Talk:London/Archive 2

London bombings of July 2005
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

General Points
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)

Just read NYC article and found we are missing things
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:
 * Education, especially higher education
 * Media, including London as a centre of the international non-English language media
 * Religion
 * Police/crime/courts/legal London
 * Cuisine
 * Shopping
 * Climate
 * Redevelopment (there's more to it than Docklands}
 * London's role as a preferred city for the international rich
 * Charities and think tanks. Role as an opinion forming centre generally (ties in with education and media as above and also with politics).
 * relationship between London and the rest of the UK. ("Metropolitan values"; provincial resentment etc)

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)

Power Infrastructure
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 "

Reverted lost content
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. &mdash; Xiong (talk) 04:20, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Writing style
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
 * Please leave others to judge the quality of your contributions. Many of your additions were good, but I think you removed some useful information and weakened the context in places. It seems that by the term "value-laden" in your edit comment you mean politically incorrect, but Wikipedia is not a tool of the liberal establishment. Rather it is has a policy of neutrality, which is quite a different thing.
 * London is widely regarded as one of the largest and most significant cities in the world. Perhaps this is a mass delusion, but none the less the existence of this perception is factual and relevant, and I think it may properly be stated. There is much more boosterism in Wikipedia's articles about many other famous cities than there is here. Articles which merely list facts without context are indigestible. As for the intellectual respectibility of claims about London's status, please note the first sentence of the London article in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica describes London as "the greatest city in the world". That would breach Wikipedia's neutrality policy, but it is a reminder that removing all comparatives is not necessarily good practice as it may leave the uninformed reader floundering for context.

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)

Population
"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.

Areas
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)


 * Duncanssmith writes:
 * I quite agree - it would be very good to have subdivisions as you suggest. Why not start a few? I thought it might be good to do it by borough, or by well-known areas, for example "South of the River" or "Maida Vale and Paddington" or whatever. The difficulty is London is a very big subject! The previous author(s) had put the East End part in, and I did add to it and rewrite it quite a bit.
 * I know its being a bit copy-cattish but the New York City article is very well structured, and clearly and authoritatively written (gives that impression anyway!) part of my motivation in starting to reorganise the London section was to bring it up to that standard. The article definitely needs a lot of structural improvement, and will in time be broken out into other articles in their own right (I expect the East End section could be a candidate for this.) Please do make these changes if you have time and the inclination, because it surely benefits everyone.
 * thanks. Duncanssmith 09:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Duncanssmith writes:
 * OK - I have started a new section - Districts of London or whatever and started off bits about various neighbourhoods. It might be too much detail if it all gets filled in completely, but its intended as a place to start. Hopefully other people will add things as we go forward.
 * regards. Duncan Smith 17:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * (have slightly format-tidied this talk page so as to make it follow-able: it doesn't need to be so formal!) ...
 * I really dislike this addition. the "London" page is, by its nature, an overview page. If we start placing information about every district in London - and it would mean 'every' as a sub-selection would be impossible to agree on - then it would get a very excessive proportion of the whole article. Either this should be a "Districts of London" article in itself, or - preferably - just a link to the category that already exists of the London districts. I won't revert what is there at the moment, but I strongly suggest that the author moves useful content elsewhere. --Vamp:Willow 18:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. I have removed the headings for individual towns (these were just too much) and made the text much higher level but I think we could get away with making the detail even more scant. MRSC 18:23, 6 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)

table
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)


 * I don't think it would be apt to add that table on this page as the table already exists on Greater London, City of London and all the "London Borough of..." pages. It would just be repetition, or worse conflicting information especially as in the context of this page "London" is somewhat ambiguous (and should be) MRSC 15:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Plus London is a region, not a county.

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

FAC?
Are we ready for WP:FAC now? It looks great to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely it needs a nice picture of a Routemaster bus going round Trafalgar Square. - Solipsist 20:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If see one and have a camera, take a photo and post it! It's all nasty modern buses, including the bendy ones, around my way. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've now got a some pics of Routemasters going round Piccadilly Circus, but I'm not sure I am happy enough with any of the results. -- Solipsist 15:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It needs a reference section if it's not to be summarily rejected, jguk 23:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that would just be clutter. The references for most of it belong in the hundreds of more detailed articles which it links to.
 * I think it's still seriously lacking in some ways. It needs to give more of an idea of what the city is like, some idea of the atmosphere of the place, what types of people live and works there and how and why (and I don't just mean which ethnic groups). Also, more on the city's role in the UK and the World. At the moment it is too dry. The New York article gave a much better idea of what that city is like as a city when I read it some time ago. This article is an accumulation of detail that lacks life. I might have a go at doing some of this sometime, but I know it won't be easy. CalJW 06:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would love this to be FA - have submitted it to Peer Review. Fingers crossed, eh? --PopUpPirate 23:21, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

