Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject London. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

New user category

FYI... I just created Category:Wikipedians from London as a complement to Category:Wikipedians in London. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Schools in London

Ive had a look at various articles of schools in London and their contents differ greatly. Can I ask what other users think an article of a school in London should contain. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 11:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a schools project, I think they define their own standards. Most schools in London have been added on an adhoc basis and need a good cleanup. We did an exercise to organise them, so at least most are now identifiable. I'm glad someone's taking an interest in them. Kbthompson (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it is nice to see someone looking in to them. It really depends on the school, in my opinion; if the history of the school is important (it's an old one, with a long history) then that should take up a good part of the article. If they're currently doing interesting or novel things with teaching, then that should take focus. Just my 2p ;) —αlεx•mullεr 12:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Theatre

Her Majesty's Theatre is currently a featured article candidate please help improve the article, or leave comments at its nomination page. Kbthompson (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the issues raised on the nomination have been dealt with. Please do look over the article and feel free to make further suggestions for improvement, or express your support for its nomination. Taking articles with the project banner on through the wiki quality procedures is an important part of the project work, and frankly, (as a project) we're not doing enough of it.

You can find the article here and the candidate page here.

cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

... is a featured article. Kbthompson (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Forty Hall and Elsyng palace

I have proposed a merger of Elsyng palace into Forty Hall. Simply south (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable idea, but the proposal is malformed at the moment. Do you want to carry it forward? Kbthompson (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

East End of London

... is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 23, 2008.

Thanks to everyone who did work on it, and congrats to WPLondon for making the WP:Main Page. Kbthompson (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

London image

Hello again team,

Just a note that I changed the lead image on London per a small discussion on the talk page. I hope it's okay with everyone. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

LB coats of arms

Hi folks

Since these were all created in 1965/6, they are copyright images. These are ALL now coming up on the radar for two reasons:

The arms have no free use rationale for their principle usage on the main borough pages.
The arms have been included in the boro' templates, so now are counted as also being included in each district of the borough - 10-15 instances in each case. A free use rationale must be included for EACH of these pages, or the arms should be removed from the template.

The former use is probably OK. The secondary use is possibly stretching it, as the use is essentially decoration of the template, although an argument can be made that the 'parentage' of the district essentially constitutes a critical commentary of the authority, and so it does have a fair use rationale. 'Fair use' is not 'inherited', so fair use can't be put in for the template.

Now, I have no problem with updating 31 free use rationales, but 600 instances generated by the template? We have also had this problem with the 90-100 odd metropolitan arms. About 30-50 got fixed, most of the rest are lost. If anyone notices such instances, I have no problem in bringing them back (if still there, the deleted image cache is purged regularly, compared to the deleted pages - which are usually recoverable) - BUT, someone must enter the fair use rationale.

In illustrating the London borough, former boroughs and rural districts, etc. There is a clear fair use rationale in articles on the entity. Beyond, less so ... Any ideas, volunteers to add 600 fair use rationales - or should I fix the 31 and remove the image from the templates? Kbthompson (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(examples are in Category:Coats of arms of London Boroughs) Kbthompson (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet more, I've created an example of what it should like at Image:Arms-hackney-lb.jpg. That includes a fair use for the template, but frankly I don't think that will work. Where it says 'logo', that should be changed to 'symbol'. Kbthompson (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. {{Non-free use rationale}} has now been added for each LB. I have also added it for 'LB template' - but not each district. Some have already been deleted from the templates under the lack of fair use and over use. Maybe this should taken up at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Any thoughts? Kbthompson (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the use of non-free arms images in templates can be justified under WP policy. JPD (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That was my impression, but I don't want to appear as arbitrary as the bots! I think a description of the arms should also appear on every page where they are used - otherwise, again it degenerates to pure decoration. This description occurs on some borough pages - and (I think) lozleader added descriptions to most former authority pages. Those texts should not just reproduce what is on civic heraldry (link on most of the image pages), although it is a good source. That gives the following tasks:

~~Remove images from 31 templates (a handful have been done)~~
~~Remove fair use case for template, from 31 images~~
Check London boroughs' articles for descriptions of the arms and seal - add if necessary.
Check fair use for approx 100 former authorities, ensure fair use. Ensure description in former authority article, check usage in district articles of former arms - ensure fair use and relevance of description of former authority arms to locality.

That should do it ... anyone care to put a case for keeping them? Kbthompson (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lord Mayor of London

Hi there folks. Recently, due a change in the corporation's official title of the Lord Mayor to be the Lord Mayor of the City of London - changes have been made to a number of articles changing Lord Mayor of London -> Lord Mayor of the City of London. Now people are changing them back. Maybe we should have a discussion here. My understanding is that Lord Mayor of London remains the historical title, and that Lord Mayor of the City of London is the title that applies since the reconstitution of the Corporation of London as the City of London Corporation, ie current and modern usage. Can we please get our current and historical usage straight please. thanks Kbthompson (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, no one was called "Lord Mayor of the City of London" until very recently. To introduce that neologism into articles going back far into the Middle Ages is a dreadful anachronism. The redirect from Lord Mayor of London to the article which has just been renamed Lord Mayor of the City of London works well, but if anyone wishes to link men known as Lord Mayor of London to that article more directly (or, of course, women, such as the one female Lord Mayor, Lady Donaldson), then the grown-up way to do it is to use [[Lord Mayor of the City of London|Lord Mayor of London]]. I don't see any need for that, but there's really no harm in it. Xn4 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Beckton Gas Works

I've recently done quite a lot of work on this article about what was often quoted as the world's largest coal-gas works, so article is no longer a stub. Would anyone care to rate it now? Pterre (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I did rate it, a B. Its actually borderline A. I have requested a peer review of the article. I wouldn't expect to get too much from a WP:peer review, they often just give you automated comments on the article structure and content. The next step would be to put it forward to WP:GAR, I don't think the article is quite ready for that, but it is worth seeing the quality process articles go through. Kbthompson (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You've had some useful comments at WP:Peer review/Beckton Gas Works/archive1. Normally good etiquette to thank the reviewer and attempt to address some of the issues raised. cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I think the content of 'popular culture' definitely ought to stay, albeit in edited form - it is surely very unusual for a single old industrial plant to have starred in such a number of very well known films etc. What do you think? Pterre (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally I see you have provided Cities of Science as a ref for the 'highest hill'. The text of this article leaves much to be desired - eg location because of the Royal Docks. As we correctly say, the works was specifically located there for DIRECT river access, nothing to do with the docks. Should we regard Cities of Science as a reliable source? Pterre (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think it is a good source, but several other web pages quote it, so I think it acceptable as a source for the purposes of (say) GA ... FA, I myself, would probably challenge it. (I think the LBN site links to it, and that's what swung it for me) cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

