Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London/Archive 4

History of London

Hello y'all. I have been working on splitting the History of London page into sub-articles. But it has been very slow as I have been doing it all by myself, and it is a pretty big and daunting task. I have half completed it. As you can see by my table but I would appreciate some help in both writing the articles which havn't been written yet and improving the existing ones. The Roman, Saxon, Tudor and Stuart articles aren't too bad but the Norman and Medieval London needs work.

Also I was wondering whether 18th century London should be renamed as Georgian London, any thoughts?. G-Man ^? 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think probably, Georgian and Victorian London, as they are very distinct eras. Sorry, I haven't been of much help in the split, I've been up to my ears in real-life (as evidenced by this early am missive). The reorganisation is appreciated. Kbthompson 23:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For my money I'd call them what it says on the tin. There's no doubt that the 18th Century is....well....the Eighteenth Century. But there is good cause to argue the toss as to whether one should apply the blanket terms Victorian & Georgian to complete centuries. The Georgian period didn't start till 1714, the Victorian till 1837. I guess the way you split historical periods needs to have an underpinning logic. Does the approach you're aiming for lend itself to being broken up into chunks by time or by Monarch - or something else? I'd say make yer choice, break it up accordingly then call it what it is - don't look for convenient and possibly inaccurate tags for the periods.hjuk 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO Victorian, at least, is more appropriate than 19th Century; given that she had the decent timing to accede at the time of the opening of London's first railway, and to die at the start of car mass production, her reign perfectly covers possibly the two most significant developments in London's history (WW2 & the Great Fire may have changed the buildings, but didn't have anywhere near the effect on London's geography as the rail & road networks) — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD nominations

• 21 August Colonnades Leisure Park --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Deprodded; IMO it should be merged to Purley Way along with Valley Park Retail Area (I won't do it against consensus, though), but inappropriate for prodding — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Afd on List of London streets and roads

There's an AfD currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of London streets and roads which regulars here might want to comment on — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wormwood Street

Seems that wikipedia redevelopers want to bulldoze it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wormwood Street Colin4C 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishopsgate

The map showing the location of Bishopsgate is rather unhelpful...Think the scale is wrong... Take a look. Colin4C 19:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a problem with City of London wards, generally, not calling up the Greater London map in the template. Kbthompson 15:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Will take a further look at it when I have more time, but seems to be all the wards are set to be unitary_authority, as opposed to london_borough; this is bringing up the UK map and over riding the Greater London map type selected in the template. If I change to London borough we get the correct map but we lose the link to the City corporation (it's not set up as a London boro'). I'll see what I can do in the infobox call, but changing the template has the potential to upset the whole country. Kbthompson 13:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look in the template, and made a suggested approach on that talk page. Essentially to add City of London to the internal list of London boro's; I know its actually sui generis - but it's not a unitary authority either. If they don't kick back with objections, I'll go ahead and change it (and find out where else it falls down). Kbthompson 14:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had quite a neat solution, by making the city a London boro', and carrying out all the special processing in data/external code (actually simplifying the overall template). I was wrong, the rest of London has a ceremonial county, the City doesn't and that adds a further complication to something that's already quite complicated. Rather than doing a 'quick and dirty' that gets the right map up, and places two minor items of incorrectness in the header, I'll leave it until I get back, otherwise some ultra-pedant would revert my changes. Kbthompson 09:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is now officially fixed, my head hearts from changing Infobox UK place - and it's the last time I do you a favour! 8^) You could say, it was a non-trivial problem. Kbthompson 16:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Gray's Inn Road and Lordship Lane (Haringey), plus WP:LT's land-grab

Does anyone have any opinion on what's going on on these two articles (particularly Gray's Inn Road)? The author appears to be trying to write a section of every single one of the 300+ houses on the street, which seems an insanely high level of detail as well as bordering on a directory. As they've obviously put a hell of a lot of research & effort into this, I really really really don't want to roll it back; can anyone offer any thoughts, or think of an appropriate sister project towards which the authors could be pointed?

(crossposted from WP:LT)
Due to WP:LT's remit expanding to cover the road network, I've tagged everything that was in Category:Streets in London that they could reasonably be expected to cover (hence, I've left out the pedestrianised shopping precincts, street markets etc), and assessed them in terms of how significant they are with regards to transport. I've sent the absolute worst offenders in the "this is the street where I live" style off to AfD, but I've deliberately left the majority untouched as I didn't want to fill up AfD with dozens of dubious streets. If anyone a) just got a copy of WP:TW and wants to test if the automatic-nomination button works, b) just failed an RFA on the grounds of "you need more experience with deletions" or c) is feeling particularly deletionist, get yourself over to Category:Low-importance London Transport articles and fill yer boots — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need more detail on the wikipedia not less. The wikipedia as the name suggests is an ENCYCLOPEDIA not a coffee table chat book of vague impressions. I applaud the research displayed in the Grays Inn Road article. Such things should be encouraged not discouraged. The wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and will not collapse of its own weight. Cyberspace is different from real space. Colin4C 08:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:LT can stick to tube stations ;) Secretlondon 08:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be a tedious level of detail, buildings with a significant history should be in, but I think the existence of number 222 can be deduced from number 220 and 224! I think WP:LT should limit themselves to TfL adopted roads, and rename themselves TfL!

