This is an archive of past discussions. 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I added a disambig at the top of the article to also refer to the newer 21 July article. Is it possible to merge these two disambigs into one? Not sure how to do that. Also, added mention of 21 July in History section of article. Stephenw77 15:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
NB: The 21 July bombings were attempted explosions. The devices themselves failed to detonate, possibly due to terrorist incompetence. JABITheW
Duncanssmith writes:
Since size is an issue with this article, I have been breaking things down into bullet-point lists where possible. I am still working on improving the structure and logic as well. Its got a way to go. I think the New York City article is a pretty good example to follow. Its clear, concise and pithy.
A request - please keep sentences short and uncomplicated where possible! I feel there is no need to go on at length about everything under the sun all the time - please keep to the subject headings, think about what you are writing, and if you want to stray off subject, look for an existing heading to put your contribution into!
Please feel free to change anything you like!
Thanks.
Duncan Smith 16:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've just read the New York City article and realised that this article, which I thought was pretty close to done, is missing some fairly important things. Firstly two that should perhaps be main subsections:
Other things that I think be covered that are wholly or almost wholly absent now, but should perhaps not have their own sections:
I don't want to make the article as long as New York's which is a little flabby in places, but we do seem to have quite a few omissions which I didn't spot until I read a comparable article. I'll start filling them in soon, but please help out if you agree that they matter. Wincoote 08:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Duncanssmith writes:
I agree - I think your suggested item headings are very good and relevant. And I'm all for getting rid of flab!
Go for it! Duncanssmith 10:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why and when was HVDC Kingsnorth shut down? Extend this chapture, please. (Please put details about history of HVDC Kingsnorth to the article "HVDC Kingsnorth "
I reverted a bunch of content at the end of this article that was taken out by an IP-user. Please check this page before making new edits, to be sure this has not been done again. Otherwise, a hasty revert may "forget" your new work. — Xiong (talk) 04:20, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
When I read the London article first I was appalled by the writing style.
To be frank the article was full of needlessly dependency-ridden over-complicated run-on sentences, and horrific cliches!
The writer(s) of this article seemed to be trying to "big up" London with claims that London is the "biggest" "most important" etc city "in the world" throughout, with less emphasis on actual information!
Superlatives abounding may be interesting to school children, but I felt that most people would be better off reading more interesting and informative content.
Duncanssmith 1 April 2005. 11:36 BST
Duncanssmith here:
Thanks for your comments. I will certainly leave others to judge the quality of my contributions, after all thats what this Wiki thing is all about isn't it? Voting with your feet or whatever. Anyone can rewrite anything I rewrite at any time! I actually don't think I weakened anything -I made some of the previous author(s)'s contributions more readable and clearer. I removed a couple of irrelevant things like "Wealthy Londoners send their children to Eton, a famous school outside London" which I felt didn't add much to anyone's knowledge of London.
Wikipedia might not be a tool of the liberal establishment (whatever that might mean!) but I think it should try to reflect actual facts rather than contain such claims as "there has been a lot of immigration in East London most of it Asian Muslims" or whatever. I don't think it is "PC" to want to correct that. Probably all writing is "value laden." I am for more factual info over subjective opinion. For example "Football is the most popular sport in London." Obviously written by a football fan! You get my drift!
I look forward to reading all your edits!
Duncanssmith 5 April 2005. 10:50 BST Duncanssmith 10:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"one source suggests a figure of 13,945,000 for 2001" any reference would be nice. Rich Farmbrough 11:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Metropolitan area population confusion:
There are endless different definitions for the metropolitan area population of London and this has created quite a bit of confusion. The main reason for this, is that until recently London never issued it's own official MA figures, and these figures were left up to outside independant sources. In fact, Britain as a nation still doesn't. Whilst MA figures for other countries are quite common, they are a new concept in Europe. Also, due to the new concept of Metropolitan Area's in Europe, there are often different meanings for the word, in many cases not referring to the current internation standard based primarily on commuter percentages and economic influence.
London has now started to officially publish metropolitan area figures for the area surrounding the city, and these are as clsoe to the criteria that the U.S. or France uses, although of cause defined by their own methods.
