses the terms stops - consistently

ii) Croydon Council uses the term stops - consistently

iii) a search engine will not return any relevant entries for Centrale Station but will for Centrale Stop

iv) Nearly all passengers call them stops

v) Anoraks call them stops

vi) As far as I am aware, no-one has presented an argument for calling tram stops stations

vii) the Wikipedia article on Tramlink calls them stops. Indeed if you were to call them stations it would make the article more difficult to read as it would often not immediately be clear to which you were referring - the tram stop or the railway station next to it.

So if everyone else calls them stops why can't we ?

I think we ought to set a date for changing it and if no-one object we just start to change it after that date.Pedantic of Purley 10:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No argument - they are normally called stops so why call them anything else. But as an aside regarding the statement, "They always were called stops - ever since London first had trams": London's previous tram network was not much like Tramlink, it was much more like a bus network and the stops were simply signs like bus stops are. Tramlink is much more closely related to the suburban railways and the stops are more like suburban railway halts than bus stops. Mucky Duck 11:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to be awkward I was going to say what about Wimbledon which is obviously a station as its part of the greater Underground/National Rail station but I thought to be clever and looking on tfl.gov.uk. They describe two of the 'stops' as 'stations - Wimbledon and 'Elmers End'(see http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/maps/route1.shtml#) For consistency I would have thought that New Addington should be called a station (although tfl have not yet) as then all the terminal points of the line are then stations (or the alternative which is Junction (probably a contraction of Junction Station)) Johnmarkh 12:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Wimbledon, Beckenham Junction and Elmers End are 'stations' as they also have mainline rail services. New Addington doesn't. I think that should be the standard for whatever we hammer out for the names, so that New Addington is either NA tram stop or NA tram station. Mtiedemann 13:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You could argue that, for example, East Croydon or Mitcham Junction are "stations" on that basis. I'd call them all stops for consistency. I suspect that even at Wimbledon which is the most station-like stop on the network, people tend to think of it as the "tram stop at Wimbledon station" rather than the "Wimbledon tram station". Mucky Duck 13:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we in the business of deciding to call something x just for consistency - or even on the basis of what they are popularly called ?

Wiktionary defines

Station as 'A place where a vehicle (especially a train) may stop' and

Stop as 'A (usually marked) place where line buses or trams halt to let passengers get on and off'

The West Midlands Metro which almost exclusively runs along an old railway track bed only uses 'stops' even where there are at a mainline station. Still if tfl call two of them stations.... (NB I know this is off slightly subject but one of my pet hates is on the Kings Cross mainline trains to Scotland where they say things like 'Newcastle is your next station stop' combining the two concepts 'argh'. sorry forgot to sign Johnmarkh 14:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think TfL do call Wimbledon or Elmers End "stations". What's going on here is that they are tram stops at Wimbledon Station and Elmers End Station, not that they are tram stations. In other words "Station" is part of the name, not part of the description. Follow the links and it talks about them as stops. Mucky Duck 08:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for lack of action here. Having finished doing exams I see that in the intervening period most articles have already been changed to stops. I have therefore taken the plunge and changed the guidlines so that it is clear that "stop" is the approved term.--Pedantic of Purley 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know why I hesitated on this change. Wikipedia has an article entitled Tram stop that is years old and to me is conclusive that the correct decision has been made.--Pedantic of Purley 20:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikitravel

The article, Hidden London, has been marked for "move to Wikitravel" because it appears to be more appropriate for that part of the project. I thought so and saw that an earlier editor agreed. Articles about notable sites are appropriate here, as are the lists of those sites. But special lists, like "hidden London", are in the realm of tour information. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

London stub?

It's been pointed out on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting that the UK-geo-stub category is getting very large, and could do with being split. A London stub has been mooted, though there might be some interest here. Alai 05:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, the suggestion is here. Alai 05:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: A London-geo-stub has been created. Stubs about London can now be found in (and assigned to) various different stub categories:

Grutness|hello? 05:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

London Wikicity scratchpad

Wikia is not a WikiMedia project. It's an external project.

To explore the possibility of building a Wikicity for London, I've started a miniwiki. Please feel free to play around if you're interested. Use it as a sandbox.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New entry check

Hi guys, I've just created a new page for Queen's Park, as it was linked on the Queen's Park tube station page, but didn't actually exist as a page! Have I created it in keeping with the standard layout?, i.e. info table and nearest places/tubes/stations. I'll also take a photo of the park and stick it on the page.

Is anyone still on this project?

I know a shedload of people who might want to be :) I'm asking because the datestamps here are so old. I think there are major ontological and encyclopedic problems¹ with the overall presentation of Wiki-London (never mind clean-up problems) - be nice to be able to discuss them, but no-one seems to be at home?