The issue of being deletionist about certain streets, again goes back to the issue of the view that's being taken of them. Some may not have any significance for transport, but have a historical significance, local significance, prominent buildings, or (in the case of this is where I live) comedic interest (we all had to start editing somewhere 8) ). I think the essential thing is to provide the high level information (say, borough), but sometimes you don't know what to say there until you've worked at the detailed level (say, streets and neighbourhoods). There's a balance to be achieved, that's part of the editorial process. Kbthompson 15:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've deliberately not prodded any, and only AfD'd what seemed the most content-free entries such as Great College Street whilst doing this tagging. Although I think you meant it jokingly, I agree that WP:LT should probably rename itself WP:TFL (even though most people still refer to TfL as LT) since it gives a clearer idea of the remit. I've tagged all the roads which (to my knowledge) are through roads as being potentially relevant to WP:LT (they're articles about transport and they're in London, after all), rather than stick to only the TfL remit (red routes, roads that form part of bus routes, roads in the Congestion Charge zone and roads covered by the London Freight Plan) as it seems too nit-picky to stick to the remit (besides, I'd estimate at least 75% of the road articles fall into one of the above categories). As I've no intention of triggering a WP:CHICAGO style tagging war, I won't raise any objection if anyone removes tags they feel I've added inappropriately; however I would ask anyone doing this to reconsider unless there's a good reason (eg, the street is pedestrianised), as I do feel having the relevant road & rail articles categorised together makes it easier to do A215 style road-and-rail merge & cleanups. Much longer version of this conversation here, if anyone wants to read it — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a look through the candidates, and agreed with about 90% of what you'd done, and I was only half joking about LT -> TfL; it matches both the organisational remit and what you're trying to achieve. I do think spreading the group's remit too widely, is a mistake and would almost urge a merger of the groups for too much overlap. Kbthompson 21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:TFL actually is a valid redirect to WP:LT (I didn't expect it to be). Wherever the line's drawn there'll be some controversy; personally, I don't think it does any harm having the twin-tags (on the ones that come under more than the two remits, I used {{WikiProjectBanners}} to avoid cluttering the talk pages). Regarding the streets; realistically WP:ROADS is never going to care about any of them aside possibly from the M25 & A1, and pretty much by definition every road (certainly roads important enough to warrant their own article, with the possible exception of Downing Street) is important to some degree in terms of transportation, even the little side streets (and the vast majority of the little side streets don't pass WP:N, anyway). I don't think it does any harm keeping them under both remits; the people at WP:LT who are only interested in trains are (I hope!) capable of differentiating between the articles with the words "station" and "street" in the title, while having them in there is useful for the bus & road editors.

On a side note, I'm absolutely gobsmacked that there isn't a single WP:LT FA and of the meagre four GAs, three are about roads, probably the least important aspect of LT (and two of those were knocked off by me in an extremely bored week a couple of months ago). Where is everybody? Incidentally, if anyone wants to either rescue or delete the worst offenders of the "this is my street" entries, they're in yesterday's AfD log — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Several of those AfD nominations are shitty stubs on legitimate topics - Curzon Street isn't a random side street for example, Drummond Street is well known. Secretlondon 09:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is: is there anything significant to say about them? At the moment, it appears not. I argued for the retention and expansion of Cork St and found something interesting about Wormwood Street, but although the others are well known, I'm not convinced there's anything significant to say about them at the moment. A look at BritHistory online, might change my mind ... while I'm not a deletionist, I am prepared to accept Iridescent's argument for a clean up of some of the more embarrassing stubs. There's a balance to be achieved. The alternative is to expand and clean them up. The only thing I can think about for Drummond Street is it is a centre for south Asian vegetarian food, and one restaurant, the Bhel Pouri House has been there for over 30 years (after the owner, then a chef, had an argument with the owner of his previous restaurant (now defunct), just off TCR! Kbthompson 09:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, while I can't withdraw the nom as there are delete !votes (albeit delete !votes that seem to have been cut-and-pasted onto all the AfD's and should probably be discounted by the closing admin), I'm changing my mind on Drummond Street, as I think it's become a de facto name for the area. As regards (for example) Curzon Street, while it may be a legitimate topic for an article, the article as it stands is of no use to anyone; if it's deleted there's nothing to stop a valid version being recreated. If anyone isn't bored senseless with the argument by now, there's a further elaboration of my opinions on the matter here — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to check sources, but I think Drummond Street is the western edge of the remains of Somerstown - the rest having been swept away by the construction of the stations. Its modern significance is only that is the only major street in a small remnant enclave edged by the Euston road and the railway tracks. Let's see what the result of the AfD is, and if they remain, then they will certainly need rewritting to at least bring them up to wiki standards - probably mark them 'cleanup'. Kbthompson 09:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Importance

I have just noticed that the importance on the template is not working properly. In the case i looked at, on Talk:Lisson Grove, the article is listed as mid-importance but the category below shows that it is unassessed. Simply south 22:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a caps problem in the template, changing from upper to lower case, magically makes it work. Kbthompson 08:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC on whether Millennium Dome and The O2 should be remerged.

Since the 2 articles are within the scope of this project I just thought I'd let users know that an RFC has recently been put up at Talk:Millennium Dome#RFC: Should the article, Millennium Dome and The O2 be merged. on whether the 2 articles should be remerged, following a recent split after a long argument on whether the original, single article should have been named The O2 or the Millennium Dome. User input would be much appreciated. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think keep them separate, with Millennium Dome as the main heading and The O2 only for history since the reopening. No matter how much money O2 throw at it, MD is the name the world knows it by — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. Could you post it to Talk:Millennium Dome#RFC: Should the article, Millennium Dome and The O2 be merged., unless you intentionally didn't do so. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm intentionally not doing so, as I've no strong opinions on the matter - I don't know enough about The Wrong Side of the River to really have a strong opinion on the matter — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Who

I've just started The Who's Wikiproject and cited this project as a parent. If anyone is willing to help me get it up and running I'd be very appreciative. -MichiganCharms 20:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate for bands to have geographical parent projects? While obviously it's relevant in the sense that they come from Chiswick, I don't think they're associated with London in the way the Beatles are associated with Liverpool; WikiProject The Rolling Stones isn't a subgroup of WikiProject Kent, for example — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but as certain articles will fall under the scope of both of these projects I thought it was important to make this a parent. -MichiganCharms 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Russian embassy required