Previous figures of 12million, 13million or similar were not based on commuter percentages, one of the driving statistics of a metropolitan area, but only included a small area surrounding the GLA. In fact, using the U.S. method of calculating Urban Area's, this defines the 12million population surrounding London source. Although again, due to large differences between different countries on what constitutes an Urban Area, this is vastly different to the 8.6million used by the Office of Statistics in Britain.
Metropolitan Area is a totally different statistic, and today the government of London officially defines this area as having a population of approx 18million source
Without any other official statistics defining the metropolitan area surrounding London, the GLA source is the most accurate and up to date.
Why do we have a section about the East End but not the West End, also the East End has its own article. Wouldn't it be an idea to have an "Areas of London" section or something, to highlight the differences between the different areas. G-Man 20:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Duncan Smith
Good - seems like I've stimulated a bit of a discussion at least! Get on with it then!
Duncan Smith 20:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
City of Manchester | |
---|---|
Geography | |
Status: | Metropolitan borough, City (1853) |
Region: | North West England |
Ceremonial County: | Greater Manchester |
Area: - Total |
Ranked 228th 115.65 km² |
Admin. HQ: | Manchester |
ONS code: | 00BN |
Geographical coordinates: | 53°29′N 2°15′W / 53.483°N 2.250°W |
Demographics | |
Population: - City (2002 est) - Total (2002 est) - Density |
Ranked 6th 422,302 2,513,468 3,652 / km² |
Ethnicity: | 81.0% White 9.1% S.Asian 4.5% Afro-Carib. 1.3% Chinese |
Politics | |
Manchester City Council http://www.manchester.gov.uk/ | |
Leadership: | Leader & Cabinet |
Executive: | Labour |
MPs: | Keith Bradley, Paul Goggins, Gerald Kaufman, Tony Lloyd, Graham Stringer |
Please can we fill in this table, copied from Manchester, with london data then put it in the article, as it looks a bit bare without a nice summary table. thanks Bluemoose 14:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Duncan Smith writes:
Thanks for offering! Go ahead!
Duncan Smith 15:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Duncan Smith writes: Hmm - yes, but the London page certainly could use more relevant (and better) images. What about the Corporation of London logo and doesn't the GLA have something? What about the Underground symbol etc? maybe London is just too big a subject to narrow down to a few symbolic images. Duncan Smith
Are we ready for WP:FAC now? It looks great to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It needs a reference section if it's not to be summarily rejected, jguk 23:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Would love this to be FA - have submitted it to Peer Review. Fingers crossed, eh? --PopUpPirate 23:21, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
In the intro 4 cities in comparison seems almost claustrophobic at this point. How about London, Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Moscow? Criteria could include population and the city's international nature. I suppose substitutes would include Sao Paolo, Johannesburg, Bombay and ???. I just feel impulsively that London looks even better when compared with more cities than just 4, and maybe 10 is a manageable number. It would certainly be even more welcoming to visitors than the article already is. As a non-native, thank you for reading.--McDogm 23:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
--Well the top four are almost universally considered to be the most important global cities. The others you mentioned are what could be considered currently developing into true global city status, but are not anywhere near the same level as London at the present time. --Jleon 15:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I put the panorama image back where it was previously. Its a bad image (more apparent when it was displayed at high resolution), understandably because its not the most convenient position for taking a panorama... but there are just too many seams to the picture, and very little info.
I also put the Tower image further up for better presentation... A really cool image of the bridge would be a better choice for that position, but I am not an expert on London (by any stretch).