¹ For example the Borough->Met borough->district thing I was fretting about earlier. That's just ontology - the encyclopedic problems are even worse...

Tarquin Binary 23:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Peevish post removed. Sorry.

Tarquin Binary 14:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Shoudn't have removed peevish post, actually. You people are totally asleep at the wheel, innit? I can say almost anything here, and you won't notice a blooming thing. Bugger - that does not make me happy.

But, am I bovvered? Look at my face, am I bovvered?

Tarquin Binary 03:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just got here. I just got a new digital camera, so I'm going to celebrate by going out and taking pictures of stuff in West London.

James barton 04:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Icons

The London geo stub and London infobox both use the arms of the City of London as their icon. I suggest that this is most inappropriate: It's rather like using a French flag to represent Europe. Can we change it to something more representative? Mucky Duck 11:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That's been nagging at me too. The problem is that there are only two real alternatives - revive the heraldic crest of the LCC/GLC, which looks good (much better than all those fussy borough crests) or use the current GLA logo. The latter is the only thing that really makes sense, but I'm betting it probably needs permission - can try and find out. Both images are shown here: [Flags of the World]
Oh - and we do have a flag in an alternate universe - [Simon Hughes' London Flag Competition] - can't say I'm much impressed by what was on offer.
I'd suggest there's a third alternative, that nothing at all is better than what we have. It's just a picture for picture's sake at the moment. Mucky Duck 16:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. But I'd be happy to go totally POV and use the LCC/GLC crest. It looks good and it is the only available inner/greater London crest available. No legals either.
Tarquin Binary 14:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
It isn't ideal as Greater London has little in the way of symbols. However, the City of London doesn't exist in complete isolation from the rest of London. You only have to click on the little shield image to learn that it was photographed on a bridge on the Greater London boundary with Buckinhamshire. Mrsteviec 14:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The City is a part of London so in that sense it "doesn't exist in complete isolation", but it certainly isn't London any more than, say, Barnet is. I do not know about the specific Bucks case but the fact that the arms were photographed there means nothing: You can photograph it in a number of places where the corporation owns land, for example - Riddlesdown in Kenley would be an example. Mucky Duck 15:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, it's a coal tax post. Even more so is this irrelevant to current day London. Mucky Duck 15:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Don't go funny on us, MD, you done good so far :)
It does come across a bit crabby, doesn't it. I didn't mean it to be: Apologies to all concerened and to Mrsteviec in particular. Mucky Duck 16:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah this is rubbish, but using the old LCC/GLC crest might help - we are under no legal obligation to use the flag of the bloody City. Hell, Guys, let's do it. Mrsteviec, how about we organise this?


This is what I mean:


Tarquin Binary 01:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I have made this change to the three offending templates and the results are pleasing. I do hope nobody dares suggest it is innapropriate as it is a symbol for a defunct authority. In this event I would direct them to the signage of the church at Limehouse which has escaped updating since 1986 and still bears these arms. I'm sure there are other examples. Mrsteviec 17:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


Wow, my upload is all over the place (Been away, too embarrassed to check for it). OK...
Given that we have no crest or standard for the GLA, I think London should be awakened to this crest/flag. 'cos it don't ponse about - it says we are *the* capital city (crown) and the waves bit says we have in fact got a river close at hand, like you do. Very materialist and rationalist crest IMO - no blooming unicorns rampant, lions passant or whatever...
Just a Blakeian vision ;) It'll work for Wikipedia, though, I guess.
Tarquin Binary 06:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Further info on it here Mrsteviec 07:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I know the history, read enough Ackroyd for a start, but that crest ain't got no blooming unicorns on it and that counts for something. Ok, '...barry wavy argent and azure.' I don't care that some strange heraldic folk have funny terms for silver (for which read, in fact, *white*) and blue. Just a bit of design nous is good - and no lions rampant, pullease? And hold the griffins, OK? Bauhaus would not have approved, but the damn thing beats a modern corporate logo by a long chalk.
It's a great logo in its own right - and it looks even better in the GLA shot you linked. But the GLA have not officially adopted it, all they have is a crummy corporate logo that will never stand for the whole of London.
Tarquin Binary 07:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing articles and stubs, things to do

Apart from stuff in Category:London geography stubs I thought it might be useful to have somewhere to add articles that are missing, stubby, or need illustrating, as I found a few recently. Please add to this list...

