Talk:London/Archive 1

ambiguity
This represents a solution to a problem: ambiguous place names. This should be discussed on naming conventions! -- LS


 * Yes, it solves ambiguity, but at the cost of ease of use, and that is a too high price. If I write an article on something else and want to mention London, it is the difference between keeping track of and writing ((London)) or ((United Kingdom/London|London)).  This is a stupid approach.  If we want to make it complicated to link to pages, we could just aswell introduce unambiguous object identifiers. -- LA2


 * I agree; London should definitely have a page of its own (and a reference from this one). -- Pinkunicorn


 * Please, "just say no" to almost all subpages. There are almost always good reasons not to have them.  There are better ways to disambiguate.  If necessary, this can be moved to London, England, but I'd say don't do that: the London is, as everybody knows, in England, and London, Ohio (if there is one--there probably is) can live comfortably at London, Ohio with a link from London.  No one will be confused by this.  :-) -- LMS
 * Note: the history of the above conversation before it was moved here is at . Graham87 (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone please put a London map in its page??

Text from July 2002
I've made several minor changes, including de-Americanizing it (transport, not transportation; St Paul's, not St. Paul's; Labour Party, not British Labour Party). One requiring comment is that I've removed the reference to its original name being Lud, as this is a fable of Geoffrey of Monmouth, not historical. The earliest known reference is as Londinium. Gritchka

er, it was Galfridus not Geoffrey of Monmouth... otherwise I agree that the derivation is suspect. I did actually in the original article have a significant caveat about the Lud nomenclature however it looks like someone took my sceptical note away. sjc

RAF Kenley
RAF Kenley is not Kenley. There are an awful lot of people living in Kenley and they would not be happy to live on the Aerodrome which is indeed the place RAF Kenley used to be associted with. It is a rather draughty place, on top of a hill. I want to list the squadrons which used to be there over World Wars One and Two.Dieter Simon

flag
Where did the flag come from, there's no reference to it in the text and it it far too big. Is it the flag of London or of the City of London? Mintguy


 * It's the flag of the City of London, not London itself.  Also, London wasn't a Celtic town first: "We can be reasonably certain that there were no major sttlements in or around London at the time of the [Roman] conquest." (Dominic Perring, Roman London) JohnKozak


 * I think the flag is wrong - it represents the old City, one tiny part of what the article is about. If we can't figure out which flag it should be - and that could be difficult?! - then I think we should remove this one anyway as it is a little misleading - in a way ... mmmmmmm yes come to think of it the flag should probably be in the separate article on the City, so it can't really be in both places can it??? -- Nevilley 21:15 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about the flag and London. But I convert the gif file to png file - the preferrable format for Wikipedia.  Could somebody delete the gif file?  Wshun


 * The flag may be that of the City of London, but the corresponding shield was used on marker posts at the edge of the old Greater London local government area as far afield as Potters Bar.EdH 02:01, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it wasn't the edge of land owned by the Corporation of London? They do often use their arms to mark their property even outside the City itself. The GLC had its own arms which it should have been using, rather than appropriating someone else's. Marnanel 20:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The first sentence (old talk)
Re: the first sentence. I like the choice of first sentence but is the list of great cities given in comparison the right choice? The ones listed /are/ great cities but so are so many other places! Pete 09:58 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree, rewording needed, Fantasy 11:10 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I find the first sentence just silly. One could argue endlessly about what exactly are the "great cities of the world" and if you feel like mentioning such a thing in an encyclopedia, it would be more appropriate in an article of its own. --anon


 * I've come round to something closer to your view since writing the above a week ago. Question is, what to change the sentence to? IMO something as anodyne as "London is the capital city of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland " is too boring. Any ideas? Pete 09:13 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * I've just deleted it until someone get a better idea. The current one is just not good. (or better: not a "fact" ;-) Fantasy 09:17 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Now is something like ''London is the capital city of the UK. In its guises from the capital of Roman Britannica to the centre of British Empire and to contributing a quarter of the GDP to the world's fourth largest economy, London has been one of the world's most important centres of commerce and politics for 1500 years.'' POV? Pete 14:10 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * No. it's almost poetic. I'm putting it in. Just saying 'London is the capital of the UK and England' is just too plain boring. Mintguy