Hope this helps. --Spundun 19:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
This article is 69KB, more than twice as large as 32KB. I want to see if there is any real way to get the sections into their own articles and I can't find one here. Georgia guy 23:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anyone is welcome to contribute to the Wikibook guide on London. Find it at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/London . We especially need info on travel in the city. Thanks! Charlie123 14:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Wow User:Misterrick, what a nice day to pick a fight (see his comments on the history page)! The pics you deleted from the intro were not only good pictures, but they had been there for quite some time. I suggest they get restored, who supports me on this? --Jleon 7 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)
This page has the longest TOC I've seen on Wikipedia outside of lists. Fredrik | talk 8 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)
I recall reading that the origin of the name is after a celtic settlement who had named their town after celtic god Lug. The city of Lyon also earned it's name this way
The weather in London redirects to here. Considering it's used as an example in How to edit a page for a link that does not exist yet, should this be the case? Kawa 16:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted the infobox recently added by user Cmc0 because infoboxes are relevant to articles dealing with administrative entitities (countries, states, regions, counties, cities, etc.). This article is about London, which is not an administrative entity, but a generic name that covers different realities (the small City of London, the Greater London Authority, or even in a broader meaning the London Commuter Belt), so an infobox is totally inappropriate in the London article (which is already an extremely long article). There are already infoboxes at the Greater London and at the City of London articles, and that's where they should be. Moreover, the infobox added by Cmc0 was a total mess: the flag and coat of arms were the flag and coat of arms of the City of London (not Greater London), while the map was the map of Greater London, and some information inside the infobox was about the London Commuter Belt. Hardouin 01:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Infoboxes are meant to cover specific areas, not just actual cities, the infobox is used to cover distinct details that would be otherwise covered in various areas of the long article without having the user to scroll through relountesely. I would like to bring up other areas, such as the articles on Tokyo and Paris (which also uses the coat of arms and flag for just the city, while describing the whole departement), which also describe the whole area, not just the city and they are free to use infoboxes. If you have any questions about how infoboxes are used on the site, your complaint extends farther than just this page so for now I will place the infobox back on and if you want to remove them, please call a dispute or a vote for removal as this is unfair to me and other writers that take the time to create them. Thank you and please do not edit the article unless you can contribute, and not just delete. Cmc0 01:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, I am going to use this direction directly from Wikipedia to show the infobox should stay From Greater London:
Greater London is the top level administrative subdivision covering London, England. It is one of the nine regions of England. The administrative area of Greater London covers the large conurbation which comprises the City of London, the City of Westminster and 31 other London boroughs, and encompasses what is commonly known simply as London,
If the coat or arms or flag is incorrect to establish, the area known as London (Also known as the Greator London Area or London Commuter Belt), feel free to remove such, but not the whole infobox when it has valuable infomation
I haven't checked the latitude and longitude but I will assume they are correct. I'm sorry to be so negative but the status of London, the City of London, Greater London and London commuter belt is unique and complicated and this box fails to accurately explain this. MRSC 10:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree with Mrsteviec. Besides, Cmc0 doesn't know what he/she is talking about when he/she is comparing with the articles Tokyo or Paris. In the case of Paris, the city of Paris is exactly the same thing as the département, so the infobox there is about the twin administrative entity city/département of Paris. As for Tokyo, the Tokyo article is about the Tokyo prefecture, not the "city of Tokyo", there is no such thing as the "city of Tokyo", it was abolished in the 1940s if I remember correctly. So the infobox at the Tokyo article is about the administrative entity Tokyo prefecture. Hardouin 11:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
This article is beginning to get rather obese, The TOC is almost as long as the article itself. I think it's probably time to consider moving some sections into their own sub-articles and leaving a summary on the main page, like has been done at Birmingham. Does anyone agree? G-Man 19:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
OK well as no-ones objected, I've decided to be bold and have moved the education, culture and transport sections into their own articles (Education in London, Culture of London and Transport and infrastructure in London).
I am considering moving the "London in the arts" section in to the culture article, as it seems to be heavilly related. And I was also considering putting the tourist atractions section into its own article seem as it consists mostly of lists. Does anyone have any thoughts about this?. If no-one objects I'll do it. G-Man 21:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
How many football clubs are there from London?