Much of Hackney still consists of stubs, but working on it. Not much missing in terms of districts there, true. With regard to pix, I can immediately replace the Shoreditch Town Hall PA Photo pic with one of mine, which I've used for the Metrpolitan Borough. Also since it's in my manor, was going to try and get some shots of Columbia Road Market soonest.
Oh, I'd also note that the Geffrye Museum pix are downright illegal. I only have external shots of my own, which aren't too bad, but it would be nice to have interiors. I'm not sure about their photo policy, it might be allowed to take interior pix wihout flash...
Tarquin Binary 19:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Cool. I have ifd the Geffrye museum ones and removed them from the article, so if you could put an exterior up (its a nice exterior after all) that would be cool. Suspect their interior policy is restrictive, but it might be worth trying to negotiate, especially if we improve the text first. The PA photos are not very good quality anyway, so I am inclined to start deleting them from the articles now before replacing, these places are getting other illustrations. I have a vaguely ok one of Finsbury Town Hall. If you are around there you could do some for Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood - I stuck a quick exterior as I was walking past (not that good), and their interiors policy might be better. Justinc 20:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, putting Geffrye and Shoreditch shots up in a moment. The Geffrye interior policy is pretty fierce, yes, I just checked their website. They do think in terms of whole photo crews, though, not just one bod with a crummy digital like me.
On the PA front, their Shoreditch shot is actually better than mine, but I couldn't get that angle with that lighting without getting run over. I'm adding a higher-res version behind a thumb this time, though. Bethnal Green is on my notional list, funnily enough. Their website does not say anything about interior photos - I suspect that they may be more amiable, though, as you say.
Oh, and while we're on museums, here is where the Missing really show up: List_of_London_museums. No doubt some of these missing links could be deleted, but it would be nice to save them if possible. I have a soft spot for the little Hackney Museum, for example.
Tarquin Binary 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Ive deleted the PA ones from the articles, just about to ifd all of them. The running over think is a hazard, but their pictures are very low res even if posed well. My one under Finsbury wasnt very good at all, but its a placeholder. I will look over List of Museums and pick my favourites. Justinc 21:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, a number of mine are no better than placeholders, but better than nowt I hope - I've been trying to get at least one pic for every district entry in Hackney, but might overspill into Islington and Tower Hamlets too. Good collection of town hall pix building up now, if you like that kind of thing - photo gallery opportunity for local government anoraks there :) Anyway, replacement shots are now up. A little dark, like yours (in spite of heavy photoshopping) but I do keep taking shots near sunset in autumn. I think I may be able to fix that Finsbury pic some - I'll have a go. Tarquin Binary 21:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:London parks and commons

I haven't been involved with any of this up until now, but I came across the above category recently. I have commented on that category article's discussion page, to the effect that it seems that it leaves itself open to thousands of entries. Each London Borough has around 100 pieces of open space, not counting other-than-borough-owned, all of which make up the pattern that provides the lungs by which the London conurbation breathes. Articles so far range from Hyde Park to a small recreation ground in West London, and none link up with others, even though some are interconnected. I have begun on a series of articles called XXX parks and open spaces (to my mind a better title than parks and commons, since the Boroughs tend to use that epithet). Maybe the Borough articles themselves should allude to the fact that the green areas are important? Peter Shearan 14:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of a separate 'Open Spaces' content heading on Hackney (which is the main thing I've been working on). The Victoria Park piece keeps building up, and have yet to say very much about others e.g London Fields, Clissold Park, The Marshes. So, yes, good idea I'd say. Tarquin Binary 16:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Help with merge

A58(M) motorway and A64(M) motorway need to be merged. How this should be done I really don't know - anyone able to assist with this? Any merging, btw, should use Category:Articles to be merged instruction. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are London Buses red?

A person on the Reference Desk has asked why Buses in London are red. Our article is quite detailed but doesn't explain the reason. I have looked at the Routemaster and Double-decker bus articles and they don't explain why either. If you know the answer, could you please drop me a line on the talk page. You might also want to amend the relevant article/s. Capitalistroadster 05:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Peter Ackroyd in his Biography of London simply considers red to be London's traditional colour. He has quite a good passage about it, involving lots of blood and fire, which I will look out. One might also want to cite red phone boxes, the red George's cross and sword on the City flag and surmounting the old GLC crest (the GLA retains red too as the dominant colour on its logo). Perhaps the traditional red of fire engines originates in London, though I am not at all sure of this. I'm sure there are other examples, but I'm a bit braindead right now. I suppose another answer might be that in a smokey grimy, foggy city, red really makes you stand out (doesn't work too well that one, because Merseyside buses used to be traditionally green, OTOH, maybe any primary colour will do, OTOH again, why were Hackney carriages, until recently, black then?).
Heh - I'm not sure there can be a precise answer to this... Tarquin Binary 07:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
You've gopt to remember also that at one time buses in London were red but those which went to districts in the home counties from London were green ("Green Line" buses). So perhaps it was simpy two different colours for differentiation of the two diferent types of route. Grutness...wha? 08:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The "Green Line" coaches were special express services. It was London Country that served the outlying districts with green buses. Mucky Duck 18:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

An answer of sorts can be found at website of London's Transport Museum: http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/research/faqs/2.shtml#FAQ2

London Portal

I've posted this same thing in the Talk:London page - basically I decided that London, being the world's greatest city (excuse the bias), deserved a proper portal as a means of streamlining the access of the thousands and thousands of London-related pages on Wikipedia. The London page is by far the most Wiki-linked city, but the main article is already overlength and cannot possibly go into detail about all the things there are to talk about in London.