 * Heh. A bit of a lyricism never goes down well on the Wikipedia. I see now the phrase has been watered back down again! Pete 21:52, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Population of metropolitan area
A population of 13,945,000 for "London metropolitan area" seems a bit excessive. I checked the reference and they seem to be including all of the surrounding counties (Essex, Hertfordshire, etc) as part of this figure. And then they count Berkshire plus the new Unitary Authorities that were formerly Berkshire. ( 09:25 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. That number seems quite excessive. The figures I have read are typically closer to 7.5 million. Also, this article claims London is the 2nd largest conurbation in Europe after Moscow. I would say London is 3rd or 4th. Moscow is definitely the largest conurbation in Europe, but I'm pretty sure the Paris conurbation is bigger than London's. Also, if we consider Istanbul a European city, then London should be ranked behind that. Summary- Moscow is biggest, then Paris, then Istanbul, THEN London. I know the standards for conurbations are inconsistent, but I think this ranking is probably accurate. I'd like to know your opinions. -Dan

According to the UN Population Division figures, which compare UN Urban Areas to each other, London is indeed smaller than Paris and Istanbul. If we consider Istanbul a European city (a reasonable assumption, given Turkey's bid for ascension to the European Union), then it goes like this: 1. Moscow (10.5m) 2. Paris (9.8m) 3. Istanbul (9.4m) 4. London (7.6m) I'm going to update the page to reflect this. --69.141.221.171 19:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just thought I would clarify a few things, according to the Office for National Statistics the estimated population of Greater London i.e. the 32 London boroughs plus the City of London was 7.355 million in mid 2002. And according to the office for National Statistics the population of the continuous built up area surrounding Greater London, known as the Greater London Urban area was 8.3 million on census day 2001. Also a metropolitan area is not a continuously built up area in a sense that a conurbation is. My understanding of a metropolitan area is an area surrounding a large city, not distinctly urban in character, but interlinked to that city in terms of employment and wealth etc. This is the case of Paris where the Aire Urbane has a population of 11.1 million inhabitants but not all that area is urban, whereas the population of the conurbation of Paris is around 9.3 million. Therefore this puts London into 2nd place in Western Europe.

12.9% for others
"71% class themselves as white, 6% as Indian, 5.3% as black African and 4.8% as black Caribbean."

That leaves a 12.9% for others and "not saying", which is a lot. Any more breakdown? Andy G 19:54, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Found a source that gives all 16 categories. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=6561&More=Y Updated page to leave only 5% "other". It wasn't compulsory to answer this question in the census but theres no figure for people who didn't answer. Andy G 23:32, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

London's weather
I notice that the weather in London has been redirected to the London page. I think that link is used by some pages as an example of a broken link, however. An example is on the User preferences help page, but I believe there are others. Having this link appear as one that exists may cause confusion. So is the redirect necessary? Ajr 12:34, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article is patent nonense, and a Speedy. - Alphax 16:03, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Capital city?
What do people mean when they call London the capital city of England and of the UK? They can't mean that the City of London is, because the legislative and judicial and executive branches all live in the City of Westminster. And Greater London itself doesn't have a city charter... So is London the capital city of the UK? Morwen 18:57, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

London as an entity is made up of the 'cities' of Westminster and London, as well as all the other districts, for example Kensigton, Battersea. Grunners

Largeness
User:pigsonthewing; yes, "large enough to be among the largest" is a tautology. "Large enough to be among the largest of cities" isn't, and avoids making the incorrect statement that Greater London is a city. Or, if it doesn't, somebody needs to come up with another phrasing that also avoids making that statement.