There are 14 professional clubs in London: Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham Hotspur, Charlton Athletic, West Ham United, Crystal Palace, Fulham, Queens Park Rangers, Milton Keynes Dons, Brentford, Millwall, Wycombe Wanderers, Barnet and Leyton Orient. Aecis 14:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I cleared up some typos in this section, but may have inadvertantly changed the content. Should 'it is speculated that it will be the one of the world's longest tram' have been changed to 'the world's longest tram' or 'one of the world's longest trams?'? Can anyone confirm? Jenny 84.68.113.51 19:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Plural is better grammer I'd say. --PopUpPirate 21:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
London became capital 1042, according to History of London by Hugh Clout (ISBN 0-00-7166653 Parameter error in ((ISBN)): checksum-2). I guess that the discrepancy is a matter of definition of capital. Do anyone know in what regard London became capital 1042 and the 12th century respectively? Gunnar Larsson 19:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The small fishing village of London became capital in around 1042, but then William the Conquerer invaded and Britain's capital was technically Normandy for a few years, before regaining independance again with sucessive Kings (who later invaded and took over Normandy!).Smurrayinchester 22:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi folks - I think this article could be great - but does need quite alot of work - before rolling sleeves up and suggesting some larger-scale merging / revisions of sections, I've made a minor edit to the very beginning - the 'see also different names' (now removed)- bit IMO seriously undermined the readibility, and set the article off on a bad foot...... Petesmiles 08:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
In the past weeks, some users have changed the population figures in the introduction of the article repeatedly. Each time, they push up the population figure for the metropolitan area of London, listing an 18 million figure that they say is "official" because it appears in this document ([1]) published by the Greater London Authority. Before going any further, I would like first to give everybody a sense of proportions. If this 18 million figure was true, then the metropolitan area of London would be the 4th largest in the world, about as populous as Mexico City, Mumbai, or Sao Paulo. The problem with these users, is that they don't understand the difference between a metropolitan region and a metropolitan area. The 18 million figure that appears in the document published by the Greater London Authority is the population figure for a vast metropolitan region with London at its center. It is not the actual population of the metropolitan area of London. Some definitions: a metropolitan area is a city and its agglomerated suburbs, called the core, with the satellite towns and cities around the core that are separated from the core by some agricultural land. On the other hand, a metropolitan region is much larger, it is a network of metropolitan areas that have substantial linkage between them. The metropolitan region with 18 million inhabitants referred to in the GLA document (see map at [2], page 42) contains not only the metropolitan area of London, but it also contains the metropolitan area of Southampton-Porstmouth, the metropolitan area of Brighton-Worthing, the metropolitan area of Oxford, and so on. It even contains the entire Isle of Wight, mind you! This is much MUCH larger than the metropolitan area of London. So please stop using that 18 million figures as if it was the figure for the metropolitan area of London. Other examples of metropolitan regions are the Lower Rhine metropolitan region, with 30 million inhabitants, which contains the Randstad metropolitan area and the Cologne-Ruhr metropolitan area, or the Megalopolis in the US, extending from Boston to Washington DC, with about 44 million inhabitants in it. Now, as for the metropolitan area of London, there is no consensus among geographers and statisticians as to where its limits are, so we cannot give a definite figure for its population. Estimates for the population of the London metropolitan area range from 11 to 14 million. So I think we should leave the introduction as it is, i.e. "and the population includes several million more in the wider metropolitan area". Giving any definite number would be controversial. The demographics section, on the other hand, rightly lists the different estimates that exist for the metropolitan area of London. Hardouin 15:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Reply
I don't know about others, but I have been one of the persons changing the figure back to the correct 18million statistic. This is based on the correct and official government figure of which I have referenced. The same references that you have constantly removed and deleted, yet never replaced with other official sources to explain your reasons.
Now, you state two rather incorrect reasons why you removed them.
1) You seem to have some idea that there is an international standard defining the differences between a "metropolitan area" and "metropolitan region". But there are no international standards. This maybe the case in the U.S where you live, but around the world the terms are often exchanged, and frequently. A region doesn't always have to be larger than an area (i.e. the official INSEE Paris Metropolitan Area is larger than the Ile de France Region often confused for the MA).
2) You also presume by the map shown in your link, that it it includes all of the South East and East, but it doesn't. If it did so, it would have a population in excess of 21million. It is only a generic term of the South East that is referred to as the metropolitan area, but it doesn't include all of it in reality, certainly not the Isle of Wight as you claim (although the very fact that the South East is often confused as the MA shows how close the approximation between them can be) It does include Brighton (otherwise known as London-by-the-Sea" due to the enormous amount of commuters to London) and other area's like Oxford. And like American CMSA's, they can include other sub-metro areas. The 18million region or area covers a smaller area than all of the South East/East. Smaller than New York's CMSA and is not that much larger than Atlanta's MA. It certainly would be double standards to allow a much smaller Metro in population such as Atlanta to cover such a large area, but not London.