Long story short, I've created a Portal and, after spending hours trying to figure out how the hell the boxes and stuff work, managed to get some decent starting stuff online. But based on the New York portal, there is a long, long way to go. Just brief browsing brings you to an unbelieveably dense clutter of London-related pages that are all intertwined but not centrally linked. Thus, a successful portal will link directly to the said aims of WikiProject London, and therefore would be an excellent addition to Wiki.

SO, please go to the portal and correct any crap I've put in, and generally help get London up and above New York.

Oh yeah, and consider me in on the WikiProject London scheme too.

Deano 11:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant idea, especially since London appears to be 27th most accessed against 34th for NYC. (Friendly rivalry I hope, very fond of NYC myself.)
Having said that, there are some problems. There are a fair few typos, not surprising given the massive job you've done. I'm going to read and correct those in just a moment. But the borough map screws up on my Firefox - it bleeds the right-hand borough index into the right hand column. I'm not sure why this is yet. However the borough map is a little clumsy in this context, I might have a go at knocking out a better one just for the Portal page.
But nicely done overall, even if we do now have yet another target for vandals :) How do the featured pix/articles get nominated, by the way? Tarquin Binary 17:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a good idea, nicely done and well overdue. Thanks. Mrsteviec 17:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Have made some corrections, further comments on Portal discussion page. Tarquin Binary 18:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I agree about the borough map, but that was the best I could find for the situation. Thanks for correcting the typos - there were loads! Anyway, comments on the Portal discussion. Thanks again. Deano 19:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Shortcut

Shortcut

I can never remember the exact wording of this page, so I've created a nice little shortcut: WP:Lon. Perhaps stick it onto the actual page? Deano 20:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

New stub category

London has another new stub template and category! For buildings and other human-made structures in London, there is now {{London-struct-stub}}. feeding into Category:London buildings and structures stubs. Grutness...wha? 09:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Showcase articles/pictures

The London Portal is now registering votes for next month's Featured Article and Featured Picture. Please vote:

Deano 10:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Might be nice to get one (or more?) of the district or borough articles up to featured standard. Mrsteviec 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah at the moment I could only find these featured articles relating to London. It's for that reason we renamed the section "Showcase article" - it does not have to be a WP:FA. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 10:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template

The London EyeThis user participates in
WikiProject London.

You can now add the template {{User WPLondon}} to your user page. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 21:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)

The naming convention for stations is being discussed in a few places at the moment, so I've set up Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) to agree the standard. Thryduulf 13:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

another new stub

hi everyone. the stubsorting project has just made {{London-railstation-stub}} for all railway stations in london (not tube tho since thats already got {{LUL-stub}}) so the new Category:London railway station stubs might be useful for you. were slowly moving things into it from Category:UK railway station stubs (if you want to help please do :). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Further subdivision of London districts by category

Someone has created a Category:Kilburn and a Category:Bloomsbury has been created before and CFD saw it deleted. Subdividing the London borough cats is fraught with problems as they are the lowest level that London is clearly further divided (and understood) other than wards which are only ever known very locally and even then they are not very representative of reality. Parliamentary constituencies are not considered a geographical reference framework either and cross borough boundaries. There is a strong rationale for further categorisation as some cats have 200+ articles in them now. The way I see it there are several options:

Option 1. Leave alone and allow any sub categories to be created such as “Kilburn”, “Shoreditch” and let two or more categories be applied in overlap areas – so many “Shoreditch” places also categorised as “Hoxton”. Potential problems: 1. edit warring over boundaries. 2. Confusion of Camden (area) vs. Camden (borough) etc. 3. A category for an area that straddles a borough boundary will probably be put in the categories of both boroughs which is ok but the articles in the area categories will definitely be in one borough or another and this classification will be lost as they will now all be in both borough categories (or possibly three in some places – Highgate, Crystal Palace etc.)

Option 2. We devise a categorisation scheme. Maybe using wards (although they are usually out of touch with reality) or maybe by some other means we decide up front the boundaries of the sub districts. Problems: 1. difficult to police as new users will simply not know about out scheme or agree with it. 2. Agreeing a naming scheme in the first place will be tough and time consuming (but not impossible) .