 * Greater London is a city in sense (1) of the word (A center of population, commerce, and culture; a town of significant size and importance.), but not in sense (2) (A large incorporated town in Great Britain, usually the seat of a bishop, with its title conferred by the Crown.). Instisting that 2 is the only true definition is pure prescriptivism and unsubstantiated by usage.  Morwen 20:56, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sense two is the only true definition, in the United Kingdom, and calling it prescriptivist does not make it less true. -- User:Khendon

Kudos & a question
Actually, this is in the way of being a fan letter. The London article is one of the best-designed and best-written of the several hundred I've read. Nice use of non-commercial photos, too. One minor criticism, however -- or maybe it's just a question: In the links from the census information, does lack of membership in a particular church really equate to "atheism"? -- User:mksmith

Images
The are lots of images on this page, which is great. However remember to keep them spaced out a bit if you can - if they are crushed close together on a low res screen then the layout is totally screwed on higher-res screens. Maybe an HTML expert could rig up a table so that all the pictures neatly went down the right-hand side of the page no matter what screen size is being used? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:13, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Given my modest knowledge of HTML, I don't think it's possible to set up a single table to be anything but rectangular. The best thing I can think of is a tabular photo gallery at the end of the page, to thin out the images within the text. -Smack 00:58, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * An HTML expert wouldn't use a table for non- tabular data. They'd use Cascading Style Sheets. Andy Mabbett 01:11, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I guess that's why I asked for the help of an expert then ... cos I clearly didn't know what I was talking about :=) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 01:52, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The images on the page look rather poor in part because the CSS layout code that wraps them has mostly been cut'n'pasted in (that's why St Stephens Tower took a huge amount of horizontal space it didn't).  I'm going through all the images and fixing their markup (and making sure they look good on browsers other than Internet Explorer).  I might also reorder them a bit (partly for logic, partly for layout).  I'll post here once I'm done - I'd appreciate it if y'all could take a gander and see if the improvement is sufficient. -- Finlay McWalter 01:44, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you are in the middle of changing things... but at the moment you've reverted to the problem I tried to get rid of earlier today.. my screen res is perhaps too high on this computer (1400xsomething) but London Eye picture is starting to the left (and down) of St. Stephen's Tower picture rather than directly below it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 01:52, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Spoke to soon... now it seems to be the St. Stephen's Tower left of the Palace of Westminster one... London Eye is further down. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 01:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be screwing you around like this. Once I'm done, I'll ask you to send me a screenshot. Armed with that, i'll put in magic BR-clear tags (which will prevent the floating images from piling up horizontally on oneanother) and it should look great. I can reproduce the tower/palace stackup now by reducing my font size, so I should be able to fix that one myself. All of this is partially caused because we have such a preponderance if images when compared with the text, and the real solution is to write more text, or have fewer images. -- Finlay McWalter 02:02, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm just pleased you know what's going on and how to work through it. And yes we need more text :) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 02:13, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think I'm done, and (IMHO) it's quite a bit improved. I've tested it on IE, mozilla, and opera 7 and it looks fine, and I tried to emulate a big screen by reducing the font size, which also doesn't seem to cause any problems. I took the liberty of removing the Westminster Palace photo as a) I'm sorry, but it really wasn't a great photo and b) it seemed redundant, as we have the bigben photo too (which is a better, easier to use, photo). There's still lattitude for tweaking, so comments and bug-reports are welcome. Oh, and sorry for spamming the history list - I needed to see changes in other browsers, which entails saving rather a lot. -- Finlay McWalter 02:44, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Looks great for me... IE6 at 1400x1050 Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:02, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

MCC?
Hmm, the page says MCC stands for "Middlesex Country Cricket". Doesn't it really stand for "Marylebone Cricket Club"? -- Finlay McWalter 02:53, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Middlesex just play their county games there. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:02, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Culture section
Was a bit of a dissapointing read ;) London is one of the biggest centres of culture on the world, and all the culture section has is 4 orchestras?  I don't know enough about the topic, but surely we could come up with a bit about theatre, opera, live music, art galleries, museums, special events? --Steinsky 00:32, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

GDP
Why is here London named as capital of 4th largest economy, when page for GDP says that UK is 7th?