I have reformatted Diplomatic missions of Russia and have included a column which is to be populated of the various Russian diplomatic missions, and the article needs a photo of the Russian Embassy which is located at 6/7 Kensington Palace Gardens, London, W8 4QP. Can any Londoners assist with this? Cheers --Russavia 03:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try if I get the chance but that'll be a hard one to get a photo of - the only angle which will get the whole building in shot will be from across Bayswater Road, which is usually full of traffic. Plus, the DPG aren't likely to look kindly on anyone hanging round the embassy taking photographs — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If there's a problem, I could try next time I visit the Slovak embassy. Generally, when I've visited entry has not been the problem, and the police only get really itchy about the Israeli embassy. In the evenings, I'm allowed to park on the road opposite - so, I really don't think there'd be much of a problem, on foot you don't get questioned about your business in the street. I think, the embassy is at no 13, which is in the middle, so you can't catch it from either end, although the back should be visible through the garden of Kensington Palace (when it's open). 5, 6, 7 are consular offices and the Chancery. Kbthompson 22:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think (don't quote me, though) that the Russian Embassy fronts onto Bayswater Road, opposite Cafe Diana. At least, that's the building with the enormous antenna on the roof. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's immediately in front of our Slovak friends! I think that's probably a subsidiary building for spooks, or for visas. Can we work out which one is the actual embassy? Google gives it as 13 ... eh, and 5 .... Kbthompson 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, pix taken. I'll load what I got later. The one by the road is the chancery, the one at 13 is the residence. In between there are a number of residence blocks for Russian diplo's. Kbthompson 11:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Chancery, Kensington Gdns
• 
  Residence, 13 Kensington Gdns
• 
  Chancery, Kensington Gdns
• 
  Chancery, Bayswater Rd
• 
  Slovak Embassy, Kensington Gdns

HTH Kbthompson 12:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

navigational boxes

London related navigational boxes have been moved from Category:English navigational boxes to Category:London navigational boxes, this is partly to reduce the size of English (by 53), but also to bring the London ones together.

I noted that {{Moorgate}} is only applied to limited (one?) page, should probably be removed and replaced by text equivalent. I also partially updated the London related templates. Kbthompson 10:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia London Placemarkers on Google Earth

Whilst I haven't done a very thorough search, it seems that in my part of North London, the only places showing up with placemark links to Wikipedia on Google Earth are those where a co-ordinates template has been manually added. The co-ordinates info seems to be generated through the infobox, but it seems to be done in a way that the Google Earth scrape doesn't recognise. (To see why I think what I think, compare Crouch End with, say Muswell Hill or Harringay). All railway & tube stops seem fine, although their coordinates also seem to be generated through one of the templates. I tried adding the Coordinates template manually, but it seems to overwrite most of the infobox and make it disappear. Anybody know more about this and how to fix it? hjuk 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. David Underdown 09:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, I think the answer may at Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 4#Google Earth compatibility: geotags are invisible hjuk 11:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This now appears to be fixed, although who and where, I have no idea (not Infobox UK place, not Coord!). I amended Crouch End, so the proper infobox and map appears. Kbthompson 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's the mappoints and they're still stuffed. Those using {{coor}} seem to work, those using {{coord}} (as {{Infobox UK place}}), don't. BTW: (for those interested), I changed {{Infobox theatre}} to type:landmark, it shows a more reasonably scaled map for buildings. Kbthompson 22:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox UK place}}) has some template code inside the {{coord}} call, maybe that is not recognized by Googlebot. What are some more templates which are/aren't working? (SEWilco 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

According to Template talk:Coord, the templates should require coord be passed in a parameter rather than being invoked inside the template. Google needs to see the coord template in the article page. (SEWilco 21:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

OK, I think I understand now. Although the template is executed in the page (and expanded to its full syntax on loading, the 'scrape' is looking in the page for identifiable coord template code in the unexpanded page. I shall think on this, it could make a bad situation more complex than it need be. Kbthompson 23:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Originally coordinates could only be entered as text. The various city boxes added fields for coordinates to make it easier for people to fill in the blanks consistently, and so the templates could consistently emit marks such as the degree symbol. Now editors only have to learn the coord template and the city templates could go back to a single coord parameter (or request coord|display=title after the end of the template?). City templates could add comments by the coord parameter with instructions such as use of "display=inline,title" or "format=dms". (SEWilco 23:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Another reason to get the coordinates working is that a tool is being worked on to show requested pictures ({{Reqphotoin}} on a map when coordinates are known. It is hoped that making it easier to see nearby requests will encourage photographers to complete requests. (SEWilco 20:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Uxbridge Rural District

I noticed that there is a redlink on the page to Norwood, London. Having looked at Norwood Green and Municipal Borough of Southall I get the idea that Uxbridge Rural District should be linked to Norwood Green but does anyone know for sure. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Navigational template

As you can see i have created a nav template, based on Jorvik's over at UK Rail, and also on UK Airport stations. Anyway, i feel i have missed a page or two so lpesase feel free to add to it.

{{WP London nav}}

Simply south 21:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Take it this is only to be used on WPL pages and not on the assorted subprojects? — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, prob for now. It could be expanded for that if need be.

(And what does my new word lpesase mean?) Simply south 22:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't know, but 14 other people obviously do — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

East End of London

East End of London has recently had the decorators in, well the Project Quality Task Force - the result was that it retained its GA status. The next stage is to take it to FA, and as part of that process I've requested a peer review of the article in order to broaden the community who've viewed it and to seek other input. If anybody has a moment, it would be good if you could take a look and provide any additions, or suggestions you may feel appropriate. Cheers Kbthompson 13:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

East End of London is now a Featured article candidate, please feel free to read the article and leave your comments on the candidate page. Of course I would value any support that you can give, but equally please provide constructive criticism to move the article forward. Kbthompson 10:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

East End of London is WPLondon's newest FA. Thanks to everyone who's had a hand in any aspect of it. Kbthompson (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Forum External Links

The articles West Norwood, Herne Hill, South Norwood, East Dulwich, Penge, Lewisham and New Cross are constantly having advertising links for empty forums added. I and others have removed them per WP:EL & WP:SPAM. I would appreciate help in keeping these off for a short while, whilst my request at WP:ANI is responded to. Regan123 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see an admin has blocked the latest one, previous edits seem to have been from a wide range of ips - internet cafes? Probably best to take this quickly to ANI in future. Unfortunately, most local articles are riddled with poor external links, and the cr*p should just be cleared out every now and then. I'm glad this has, at least temporarily, resolved itself. Kbthompson 17:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, but the IP rotation is fast. I suspect it is the webmaster of those forums that is doing this, so (s)he knows something about this. Frankly this bores me, but junk shouldn't be left on. Thanks for your help. Regan123 17:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure. The only other solution is to put the individual domains on the 'banned' list, some sites that actually contain useful information are on that. Then when someone tries to add the URL, wiki barfs at them and rejects the update. There are no ads on that site at the moment, but there must be some scam at the bottom of it - like harvesting e-mail addresses. Kbthompson 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In future add {{subst:uw-multipleIPs}} to the warnings. This will signal that they're messing with the process. Kbthompson 08:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