Option 3. We use no further sub division. Problem 1: Many borough cats have 200+ articles it would be good to subdivide. 2. People like to subdivide and someone will eventually create more sub cats as they have before. We can’t CFD every single one.

Option 4. We leave the district categories as they are and do not used sub category districts because of the problems outlined . However, we also categorise each article by postal district. These are used as shorthand by many people and have definite boundaries and have legitimacy in the minds of readers (unlike wards). So for example Buckingham Palace will be in Westminster and SW1 categories. Problems: 1. postcode boundaries do sometimes change (but quite rarely). 2. A name would be clearer to an uninitiated reader than a code. 3. Postal districts are only really used as place names in the London postal district and probably shouldn’t be used to categorise places outside the LPD.

I prefer option 4 as it is the only one to have some legitimacy and clearly defined boundaries and be smaller than the london boroughs. What do others think? Mrsteviec 16:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I dislike using postal districts - although they are clearly defined and well-known to residents and frequent visitors (and estate agents), they're not very well-known to people who don't live or work in the appropriate postal district. Boroughs pose a similar problem - their boundaries can be somewhat arbitrary - but at least they have "human" names, which postal districts lack (I dislike the Parisian "arrondissements" for a similar reason!)
My initial feeling is to allow subcategorisation of the boroughs (with borough categories renamed to distinguish them from areas with the same name, e.g. Camden) as per Option 1. Regarding the third problem you mention, the only solution I can see to that is to put articles in both an area category and a borough category, which wouldn't solve the problem of having 200+ articles in a borough category. Then again, since subcategories are listed first, people have the option of either drilling down further to a local area, or seeing all the articles relevant to the borough. -- Dave A 17:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't a more obvious solution be to subcategorise on a non-geographic basis... I.E. by subject area - education / attractions / stations etc. ? This would provide a solution that avoids further (ambiguous) geographic subdivision. Have a look at the UK education categories - they work very well (as an unrelated guide) by combining geography with type of school (private/grammar/comprehensive etc.). DJR (Talk) 21:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
So do you suggest something like Attractions in Hammersmith & Fulham or Education in Camden? That seems like a good idea, although I'd still be a little concerned over the unfamiliarity of borough names, and of their possible confusion with areas bearing the same name (e.g. Camden, Southwark). My other minor concern would be that people sometimes identify particular places much more with local areas than official boroughs - e.g. Canary Wharf might be associated with Docklands or the Isle of Dogs rather than Tower Hamlets. But I still think it's a good idea. -- Dave A 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Having a quick look at Category:Camden, my first impression is that you could immediately do Transport in Camden, Arts and Culture in Camden and possibly Education in Camden. After things have been re-categorised, you can see what's been left behind. The advantage here is that the subdivisions can then additionally stem back to the main categories for London for transport/culture/whatever, creating a more effective web. DJR (Talk) 22:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I'd go along with that. -- Dave A 22:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly agree with that scheme. But do we make a definite decision not to further sub cat by district? And therefore remove any further sub cats like Category:Kilburn that get created?
Yes... for now at least. Although I wouldn't nominate it for CfD until we've begun to implement the new cat system. DJR (Talk) 20:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

West London sub-article

I've just noticed that, unlike South London, North London and East London, West London does not have its own sub-article, and instead redirects back to the main London page - which is very confusing. Would anyone have any objectives to the creation of this article? I'm sure we could argue about the definition of West London there... --Dave A 15:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've considered writing this article but the stumbling point was where exactly to include. In any case it will be a good article to have. Mrsteviec 15:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It would indeed be a good article to have. I have no objections in the creation of this article. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I more than support the creation of this article - it is almost crucial, given the new layout of the main London article! As a starting point, take the text that was on the old London article - have a browse in the history... actually, I'll find the link and get back to you. DJR (Talk) 21:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Well here's the link but I notice that the article has already been created and is already very good quality. I was going to suggest using the old "West London" section from the main article (that was removed through the enclosed diff link) as a starting point. DJR (Talk) 21:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I've incorporated much of that old section now (and added some photos). --Dave A 11:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

HELP!

argh! I was just updating the P:L Portal for May, and something went mad and the whole thing has gone crazy! And it can't turn it back or do anything! I have no idea what has happened! Please help, somebody! Cheers, DJR (Talk) 13:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry - fixed it! DJR (Talk) 14:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Museums fork

A new article is being created at Historical London travel guide which appears to be a fork of List of museums in London. Comments are invited. At this moment the discussion is at Talk:History of London#Travel Guide as a separate page but it may get moved to talk:Historical London travel guide. -- RHaworth 07:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

P:L box for definitions

I propose adding a new portal box all about defining London and it's myriad of aliases and sub-division. I'm presuming that anyone who reads this will ignore it, and I'm really typing it just so that I remember it next time I log on... but if anyone wants to beat me to it then I will be over the moon! DJR (Talk) 23:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Area format

The district articles mostly have an introduction with the format "A is a place in the London Borough of B. It is a (sub)urban development x miles N/W/S/E of Charing Cross." It's consistent, which is fair enough, but I find it awkward and uninformative. The casual visitor - ie anybody not from London - is unlikely to be familiar with the London boroughs or with the convention of taking Charing Cross as the centre of London, so those bits of information are going to mean little to them. Furthermore, "place" sounds like the wrong word to me and would be better replaced by "area" or "district".