East London

There seems to be a one-man campaign at present to claim that everywhere in east London (eg Dagenham, Romford etc) is in Essex, not Greater London. does this constitute vandalism? I've just reverted Dagenham, but I can see this getting rather stupid. Pterre (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it continues and it is completely false, yes it is vandalism. I would warn the user first, and suggest that maybe he/she should look over their sources once more. Basketball 110 _{Go Longhorns!} 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I'm looking for some sort of policy here, as every location in Greater London not covered by a London postcode (and others such as my home town of N8 which was politically in Middlesex until 1965) is potentially subject to edit warring on this issue. Pterre (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If it goes by both, then it should include exactly that. Hope that helps, Basketball 110 _{Go Longhorns!} 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is we should not have to get into an edit war each time someone wants to assert this view for a locality in outer London - we need to be able to point to a consistent policy.

Romford and Dagenham said (to the effect that) X is in Greater London and was in Essex until 1965. The edits in question altered this to X is in Essex (right next to the map showing it within London, making the article look rather foolish!), and in the Romford case inserted a { { fact } } tag next to the statement that it has been in Greater London since 1965. Are we going to provide a citation for the location of every place mentioned in every article? Further down was inserted the statement "Although Romford is controlled by a London Borough, Romford's postal district & boundaries have never been changed which means Romford still makes up part of Essex much like neighbours Upminster & Ilford which are also in Essex but controlled by London Boroughs." This is just plain wrong - 'Romford's boundaries' were abolished by the London Government Act 1963 -that's probably a lifetime or 3 ago for most of our readers. What next - someone editing the infobox to show a pre-1965 map of Essex? Pterre (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a run in with this lone crusader and suggested that there was plenty to be getting on with on towns that were formerly in Essex without denying reality. It's the same as the 'postcode marauders' who insist that parts of Hackney are in Islington because they share a postcode. Just revert it, point out the inconsistency - politely - either on the article talk page or their own. If they rack up enough warnings, ask WP:AIAV - or me - to block them for vandalism/adding misleading information. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to your comment at Talk:Romford#East London? I've now found what I was looking for, namely Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (places)#Counties of Britain. Perhaps we ought to have a pointer to this from Wikipedia:WikiProject_London/Naming_conventions as I'm sure I had a search around without finding it! Pterre (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry it was MRSC not you - but you probably knew that! Pterre (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

List of libraries

List of libraries in Barking and Dagenham is up for deletion again. There are a couple of these, spun off to prevent enormous lists in Borough articles. How do we feel about these? Certainly not my greatest articles, and I'm not sure there's exactly much more to say about them. Of course, the danger is they'll then go for the categories. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Belvedere Incinerator

This is apparently a political hot potato where the locals are up in arms about a central government decision (nothing new there then). The 'locals' include Bexley council, a Labour MP, the Labour Mayor of London and a Conservative councillor, all opposed to the scheme. The article until recently mentioned the mayor and the MP. Mention of the MP has recently been removed and there are now six 'references' which are direct links to the local councillor's party political website. To me this seems to be turning an issue of local v national interest into a party political issue. I hesitate to revert this as vandalism - comments? Pterre (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I just realised this IP is a repeat offender at the Houses of Parliament. It's gone. Pterre (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's back. Can someone else please review this - in my opinion it introduces blatant party political bias. It appears that the local MP (Labour), Mayor of London (Labour), local council (Conservative) and individual councillors (Conservative) unanimously oppose the scheme, but the house of commons-based IP is trying to present it as a party issue. Pterre (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

List of eponymous roads in London

If anyone knows of roads in London named after a person, please add them to the article or as suggestions to the talk page ... I'm happy enough to do the spadework of geocoding &c. Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be a spoilsport but wouldn't a list of roads that are not eponymous be considerably shorter? There were 1300 roads in one small inner London borough foolish enough to employ me way back. The LCC's Names of Streets and Places in the Administrative County of London (1955 edition) has 835 pages of names about 30 to a page, and that's just inner London.. Good hunting! Pterre (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also pretty much impossible unless you can document the history of each road - is Bedford Square, for example, named for the Duke of Bedford or the town of Bedford, for example? — iridescent 14:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Museums in London

Could I ask for some help accessing local knowledge, from members of this wikiproject, on the behalf of the new WikiProject Museums? We are currently trying to identify articles within the Museum projects scope (& develop guidelines to help improve them etc). There is a List of museums in London. Could you take a look at the list for your local area and see if any are missing or create articles for any red links. Could you also add the new project banner "{{WikiProject Museums}}" to the Talk pages of the articles, so that we can identify those in need of work etc. Any help appreciated &, if anyone is interested you are welcome to join the project or discuss Museum related articles on the Project Talk Page.— Rod ^talk 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Capital of England

There is a debate at Talk:London as to whether London is the capital of England. Just thought the project would like to pass comment. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As i have said before, the capital of England is E. Simply south (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Was that a typo? I'm confused! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, i was messing about and trying to insert a bad joke. Simply south (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just got it (!) --Jza84 | Talk 16:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

'Capital' is Latin for head. London is the head city of England both as the largest city and as the seat of government. Therefore London is the capital city. QED. Colin4C (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

London Map

I've been working on Wellcome Collection and there is now a map in the infobox - but it is Greater London which is really too big an area. Central London needs its own map at a scale that you can tell the difference between say, Camden and Westminster. User:Jza84 says he can make one but suggests I ask here if there is one already exists, or any views on the subject. ProfDEH (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Clicking on the globe brings up a scaleable map. I seem to remember changing {{Infobox theatre}} to bring up a landmark scale map. You're assuming readers would know the difference between Camden and Westminster. I think the original purpose of those maps was to show a places rough relationship with the rest of the world, not specific locations at that level of granularity. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, OK. I looked at the map popup - there are a lot of bad coordinates (Islington west of Kings Cross?) when it gets to close-up so maybe general location is the best approach. ProfDEH (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Multimap