London Borough

There seems to be a concerted effort to make out that the City of Westminster has some different status from (see) London Boroughs. Saying "there are 31 boroughs and two cities" ... there are in fact 32 London boroughs and one City. Within the London boroughs, two declare 'Royal' status, and one declares itself a city (only receiving official sanction in 1900, and not applying to Marylebone and Paddington). As far as I am aware, all thirty-two boroughs have equal status under the 1965 Act and the additional epithets were the adoption of honours that had previously only been awarded to constituent parts of the boroughs. Is there a consensus line on this? Any comments? When will Southwark reclaim its city status? Kbthompson 16:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you - "City of Westminster" is purely a matter of naming and has no legal difference to the other boroughs. The obvious analogy would be "Virginia and Massachusetts are called 'Commonwealth' not 'State' so there are only technically 48 states in the US". — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be the fact that City of Westminster has the unusual status (in London that is) of being both a city and a borough. Simply south 16:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say there are 32 London boroughs and the City of London. There is no need to imply that Westminster is not a City, but it is definitely wrong to imply it is not a London borough. City status, like the Royal epithet, is not related to the type of government or the areas' position in the overall structure, and the City of London is unique, so it is best to leave the notion of "City" out of it and refer to The City by name. As for other situations where the additional epithets are more relevant, I think that they were explicitly re-conferred upon the new boroughs in 1964, rather than simply adopted by the successors. JPD (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The people doing it, seem to use the particular phrase 'borough of London' to replace specific references to London boroughs. I'm just puzzled by what seems a consistent change, arguing special status. Kbthompson 10:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds bizarre. Do you have an example? JPD (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See London Borough, see Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, Empire, Leicester Square. That's what was so odd about it. Different users, same cack handed phrase. Almost, but not quite as bad as the postcodists and arguers for the continued presence of places in greater London being in Essex, or Middx! Kbthompson 11:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal -October's selected picture and image votes

There are currently both articles and images which have an equal number of votes for becoming October's selected article and image at Portal:London/Articles/Vote and Portal:London/Pictures/Vote so im not sure which ones to put up as selected article and image for October. I would choose the ones with the latest vote, as failed article and image candidates are re-entered every month, but I didn't want to do anything without consulting other WikiProject London members. What do other users think? Also more users voting would help as the process does not take long. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to having 30 St Mary Axe next month, as we have Queen Elizabeth II Great Court this month which is also a Norman Foster building, as well as fairly similar in terms of the triangular-glass-pane architecture. Other than that, no opinion. (In all honesty I'm not very inspired by any of the three photo candidates this month.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess we should just leave it as it is for the time being until there is a good candidate. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've not nominated it as it's also up for WP:LT portal article (and almost certain to get it), but I could make a very good case for St Pancras railway station for November, seeing as it's going to be the focus of international media attention on 14 Nov when it becomes the Eurostar hub — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Pav Akhtar

Pav Akhtar at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pav Akhtar (29 September 2007 – 8 October 2007) no consensus to delete

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

update --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Little Britain

On one of periodic clean-up trawls through Category:Streets in London, I've spotted Little Britain, EC1. This was an interesting, informative stub article; the only problem was, it wasn't in fact written by Zacmcd (talk · contribs) in 2007 but by Washington Irving in 1848 (see the source text). I've removed the offending material, but this has left an extremely sorry sub-stub on what is actually one of London's most historic streets (the first street inside the Aldersgate, and home to Barts Hospital). For (I hope) obvious reasons, due to recent developments it's an ungooglable name, and as far as I'm aware the only work to cover it in any detail is Irving's, which is over 150 years out of date; does anyone have anything with which to expand it? — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that the Irving is long since in the public domain, does it really matter? It should of course be attributed to him, and placed in context, but it's not a copyvio. David Underdown 08:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take it out as a copyvio, but as irrelevant without a much larger article to provide background context - for an article to be entirely sourced from a 150-year-old text isn't appropriate. If anyone can expand it to a larger article about the road today, then Irving can be mentioned. — iridescent (talk to me!) 10:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

But to me it seems like a reasonable source for an explanation of the name, which is a little curious at first glance, and the history of the area. Maybe there's no need to actually put the quote in as precisely as it was, but equally it seems unnecessary to remove it entirely, without anything to put in it's place. David Underdown 10:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Found a more up-to-date source - I'll expand it at some point. — iridescent (talk to me!) 10:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

But you said it was interesting and informative. Why delete it? Just credit Irving as a source. (SEWilco 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Because - aside from a single line - it was the entire article. The place for things like that is Wikisource, not here. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Gray's Inn Road (again)

After a lull, the expansion of Gray's Inn Road appears to have started again. The article is now larger than Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire combined, and now includes (among other things); a complete directory of postcodes; a description of every single one of the buildings from 1-300, and a "coming soon" notice for the rest of the street.

As I've said before, this seems to me to be an insane level of detail, and totally out of keeping with every other "street" article on Wikipedia - even "world class" streets where every building's notable such as 34th Street (Manhattan), Oxford Street, Champs-Élysées etc don't go into anything remotely near this level of detail, and with all due respect to Gray's Inn Road I'm not in the least convinced it warrants the longest article on any London road (other than two A-roads & the M25).

As I'm the Evil Road Deletionist, I don't want to take any action here - and certainly not without a broad consensus behind any decision. It's obvious that a lot of good-faith work is going into this, but I think we need to get a consensus as to whether this is acceptable, otherwise it will almost certainly be stubbed back to this version as soon as one of the more deletion-minded editors stumbles across it on their travels (see this diff to get an idea of just how much content would be lost in this case).

