Talk: London

Does ANYONE actually know what they're talking about here?

"London is the capital and largest city of both England and the United Kingdom, with a population of around 8.8 million" ??????? What a load of tripe. No wonder the English get laughed at by the rest of The World. They talk shite.

Can anybody explain, what exactly IS the 'capital' of England? Is it London (the city of that name) or is it Greater London (the metropolitan county of that name). I've never read so much drivel as I read on Wikipedia.

No, wait, yes I have. "MY LONDON" is saying London (City) is bigger than New York (City) which, again, is rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.249.162 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

:If you have the correct content please suggest it. PutTheKettleOn (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

:Greater London is equal to the most common definition of London - the city. London's population is indeed 8.8 million and it is larger than that of New York City's. Felleno (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

::This again.City Status is only ceremonial in the UK. Greater London has a single overarching government that covers all 32 boroughs. Westminster has no more power than neighboring Camden or Lambeth and it’s within the London post code. The only place in GL that has any real difference is the City of London.Bjoh249 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

London is the largest city in England and in the UK, but England does not have a 'capital' as England does not have a government: it is simply part of the UK. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have capital cities which are the seats of (devolved) government, but England has no specific government. Redrocker (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A personal opinion is not enough. Vpab15 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|London|answered=yes}}

69,435,690 population as in 2025, 21st March. 2407:7000:8E23:EC00:A487:BF51:AEB:CBC2 (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done for now}}:: Please provide sources. Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I propose that we change the lead sentence from {{!xt|... is the capital and largest city ...}} to {{xt|... is the capital and largest urban area ...}}, in order to better reflect London's lack of city status. The {{t|efn}} that immediately follows do provide some explanation about this and we should absolutely keep it, but I don't think it excuses or sufficiently contextualizes the fact that we call London a city when it's merely "considered" one. Let us use proper terminology in the lead itself and then have the {{t|efn}} explain the difference between a legal city and a commonly-referred-to-as city. Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:Of course it is a city and the lead should reflect that. Ceremonial city status is pretty much irrelevant. Vpab15 (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::"Pretty much irrelevant" according to who? Ceremony does not eliminate relevancy of information and correct terminology, and other articles seem to confirm that – most (and probably almost all) other articles on major UK population centers use either "city" or "town" in the lead sentence in correct correlation to their respective city status. So established style supports the change. Rose Abrams (T C L) 21:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Vpab15. Surely what is important is the ordinary meaning of the word "city" as universally understood . "City status" is but a narrow legal technicality in this context. -- Alarics (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Again, as I said above, other articles about UK population centers already use terminology that follows obeys legal city status. Calling it a "narrow legal technicality" feels to me like a subjective argument. Rose Abrams (T C L) 10:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::We shall just have to disagree! -- Alarics (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:So far, it seems like the arguments against have been based on a percieved unimportance of city status and the specification thereof, which as I mentioned is contradicted by practice in other similar articles. But more to the point, is anyone particularly opposed to describing London as an "urban area" per my suggestion? Is using the specific word "city" critical to a reader's understanding of the topic? I see no reason, it doesn't change the core meaning of the sentence at all. So we may as well use correct terminology. Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::There is clearly no support for your proposal per above replies. I'd suggest you drop it. Vpab15 (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Let me point out WP:NOVOTE – I'm putting forth arguments in favor of my suggestion, and the response have been exactly two people saying that they consider it unimportant. I welcome everyone to respond to the actual arguments that I'm making, but I'm not going to "drop" anything because of unsourced personal opinions. So, back to the point, is it incorrect to call London an urban area? Rose Abrams (T C L) 21:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, it is incorrect. The urban area is called Greater London Built-up Area, which includes the city of London and its surrounding areas. The majority of reliable sources refer to London as a city, so it is you who wants to change the long-standing status quo based on unsourced opinions. Vpab15 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I see no such sources, but I do see plenty of status quo across enWP that city status should be followed as prev Actually nevermind, I'm dropping out of this for health reason since Internet arguments tear me apart. I'll bring this up again in a few months when I feel better and have gathered those sources. Bye. Rose Abrams (T C L) 07:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hope you feel better soon. Regarding the sources, please note that per WP:NOTSOURCE wikipedia is not a reliable source. Vpab15 (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I propose replacing images depicting singular monuments, such as Nelson's Column, St. Paul’s Cathedral, and Westminster Abbey, with visuals offering broader perspectives. Can Keep London Eye. For instance, we can replace with the image of Bank Junction, which provides a view encompassing landmarks such as 22 Bishopsgate and the Walkie Talkie. Additionally, we can incorporate images of vibrant areas like Piccadilly or Trafalgar Square or any Park (there is no park image despite London being one of the greenest cities, might replace with a Canary Wharf view from Greenwich Park?) Please discuss.