The simply fact is, that official government documents describe London's metropolitan region as 18million, and it does not explain that this is separate from another metropolitan area. I quote London is part of a metropolitan region of over 18 million people. This forms a megacity region in which there are a vast number of linkages and networks between all the urban settlements. Within this wider region, London performs the functions characteristic of the central city. It is the main generator and source of jobs as well as of culture, leisure and higher-level shopping activities. source
Atlanta is also the centre of it's 22,000km² metropolitan area in exactly the same way.
Every country treats metropolitan area's differently. There are no international standards. The closest there can be to a standard definition, is one that a metropolitan area is an area surrounding a city or polycentric group of cities that share an economic link. An area with high commuting and large influence by the central dominant city (if it is a mono-centric region). London's definition by that government source describes this throughout the publication.
I provide current and accurate documents to back up my contribution to this wonderful site of knowledge. You delete these with no official sources and nothing more than a personal disagreement with the term "region" and your personal perception of London's metropolitan area. We should not base this site on personal ideals but actual facts.
My contribution is factual and has a link, and it should not be removed again unless a more accurate government source is identified and can be linked. --Ovbg 19:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
--I agree with Hardouin. If you want to note the metropolitan region numbers within the article, I think that would be fine, so long as a clear distinction is made in regards to the Metropolitan Area. A good measure is to look at commuting patterns; certainly the people living on the fringes of this 18 million people "region" do not regulary commute into central London, however the people on the fringes on the 12 million metropolitan area are much more likely to since the commuter rail network extends into most of these areas. Another factor to consider is the large amount of agricultural land within this greater "region," which is certainly much more prevelant than in the Metro area. --Jleon 13:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
--The reason that London has so many different metropolitan area figures is that unlike other countries such as the U.S. which have a long history of MA's and are dictated by the government census office, Britain as a nation does not publish such figures. It is left up to each city to define their own metropolitan area's. This has only started recently and as such before hand there were many unofficial guesses. Natually people on the outskirts of the MA are far less likely to commute into the city center, but that is exactly the same for all MA's around the world. No one presumes those at the outskirts of Atlanta's 22,000km² MA constantly commute into central Atlanta every day. Also, MA's by commuter percentages are not calculated by numbers travelling into the city center or even core city proper only, but by cross commuting. This is how the U.S. calculate theirs by county crossing into another county which may be part of the MA - it doesn't have to cross into the core city itself. And with all MA's a vast portion of the area is rural - an MA is about the linkages within the defined region surrounding a city. London has a large MA because of the green belt that forces people to live further from the main urban area, and due to some of the highest land & house prices in the world, people are forced out even further. If the 11 to 14million population area was the MA as Hardouin suggests, then the GLA would identify this, but they don’t. They do identify the 18million area, which yes, they call a region. But as explained, there is no international standard between a region and an area and how they differentiate, there maybe in the U.S. but there are a lot of words different in American English. As demographia was used as a link, I shall do as well, and this demographia page shows that in 1990 there were 12.2million living within 4,147km around London (and defined by U.S. standards as an Urban Area, although British standards see that very differently). It sounds very odd that London should restrict it’s MA to 4,147km² when a far smaller city such as Atlanta (or many other U.S. cities) have MA’s that exceed 20,000km², and it certainly seems very odd that it should be argued that such a large area is too large for London, but not too large for Atlanta. Commuting is a way of life in London these days and people travel enormous distances.demographia By the way. The other link provided by Hardouin (citypopulation.de) is just a hobbiest site that is full of so many obvious errors. It lists U.S. cities By CMSA (which are combined metropolitan area's) yet lists Paris by it's Urban Area population! It also lists Barcelona as 3.8million, when Barcelona's own official site (www.barcelona.es) shows government stats for the metro area being 4.6million! Please do not present hobbiest sites as official sources.
The site I provided comes from an official government source. I am happy to leave the content as saying Metropolitan "Region", but there should not be any reference that this is different to an "Area" as there are absolutely no such standards on a global level (The U.K. uses English differently to the U.S.)--Ovbg 11:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
............... Reply I do find it amazing that it has been changed again, by someone not from Britain, who ignores the British government source and prefers to accept a hobbiest site that makes obvious errors. If that is what wikipedia has become, then it is becoming a sad site. Hobbiest sources are more accurate than Government statistics.