Any thoughts? — iridescent 20:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think its very encyclopedic but User:Knownowt has spent alot of time on it. The user has outlined what they intend to do on their talk page but I think its overdoing it to add historical detail about every building on the road. It does seem a bit harsh to revert everything so Im really not sure. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 20:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed go into excruciating non-notable detail. While I admire the amount of work the user has done, it is surely misplaced. Short back and sides ... Kbthompson 17:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note to his talk page. Kbthompson 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst reluctant to cull work by a keen editor, this level of detail is far in excess of what is needed. We need to focus on the particularly notable elements and remove the rest. Regan123 17:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The O2 article rewrite from a WP:NPOV

Hi. I am currently planning to rewrite the article, The O2 from a WP:NPOV. Alot of it does seem like an advertisement. I am trying to gain opinions from multiple users so that this can be achieved. If you are interested there is a discussion at Talk:The O2#The O2 arena written like an advertisement. Any help, including giving an opinion or helping in rewriting the article, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

History

Someone wants to rewrite the history section of the main article. See Talk:London#History section. Simply south 22:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WPEngland

.. have set a bot claiming pages in London as within their own purvey ... should we just give up on this sub-project and join them? (Still smarting from WPLondon Transport laying claim to every cul de sac and alley within the capital). Kbthompson 01:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that. Don't have a problem with overlapping - London is in England after all! Just because a project claims something, doesn't mean they get to control it. As for WP:London - insert Churchillian phrase hear of choice, something to do with never surrender :-) Regan123 02:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just can't wait to see what happens when they get to the Cornish articles .... WPLondon is a 'child of WPEngland'; I just find it unnecessary duplication - and makes a mess of the talk pages (some minor buildings on cul de sacs, have now been adopted by four projects!). Kbthompson 09:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Now it's wikiproject uk geo adding to much the same set of pages ... Kbthompson (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, try adding {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to anything with more than two; possibly even with two! Project trains have inbuilt nesting for related projects, maybe we ought to auto include WPEngland, and have stuff for geo and architecture. I don't think I'm going to get anywhere with the argument that it should just be WPLondon! They'll be still more next week. Kbthompson (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I told you there'd be more along in a minute. The latest is also adding 'talkheader' to the pages .... see Talk:Bishopsgate; it now has more 'adoptive projects' than sections in the article! I wouldn't mind if any of them, other than London one's had ever done anything to the article. And I thought the Battle of Bishopsgate was just trying to get out of Liverpool Street tube in the rush hour ... Kbthompson (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Crouch End

As per this conversation and comments on the article's talk page, unless anyone says otherwise I'm going to delete large chunks of the Crouch End article ("Living in Crouch End", "Urban legends" and "Notable appearances"), all of which seem to be unsourced trivia sections masquerading as encyclopedic content. Does anyone have any objections to this, or suggestions as to how they can be cleaned up & kept? — iridescent 19:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to remove anything that is not obvious, and insist on citations for any additions back to the page - unfortunately, that may mean you have to accept some of the trivia back, for which there is good evidence (nah, just blat it as non-notable!). Kbthompson 00:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As I'm still smarting from the fallout from the Great Street Deletion Incident, I'll leave this a longish while before I actually do anything, just in case anyone wants to make a case for cleaning the trivia sections up. It is possible to have an encyclopaedic trivia section. Just difficult and usually not worth the effort. (Especially in the case of somewhere like Crouch End, whose main selling point has been that the sort of 'interesting things' that happen in the surrounding areas don't happen there very often.) — iridescent 00:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Shepherds Bush

I've just moved Shepherd's Bush back to Shepherds Bush. I was just about to start on the mammoth task of correcting all the wikilinks when I decided to do a little research to see why there were so many misspellings. Wow! London Transport, Ordnance Survey and the Government all spell it incorrectly. Seemingly, the only people that use the correct spelling are the Shepherds Bush Empire, the local council, and other local organizations. Given how fraught things like this can be, I've decided to leave well alone. Noisy | Talk 19:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being dense, but surely if London Transport, Ordnance Survey and the Government all use a spelling, that spelling might be right even if it's not historic? We don't spell Farringdon "Farindon" or Holborn "Holburne". — iridescent 20:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search seems to indicate that Shepherd's Bush is the most common name.Regan123 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Finsbury Square

I'm in the process of preparing an article for Henry Bradshaw in the German wikipedia. According to G. W. Prothero: A Memoir of Henry Bradshaw, London 1888, p. 2, he was born at 2 Artillery Place, Finsbury Square on February 2, 1831. Not being familiar with London, I am now wondering if this could be related to Finsbury Square in St Luke's which, at that time, was not yet a part of London city. An Artillery Place is, according to Google Maps, no longer to be found in this area but this place could have been renamed at some time. As I neither have old maps of this area nor lists of streets etc, I would appreciate any help in analyzing this address. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick wiki search turns up a Georgian trade directory and also a number of other business uses of the address at that time. The present day Finsbury Square lies in the London Borough of Islington, just to the north of the City boundary. It is surrounded by 1950s (and later) office blocks, which suggests extensive redevelopment after WWII. Most of the area is now City offices, and little trace remains of previous uses - including the streets. Kbthompson (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see Finsbury Sq on this 1827 map, but no Artillery Place. The Hon Artillery Company is based at the Artillery Ground - opposite. I'd say, it's probably the narrow entry below that. Kbthompson (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kbthompson, that is quite helpful! Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Map for London congestion charge / Low Emission Zone

Are there any cartographers who could help with a map of the expanded zone at this article? I would like to get it back to featured article soon and this is one of the most obvious things missing. As an aside I see Low Emission Zone is getting more info added. Should we do a London specific article or keep it all in one? Regan123 (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I've now created London low emission zone. Another one for the cartographers out there... Regan123 (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested Articles

I have created a requested articles section on the main page, where people can ask for articles on subjects they may not know enough about, but which they think could add to Wikipedia. Regan123 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of London congestion charge

I have requested a peer review of London congestion charge. Any comments would be gratefully accepted as well as any advice on getting a map for the expanded zone. Regan123 (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of Greenwich