I think "A is an area of N/W/S/E London" should be the opening sentence, followed by any relevant information such as what the district is known for, or a general description of its character. Borough information doesn't need to be in the first sentence - "north London" is more informative to most people than "London Borough of Haringey" - and the distance from Charing Cross is not that important either. See Hampstead for what I think they ought to look like. Thoughts? Lfh 10:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree about changing "place" for "area" or "district", I disagree with removing the Borough information. The whole point in linking terms like London Borough of Camden or whatever is so that any ambiguity if solved just by clicking on the link. The most accurate description of a place (IMHO) is to state the place, then state its next highest geographical area, etc. Therefore, A is an area is in London Borough of B. To me, having to remove "London Borough of B" and replace it with "north London" is just dumbing down... it's like what you see in the simple english wikipedia. The reference to Charing Cross is particularly apt as it is something epole do not know, and therefore should be emphasised, not neglected. People who do not understand would simply click on Charing Cross, rather than wondering what the hell is going on. Those who don't care won't care. Bar changing "place" for area/district, I would not like to see any significant changes to introductory paragraphs. DJR (Talk) 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I also agree about the use (misuse?) of the word "place", and have commented elsewhere on it. The other words mentioned, with perhaps "settlement" in some instances, are far better. It is also the fact that a great many of them were individual villages or hamlets before being swallowed up by the "Great Wen", and a note about their history would reveal that. Peter Shearan 16:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have altered the relevant wording on the WikiProject main page. Feel free to change it if you disagree with how it is set out. DJR (Talk) 12:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Large query

Shouldn't the article on London be a part of this project? I have just had a quick look and there seems to be nothing on there to indicate this. Simply south 16:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been implicitly mentioned several times, but I have made it nice and explicit now anyway. DJR (Talk) 09:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Improved location mapping for London

I've adapted a graphic template devised by our Croatian friends to create what will hopefully be an improved method of providing locator maps for London places. It's no longer necessary to create a separate locator map for each location. Instead, all you need to do is to specify a set of coordinates for the location in question and add them to the following template:

{{location map|Greater London|label=<place>|position=<left/right>|width=<number of pixels>|lat=<latitude>|long=<longitude>|caption=<whatever, leave blank if you don't want one>|float=<left/right/none>}}
Richmond is located in Greater London
Richmond
Richmond

Here's a practical example. Richmond upon Thames is at coordinates 51.4556, -0.3014. We want a small 150px wide locator map without a caption, and with the placename right-aligned to avoid it sticking out of the side of the map. The map on the right is produced using this code:

{{location map|Greater London|label=Richmond|position=right|width=150|lat=51.4556|long=-0.3014|caption=|float=right}}

See Template:Location map for more information and further instructions on syntax.

To obtain the coordinates for any given place, all you need to do is look it up on Multimap and look for the coordinates in the "Map Information" box; you will need the digital coordinates (the numbers with four decimal points), not the analogue ones (the traditional degrees, minutes and seconds). -- ChrisO 23:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty cool. Is general consensus to add this as a major "To-Do" for the WikiProject? DJR (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be incorporated into the existing Infobox? The layout gets difficult otherwise. See the Brentford article for an example of the mish-mash that can result - and I see no elegant way of sorting it out. :-( WLD 11:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Definitely - I'll see if I can create a new field in the infobox. DJR (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay all you have to do is change the template heading to use {{Infobox London Place}}, then enter the latitude/longitude as fields as illustrated in the usage notes. We should try to update as many pages as possible, methinks. DJR (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
All 400+ should be converted. When adding the co-ords it is worth checking if the London Assembly data goes to a redirect or a dab page as the constituency articles did not exist when the template was originally created. Mrsteviec 12:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok I've just moved the template to a less cumbersome name that will also make it easier to change pages quickly. And yeah we should check all those things. This could be a long haul... DJR (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"with map" is much clearer as to what it does. It should be moved back. Mrsteviec 12:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It does exactly the same thing with or without a map, and the basic infobox should have a map. Are you suggesting {{Infobox London}} should be moved to {{Infobox London with map}} because it has a map? Geographic infoboxes should all have a maps. DJR (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. Where do you get that idea from? Mrsteviec 12:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You are acting wholly irrationally. Please calm down and stop reverting changes as soon as I make them. Infoboxes have maps in them. They do not need to say "with map" for this to be the case. Adding useless extensions like this just make it harder for us when we change them to the new format. It is senseless that you have moved it back, and I am going to re-instate it at the old page. If you want to keep it at "with map" then feel free, but it is not fair that other people should have to suffer from extra work because of your stubborness. This is a collaborative project and we are trying to make things easier. Perhaps take a moment to think whether you are helping to achieve that. DJR (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My rationale was simply that we have many similar infoboxes for places and they follow similar naming. Why should this be any different?