I can accept the current listing where it shows both the inaccurate figures without source and the accurate with, but I believe the totally incorrect assumption that Britain speaks American English and the term "Region" in this context has a different meaning to "Area" is totally uncredited, unsourced, and has no place in an encyclopedia unless it is backed up with cited sources. I live in Britain, and I know how we speak here.
Please explain where my figures are flawed? It was you who pointed out that the London metropolitan area is between 11 and 14million. And you used a demographia link to show your points. I also showed that from demographia there is 12.2million within 4,147km² according to demographia. Demograhia also has another list where it calls a metropolitan area of 14million around 16,000km². But Demographia is not an official site.. The definition was a guess by an American who doesn't live in London and was based before London defined their own official figures.
Your opinion on London's metropolitan area is Personal, you simply refuse to accept the official government statistic because you personally don't like the sound of it.. This encylopedia is not about your personal tastes and should never be. It is about facts, and government statistical facts outweigh your personal preferences, and your hobbiest links.
You then go to say that Atlanta cannot be used, because it is one of the most spread out metropolitan area's of the U.S. but you do not think for a moment that London is one of the most spread out metropolitan area's in Europe. London is the most expensive city in Europe (and one of the most expensive in the world). It's urban area is locked in by a greenbelt and this forces people to move further out into the metro area for cheaper housing and it increases the commuting distances. British zoning laws are very strict and vast area's of countryside cannot be developed into single house family homes with endless suburban sprawl, this forces people to move to area's even further away. Commuting long distances on the world's 2nd largest rail network after Tokyo (and larger than New York by a long shot). Every single reference in Britain, describes the generic area of the SouthEast as London's metro. There are no other references used by the public or media. It is always discussed as "London and the South East", just as SF has the Bay Area. Although in reality, not all of the South East is used, and part of the East is used. London's commuting range is enormous, just as Atlanta's is (and the Bay Area for that matter). To accept Atlanta of 4.4million or so can have such a massive metropolitan area based on "because it is one of the most spread out metro's in the US" but deny London simply because you don't "think" it fits is very illogical.
London's metro area is one of the most spread out in Europe, and that is a fact. To get an idea on how much influence London now has, look at this BBC News article, based on an academic study from Sheffield University. It is NOT based on metropolitan area’s, so don’t start quoting me as claiming the whole of Southern England is part of the Metro. But this study explains how London’s influence has extended right across the entire south of the country and clearly shows that London can certainly have as big a metro as Atlanta or New York in geographical area. The 18million region described by London’s GLA is only a fraction of this! But this article clearly shows how large the influence is becoming, and clearly demonstrates that an official London metropolitan, although much smaller than the south of England, could still be a very large area. http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40331000/rm/_40331151_northsouth13_westhead_vi.ram
London's 18million fits in an area slightly smaller than New York's CMSA. It seems alright for you to accept New York can have 28,000km² in it's metro for 21million, but London can't have 18million in around 27,000km². ???? Where is your logic here? Do Londoners only travel by horse and cart?
You also keep writing that Britain speaks American English and that a region is different to an area in metropolitan terms. No Such standard exists in Britain - this is entirely your imagination to try and drive your personal preferences forward.
The fact remains that only one official source is stated, and that is that London has 18million in it's metropolitan region. And you have no justification to change that unless you can derive further official government details on the metropolitan area of London based on government released statistics. Your personal choices have no place here.
As I said, I will not change the term used by the London government from Region to Area - I will keep it as Region, because that is the word they use. But you can not try to tell people what they were thinking with that word, and they were thinking something different. Your mind reading skills are not welcome.--Ovbg 07:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
First of all, hello to all involved editors - i think the article's come a long way, and i hope we can all keep our heads to get it to the featured article stage without anyone falling out!
With regard to the population problem documented above - the argument seems to be denegerating a little, and i think there are a couple of key questions to answer before we achieve consensus - bung your opinion in after mine if you think this might be useful;
You'll notice i removed all the external link stuff - which i kinda felt was only there as a nod towards this argument, and made the section a little clunky.