How do links from Wikipedia get onto MultiMap? ProfDEH (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand there is a 'scrape' of details every 3-4 months. This only recognises pages in which co-ord is called directly, so if 'hidden' in a template, will tend not to be 'scraped' ... someone was trying to do something about it ... hth Kbthompson (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a sculptor

Does anyone know who the sculptor/medailleur was who did the medaillon of Christabel Pankhurst and presumably also the WSPU badge shown at the ends of the half-rotunda at the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst in Victoria Tower Gardens? See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_April_17#Sculptor_sought for a previous attempt to get an answer to that question, and Image:Westminster emmeline pankhurst statue 1.jpg for the information already known: we know who did the statue of Emmeline (A. G. Walker), we know when the statue was inaugurated and by whom, we know when the memorial was moved to its present location, we know when the half-rotunda with the plaques was added and who inaugurated that part of the monument. But we don't know who did these two plaques. It wasn't A. G. Walker, as he died long before. The medaillon itself is shown for instance here or here. The Kenney papers at the University of East Anglia in Norwich list a "Memorial Appeal Fund brochure" which just might contain the sculptor's name. Any help would be appreciated. Lupo 10:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: if someone can pinpoint the original location of the statue, that'd also be a valuable addition. Lupo 10:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: I should check my e-mail more often. User:SaundersW has actually checked the Kenney papers, and the Memorial Appeal Fund brochure only makes reference to a proposal approved in principle by the Ministry of Works. That design was executed by J. G. O'Neilly, B.A., A.R.I.B.A., but doesn't mention the sculptor/medailleur. "ARIBA" stands for "Associate of The Royal Institute of British Architects". Anyway, a big hearty thank you to User:SaundersW! But we're still missing that sculptor... Lupo 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This search on The National Archives' website throws up a few potential leads, including files relating to the redesign of Victoria Tower Gardens in the mid-50s which seems to have been when the statue was moved, but nothing in the catalogue records directly names the designer/sculptor of the half-rotunda. David Underdown (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail to the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport, who seem to be in charge of historic monuments in the UK.[1] They do say they try to reply within a month... we'll see. Is there a specific body of the city of London that deals with monuments? Maybe a local body would be able to get us a reply quicker, or would have better or more detailed records. Lupo 09:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Only able to confirm it was erected 1930 and moved 1956 (IOE 207426). You might also be interested in Brompton CemeteryTomb of Emmeline Pankhurst (IOE 422216) and Woodford Green Anti-Abyssinian War Memorial (Outside No 587) (IOE 204838).

All at English Heritage, Images of England. Sorry, I can't find any addn info. Kbthompson (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Planning permission might have been dealt with at a borough level (city of Westminster in this case presumably), otherwise all the references I've turned up suggest it was originally dealt with by the Ministry of Works, so getting in touch with DCMS seems as good as anything. David Underdown (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FLRC

The FL List of tallest buildings and structures in London has been nominated for removal. The nom can be found here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC on a proposal to split "The O2 arena" section of the article, The O2 into a new article.

As the aforementioned article is in the scope of this project, I thought I would let project members know of this RfC and ask users to leave their comments on the article's talk page. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Museum Mile

Has anyone other than LB Camden's PR department ever used the term Museum Mile, London? I've never seen it signposted, never seen it in any tourist literature or in the museums themselves, some of the "museums" are stretching the definition to breaking point (Royal Opera House? Brunei Gallery, SOAS?), the venues are considerably more than a mile apart, and surely in the unlikely event that anyone were to use the phrase "Museum Mile", they'd be referring to Exhibition Road. With all due respect to Jpbowen (I must confess, I looked at the history fully expecting to see it created by a council PR department), I think keeping this up is unnecessarily confusing. Does anyone have any thoughts? — iridescent 19:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I live in London and have never heard of it. Presumably a case of copying the New York idea, except the museums are between Euston Road and the Thames - hardly a straight line as in 5th Avenue. The present incarnation dates from Jan 08. Wait and see if the tag lasts. ProfDEH (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspect it should be binned. Article created in 2006, term has failed to catch on. See [2] Paulbrock (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museum Mile, London. I'm not normally a deletionist, but I don't think it useful - and too capable of confusion with South Ken. Please add your thoughts, or rescue this poor stub from excision. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bus routes

Just proposing the move of List of bus routes in London to List of London Buses routes. See Talk:List of bus routes in London. Simply south (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a photograph in Rotherhithe

Hi, I am looking for a free image of the memorial to James Walker on the Brunwick Quay of Greenland Dock in Rotherhithe. I would like to use it on the James Walker page (in absence of any actual pictures of him), the List of Presidents of the Institution of Civil Engineers (my primary area of work here) and in the gallery on the dock's page. A description and image of the bust can be found here. If anyone has a photo or has the opportunity to photograph the dock area I would be very grateful for this image. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get one when I'm next down that way — iridescent 13:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say I haven't forgotten this! Should hopefully be down that way in the next couple of weeks. – iridescent 16:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I had forgotten myself to be honest! - Dumelow (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos requested in London

A summer with no work for me to do is looming, so I'm thinking about trying to clear Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in London. I was planning on doing this in the next week or so, so if there are any photos you particularly want, just yell. Cheers, Alex Muller 07:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tube template

Hi, on the French and Dutch wikis they have little templates for geography articles showing the nearest metro station, have we ever had something on the English wiki for that? I don't remember seeing it and it might be good to have something like;
The nearest London Underground stations are Green Park and Westminster.
Might be good to have them at the end of some articles to give people an idea of where the place is - I for one can't actually place most areas in London on a geographical map. What do people think? - J Logan ^t: 14:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks better than the current method, really needs something to prevent them adding something 20 miles away! Is the logo fair-use in that context? Also needs one for 'National Rail' and 'London Overground'.