Someone who has not had the pleasure of reading this conversation will not immediately see the significance of a "p" vs. "P" but the standard notation makes it clear. Mrsteviec 13:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I disagree with every single one of them. All geographic infobox templates should have a map - no questions asked. No template should have to be distinguished as "with map", because the basic template should have a map. If you are really against maps then it is very easy to make a field optional, but either way it is absolutely senseless having two templates when only one is needed. DJR (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is against maps? It just so happens that there are some articles that have infoboxes with maps and some that don't. Mrsteviec 14:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Final conclusion

To include the map in the infobox, simply add the fields "Longitude" and "Latitude" into the existing infobox structure (i.e. {{infobox London place}}, and the map will automagically appear! DJR (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Very nice! But something seems to have happened to the embedded caption - the placename no longer appears in the map. Is this intentional? -- ChrisO 09:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the history, it appears it has been removed. I think it's fairly self-explanatory what the dot is referring to in any case, so I don't think it's that crucial to include it. DJR (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject tag

This template can be substituted to reduce server load. Do a "What links here" on Wikipedia:WikiProject London or the image to see how widely it has been applied. Mrsteviec 07:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument. If the template is changed at any time, it will be automatically updated in all its inclusions. If it is substituted then this will create hours of donkey-work as inclusions will be impossible to track down. The WikiProject and the image are linked in lots of pages that are not relevant - using these as lists will be wrong. Finally, server load is not compromised in any way by transluding a template - even meta templates are not an issue and have been cleared by the community at large. The whole point in a template is to be transcluded. DJR (T) (WC) 16:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, see WP:SUBST: "Template substitution is a permanent change that removes functionality; it should generally be avoided without a good reason". Somehow I doubt this would be stated it quite such explicit words if server load was that major an issue. DJR (T) (WC) 16:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Kew

An anon has been adding what seems to be nonsense and is at the very least not very relevant info to Kew- see e.g. [1]. I rv'ed 3 times but I'm reluctant to do so a fourth time because I'm worried about violating 3RR, since this case is not unambiguously vandalism. Messages on the Kew talk page and the user's own talk have so far not met with any response, although I'm fairly confident they've been read. Thought I'd leave a message here since I couldn't see any other course of action that wouldn't generate a potentially enormous amount of hassle. Remedies appreciated. Badgerpatrol 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly nonsense - it violates pretty much every Wikipedia policy and guideline I can think of so I really don't think 3RR would come into it. I've reverted it back to the last version by you, but have amended the term "internationally renouned" - as stated in the edit summary, he cannot be that renouned if he doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. In any case, it is unnessary POV. DJR (T) 21:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, ta, that's what I thought. We'll have to wait and see what happens tomorrow. Badgerpatrol 22:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

project

I was just thinking. Should there be a Wikiproject on the LU or UK underground railway systems in general? Simply south 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Teddington

is leafy, green, and highly desirable, says one persistent user of various IP numbers. It is (or parts of it are) certainly leafy and green compared with various other suburbs that I shan't name for fear of offending their residents, but it doesn't seem leafier or greener than the surrounding suburbs -- aside from Bushy Park, which in effect (if not formally) is adjacent to and not within Teddington. As for desirability, well yes, it's desirable; but estate agents would manage to call "Grozny" desirable; and for desirable to mean something you'd need housing price indices or similar. But hey, maybe the IP is (IPs are) right and I'm wrong. After all, I haven't been to Teddington for a couple of years and its gentrification may have leapfrogged Ham, etc., for all I know. Take a look, Londoners. -- Hoary 11:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Desirable" just isn't encyclopedic, unless there is a survey somewhere which asks people which London suburb they want to live in... you're right in that something would be needed to back it up. It's just far too subjective otherwise - hypothetically, high house prices might mean that a few rich people want to live there, whilst lots of poor people don't (I doubt that this is the case, but it's just to show that beauty is in the eye of the beholder).
The objective description would be "high house prices compared to the local average" which would indicate high demand for housing in Teddington in particular.
Even leafy and green are too subjective unless someone has counted the leaves in Teddington compared to its neighbours. "Tree-lined streets" may be less subjective.
Methinks some sort of objectification might be needed. --Dave A 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Inforbox location mapping