10 Best
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)

Reorganised images.
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)

Article splitting
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)

Wikibook on London
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)

Intro photos
--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)

Good lord
This page has the longest TOC I've seen on Wikipedia outside of lists. Fredrik | talk 8 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

Origin of the Name
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

Remove redirect?
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)

Infobox
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'm afraid I don't know where to begin with what is wrong with this box. Which is probably why people are so keen to remove it. From the top down:


 * 1) The flag and seal are of the City of London which is a different thing to London and Greater London. Please read those articles to understand the difference and why it is totally incorrect and misleading to use these here.
 * 2) I have lived in London all my life and never heard of those nicknames.
 * 3) The Inner London and Outer London pages are not good starting points for a list of districts and some places are part of Inner London for some purposes and Outer London for others. For example, to some people East Ham would be Outer London but to others it would not.
 * 4) Population - the metropolitan area is not the same as Greater London - it is bigger (the name is misleading I know).
 * 5) Population - the figure for "city proper" is the figure for Greater London which is not "a" or "the" city.
 * 6) Mayor - What about the Lord Mayor of London ?
 * 7) Timezone - London is at GMT.
 * 8) Website - that is the website of the Greater London Authority there is also a different website for the City of London which is a different thing.

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)


 * The region is in statute called "London", not "Greater London", which is the administrative area which has the exact same area and boundaries of it. Confusing, eh?  Morwen - Talk 10:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The London region includes the City of London but the ceremonial county of Greater London does not (The City of London being a ceremonial county in its own right). Fabulously British. MRSC 16:44, 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)

Article getting very long
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)


 * Well that was seven days ago and I see no-one's objected. If no-one objects within the next few days I will start to split the article. I was thinking that transport, educaion, culture and tourist attractions were obvious candidates for being moved into their own articles, and possibly the districts section. G-Man 20:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good idea. I agree that this article seems to be out-growing itself. -- Stephenw77 01:15, 24 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)

Football clubs
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)
 * MK Dons and Wycombe Wanderers aren't London clubs. They're from Milton Keynes and High Wycombe  (both considerable distances from Greater London) respectively.

Transportation system
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)

Capital
London became capital 1042, according to History of London by Hugh Clout (ISBN 0-00-7166653-2). 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)

Intro
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)

Population figures
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 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, 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 can't provide an official source, because as I explained above there is no consensus as to where the limits of the metropolitan area are. So there is no official figure for the metropolitan area of London. However, no statisticians use this 18 million figure for the metropolitan area of London. You can check some statistics website like www.citypopulation.de or www.demographia.com where you will see that nobody gives credence to that 18 million figure. Again I remind you that with 18 million people London would be the 4th largest metropolitan area in the world, which is ludicrous. I understand there is lots of parochial and national pride going on in the city and country articles, but could you please refrain from pushing up the figures. Again, there is definitely a difference between a metropolitan area and a metropolitan region, it is valid worldwide, but you don't seem to understand the difference. Your French example is totaly wrong. Now you are confusing administrative region (Ile-de-France) and statistical metropolitan region. A metropolitan region is a statistical unit, called espace urbain in France. At the 1999 census the metropolitan region (espace urbain) of Paris had 15,987,450 inhabitants, according to INSEE, while the metropolitan area (aire urbaine) of Paris had 11,174,743 inhabitants. Yet nobody would say that the "metropolitan area" of Paris has 15.9 million inhabitants. You can check the Paris article, it only says that there are 11.5 million inhabitants. If people wanted to push statistics there, they could say that there are 15.9 million inhabitants. And what to say of New York? If people at the New York article wanted to push up the figures, they could say that the metropolitan region of New York (BosWash) has 44 million! You can see how the use of metropolitan region figures can lead to ludicrous results. And FYI, I don't live in the US, I live in London. Hardouin 12:09, 29 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)
 * Yeah, the metropolitan region is already mentioned inside the article. It's at the end of the Demographics section. Hardouin 13:40, 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.