The way stations are listed is largely a hangover from the 'bare templates' for London districts. We should actually be moving towards textual descriptions (I think from 'How to write about ...). Any thoughts?

I learnt London geography from years spent on the top deck of a routemaster - obviously not an option open to later generations - but it really helps link the tube stations together. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea very much. As far as the logo goes, it's on Commons... so not our business to fair use it ;). There may be some tube stations that aren't named correctly for the template to work (Gunnersbury station comes to mind), and for an example of how one article currently looks: Turnham Green has a whole subheading for nearest tube station. Congrats if you happen to guess where I live :D Alex Muller 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Judicious redirects could fix the naming issue. Kbthompson (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If this goes ahead then i don't think nearest stations on templates should be split into different templates as they would clutter the article, instead put the stations of all types on one template. Personally i am not so sure this is such a good idea as the stations could easily be incorporated into text about transport in the different areas. Simply south (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with SS here - it seems to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. In a fair few places, particularly south of the river, "nearest tube station" could be outright misleading; someone trying to get to Syon Park by way of its nearest tube station, Kew Gardens, for example, would be in for a less-than-pleasant surprise. Plus, if we always include tube stations, we're on a slippery "why not include bus routes", "why not include BR stations" slippery slope. It seems easier to keep a "Transport links" section in articles where appropriate. – iridescent 22:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So how about creating and implementing "when it makes sense"? I know that's subjective, but it might make for a better encyclopaedia - there are some articles where it would work. By the way, why on earth are the nearest tube stations in a "trivia" section here? Makes no sense to me... Alex Muller 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How about actually having a classification on distance, tube stations within half a km? And regards overground and national rail (and of course DLR, tramlink?), would be best to have it in the same template but I don't know how to adjust the template for those stations unless you create "tube station" redirects to them all. I just copied this template over from the French Wiki's model for the Paris Metro, but I think they have something regarding the RER.- J Logan ^t: 08:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved my template to Template:Nearest tube for people to improve and test.- J Logan ^t: 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I found a need for {{Nearest DLR}}. I feel the templates are probably useful in those circumstances where (a) it is clear where the nearest tubes are, and (b) it is not more appropriate to put a complete prose description. I'm adding them to places in London Borough of Tower Hamlets to see if there are any problems. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

How about {{nearest NR}} and as a subdivision of this, {{Nearest Overground}}? Also {{nearest Tramlink}}\equivalent? Simply south (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I found Ineeded a {{nearest Over}} - not sure it's still part of National Rail. I ended up creating a redirect from Wapping railway station -> Wapping tube station - so, that could be a problem. I'd agree a nation rail version is needed for consistency - is there a logo? Maybe set that one up to allow a different logo for each line?

There's also river piers ...

I quite like this, but I can see there are places where it just isn't going to work ... could also do with a "2010=Y" field on the overground ... Kbthompson (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In reply to simply south - the template should only be used in appropriate places. Kbthompson (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 516 of the articles assigned to this project, or 15.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave this a go... because I have far too much free time. Ta for the automated message, Alex Muller 19:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Northern cousins :)

Hello WikiProject London,

Just a note that the WikiProject Greater Manchester plans to nominate the Greater Manchester page for featured article status very shortly. As a comparable WikiProject, covering a comparable metropolitan area, I thought some of you guys might want to have a once-over of the article as objective outsiders to aid the FAC process. Hope you can help, --Jza84 | Talk 01:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but I think you might be better off getting people from active comparable projects in other countries to look over it – WP:CHICAGO or WP:Hong Kong for example – as they're more likely to spot things that UK readers would take for granted. ("Why are there two places called Old Trafford and what's so important about them, anyway?" type issues). Although I know you don't always see eye-to-eye, you have Malleus on WP:GM and he's one of the best article-assessors WP has; I'd say, it's ready when he says it's ready. – iridescent 12:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering, is Samuel Johnson an important enough person to London to be added to the project? He worked on some of his most famous works in London, and expressed his wish to die there. His poem, London was biting against the city, but it was also well known. He was also buried at Westminster Abbey. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What are the borders of the district of Isleworth?

Looking at an Ordinance Survey map, the label "Isleworth" appears no more significant than that of Woodlands, Spring Grove, and Osterley. Indeed, it seems back in the 19th century, Isleworth was a small village, easily discernable from the village of Woodlands further up the road.

However, Isleworth has enjoyed a greater status than these other districts over the years. In the past, the hundred of Isleworth, the parish of Isleworth, and today, the Brentford and Isleworth constituency, are all named after it. Each covered very different areas, but many times larger than the basic settlement of Isleworth. Furthermore, Isleworth Crown Court is actually located in Spring Grove, and Isleworth station is actually located somewhere between Woodlands and Spring Grove.

It's also the post town for TW7 - which covers Woodlands, Spring Grove, and Osterley. Osterley Park House gives its address as "Osterley Park House, Isleworth, Middlesex". I know the post town is simply something that Royal Mail uses to help it deliver mail, but conversely, an address tells you where something is - so it's saying Osterley Park House is in Isleworth. By that token, Osterley could be considered a part of Isleworth.

The side I'm coming down on is that the Isleworth article should cover the original village of Isleworth, and the immediate neighbouring urban area, but excluding Woodlands, Spring Grove, and Osterley. While it should certainly mention Isleworth Crown Court and Isleworth station, it should probably note that these are actually in the neighbouring districts of Woodlands and Spring Grove, and the articles for these districts should also mention Isleworth Crown Court and Isleworth station.

Furthermore, the article should perhaps make special mention of the hundred, the parish, the constituency, and the post code, as extensions of the historic and current meanings of "Isleworth".

I presume this whole business of where districts start and end, and whether some districts include other districts, is something that other people have thought about? Is there a particular rule or precedent to follow? Is there an official definition of what exactly constitutes Isleworth somewhere? Does anyone have particularly strong opinions on the subject? James Richardson (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of postal address as Isleworth, merely identifies it as the place where the main delivery office is - I pick my post up in Bethnal Green - but I happen to live in a neighbouring borough - which is an extreme example. Many people - to take Osterley Park, as an example, provide a postal address of a place that (a) ceased to exist in a real sense in 1965; and (b) ceased to matter for postal deliveries after the introduction of extended post codes. Do I live in Middx? Not since 1899 - but I do in the same sense that Osterley is described as being in Middx. No, anything to do with the post office is worse than useless. It has little relationship with geography, no relationship with political reality and is solely tasked with delivering letters. (sorry, pet peeve over).