Tomislav
 * 4th is the gross figure, 7th is when re-stated according to purchasing power parity rather than fx rate. Which is more correct is arguable, and economists argue about it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

London msg box
Is there any general agreement on which pages should or shouldn't include ? I added it to Leytonstone but I notice that a lot of other places - for example Rainham - don't have it. Should it be reserved for London boroughs?

Population?
What is the source for the claim that London is the second most populous conurbation in Europe, and which city is supposed to be more populous? It seems from other articles that Moscow and Istanbul are definitely larger, and Paris may well be also. Cambyses 20:25, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In response to myself, I've now read the whole article and compared with the list of metropolitan area by population, and think I see what is going on. But the first paragraph implies, probably unintentionally, that the figure of seven million given there is the population of the conurbation..... Cambyses 21:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seven million is the population of Greater London which is the conurbation. Greater London is not in itself a city. Perhaps you mean the London metropolitan area which is a different thing entirely. G-Man 11:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I've now worked out that this is indeed the point at issue, but the confusion is not mine but the article's. I'm not referring to the paragraph on population, but to the very first sentence in the article, which claims that London, "with a population of over 7 million", is the second-largest conurbation in Europe. I would take "conurbation" as synonymous with "metropolitan area" (indeed, the article on one redirects to the other), in which case the sentence implies that London is the same thing as the London metropolitan area, and has a population of "over seven million". Anyway, now I understand what's going on, I'll see if I can effect a subtle change.... Cambyses 14:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A bit of history would be useful here

London originally referred to the City Of London. As the city started to expand beyond the old walls and to absorb the adjacent towns of Westminster, Southwark etc, population statistics would commonly include the suburbs - but, legally, only the City of London was really "London".

Only in the 19th C was the County of London created, which included most of the built up area of the time, with a population of about 4 million. In 1965, the County of Greater London was created, with a population of 8 million. This is still the ADMINSTRATIVE definition of London (population has dropped to about 7 million).

There is also the London defined by Post Codes and by the Metropolitan Police boundary. The problem of defining the "London Metropolitan Area" (in the sense that is understood in the USA) is that the existence of the "Green Belt" means that urban and suburban growth has jumped over the gaps created by zoning so that a large area of Southern England is in effect in London's "sphere of influence". I have seen estimates of 10-12 million - probably near enough. There is certainly no "official" answer, though the 2001 Census settles on 8,278,251.


 * The Met boundary is now coterminous with Greater London, so that removes one definition. However, there is still telephone London ;) Morwen - Talk 15:59, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Film/TV list
The list is heavily biassed towards very recent movies and TV - no Passport to Pimlico or The Lavender Hill Mob or Oliver Twist, but a mention for Friends, which had just two episodes in London. But is there any point in the list anyway, given that a comprehensive version would need to be so long?


 * You can spin it off to another article if it gets that long. WhisperToMe 12:48, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I imagine it would even be possible to write London in film in prose rather than the less attractive list format. It would mention all the films that really used London in someway... there are definitely some genres... East-end gangster movies, Richard Curtis idyllic romantization of various London places... quaint olde worlde London (a particular Hollywood favourite). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I've inserted a few more films that sprang to mind into the original list, but you're right, a non-list article would be the ideal solution. Harry R


 * I'd support the idea of making this a seperate article, as if we all went through and put in all the film/TV references we knew it'd be a vast list. Grunners