As I said - I really hope this helps - I won't make any changes until we've had a chat here, so let me know what you think! - cheers Petesmiles 08:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I am perfectly fine with mentioning this GLA defined "metropolitan region" of London inside the article. But actually this metropolitan region is already mentioned inside the article. So what's all the fuss about? What I disagree with, is to equate this "metropolitan region" with the metropolitan area of London, or worse, to say that there are 18 million people in the metropolitan area of London. As I understand that a lot of this discussion is based on personal perceptions about what's the metropolitan area of London, I made a little research in Census UK 2001 to come with more objective data here. In order to define a metropolitan area, you need, well, a definition. Usually the definition goes like this: a metropolitan area is an urban area, called the core, plus all the satellite cities and towns around the core, separated from the core by agricultural land, but where more than xx% of the resident population in employement work in the core or in other satellite towns or cities of the core. Different countries have different percentages, depending on which exact definition they use. In France, INSEE use a 40% definition (see aire urbaine). Other countries use a 50% definition. Say we use 50%, so then things are quite simple; for any given city or town in southeast England, we count how many people in employement work inside the core (London urban area) or in other satellite towns or cities of the core. If it's more than 50% of the employed resident population of that town or city, that means the town is part of the metropolitan area of London, if less than 50%, then it's not part of the metropolitan area.
I looked at distances travelled to work in Census UK 2001. I looked at the percentage of people who work more than 5 km. (3 miles) from home. People working less than 5 km. from home basically are just working inside the town/city where they live, they are not commuters. In the commuting towns or districts part of the metropolitan area of London, you would expect more than 50% of residents in employement to be working at least more than 5 km. from their home. Indeed, let's take two towns/districts that are beyond dispute commuting towns/districts: Brentwood (Essex) and Sevenoaks (Kent). In Brentwood, 62% of residents in employement work more than 5 km. from home, while in Seven Oaks it's 63%. These are undeniably commuters' towns/districts part of the metropolitan area.
Now, let's take some of the cities that are inside the "metropolitan region" defined by GLA. Take Brighton. In Brighton and Hove, only 37% of residents in employement work more than 5 km. from home. This, however, does not mean that 37% of people in Brighton and Hove work in London! In fact, another 10% of people work within 5 to 10 km. from home. The border of Surrey is located 40 km. (25 miles) north of Brighton. At the 2001 census, only 11% of residents of Brighton and Hove in employement worked more than 40 km. from home. This means that at the most, only 11% of people in Brighton and Hove work in Surrey or Greater London. Looking at these figures, you can hardly call Brighton a commuting town. Yet if you read the discussion above, user Ovbg wrote "Brighton (otherwise known as London-by-the-Sea due to the enormous amount of commuters to London)". As can be seen, sometimes our own perception may be greatly different from the reality on the ground. In any case, you can use any definition you want for the metropolitan area, I don't think that any statistician in the world would consider Brighton as part of the metropolitan area of London with such low numbers of commuters.
Here are figures for some other cities/districts located inside the "metropolitan region" of London as defined by GLA.
Cities/districts in the "metropolitan region" of London |
Percentage of residents in employement who work more than 5 km. (3 miles) from home (census 2001) |
---|---|
Brighton and Hove | 37% |
Portsmouth | 35% |
Southampton | 35% |
Oxford | 29% |
Colchester (borough) | 45% |
Eastbourne | 28% |
As a reminder, two true commuting towns/districts:
Name | Percentage of residents in employement who work more than 5 km. (3 miles) from home (census 2001) |
---|---|
Brentwood | 62% |
Sevenoaks (district) | 63% |
So as can be seen from the figures, the "metropolitan region" of London defined by the GLA includes many cities that can hardly be called commuting cities part of the metropolitan area of London. That's why this "metropolitan region" of London cannot be equated with the metropolitan area of London. Hardouin 19:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Before, you insisted that we shouldn't use US definitions for the UK, because the UK is very different from the US. Now, you insist we should use the definition of metropolitan areas by the US Census Bureau and apply it to the UK. That's rather strange! You say the US Census Bureau uses a 25% threshold for commuters, which is very low, but anyone with some knowledge of statistics knows that the US Census Bureau is very lax in defining metropolitan areas. The Census Bureau tend to include far-away counties that European statisticians would not consider part of the metropolitan area. The most extreme case is LA, where the CMSA identified by the Census Bureau extends all the way to the border of Arizona, across hundreds of miles of desert! I don't see why Europeans should use these lax definitions in Europe. Furthermore, there is a very big difference between the US and northern Europe. The US is a very loosely inhabited country, whereas in northern Europe the population density is very high. What it means is that in the case of New York, if you include far away counties in Pennsylvania or upstate New York, it's not going to change much to the total population of the metropolitan area of New York, because these far away counties don't have that many inhabitants. But in the case of London, which is located in an extremely dense country, England, adding far away districts and counties changes dramatically the total number of inhabitants of the metropolitan area. In particular, saying that the southern coast of England, along the Channel, is part of the metropolitan area of London, automatically adds several million of inhabitants living in Dover, Folkestone, Hastings, Eastbourne, Brighton, Worthing, Portsmouth, Southampton.