The general way to deal with settlements in London. Is describe what it is, describe where it is (in a modern sense - London Borough, type of settlement, whether the description has moved due to tube station naming), describe the etymology and other uses of the name - for instance the village of Isleworth gives its name to the Isleworth Hundred. Then (say) deal with it's administration in a historical sense - include prior borough (or more probably urban district) - that article should provide the interested with some idea of the historical 'higher tier' authorities - like transfer of counties. If all else fails, try to work out which aspects of WP:UKCITIES apply to your place and follow those guidelines. London is difficult because everything blends into everything else; and with the introduction of railway and tube names - often miles away from the original place - it moves too. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Camden Passage

Somebody's been PRD'ing 'inconsequential' London streets again. I saved Finsbury Pavement - but there's also Camden Passage - anyone care to have a go? Kbthompson (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

London sub-district categories

I depopulated Category:Deptford, returning all articles to categorisation by London borough. I assume we are still minded to construct categorisation first by London borough and then use feature to create more granular categories? MRSC • Talk 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be my impression - but consensus can change (lately, this page itself seems depopulated). (BTW: welcome back) Kbthompson (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Arsenal Stadium

Hello all. I'm reassessing the Arsenal Stadium article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I've added a few citation needed tags to the article and placed it on hold for seven days for improvements. At the end of the week, I'll make a decision about whether or not to delist the article. Nikki311 18:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on talk:2012 Summer Olympics

Could project members please review the newest discussion on talk:2012 Summer Olympics? Thanks. 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates

People might be interested in reading the latest deus ex-machina about date linking ... WP:MOSDATE. Executive summary, they will now appear unlinked - be prepared to (a) standardise pages, and (b) defend your local date preference. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "defend your local date preference", the Power Of The Cabal is on your side: "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that when either of two styles such as 14 February or February 14 is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." – iride scent 15:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hampstead People

I din't ealise i already raised this a year ago but how about splitting off the notable people from Hampstead. See Talk:Hampstead. Simply south (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to get it out of the main article one way or another – this is one of those lists that could grow forever. What it does need (wherever it ends up) is a clear geographic boundary; is it the NW3 postcode only, the former borough of Hampstead (which would artifically inflate the list by bringing Abbey Road and Primrose Hill into the remit) or the old village boundaries (which I'd venture to suggest hardly anyone knows)? If it does get split off, be prepared for an onslaught from the deletionists. – iride scent 17:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories in London

Please see this discussion about reorganising the taxonomy of London categories. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Current thinking is that all London categories should include the London Borough long name. This is to disambiguate those places where the borough names are identical to 'town centres' within the borough. There is also a debate about the use of the category 'neighbourhoods' within each borough. It appears this name is 'un-English' and the cat may be unnecessary. Pls feel free to comment - at the above discussion. Kbthompson (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There has also been further debate about the use of the word 'districts' in borough templates. While pragmatically it expresses the relationship within the borough, the word 'district' has a specific meaning in districts in England, and further WP:UKCITIES warns against use of the word. Any thoughts on that matter should be posted here. Kbthompson (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The bot has commenced moving short-name -> long-name for London categories. It's also merging neighbourhoods of ... into the borough cat. That appears to leave the lower level categories hanging ... I guess we see what the bot will do, but it will probably leave some cleaning up to be done. Kbthompson (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether this is the place to bring up the subject of ward vs settlement (or whatever other word is used for a distinctly-named, and often historical, place). There seems to be a general lack of understanding by editors about that difference. Surely every historical locality - town/village/hamlet or even the name given to suburban infill - has a distinct population and a definite geographical situation, each one being different, and each one leaving gaps in the overall area of the Borough? On the other hand the wards are a purely political construct, and by their nature cover the entire Borough in total, produced so as to give an even number of voters to each ward councillor, who then sit on the London Borough council. Many of the LB articles have dual lists. One shows the former places; the other then lists the wards, which quite often either repeat the former or cannot find a proper name for it, since its title is "made up"; frequently the boundaries of the two don't coincide. Some put two "places" together in one ward.

In order to illustrate what I am saying, take a look at London Borough of Lewisham. There are 18 wards; and 20-odd "places". As I mention above, the wards naturally cover the entire Borough and in doing so they must take in parts of other nearby places, not necessarily completely in one ward. How do we reconcile wards named Evelyn, London, Perry Vale, Telegraph Hill, Lewisham and Whitefoot with places in Lewisham? There is a perfectly good map for each London Borough (see that in London Borough of Bexley) which names the wards and would then obviate too much trying to describe where it is - look how tortuous Whitefoot's description is!

One other comment - is it really necessary to have those massive lists (beutifully coloured as they are) naming every single ward councillor? I am pretty sure that every LB publishes just such a list, since I found one for the London Borough of Bexley, which actually gives more info (and a photo) for each ward.

If this needs taking separately, or if it has been discussed before, I should be glad to know the result. Peter Shearan (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Henry Compton (actor)

Hello, all. I put up a stub for this English actor from the 19th century, but he's out of my area of interest. Feel free to expand! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Great Fire of London

Great Fire of London has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing geographical coordinates: updated

344 London articles are missing geographical coordinates. Finding the latitude and longitude of locations, and entering coordinates into articles is straightforwards, and explained at Wikipedia:How to add geocodes to articles. Having coordinates on articles mean that they turn up in GoogleMaps, MultiMap and other such places which link to wikipedia based on geo-coordinates.

A large number of London articles that have no geographical coordinates can now be found at Category:London articles missing geocoordinate data.

The articles in the lists above are currently marked with {{coord missing}} templates, which need replacing with filled in {{coord}} templates containing their latitude/longitude data (or else have lat&long entered into the infobox, before removing the {{coord missing}} template).