 * I've split film off onto a new page - London in film - and prosed Richard Curtis but help with doing more would be appreciated. Harry R 12:14, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Book List
What's the rationale for deleting the Iain Sinclair link? And why "The Waste Land"? - it's only marginally about London.
 * Fair points. I was just generally tidying up and decided that, as there was a London in fiction page elsewhere (even though a stub), this page should just have a few major highlights. I wasn't sure Iain Sinclair was significant enough to be mentioned in a one-paragraph summary of three hundred years of London literature (though on that basis I really should have cut Hornby as well), and The Waste Land got in on the basis of its literary stature even though the London content is partial. But I wouldn't defend either decision to the death. Harry R 12:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

former names
I don't really get it. In some articles the former city names are added without problems, while on others the former names get edited out. Could someone enlighten me what's wrong with London (formerly Londinium)? Halibutt 11:09, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * That piece of information is mentioned in the very next sentence anyway. To me, even that seems overly prominent for something that hasn't been true for over 1500 years (does it really need to be in bold?), but we certainly don't need it twice in the intro and then mentioned again in the history section. Harry R 16:59, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

London-Not Capital of United Kingdom
London is not the Capital of the United Kingdom! The United Kingdom is multinational state-Scotland,England,Northern Ireland,Wales. Each of these Countries (not areas or regions!) has it's own Capital City London-England, Edinburgh-Scotland, Belfast-Northern Ireland, Cardiff-Wales.

London may be a great world City and the home of the Parliament and the arts but this does not make it the Capital of the United Kingdom. London is the Capital of England and nowhere else!

Holden27


 * So, you're saying the UK has no capital. That must make our country internationally unique.  Quite a bizarre claim.  I think it is clear that London rules over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast have a few decision-making powers because London says they can.  It is, at the very least, the de facto capital of the UK.  There is certainly no other de facto or de jure capital.    &mdash; Chameleon My page/My talk 16:01, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes the UK is unique I refer you to the Act of Union of 1707. As to London ruling over Scotland perhaps it is the otherway round. The number of Scots in prominent positions in London is astounding. The best example is the Chancellor Mr. Brown who will in all probability be the next PM. The trouble with many people "south of the border" is that they do not understand how the UK works. They say England when they mean Britain and vice-versa. London is not the Capital of the UK and yes it does not have one! Yes that may make us internationally unique but it is a fact. The fact you claim that to be bizarre shows that you have little knowledge of how the UK works or how it came into existance.

Thankfully Chameleon there is life north of the Watford Gap. Holden27


 * Yeah, yeah, whatever. When I first read your comment, I thought it sounded like a Scottish whinge.  If you take a peek at my user page, you'll see that I for one have life experience outside London, some north and most thankfully south of the Watford Gap.  Yes, individual Scots have risen to prominence, but they have to come to London to do so because it's the capital of the UK.  London is nationally and internationally felt to be the capital of the UK because in all respects it is, not just because people don't know the difference between England and the UK (though such confusion is common).  England and Scotland are historical nations, but both are nowadays part of the modern state that is the United Kingdom.    &mdash; Chameleon My page/My talk 17:18, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Do not feed the trolls. Mintguy (T)


 * London is the capital of the UK in a political and legal sense. True each nation has its own capital, but so does each US state. That doesnt mean Washington DC is not the US capital.

And i'm an English law & politics student, so I know what I'm talking about here. Grunners 12:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Though it is true that London is known as the most important city in the UK, this doesn`t mean it is the capital. I do not think the UK can be compare to USA, since USA is 1 country with STATES (not countries), and the countries in the uk are independent. that`s like saying the capital of the european union is london!

In reply to "Grunners." What specific piece of legislation makes London the capital of the UK? Washington D.C. is assigned the capital by federal statute and the USA has a written constitution unlike the UK. I accept that London is an important city and a world landmark. This however does NOT make it the capital of the United Kingdom but merely of england. The UK is unique, it is a multi-national, multi-state entity with NO official capital and just because you are a law student that does not mean you know everything! Holden 27


 * A specific piece of legislation? How about the Acts of Union? London is the capital city of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as specified and bound by Act of Union. The Acts of Union are written legal documents that make up part of the UK constitution. Pearcej


 * Whilst I don't really want to feed the trolls, it should probably be pointed out that the UK rarely uses the legal process to decide anything important in this way; London was the capital way before the USA was even founded! As everyone knew this there was no need to write it down. --Vamp:Willow 10:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pearcej- The Acts of Union 1707 and 1800 do not mention London as being the Capital of the United Kingdom. Both acts only refer to there being a single parliament but the Acts do not refer to where that Parliament should sit or where the Capital should be.