Hi, I've listed Greenwich for peer review. Like many London articles it's about a sub-division of a London boro. This is quite a nice little article and it would be nice to take it through the next stages. Please add your tuppenny-worth and maybe it can provide a model for how to move the many average London articles forward. I think it's currently worth an a, let's see if we can get it to GA. Kbthompson (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Undocumented changes to London boro' pop stats ...

see User:80.41.166.31, they've changed the lot - is there any conceivable reason? Kbthompson (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

An attempt was made to vandalise these figures once before, with the white population 'underreported' in each case. I have centralised the data in template:Infobox London Borough. Do we have a good up-to-date source for the current ethnic break up of the boroughs? MRSC • Talk 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I will populate the data using 2005 estimates unless anyone objects/has some other source. MRSC • Talk 13:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That does seem very reasonable, thank you. Kbthompson (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Another round has happened from another IP address. It looks like it has all been cleaned up, but we all need to keep an eye out for these at the moment. Regan123 (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is now centralised at Template:Infobox London Borough/ethnicity. MRSC • Talk 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

London maps

Hi London infobox maps have stopped working. The Greater London outline appears to be still existent - but not shown, and there appear to be no recent changes to {{Infobox UK place}} that would cause it - any ideas? (examples are Westminster and Hackney Wick) Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This might have something to do with it. I don't know how interwiki links interact with templates. JPD (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have done the trick. JPD (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I hate fixing that template, can end up like a lost weekend. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging WP:London articles

I thought you'd like to know that I will be tagging WP:London articles along with WP:England articles, but I will not be assessing them because I am not a member of the above Projects and I am an Apprentice Editor from Australia. I will also be using the WikiProject Banner Shell as requested by your member Kbthompson. The England and London articles are bookmarked on Firefox not my Userpage. Kathleen.wright5 22:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Kathleen. You may be an apprentice, but you're OK in my book - because you tell people what you're doing. I think WPE are going to have a huge assessment backlog - because we assessed most of them as we were going along! (Damn, maybe I should check our backlog!). Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tall building names

There are discussions currently underway as to the correct name for the articles 32 London Bridge(Shard London Bridge) and 25 Old Broad Street (Tower 42/Natwest Tower). Please feel free to contribute at Talk:32 London Bridge and Talk:25 Old Broad Street. Paulbrock (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Theatre

Her Majesty's Theatre is a current GA nominee, please feel free to improve the article. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Capital

I've removed a couple of claims that the City of London is the capital of the UK and not Greater London. I seem to remember a discussion some time ago at Talk:London with the outcome that as London's status as capital is de facto, neither unit is officially the capital and we present "London" as the capital without specifying either. Is that still our view? MRSC • Talk 01:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is, the City certainly isn't, since neither the Queen nor any Government building is anywhere near it. — iridescent 02:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Bardens Boudoir

Bardens Boudoir (via WP:PROD on 18 October 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Merton

Looking at variuos maps and that, it would seem that Merton (the area, not the borough) does exist. Would anyone object if i moved Merton (historic parish) to Merton, London or create a new article on this or whatever? Simply south (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly exists and is in current use, going by the generally accurate "is it the name of a station" criterion. While the boundaries may be a bit fuzzy, it's certainly no less distinct than Lambeth, Richmond, Islington etc etc etc. — iridescent 15:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Merton as any other place has been some sort of historic division. Keep consistency. Reginmund (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article should stay under its current name or renamed to Merton (parish). As someone who grew-up in the area, I would say that defining Merton, actually, is a difficult proposition. Merton is no longer a well defined district of the London Borough of Merton which is why the historic parish article was drafted. Historically, the parish covered the areas now known as South Wimbledon, Colliers Wood, Wimbledon Chase and Merton Park as well as parts of Motspur Park/West Barnes, Raynes Park, Cottenham Park and Morden town centre. If asked where they lived, residents would most likely give one of these local names rather than say Merton. As the article states, the main centre of the parish was between South Wimbledon and Colliers Wood (Merton High Street), but the parish church, St. Mary's, is located in Merton Park and there were other small clusters of dwellings across the parish. Because the parish remained rural until the end of the 19th century, the early history of an area such as Raynes Park is linked to that of the parish as a whole. More modern history and current info is included in the relevant article local article - hence the article's categorisation under Category:History of Merton rather than Category:Neighbourhoods of Merton. The most common route to the article is either via a "For a history of this part of the borough, see Merton." type link on one of the articles dealing with the modern areas. There are similar articles for Hackney (parish), Hornsey (parish), Shoreditch (parish) and Stoke Newington (parish).

The station name test actually indicates the broad spread of the parish. There have been four stations to include "Merton" in their names: Merton Park tram stop (formerly Merton Park station) is the most central in the parish and South Merton is located on the southern border. South Wimbledon underground station was formerly known as South Wimbledon (Merton) and Merton Abbey station was located on a closed line near to Colliers Wood. With regard to whether Merton is as distinct as Richmond and Islington, I would say it is not - both of those places have distinct local centres, Merton no longer does. Lambeth, also is not a clearly defined place (as that article states it is often called Waterloo). --DavidCane (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Little Ship Club

Little Ship Club (via WP:PROD on 27 December 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's unsourced and an orphan. Secretlondon (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: London Buses route H18

London Buses route H18 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route H18 (22 December 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

New Year's Day Parade

Any photographers around for New Year's Day Parade which takes place tomorrow (1 January)? MRSC • Talk 12:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hammerton's Ferry

Since it's out of my usual area of operations, both geographically & as a topic, if anyone feels like having a look at my expansion of Hammerton's Ferry and correcting mistakes, feel free. Since what I know about Richmond could be written on the back of a stamp, there almost certainly will be some howlers. — iridescent 12:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

SSSIs

Hey, I don't usually work on London-related topics, because Manchester is better (:)), but I've finished List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London, all it needs is the pages it links to creating. If anyone has any knowledge of these SSSIs mentioned, it would be appreciated. Best, Rt. 15:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to update you, it's now an FLC. Rt. 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London - just linking, forgot to do it before. Rt. 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