 * Some of the things you say are indee true and accurate, but your demonstration is flawed by inacurate figures. First of all, nobody said here that the London metropolitan area covered only 4,147 km&sup2;. One definition of the metropolitan area of London that is often heard says that the metropolitan area covers Greater London, Surrey, east Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, south Essex, and west Kent. Within this area there are about 12 to 12.5 million people, and this area covers approximately 11,000 km&sup2; of land, not just 4,147 as you inacurately say. There is nothing extraordinarily small about a metropolitan area with 11,000 km&sup2;. Your comparison with Atlanta is a bit biased. Atlanta is one of the most spread out metropolitan areas in the US, so using Atlanta as a comparison only serves to reinforce your point. In fact, let's compare with a metropolitan area more similar to London, like Chicago for instance: the Chicago metropolitan area, aka Chicagoland, covers 12,916 km&sup2; of land, which is quite comparable to the extent of the London metropolitan area as defined above. On the European continent, the Paris metropolitan area as defined by INSEE covers 14,518 km&sup2; of land, which is also in the same range as the London metropolitan area. The "metropolitan region" defined by the GLA, on the other hand, with its 27,224 km&sup2;, is clearly much larger than what any reasonable statistician would consider as the metropolitan area of London. Hardouin 15:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * It is close to impossible to argue with you, because you are set on your 18 million figure and you won't budge, whatever the arguments. Just check any statistical website, buy any statistics book, buy books discussing metropolitan areas and megacities, nobody, I repeat NOBODY says the metropolitan area of London has 18 million people. Authors vary as to how many people live in the metropolitan area of London, but estimates are in the range of 11 to 14 million like I said above. Even at List of metropolitan areas by population they think that London metropolitan area has only 12,420,000 inhabitants. At German Wikipedia (the German Wikipedia is usually very good for statistics) they think that the London metropolitan area has 11.327.857 (de:London). FYI, I did not contribute to the German Wikipedia. London is no Sao Paulo or Jakarta; it is not a megacity of 18 million inhabitants. To pretend so would only make the London article look foolish and untrustworthy. I won't be able to write on here for a few days, as I'm going out of town. Hardouin 10:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am standing by the 18million figure because it is the only official documented figure available, and having a vast understanding of London, I can see where those figures come from. You refuse to budge by insisting official figures should be discounted for hobbiest figures, which has absolutely no logic:
 * - You refuse to accept official figures
 * - You use hobbiest sites as your source
 * - You defeat your own arguement by promoting another page of wikipedia which claims 11.3million as the metro, when it has been shown the 12.2million is in an area of 4,147km² (Do you really believe that London's metropolitan area should be in 3000km²~ when almost every other city in the world is larger? Do you really believe that NY can have 21million in 28,000km², but London must be restricted to 3000km²~.
 * - You insist that Britain uses American English in your reference to region and area
 * - You ignore the fact that the reasons there are so many different definitions on London's metropolitan area is because there was no official documentation until very recently. Without official statistics, it is up to any hobbiest to define their own area.
 * - And all of your arguements are based on your personal belief of what London's metro area should be.
 * - You are happy to say Atlanta is a special case because it is one of the most spread out cities in the U.S. but despite all the evidence that London is one of the most spread out metro's in Europe with certainly the longest commutes you refuse to accept it.
 * - When NY has 21million in 28,000km² you are happy with that, that is a metropolitan area, but when London has 18million in 27,000km² you claim it's all wrong, and with some twisted logic and argue it's equivilent to the BosWash meagolopis.
 * - In Fact, your use of the rediculous debate that the 27,000km² London metropolitan area is equivilent to the BosWash megalopolis is so obviously incorrect. The fact that the NY CMSA olone is 28,000km² already and the BosWash megalopolis connects 3 seperate major city metro area's and London's 18million MA is 27,000km² should give it away. But not for you. If used in England this would include the Birmingham metro and much of the Northern Cities as well. How can this arguement even be placed. Can you not see the major difference in your BosWash and Lower Rhein megalopolis's which cover massive more area and include other major metros's (Boston, New York, Washington - Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Cologne, Dusseldorf etc) and .... wait for it.... London on it's own? (no Reading is not an equivilent to Washington DC, Boston or Amsterdam!)
 * - You even go so far as to try and use the German version of Wikipedia as a basis for your debate, saying that "Germans are good with statistics" so we should all follow them. This is just amazing considering that Germany as a nation has never officially recognized metropolitan area's, and has only started to release them on a local scale (not at national level) and that most German's have no concept at all what a metro area is. The fact that you are now trying to say that some German's who edit the German side of wikipedia are better at statistics for London than the Greater London Council is beyond description, and clearly identifies that you are wrong here. This debate should be over purely because of this.