VampWillow- The United Kingdom in its present form has only existed since 1801. The USA has existed in its present form since 1788. The countries that make up the UK might be old but the UK as Political institution is in historical terms quite new. It was an idea made up by a bunch of English and Scot's nobles to give themselves more money and power and neither the people of Scotland or England were asked if they wanted to be part of this UK.

Holden 27

A certain free Internet encyclopaedia says that a capital is the "principal city or town associated with its government", which seems a reasonable definition. London is clearly that. The rights and wrongs of the Acts of Union are certainly not relevant. --Khendon 07:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How many people work in London
We have population figures, but how many people are employed in London? There must be a lot who commute. Edward 00:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New Image
Image image:antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0304/london_iss_full.jpg was added by an IP address, replacing the previous picture, but appears broken so has been removed. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 19:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a centre of Western Civilization???
I deleted the end segment of the last sentence in the first section; it just seemed unnecesary, meaningless, and seems to have been arbitarily added to a complete sentence.

"and even today it is regarded as a centre of Western Civilisation and home to the English-speaking world." What exactly is a "centre" of Western civilization - this seems a trivial point and too vague. Also why is London the "home" to the English-speaking world - how does the English-speaking world have a home? What is this supposed to mean, the English language obviously developed in England and you could say that country is the language's original home but that has nothing to do with London. This is completely illogical, so I removed it.

Harold - Dec. 21

Is there white space or not?
Please let me know whether you see white space to the left of the photo of Trafalgar Square in the London attractions section. As I view it User:Boothy443 has created it three times. He says it isn't there. Can an article appear differently to different users? Wincoote 08:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's definitely white space, and it's definitely very ugly. --Khendon 08:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I imagine it could, due to differences in browsers or whatnot. In Wincoote's version the Big Ben photo is "hooked" to the left side of the Trafalgar Square photograph, so that it hangs in the middle of the page and looks awkward. As I view the page, User:Boothy443's repositioning is a clear improvement. I tend to prefer that HTML not be used for photo positioning but can't really suggest an alternative for this situation. Demi T/C 08:17, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
 * What can I do then? I'm using internet explorer and that's what most people use. If you are using some less common browser, even if it is better in every way, and that is the reason it looks different, I think Explorer ought to take priority as it is so much more widely used. Wincoote 08:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Different browsers treat HTML and style sheets in subtly and sometimes infuriatingly different ways. Most are not compliant with the W3C standards - explorer certainly isn't.  Web pages should be designed to work on as wide a range of browsers as possible - it should be possible to find a work-around for this image placement so it works on explorer as well as other browsers.  I think in this case it would probably help to place the two interfering images so that there is a vertical space between them. Worldtraveller 08:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please try that; I don't quite understand what it involves. Wincoote 08:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a point of refrence, I have taken screen caps of what the diffrence is between my edits and Wincoote edits look on my box, sorry for the file size: --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Boothy443 edits
 * Wincoote edits


 * The one that you see as your edit is what I see as mine. The other I don't recognise. Sorry I accused you of "borderline vandalism" but that's what it looked like on my screen and I had no idea this technical difference was a possibility. Wincoote 08:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Those caps agree with my observation, except the Wincoote edit looks even worse (than in the cap), as the top of the Big Ben photo is above the bottom of the Trafalgar Square photo. Demi T/C 08:43, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)


 * What browser are you using? Wincoote 08:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Try it now, i changed the code a bit, tested in both FF and ie, and looked the same in both. BTW Wincoote, youmight want to come over from the "dark side" and try out ff. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Good, it looks fine now. Computers are just so horrible and stressful. I prefer books (though that hasn't stopped me making 10,000+ Wikipedia edits). Wincoote 08:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Continued in...
Discussion continued in Archive 2