There are currently about 800 such articles missing coords - I hope you'll consider adding coordinates so as to make London articles more visible on the web. thanks -- The Anome (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wards vs "settlements"

I am concerned that there appears to be a misunderstanding about the ward insofar as articles on London are concerned. My concern is that the ward names are often shown to refer to what is actually two different places, and not the ward itself. the best way to illustrate this is to point to the London Borough of Greenwich where, in the listing all the wards it shows Blackheath Westcombe, instead of Blackheath Westcombe. The latter is the proper name given to the area which is the ward - a political subdivision, and one of the 17 areas which make up the political picture of the Borough. The former is two places and more properly belongs to a geographical area. However the reference to the latter part of the name (Westcombe) takes a reader to Westcombe Park, which is not the same thing at all. Further down editors have had to give up referencing, since there are no such places as Coldharbour or Glyndon, which only exist as in local political boundaries. The map accompanying the list shows perfectly clearly where they are, and there is surely no need to try to reference them in any other way.

I think this should be discussed. Peter Shearan (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. In some places, there's a clear distinction (see Category:Wards of Hackney) between wards and settlements. In others, wards co-exist with 'settlements' - settlements tend to straddle a main road, wards tend to use them as a boundary. The names of wards are sometimes adopted from local settlements, or geographic features such as parks - hence very similar ward names can appear in two separate boroughs. In any case, there is not an identity between boundaries defined for political expediency; and historic settlements. (A good example is Mile End, this has a geographic definition, and was an historic parliamentary constituency, It no longer has any political meaning being divided between local wards in Bow and Stepney; and different parliamentary constituencies.)

I don't think this need be a problem, as long as a clear distinction is made between speaking about places and wards. It does mean that editors adding local government information need to bear in mind the distinction and make it explicit. As to referencing the political divisions, the local council website will normally have results and boundaries within their website. The ward subdivision has little meaning beyond local political concerns, and so is unlikely to be referenced in the wider web. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Locks on the Hertford Union Canal

You may wish to comment at the above category for discussion; it is currently proposed for deletion. Kbthompson (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Page moves (naming error - Municipal Boroughs)

Hello London,

Skinsmoke (talk · contribs) made quite a lot of page moves on January 5th, mainly to the former districts of London (mainly the old metropolitan boroughs). The changes go against the provisions set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) and the user in question has since admitted the mistake.

We now have some pages moved from Municipal Borough of Erith to Erith municipal borough, which is incorrect. It is likely to take a couple of members of this project to restore things back, hense this request. Thanks,

--Jza84 | Talk 20:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick check, and Nev1 seems to have fixed them. Please report any further errors here. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Which borough is Virgin Group's HQ in

Hi! http://www.virgin.com/Legal/CompanyInformation.aspx says the HQ is at "50 Brook Green, London W6 7RR" - Which borough is it? Is there a map I can use to reference this? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Hammersmith - in London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Which borough is Terminal House,52 Grosvenor Gardens,London,SW1W 0AU (Asiana Airlines's sales office) in? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Near Victoria - so, City of Westminster - I would presume. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

London

I'm a bit concerned about the main London article. It's currently a GA, but even from a cursory glance at the lead I'm confident that this article would fail a GA-review. We have several outstanding "citation needed" tags, as well as dead links and uncited claims. Perhaps this project could apply some collective TLC? --Jza84 | Talk 13:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, most of the collective seem to have drifted off! It's probably better taken up at the talk page there. I'll look in if I get a chance - was that once FA? Kbthompson (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I had noticed that WP:LONDON had begun to stall - which is a real shame. IMO it should be the leading local wikiproject for Europe, if not the world, seriously. WP:GM seems to have taken the lead for England at the moment. It's not the only project to be suffering from decreased inactivity of late though, WP:CHESHIRE has had to opt for a recruitment drive and overhall. WP:ENGLAND seems redundant, and WP:UKGEO gets an occational message from a core of users. Not good. :S

I think London was a FA-candidate, but it was closed early owing to a variety of problems. I'm sure GA status would be lost too if the article came up on the review sweeps. London is probably the most important city in the world and to say it is not reaching its potential is a disappointment for me. I'll raise this at WP:ENGLAND, WP:UKGEO and WP:CITIES. --Jza84 | Talk 15:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems wise. I haven't had a major amount of time to devote to these things, recently. I think there needs to be a quality drive throughout London. There's still plenty being written, but it seems to be in isolation; and is loosing it's standardization, and coherency. Too much trivia!

The London article suffered from a lot of pedantic revision over whether it was capital of England - so, I think every word of that intro drew blood. Writing by committee tends to suffer when there's no sense of collaboration. Let's announce a 'quality drive' on the article and - as you say - invite participants from parent projects. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

London Portal

The Portal:London hasn't been attended to for a while, either. Kbthompson (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Attended to. There was no vote! Please nominate your selections for (say) 1 March at:

This project is responsible for the portal - and it needs to be kept up to date. No activity on the portal for nearly nine months is a bit grim! Kbthompson (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace at FAR

I have nominated Buckingham Palace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Demise of Thames Gateway Bridge requires article updates

I just came across List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom and noticed that it, Thames Gateway Transit, East London Transit (and probably others) need to be updated to reflect the death of the Thames Gateway Bridge - probably moving anything involving the TGB into the "abandoned project" region. Perhaps someone a bit more on the ball with transport news than me could sort this out? Cheers. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note: AFD of Metropolitan Community Churches in London

Hi, I didn't see a deletions page for this project, so I am posting this here. I have nominated the above listed article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Community Churches in London. Any input (including article-rescue potential) is invited at the AFD discussion page. Thanks, Outsider80 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet peer review

I have rewritten the Battle of Barnet, and plan to take it to FAC. As the battle occured in Greater London, I thought the project might be interested in this article. Please take a look and leave your comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:21, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Implemented for WPLondon - and added to the navigation box - please check the page regularly for news. Kbthompson (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Portal main page updated

I've updated the portal mainpage today. I said I would try to do it about monthly, well it dragged on - but the previous update took over six months. Pls, pls, (pretty pls) suggest and vote on this content. It's important, as it's the shop window of the project. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

3 London articles up for deletion

Ikip (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

They were saved; but you can see alerts for London related articles (those flagged with our banner) at London/Article alerts. It also lists current FA, FL and GA candidates. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Castle peer review