 * So no, it is so clear that you insist on your false data here for nothing more than personal reasons.--Ovbg 07:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Population Figures (continued....)
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;


 * Should the 18mill figure be mentioned at all?
 * Yes - its part of the London Plan, and is a reliable-ish stat. in a sea of conjecture


 * Should the definition of the 'metropolitan region' be discussed / commented upon
 * Again for me, yes - I do find it a little odd that this figure includes the populations of Brighton, Oxford etc. (places I would say are most definitely not London) - people could get the idea that 'london has 18million people' - which nobody is claiming.


 * Can this be done in a NPOV way?
 * I think so - i did find Hardoin's edit a little cynical - but also think that Ovdb's change doesn't tell the whole story - how about something like... In 2004, the Greater London Authority defined a metropolitan region centred on London with a population of 18 million. This region extends to cover the commuter belt, and much of South East England, for example including the cities of Brighton and Oxford.

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)


 * reply
 * I am happy with the solution you provide. It describes the official source of the metropolitan region, but does include that this is a large area (which there is no doubt it is). The publication of the text you suggest would be enough for me to end this current dispute. It say’s everything that needs to be said and doesn’t jump to personal conclusions. However, I do believe that there should be a link to the source to prove legibility. If Hardoin is happy with this, then maybe finally we can settle on this topic.


 * My main disagreement was simply that I don’t believe that one person’s personal opinion should be listed in the demographics section, this is for statistics and their sources. The text suggested above offers the information from the official source, it links the official source which has more information, and it doesn't lean towards personal ideals of the region or the terms used.


 * I would add the East (as well as South East) as it includes part of that so it would look like this:In 2004, the Greater London Authority defined a metropolitan region centred on London with a population of 18 million. This region extends to cover the commuter belt, and much of South East England and East of England, for example including the cities of Brighton and Oxford. (Source)


 * Would this satisfy others?--Ovbg 09:33, 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. As a reminder, two true commuting towns/districts: 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)


 * Reply
 * Your research is interesting and it does indeed bring to light some numbers regarding commuting distances. However, your use of 50% for commuting percentages of a metropolitan area are very interesting. Why don't we try this using the U.S. method of county metropolitan area's. You can find a reference on how to calculate these here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04758.pdf


 * The U.S. changed it's method of calculating Metropoilitan area's at the turn of this century. It now uses a 25% basis for commuting between counties. Based on the core county/counties, which effectively are the urban area counties and the 25% figure is a sum of both directions of migration into any of the core counties from the outlying county. In London's context, using the U.S. method of calculating Urban Area's. The Urban or core counties of London would be Greater London plus the directly surrounding counties (Surrey, Kent, Thurrock, Essex, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire as using your reference from demographia (http://www.demographia.com/db-lonlanypar.htm)) All of these counties meet the U.S. definition of a core based statistical area (CBSA) as they are "A statistical geographic entity consisting of the county or counties associated with at least one core (urbanized area or urban cluster) with a population of at least 10,000, plus adjacent counties having a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured through commuting ties with the counties containing the core."


 * Now, the for the adjoining counties of West Sussex and East Sussex to join the CBSA, they must have a combined commuting percentage of 25% (incoming and outgoing from the CBSA). They both meet this requirement easily. East Sussex alone had an Out-Commuter percentage of 26% in 2001 to the CBSA, this has increased since then. Add both directions together (as in U.S. style requirements) and you have even a higher figure.


 * This leaves the administrative center of Brighton & Hove, which is a very small region. Now, as the Brighton & Hove district have commuting ties of over 25% (both directions) between West and East Sussex, this in itself can consitute a seperate metropolitan area (22% of the work force in East Sussex commute to Brighton & Hove, and a good portion of those longer than 5km commutes from Brighton & Hove travel to East Sussex).


 * It can be looked at two ways. With the Brighton & Hove district not actually being a county, it could be incorporated into the West Sussex and East Sussex counties. This would still have a percentage of commuting between the London CBSA and the Sussex's of over 25% and allow all of it to be included as a single Metropolitan Area.


 * Alternatively, it could be argued that the Brighton & Hove area is in fact effectively a seperate "county" and should be treaded as such. In this case, using the U.S. methods of calculating metropolitan area's, it would not comply with the rules to be included in Lonodn's MA. However, it would be included in a London CMSA (Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area). The rules stipulate that two seperate adjoinging MA's can be linked as a CMSA if the commuting percentage between them is 15% in one direction, or 25% in both. In this case, Brighton & Hove qualify as part of London's CMSA.