If you take a look at the talk page of the Brentford article, you'll see that someone is complaining that the location as displayed on the map is not correct, even though the latitude & longitude are correct. I don't have the technical expertise to investigate this - can anyone else follow it up? Thanks, WLD 14:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_London_place#Map_dot. Mrsteviec 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Idea Store, Whitechapel

The Whitechapel Idea Store has been nominated for a Stirling Prize. If anyone's in the area, would it be possible to get a picture upload for my article? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's ok I've been and done it. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone interested in London theatre?

Hi, I have a great interest in London theatre, past and present. Anyone out there who would perhaps like to collaborate on a few articles? -- Peripatetic 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about collaborating....but I intend to add a Music Hall section to the Shoreditch article. I have already gone to great pains to correct the misinformation about the Tudor theatres in this area...And I see that Mr KB Thompson has added music hall info for the Hoxton article, which looks good. An article which lists all the old music halls in Lodon would be worthwhile IMHO. And somebody should do something to improve the Marie Lloyd article methinks. Colin4C 19:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Left

Reason is i had really contributed to any London articles, except those to LU, LO and DLR. Maybe i will return in future. Will see how i do. Simply south 12:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Farringdon

There is a lengthy (and somewhat heated) debate about if Farringdon exists as an area or should redirect to Farringdon station. Wider comment would be appreciated at Talk:Farringdon. Mrsteviec 05:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lengthy & heated deabate? Where? The Farringdon talk page is blank. Looking at the history, it says the debate was moved to Farringdon, London. The talk page for Farringdon, London has one entry - an archive, which by definition is not current. I gave up looking at that point. Could you link to where the debate is actually taking place? WLD 13:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The debate was completed, and that is indeed the archive of the debate ... ta Kbthompson 14:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maps

How comes the location maps at many places in and around London will not show up? Simply south 12:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

New areas

Hi, finally got around to joining. Anyway, three new sub areas have been created in my corner of the world and as these are part of existing areas I am not sure if they should have seperate articles. I would appreciate other perspectives. They are at:

Regan123 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

At the moment all the Norwood articles are a bit lacklustre (and smaller London district articles in general). I would BE BOLD! and copyedit the existing articles to cover these places and then redirect in. MRSC • Talk 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Done and done as they say. I will put the local articles on my to smarten up list, though a major issue is the overlap of Upper Norwood and Crystal Palace. I think we need to come to a consensus about what goes into what. My feeling is that CP should talk about the development of the name and give an overall impression, whilst UN should talk about the actual location. There are parts of UN that are not in CP and so on and so forth. It is a bit of a nightmare. Regan123 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

London Underground

London Underground is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

London-geo-stub subcategorisation

There's a couple of related discussion concerning London location stubs; a somewhat premature-looking borough type, currently at WP:SFD, and a proposal for a {{London-road-stub}} at WP:WSS/P. Neither looks hugely urgent just yet, but eventually we're bound to have to split these up, either by "type" of location, or by subdivision of London (probably with some 'lumping', rather than individual boroughs, though). If you have any general thoughts on this, please comment, especially at the latter discussion which more or less covers the gamut of possibilities. Alai 00:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_3#Category:Norwood

I have nominated Category:Norwood for deletion. Comments can be left at the above page. Thanks Regan123 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

White City, London

Could someone please supply a secondary/tertiary reference for White City, London#New development - I would like to pilfer it for a related sentence in The Westfield Group#Criticism (it should be in Current operations on the Westfield Group article but if it can't be referenced it will be removed).Thanks!Garrie 03:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LONDON Project Banner

What articles should it be placed on? I've seen it on some tube station articles talk pages, but should it be there? Thanks, RHB 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested Articles... er... request?

Hey, might there be a way to incorporate something like a to-do or request list for special interest articles? I'm doing one on Horsenden Hill. Only problem is I can't figure out how to use the confounded harvard referencing system. I'm reading up on it though. Druss666uk 22:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Addington Interchange

Back with another one. The opening sentence reads:

Addington Interchange is a place in the London Borough of Croydon. It is in fact not a actural district in a sence that people call there houses inside Addington Interchange, but is in fact part of New Addington.

Does this validate as a place under the WP:London criteria?

Regan123 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Aerial photos

I uploaded two aerial photos of London.

I will see if there are any under-pictured articles to stick them in now; feel free to add to any articles you think would benefit. Stevekeiretsu 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London/Archive_1&oldid=1086038802"