Some of the documents that you provided are just bewildering. The report by the University of Sheffield which says that the entire southern England, from Norfolk to Devon, is now a suburbs of London simply defies common sense! What they mean really, is that the influence of London is felt all throughout southern England, but that's very different from meaning that southern England IS the metropolitan area of London. In France, geographers and statisticians also say that the influence of Paris is felt all throughout northern France, from Brittany in the west to Alsace in the east, and from the Belgian border in the north to Lyon and Bordeaux in the south. In this immense area, there live approximately 30 million people, yet nobody in their right mind say that the metropolitan area of Paris has 30 million inhabitants. In France the phenomenon of commute is further amplified by the use of the TGV, the fastest train in the world. There are many people now who commute to Paris from as far away as Lille (140 miles from central Paris), Le Mans (130 miles from central Paris), or Tours (150 miles from central Paris). The commute by TGV takes only 50 minutes. Yet does it make any sense to say that Tours, Le Mans, or Lille are part of the metropolitan area of Paris? or are "suburbs" of Paris?? I have never heard serious statisticans saying that. If we use these kind of crazy definitions, then probably the Germans would be entitled to say that there exist an enormous metropolitan area in western Germany from the Ruhr to Stutgart. You are always going to find people who commute from district to district or state to state from Ruhr to Cologne to Frankfurt to Stutgart. If we use low thresholds of commuters, we could say that this entire huge area of western Germany, with 40 to 50 million people in it, is a consolidated metropolitan area. As can be seen, the definitions of the US Census Bureau make no sense in very dense countries. Hardouin 19:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Ovbg, you're becoming personal now. I find it extraordinary to accuse me of basing what I write on my "personal beliefs", when I am just repeating the main opinion of academia, and statisticians and geographers around the world. Anyone interested in the matter, feel free to go to your local bookstore or library, and check books about urbanization, megacities, etc., you're not gonna find any serious book that claims that London has 18 million people in its metropolitan area, which would make London as populated as Sao Paulo! Also, I suggest everybody check the List of metropolitan areas by population. This list was written over many months by many Wikipedians, and the consensus there is that London metropolitan area has 12.4 million inhabitants, not 18 million. If the metropolitan area of London had 18 million inhabitants, it would rank as the 7th largest in the world, according to the list. Does it make sense at all?? Most of the statistics and geography books I have read say that London is approximately the 20th largest metropolitan area in the world. Of course Ovbg would call that my "personal belief". Finally, Ovbg, if I write about London and not about each and every US American city, that's because I live in London, not in America, and I always write about what I am most familiar with. Hardouin 21:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Removed the "londoners are informally known as 'cockneys" addition, because though all cockneys are londoners, not all londoners are cockneys - traditionally a cockney is born within the sound of tbe Bow Bells - so is from a small area of east london - people use the term generally to cover a broader range of east london now, but someone born and bred in kensington would never be a cockney! Hope that helps. Still think the article could be great, and keep putting off finding the time to hit it harder........ Petesmiles 03:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
It might be good to move the disambiguation page under title "London" and current article under another name. I know that usually the most famous meaning for a word should be displayed first. But in this case the people who don't know about other Londons link to this article, which creates confusion. I ran into this problems at Talena Atfield article and started discussion at Talk:Talena Atfield. --Easyas12c 23:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
There is no mention of the huge Polish immigration going on, there is ALOT of Poles living in London and i think it needs a mention in this article. I don't know the precise figures but it is somewhere in the six figure region. http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/story/0,15729,1433412,00.html <--- credible source --80.2.175.184 21:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Discussion is continued in Archive 3...