Bruce Castle is currently up for peer review. This is a somewhat unusual article in that, while as far as I know it covers the subject as comprehensively (within reason) as possible, there are large gaps where sources don't exist, so ideally I'd like any issues that can be fixed, fixed before it goes to any potential FAC. – iridescent 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Location map for Central London districts

WikiProject London/Archive 5 (Greater London)

I would like to open a discussion on the use of the Greater London map to show the location of Central London districts. As much as I think that displaying on this map the location of outer districts (such as Richmond, Ealing or Walthamstow) makes sense, I think that we would do a better service to users not familiar with the geography of London if we displayed the location of central districts on a map of inner London. The location of Soho, Covent Garden and Fitzrovia as displayed in the infobox (see maps on the right) is almost undistinguishable. Non-Londoners probably know very little about the geography of Greater London and the current map may actually make it harder for them to quickly identify the location of a district on the map. I would like to suggest that we use two different maps for districts of Central/Inner London and outer districts. Thoughts anyone? --DarTar (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really feel this is a problem, as hitting the co-ords brings up maps that can go down to the street level. On London Borough of Hackney someone kindly produced a 'districts of Hackney' map {see List of districts in Hackney); this is added to each 'transport and locale' section, together with a compass wheel of adjacent districts. Much the same idea could be followed in Central London - adding a Central London streetmap next to the compass wheel.

I wouldn't favour producing street maps for each central London district - like appears to have been done for Picadilly Circus. To my mind, going from the larger to the more local is a more useful approach in producing an encyclopaedia for a global audience. As a side note; I remember supervising school trips where the children had never been to the West End, and had no idea how it related to their own area of London. So, showing the location within London in the lead is not unuseful.

The reason for the higher density of articles in central London is that there tends to more to say about the individual districts, this is a much higher granularity than is used for most of the London suburbs - many of whose articles have not even been addressed. Kbthompson (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, if we can find someone who knows how to do it; on the current map Covent Garden and Cornhill look like they're right on top of each other. I'd have a "close scale" map roughly covering zone 1 (basically a rough rectangle with Earls Court, Camden Town, the Isle of Dogs and Brixton as the boundaries), ideally with a few key landmarks (Parliament, Canary Wharf, the City etc) or the borough names unobtrusively labelled, to give people vaguely familiar with London but not familiar with borough boundaries a better idea of where things are. I don't know how easy this would be to do; I certainly wouldn't dare to touch the spaghetti-like coding of {{Infobox UK place}}. – iride scent 14:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

map_type used to control the map displayed; but I think it is now determined by a combination of region and country. Location within greater London could be encompassed by a corner cut out in the graphic, marking the central area depicted - see Falmouth, Cornwall. I'd have to dive in the code to see how the 'red dot' system works; but I think it's based on the border co-ordinates (see {{Location map United Kingdom Greater London}}). You'd also have to put up with the interwiki bots breaking it on a regular basis 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Project award

Should this place have its own award?

(Perhaps a little bias) here is a suggestion

Simply south (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi what about this one

?? Maen. K. A. (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/London 20

This Sunday if anyone on this project lives in London and fancies coming along.Theresa Knott | token threats 18:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation

We are Wikimedia UK - the group of local Wikimedians helping the Foundation to create
"a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge".
Love Wikipedia? Based in the UK?
Can you support us in projects such as generating free-content photographs, freeing up archive material and media relations? Or are there other projects you'd like us to help with?
if so, please click here to Join up, Donate and Get Involved

AndrewRT(Talk) 21:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

May portal

Ok, the rough texts are ready - please take a look at:

They should turn over automatically on 1 May - but it's the first time I've tried it - and naturally, I'm away. Someone might want to update the showcase article with the football result, also. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Unknown-importance London-related articles

In an idle couple of hours I've project-tagged all the articles I can find that undoubtedly fall into the project scope but weren't currently tagged as such. (All the architecturally significant churches, skyscrapers etc in London, everything in Category:Visitor attractions in London that isn't just a branch of a national chain, the London parks that are large enough to warrant their own articles, and so forth (including some glaring examples that managed to slip through the project's radar, like British Museum, London Zoo, Southwark Cathedral and Kensington Palace). This has now increasing the size of the project by 25%; if anyone has chunks of spare time, Category:Unknown-importance London-related articles and Category:Unassessed London-related articles could do with some attention. – iride scent 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

... and what a busy bee, you've been 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hours of fun. I've deliberately avoided tagging any for deletion (other than a couple of really indisputable cases) as my tolerance for poorly written advertorial was running very low by the end. If anyone wants to boost their deletion activities, then head on over to Unassessed London-related articles and start tagging away; some of them are truly wretched. I've developed a strange fondness for Southborough, Bromley, though, which may well be a contender for the single worst article on Wikipedia. – iride scent 18:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the width, feel the templates ... it's a holdover from when they populated places from a list of place names; and usually didn't have a lot to say about them - you could tag it "photo requested"! Kbthompson (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

List of London Underground stations

I've tagged the above article for this wikiproject as it seems within the project's scope (feel free to revert if you disagree). In case therre's anyone interested, it's a Featured List, but is currently a candidated for removal. Nev1 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And I've spotted two glaring mistakes in it already just at first glance… – iride scent 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Allo, allo, the Battle of Barnet is at Featured article candidates

Allo, guvnors. The Battle of Barnet (not the hair) or wossname is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Barnet/archive1, awaiting your participation and wossnots. Please be coming and comment on its quality, whether it is up to scratch to be one of Wikipedia's best articles. Thanks all. Jappalang (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ta, for the 'eads up. It will appear under London Article Alerts within the day, together with any of our other current FACs. People are urged to check there regularly - for any joy, or grief - heading in the project's direction. Kbthompson (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo request: British Airways headquarters

Someone needs to photograph the British Airways headquarters, Waterside (building), at Harmondsworth Moor, between the M25 and the M4. [3] - Please make sure that you get the BA logo on the building WhisperToMe (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Churches in London without coordinates

This CatScan search provides a list of articles London churches without coordinates (as well as some false positives such as image files and articles about people). Would anyone be interested in geocoding some or all of the 67 churches currently listed there? -- The Anome (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Project tagging proposal

As per this thread above, I've been manually tagging the pages from the most important sub-categories of Category:London as falling under the project. However, doing it this way is very time consuming; I propose that we request an AnomieBOT tagging run of all articles other than those tagged as falling under WP:WikiProject London Transport. There may be some false positives but those can be manually removed when we go through the newly-tagged pages to assess importance/class.