National Police Memorial

And, an absolutely identical plea for a second pair of eyes to look at National Police Memorial, which I've finally got round to rewriting after making a mental note that it needed cleaning up about a year ago, and about which I know even less. I never want to hear the words "Michael Winner" again. — iridescent 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lea Valley Park

(Crossposted to WP:HERTS)
This discussion on my talkpage has set me thinking: can anyone think of any good reason not to convert the assorted stubs on the sections of Lea Valley Park into sections of a single article? This wouldn't lose any content, but would give an overview of the park and the order in which the sections run, which the current separate stubs fail to do. (See my corralling of disparate stubs & creation of missing sections on A1 road and A215 road for the sort of thing I have in mind.) — iridescent 22:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds to me a good idea. Kbthompson (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Yes,I'll second that Northmetpit (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

London congestion charge

I have nominated London congestion charge for featured article status. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London congestion charge. Regan123 (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Talk:North_London_Line#Merge_NLR_with_NLL There's a discussion on merging North London Railway with North London Line, but only two people are involved so more input is needed. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 00:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Price of lunch at a McDonald's

I'm starting to think my source[1] has made a bad joke about the buying power of the US$, but I'm not really sure. Can one of y'all locals comment at Talk:Oil price increases since 2003#Lunch at London McDonalds DOES NOT cost $100!? -- Kendrick7^talk 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I got a reply. Sorry for the confusion! -- Kendrick7^talk 11:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Don't know if this is of interest, I only just heard about it:

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That actually raises a number of different possibilities. I note that the main problem in that discussion is getting across London. It might actually be better to organise a series of 'socials' by compass point. I know Tarquin - when he was active - also organised photography days. Is there any interest for that sort of thing? Kbthompson (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kbthompson (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

London Boro's coats of arms

Hi. The London Borough's Coats of Arms are up for deletion again. I tried changing the fair use rationale for Municipal Borough of Barking, but noted that this had already been reverted at some time. I think the bot that's listed the CoAs has done it because the Fair Use template has not been used against the items - not that the Fair Use justification doesn't exist. They will be deleted 9 Jan 2008. OK, I'm going to take the deletion template off Barking and see what happens ... Kbthompson (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to go through these and put up a 'fair use rationale'. It would be helpful if someone could review what I've done for errors. To assist with this rather odd task, I've created Category:Coats of arms of districts abolished by the London Government Act 1963, to which they've been added. People with engagement in other county projects, may wish to add these to whatever category they use for historic district images. Kbthompson (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They've now moved on to deleting the County of London coats of arms - some are early enough to be marked PD, but others are failing fair use. If I get a moment, I'll take it to media copyright. Kbthompson (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:History of Borough and Manor of Hornsey and Category:History of Borough and Manor of Tottenham

I think these categories are too granular and essentially repeat categories like Category:History of Haringey. Thoughts? MRSC • Talk 09:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, and talking to User talk:Hjuk will probably fix the matter quickly. Kbthompson (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If so be it, so be it. But let's tarry a wee while afore we strike. I have to take responsibilty for creating them and the reason I did so is that coming at Wikipedia from a local historian's angle and trying to access the history of one part of what's now Haringey vs the other was quite messy. It helps enormously to be able to group certain articles together and see them in one spread. Now I guess it goes to the matter of what Wikipedia's for. Is it for the casual grazer or ought it also to be made of use to the more serious researcher? You guys will be in a better position to answer that than me.

It should also be noted that the categories are populated. I'd've thought there are any number of more specious categories that might be cleaned up before these.

May I know what crieria might be applied to any decisionas on whether to keep/chuck any particular category?

Yours in WikiLon solidarity, H hjuk (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC) PS Did the drinks thing get sorted?

I think it is problematic to categorise say Seven Sisters, London under Category:History of Borough and Manor of Tottenham. We wouldn't categorise it under Category:History of Haringey for example. Can I suggest recategorising by current borough and then by feature (History of, Parks and open spaces in etc.) which is pretty much the universal approach. There are of course other ways to group information together such as a template or list. MRSC • Talk 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To rid the categories, they'd be posted at WP:CFD - it's no big deal. A discussion like here, but much wider than the current group. - but we can reach agreement as to how we're going to deal with these here - which is a bit cleaner, I think.

My personal opinion is that it's much cleaner to group these under Category:History of Haringey and deal with any historical groupings by historic borough/manor in one of your templates. Isn't that a better idea than adding another category? Anyway, the work you've done with both areas is much appreciated and a genuine contribution to wiki. PS take a look at the meeting page, it now carries detail of an actual event tomorrow night. Hopefully, there will be more to follow. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I bow to your combined opinion. I had hoped to get to the Wiki LOndon meet, but sadly I don't think it's going to work out this time. Wd love to come another time though. Have fun. hjuk (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot

Hope nobody minds but i have put on a bot for archival, intially for 30d. Simply south (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lists of people

I dislike the long lists of people (often totally unreferenced) that crop up on articles such as Camberwell. Is there any support for moving these to list articles that deal with the whole London borough (perhaps split up into sections dealing with different districts)? MRSC • Talk 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody did that to the LB Hackney article, and I thought that was fine. I have no problem with people being listed who have a strong association with a 'locale', sometimes it's the only thing you can say about an area - like Halley and Haggerston! The main problem is the propensity of passing editors to add where transient celebs fell out of a pub one night (or worse, their boy/girlfriend). If we were to advise something like:

1. Lists of notable cited associations should be kept on the Boro' page
2. A section for significant notable associations with a district may be added to an article, where: (a) it is in prose and the association is made clear, and {b} a citation to a reliable source is provided.