 * If you are going to use commuting figures, then we should look at them in context of how metropolitan area's are actually defined. Few people seem to understand the complexities of them. It is clear from the data you provided, and the method of calculation that I provided that Brighton & Hove could either be defined as a single MA, or at a more restrictive end, a CMSA.


 * Now, this is really quite logical. If you were to claim that Brighton, 48miles from central London is too far to be in commuting range, but accept that Milford in Pike county at 75miles from Manhattan is not (it is included in New York's CMSA) then you will have to come up with a reason. Pike county does have longer commutes than Brighton & Hove, but mainly to Orange county not New York, which is why it is included in the CMSA.


 * On further notes from your reply. You say that one could hardly call Brighton a commuter town. Well, I'm not the only one. There are plenty of references to find on the internet that actually do... here's but one: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/lha/evaluation/2004/pathfinder_areas_2.pdf (quote: "A commuter area for London as well as being seen as a popular, ‘trendy’ place to live/work. Two Universities and seasonal visitors create a highly pressurised housing and rental market.")


 * For further reference the the GLA mention of the Metropolitan Region, compare their definition with that from a study by Sheffeld University. Brighton & Hove are clearly identified as "suburbs of London" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/3852867.stm


 * I would say (and always have) that the GLA's metropolitan region is equivilent to an American CMSA. If you look deeply into the statistics, it does seem so. However, your assumption that this small area is somehow similar to a massive megalopolis is entirely wrong. Working on the criteria above, Brighton & Hove would either quality in the U.S. as part of London's MA, or part of the CMSA. Now, in all of the U.S. cities in wikipedia, when describing their MA's, they always refer to the CMSA. They do not have some added text written by yourself claiming that a CMSA is not a MA, but a much larger region, similar to a megalopolis.... --Ovbg 16:32, 7 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)


 * Reply
 * Hardouin, it doesn't work in your favour to denounce the statistics as I posted by just claiming that it can't be used because "US Census Bureau is very lax in defining metropolitan areas". If that was the case, then why do I not see you debating every U.S. figure on the American city pages. You don't because you seem obsessed with London, and denouncing any government or as it seems here, Academic study.


 * It was you that claimed we should use a 50% commuter ratio (based on a single direction of commuter traffic) which is 4x more strict than used in the U.S. 4 TIMES. And why was that, just to prove your point? Your claim that Brighton was too far away or doesn't fit standards on commuter structure was blown completely away by my previous post. When using the U.S. method, a method I must say I have never seen you debate on other cities, it is clear that the official London GLC definition of a metropolitan area looks remarkably similar to a US CMSA ;)


 * Now you claim that the U.S. cities can use thier system because they have so few people surrounding them, but that contradicts what you wrote earlier posting London's metropolitan region of 27,000km² with 18million, yet New York has a CMSA of 21million in 28,000km². Contradictions don't help you along.


 * You then try and claim that I change my standing by using US definitions. lol. Read what I wrote, my debate was your use of American English and to claim that British English is the same. Here I simply used the U.S. method of metropolitan statistics because you tried to claim there should be a 50% mono directional cut off point, and to be honest, it seems pretty clear now if you denouce the U.S. method as wrong, then you should also write this on all of the U.S. cities on wikipedia that use it.


 * As for the Sheffield University study, you once again twist words to try and worm out of where you have gone wrong. They never used the words metropolitan area. I never said it was a metropolitan area, I did say that the area defined as "suburban London" closely approximated the GLA's definition of the metropolitan region. I also think that the University study knows a bit about what they are saying. Have anything you wrote been academically published and broadcasted over global news networks?


 * So in conclusion, I have proved that if you use the American method of metropolitan area calculations, then London's GLA definition of a metropolitan region, closely resembles that of a CMSA in the U.S. which is used by standard to define the larger city's MA's. If you deny this is applicable, then you denounce all U.S. metropolitan area's as well.


 * You shouldn't let your personal beliefs in the way of wikipedia.--Ovbg 19:56, 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)


 * It certainly seems personal to you. Read all of my posts, and the evidence has mounted, but you have ignored all of it. You are not the god of wikipedia, and since you provide no official links to back up your claim, you don't have the right to ignore what is official. By doing so, shows that you are editing the page to display your personal beliefs. If it wasn't personal for you, you wouldn't ignore official links for your own personal judgement.--Ovbg 08:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Cockney Removed
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)

Disambiguation page
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)


 * Are you mad? --LiamE 13:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't see this gaining any support, much less a concensus for change. MRSC 14:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * hahahaha. Justinc 11:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Poland
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)

continued...
Discussion is continued in Archive 3...