As there are (literally) over a thousand subcategories and sub-sub-categories to Category:London nested very deeply – to pick one example, Category:Grade B listed churches in London is a subcategory of Category:Grade II* listed churches in London, which is a subcategory of Category:Grade II* listed buildings in London, which is a subcategory of Category:Listed buildings in London, which is a subcategory of Category:Buildings and structures in London, which is a subcategory of Category:London – I don't propose listing all the categories individually, but instead requesting an "all subcategories" run.

While this will inflate the project scope massively and give us a huge heap of unassessed articles to go through, I think this will be useful both in letting us know exactly what we cover, in giving a clearer picture of the project scope, in alerting people working on some of the more obscure articles of WP:LONDON's existence (on my short manual-tagging run, I came across four London-related Featured Articles we never knew existed, for instance, and their authors might want to get involved with us if they knew we were here), and in bringing some poor quality articles to light that need either cleanup or deletion.

Does anyone have any objections to this? – iride scent 12:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems a wonderful aspiration, you have my full ~~truss~~ support .... Kbthompson (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

+1 --DarTar (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual with "and all subcategories", it seems there are a number of categories containing pages that do not fall in your project's scope. For example, because the 1948 Summer Olympics were held in London, Category:1948 Summer Olympics and all its subcategories are subcategories of Category:London → Category:Sport in London → Category:Sports festivals in London → Category:1948 Summer Olympics. Even worse, Category:Parliament of Great Britain (under Category:City of Westminster) eventually includes seemingly every category of the form "{{{year}}} in England", "{{{year}}} in Scotland", "{{{year}}} in Ireland", and so on.

I've made list of all 3187 subcategories at User:Anomie/Subcategories of Category:London; feel free to edit that page. If necessary, I can do things like "regenerate the list without including subcats of Category:Parliament of Great Britain" easily enough. Once you've all gone through the list and verified that every remaining category is definitely within your project's scope, I can begin the run. Please do a thorough job of it, I just stopped a similar run for WikiProject Energy because they didn't do a good enough job of trimming their list. Anomie ⚔ 03:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I'll go through the full list (3187!) and trim out the irrelevant ones at some point over the next few days (unless anyone else feels the urge). – iride scent 13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

More than one person should go over the list. That was part of the problem with the WP Energy run, only one person did anything about it. Anomie ⚔ 14:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest someone at WP:WikiProject London Transport go through it as well, at the very least; it would make sense to tag all the "Foo railway station" articles for them at the same time (e.g. split the list into "Tag WP:LONDON", "Tag WP:LT" and "don't tag at all"). If myself and at least one other from here, plus one from WPLT, all go through the list, that should hopefully be enough. It may still tag some false positives (people like Edgar Allen Poe, for example, who were from London but did all their significant work elsewhere), but I think manually de-tagging the false positives when we go through to assess them, will still be much quicker than manually tagging articles. – iride scent 14:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK: My proposed splitting is these to be tagged WP:LONDON, and these to be tagged WP:LT – I've left your original list intact in case anyone wants to re-add any that I've removed. I've removed all the "football team" and "people born in" subcategories, as I think they'll generate too many false positives – those who are genuinely relevant to London should show up in one of the categories I've kept. I've also removed all the "EastEnders", "The Bill" etc categories; the shows themselves will be tagged (as they're in "Television programs set in London") but we don't need the individual actors. I've left the roads in "London" rather than "London Transport", as a couple of years ago I manually went through them and tagged those which were notable as transport routes as falling under WP:LT.
Anyone else, feel free to remove/add any… – iride scent 15:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Past problem

If this goes ahead, hopefully, it won't end up like this Simply south (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why we're not going to tag any subcategories at all but only the categories listed; as far as I can tell, everything within one of the categories listed on my "list of categories for tagging" will only be there because it does fall into the project scope, or because it's been given the category itself in error. Where BetacommandBot went wrong was in tagging "all subcategories". What happened as a result of that is a lesson I'm sure Anomie will have taken to heart! (This will cause some articles to be mistagged – mostly things like people who are born in London (and hence correctly categorised under "People from London") but moved away as children and have no connection with the place – but there shouldn't be very many, and as we'll have to go through everything to assess the importance, we can remove any inappropriate tags then. – iride scent 22:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That, and related screw-ups, has been taken to heart by pretty much every tagging bot op I know of. Many will just flatly reject any "and subcats" request; I usually generate a list, find a good "bad example", and tell the project to fix it (just as I did above).

BTW, Betacommand wasn't banned for that. As far as I am aware, he had a fair record of bots making erroneous edits of various sorts, a habit of assuming his interpretation of policy (particularly WP:NFCC) was the only correct one, and an uncivil attitude towards complaints. The ensuing drama led to increasingly strict restrictions on his activity, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, which he later broke and/or attempted to wikilawyer around, and then he then socked around the resulting blocks. Eventually the community lost patience. Anomie ⚔

Hi, I checked through the list and found a couple of problems - which have been weeded out. The remainder seem OK to me, any other problems are likely to be the result of miscategorisations. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This was originally closed as 'no consensus' - today the matter appears to have been revisited and closed as 'delete'. A number of London articles will be affected by the deletion, and the template should be removed where you come across it. Ideally, it should be replaced by text such as "The nearest London Underground station{s} {is|are} {fred tube station|fred} on the {bert line}".

Since simlar concerns have been expressed about {{Nearest Over}} and {{Nearest DLR}} they should be dealt with in a similar fashion. I think there's also {{Nearest station}}. They should also be considered at risk of the precedent.

I'd do an AWB run; but am currently busy in real life. Kbthompson (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Edited the above post to point to the correct templates, {{Nearest Over}} and {{Nearest DLR}}. Bazj (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the logo out of the template so it can now be subst'ed prior to deletion. Bazj (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)