In some ways we'd beating ourselves up trying to enforce it - although, any less than keeping 'Joe Bloggs is a smegger' off the pages? The sections should be reserved for items that are of genuine biographical value. Kbthompson (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha. That makes two (List of people from Enfield and List of people from Hackney) already in existence. I've created List of people from London as an index page for these articles. MRSC • Talk 15:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

At least we made an effort in Hackney! (actually it was taken out of the article). Kbthompson (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Three now, I've done List of people from Waltham Forest it leaves the kind of significant biographical detail I think should remain in the article. (Actually, I preferred the image of William Morris - but I didn't want to cause a riot). Kbthompson (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I also amended East London, England - where someone had cut and pasted the lists from the local boroughs. The lists there should be reduced to prose about 'significant' ones. Kbthompson (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

General warning; anything starting "List of people..." makes itself a prime target for the deletionists; since they generally consist only of people who are already notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry, they tend to duplicate categories. (Kbthompson, if you want a glimpse of listcruft in its purest form, use your newfound sysop powers to read the long-deleted List of people by name.) — iridescent 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

a good point, there's no particular reason not to call them People from ... - the intention is to move lists out of the articles and encourage expansion from lists to something of value, with references. I know taking a list out of an article remains a list. The original idea was to try to tidy up the lists in the articles and remove the long pointless lists. Should we think again? How does (say) New York City do it?

Let's rename them, People from ..., correct all the links and try to work out some ground rules for inclusion and guidelines for the entry format. Is a table a list? 8^)

Well, at least if someone deletes them, we've got them out of the articles ... Kbthompson (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

NYC and the boroughs doesn't do it. The alternative is to write prose entries for each borough based on divisions, (say) historical figures, literature, art, contemporary (at least that would make it easy to trim the extraneous entries). At Greenwich, when time permits, I want to rewrite the list as prose before putting it up for GA. Kbthompson (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside of London I know but I did it at Stoke-on-Trent and it looks better and has reduce the vandalism count down to virtually none (and no doubt that will take it back up to around 100 a day!!!!) Regan123 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unqualified lists of people are of no great value in any place, and definitely not in settlement articles. The notability test should be that a resident is significant enough to be mentioned in the prose of the article (and therefore no lists are needed). Thats all well and good in theory, but I feel it would be tough to police as lots of editors/IPs enjoy adding to these lists - for that reason I suggest we keep the ancillary list articles and perhaps look at ways of making them more uselful (divide by time or profession of somesuch factor). MRSC • Talk 13:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Just to inform you that List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London made FL status. Thanks for all the help. Rudget. 16:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Simply south (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Overall, a very good job. One niggling question. Hectares is a metric, but non-SI unit. I've worked on the basis that conversions should be acres/sq kilometres, i.e. Imperial/SI. Am I doing this wrong, or is it optional, as sq km is a particularly unwieldy unit? Kbthompson (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:UKCITIES

Hello WikiProject London participants,

As an advocate of WP:UKCITIES, I was wondering how this was translating to London related content? I've been aware that London may benefit from some special excemptions and conventions within this guideline. I know that you have Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Naming conventions too.

My worries in particular are localities within London Boroughs. UKCITIES recommends the inclusion of ceremonal county and "England", but is "X is a place within the London Borough of Y, Greater London, England" helpful? Would "X is place within the London Borough of Y" suffice (London being a global city which can probably hold its own)?

I'm also aware that articles on London Boroughs may not be suitable for adopting UKCITIES layout. I'd appreciate some input, and I'm thinking of just having a note in UKCITIES that WP:LONDON recommends some minor alterations outlined in its project conventions. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My usual position is that places within London do not require qualification. Normally being the most common use of the name, or being the progenitor of other places with the same name. I'm not sure it is helpful to qualify names unless it is absolutely essential. It would be incredibly unhelpful in writing terms to have to write [[Mile End, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Greater London, England|Mile End]], each time, or heaven forfend [[Chelsea, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, England|Chelsea]].

Similarly, if someone doesn't know that London is the common usage of one of the largest and longest habited cities in the world, then they probably won't know where England is either, or that England (like London) has no official usage - being either 'England and Wales', or 'Greater London', respectively.

Settlements within London also display problems with UKCITIES, in that most functions - such as planning and education - are carried out at a Borough level, and health authorities, parliamentary constituencies, etc, are not congruent with those districts. Further, settlements may not be congruent with their historical boundaries (not unusual for common usage of settlement names to migrate to where the tube stations are).

Within that environment, I think we try to work it out pragmatically and sensibly. I think where disambiguation is necessary it should be 'name, common name of London Borough' to avoid duplication within London - for instance Victoria Park, East London becomes [[Victoria Park, Tower Hamlets]], avoids duplication within London and is more descriptive of its location. Kbthompson (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You've confirmed my suspicions with regards to "X is place in the London Borough of Y". I thought this needed addressing. "London, England" not only reads like a cliche, but London seems to render England (or indeed UK) redundant because of its global status.

Some of your points about disambiguation are not covered by WP:UKCITIES as such, but the stance you (and I think the rest of the community) advocate is outlined at the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). I could make a note about functions however.

Would there be any objection if I made a note in UKCITIES about these issues and how to tackle them? Perhaps pointing to the WP:LONDON conventions too? -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's only my thoughts on the matter, others' mileage may differ. I hate to say London's different, but in many cases it is - and as for the City of London - don't go there ... I'm still trying to work out if it's in Greater London, or just surrounded by it 8^). In fact, when the monarch enters the City, s/he surrenders the sword of state to the Lord Mayor, wiki says it represents the fealty of the City to the monarch, but they always told it somewhat differently in the City ... (Richard III (play)) Kbthompson (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've actioned these changes. Give me a nudge if anything else comes up. There is now a link to the project's naming conventions within the guide. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

St Paul's School (London) to GA

I'd love to get this up to good article status, but have limited experience doing so. It's currently rated as B, which presumably means it doesn't need a massive amount more done to it. In any case, I'd really appreciate help, comments or advice either here or at the article's talk page. Thanks — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-located tube and railway stations

Members of WP:LONDON are invited to join in this discussion at WT:RAIL. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Grange Park and Northumberland Park

Just a small note. Does anyone know about these areas much? They have just been recently created after corrections of redirects. Simply south (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Industry

There are currently various categories (such as Category:Shipbuilding in London) grouped under Category:Manufacturing industries in London. I was about to (also) include Category:Shipbuilding in London under Category:History of London, but these days this would sadly probably apply to most of the other industry cats too. Perhaps it would be better to put Category:Manufacturing industries in London in Category:History of London? Pterre (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

LEZ

The London low emission zone article needs to be updated. Simply south (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)