Caberouii (talk)

:It's common to have singular monuments in the montage, and St Pauls and Westminster Abbey as two of the most notable buildings in London belong there. See the Paris article for comparison. The walkie talkie building (and those next to it) is in the first image already. The montage is meant to best reflect the city and Canary Wharf being there does that. Piccadilly and its vibrancy as a busy area is a valid point as that image is not in the article at all which looks like a notable omission, in contrast to Nelson's column of which there are two similar images. Tub st (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::Good call on Piccadilly as an image of it should really be in the article. Having scanned through the article history it was previously in the montage. A broader image of Trafalgar Square with Nelson's column is in architecture, so probably the best way to accommodate both it and Piccadilly is to replace the one of just Nelson's column with the latter in the montage. Nampa DC (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks.Nampa DC and Tub st.

Apologies with regards to Canary wharf I meant something similar to (Greenwich and Canary Wharf (3) - 2022-04-24.jpg where you have two attractions simultaneously). The singular Westminster Abbey is close to both the Parliament and London Eye and we already have a church. We can consider to replace with something else, maybe Trafalgar Square, any of the big Parks (not needed if we replace Canary Wharf view from Greenwich park)or Museums, Harrods of Knightsbridge, Wembley Stadium, Buckingham Palace etc or maybe can simply add two-three additional images like new york city's article.

::Also, is it possible to include about Queen Mary Uni (after King's college section) which was ranked 120th globally in the 2025 QS World University Rankings, higher and more knownthan the other Unis mentioned in the lede.Caberouii (talk)

:::No additional images, that's the limit. We also don't add duplicates. And your proposal was addressed via Piccadilly. Nampa DC (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Nampa DC why not? And where do you see the duplicates? I am asking for further proposals. Remove Westminster Abbey and replace with something else. And how qmul? Caberouii (talk)

:::::Wiki policy that's why not. All montages have a limit. Duplicates ie. the same or similar images twice in an article. This was addressed by changing Nelson's column, with another similar one already in the body, for one of Piccadilly. And there is no rationale for removing Westminster Abbey. Another poster answered that already. Nampa DC (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Anchor|Dubious}}For the statement...

:Since the 19th century,[10][11] the name "London" has referred to the metropolis around the City of London,

...the source [11] ...

: The Postman's Knock, Chambers's Edinburgh Journal (1857)

... is incomplete. I presume it refers to ...

:[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015074998462&seq=405 Chambers's Journal (27 June 1857) pp. 397-400]

...in which case, I think it's WP:OR to cite the article as proof that the metropolis was called "London". It's arguably an instance of such a use in 1857, but it's not a commentary on such use. It is a WP: PRIMARY source and as such to be avoided. As with most primary sources, the interpretation is arguable; it's talking about the recent creation of London postal districts, which were an improvement on the previous central sorting in a building in the City of London. The discussion relates to London as a postal town, which is a rather technical sense in which every town refers to a broader hinterland. jnestorius^(talk) 04:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Here is a commentary from 1848:

::Strictly speaking, the city of London is still confined within its ancient bounds, and the limits of the corporate jurisdiction; but as a continuity of buildings has connected it with Westminster, Southwark, and the neighbouring villages and hamlets, the name is, in common usage, given to them all collectively, their respective proper names being no more than subdivisions of one great metropolis.

::: --- [https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-dict/england/pp129-170#h3-s3 'London', in A Topographical Dictionary of England] (London, 1848) Samuel Lewis ed.

:jnestorius^(talk) 16:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I remember there was {{oldid|London|1159789844|a point}} when the images in the infobox of this article had a neat little feature, where you could click various parts of the images to be linked to the relevant article of the building/feature depicted (an imagemap). Looking through the history, it appears it was removed with {{diff|London|prev|1160154678|revision 1160154678}} by @Awesome230586 in 2023; replaced with a more conventional image montage similar to the articles for Edinburgh or Paris or New York City.

I'm not entirely for or against this change; on one hand, I prefer the selection of images that the current article has; on the other, that functionality was pretty cool, and it was able to show more things compactly. But what I want to know is why that change was made, since there was no edit summary and I couldn't find a talk page discussion about it, and especially since there was a comment in the source code reading:

{{blockquote|NOTE: DO NOT add or change images without consensus.}}

Also, I want to discuss possibly reinstating the old montage. Personally, what I would prefer most is if the imagemap feature was brought back but with different images, particularly to include St Paul's, as well as more long shots that contain various landmarks to take advantage of the functionality. Unfortunately I don't quite have the knowledge or will to do this so someone cleverer than me would have to. Alisperic (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)