User talk:Darqknight47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is the through platforms part ambiguous? Simply south 19:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Run it eh... 2 London navboxes 3 Stats moved to demographics section 4 Hampstead stuff? 5 London population again 6 Transport in London - "The Tube"

[edit] Run it eh...

Hmmmm. I suppose you wouldn't mind if i started an article on the Shepherd's Bush and White City development. Actually, i rely on always touch out for much of my info. Keep up the good work ......

Go for it. There is a small amount of info at White City but they're not the same thing so a page on "whitecity" would be no bad thing. --Dave A 18:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to sign above Simply south 18:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London navboxes

Hi Dave,

I've created {{London history}} as a sample navbox along the lines of what was discussed. The next step is to produce a general one for all the main London subarticles; and then possibly others for other sub-topics (I'm thinking Sport for sure). Let me know what you think, DJR (T) (WC) 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stats moved to demographics section

I saw you moved the London statistics to the demographics section. Although it makes the introduction more concise and clear, what I fear is that sooner or later, someone will think, hey, there is no population figure mentioned, so they will add the population figures again in the introduction with the same competing claims that we've seen before (London is the largest city in Europe, then someone adds it's second to Moscow, then it's reverted, etc). It has happened many many times before in this article. That's why I put all three population figures in the introduction with references and a vague ranking claim to end all this back and forth.

I think there are three ways to solve this problem:

1. we simply put all three population figures back in the introduction as I did yesterday
2. just after the "London is also one of the largest and most populated cities of Europe." sentence you add a little "<! -- please do not add population figures, they can be found in the demographics section -- >" warning which will be invisible and will appear only when people will try to edit the introduction
3. perhaps the best solution would be to rephrase the sentence like this: "London is also one of the largest and most populated cities of Europe (see detailed population figures in the Demographics section)." or "London is also one of the largest and most populated cities of Europe (see the Demographics section for more details)."

What do you think? Hardouin 12:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My original thought was to just keep reverting changes, because people always mess up the lead section! However, I like your second idea the most out of those - that way, it doesn't clutter up the visible text but still asks editors to think twice. --Dave A 16:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but you know what's going to happen, the introduction will be edited by anonymous users without a screennanme who are new to Wikipedia and don't know much about it, and so when they will edit the introduction and add populations figures, I wonder if they will notice the subtle invisible warning. Some people you know... That's why I thought solution #3 is the most efficient. It's a big sign painted red with flashing lights. Can't be missed. Lol. Hardouin 18:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hampstead stuff?

The entry for london really ought to mention hampstead a few times. For the literary section, especially, it is really just essential: at the moment it is the equivalent of an entry about hippies in san francisco which omits to mention haight ashbury Avaya1 13:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey,

The main reason I removed most of those references to Hampstead is because it struck me as "me too". To add Hampstead to the list of examples of district names is pointless - it doesn't add anything to that sentence, so putting it as an extra example is a bit gratuitous. I removed Hampstead from the shopping section because it just isn't comparable to the scale of the other upmarket shopping areas; this isn't just a list of rich places in London. I also removed Chelsea because it's already mentioned just below.

As for literature and film, I removed the Hampstead paragraph mainly because it seemed just too much. In retrospect, I probably should've just cut it down to a short sentence; the list of its residents its a bit too much, so I'd suggest having a short sentence referring to Hampstead in that section, and then placing any other information in the Hampstead article itself, along with an external source showing Hampstead's literary importance (this might be appropriate). --Dave A 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough! Avaya1 14:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London population again

As I expected (read above), someone eventually changed your edit in the lead of the London article and made a controversial claim that London is the largest and most populated city in Europe (edit here: [1]). I have reverted to your more nuanced edit. Let's keep an eye on this. It seems this user, Somethingoranother, has joined Wikipedia last week with a goal to make chauvinistic edits about England related things. Check his contribution page. I notice that he has already been reverted many times. Hardouin 11:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been quite a few mods on London and England recently, each from different new users, each suggesting in different ways that London is the no 1 in different areas such as finance, popn, etc, and all unsupported, and generally followed up by swearing on the talk page of the poor reverter. Expect the same! However, it is worth pointing out that many sensible people do think London is the most populous urbanopolis in Greater Europe, against the claims of Moscow and Paris, so on this particular one, you might not be right to correct it. The truth is that it is contentious! MarkThomas 11:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Moscow is #1 by all measurements (city proper, urban area, metro area). No doubt about it. Between London and Paris, London has more inhabitants than Paris in the city proper, but Paris has more inhabitants than London in the urbanized area. In terms of metro area, both metropolises are neck and neck, with a slight advantage to London it seems, although the UK National Statistics office has no definition of UK metro areas (time for them to catch up with the rest of the world!). So it's better to write "one of the largest and most populated cities" as Darqknight47 did a while ago, otherwise we end up in controversies and boastful claims. Hardouin 12:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think some of your points above Hardouin are overstated, Moscow is a very difficult city to get accurate measures on, the authorities repeatedly distorted and lied during the Soviet days and have been chaotic since; some experts even think there has been depopolation in Moscow as Russians have fled abroad in recent years. From my knowledge of population studies, and having been to Moscow a good few times, I am very sceptical on the claim that it has more people than Greater London and certainly not more in the dormitory region. Paris is I'm afraid a busted flush; you merely repeat the heavily discredited views of the extent of the urbanities of Paris and London; on most people's views metro London and TTW London are about 20-25% more populous than similar zones in Paris. Incidentally, the claim Darqknight47 removed was about London being the largest city in the EU and I think very few serious European demographers would dispute that, so I'm at a bit of a loss to know why you hastened to over-write it Darq? Was it just that you wanted a more general statement? I found the EU thing more satisfactory as it's more provable and avoids the inevitable Morass of Moscow. :-) MarkThomas 12:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I trust statistics, I don't trust rumors, "people views", and whatnot. Russia has been losing population, but not Moscow. Moscow has been increasingly attracting people from more destitute Russian regions, which is why it is booming at the moment. Official statistics show that in the City of Moscow alone, there are 3 million more people than in Greater London. Russian statistics could be wrong by 100,000 people, they can't be wrong by 3 million people. Hardouin 12:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about rumours, just not getting in to the whole detailed debate here on a user talk page! There are plenty of good discussions out there on the net about the reality of Moscows population "statistics". Demographers in Russia can't even agree the popn of the whole country within 20 million! The margin of error given by Moscow City Council was plus or minus 2.7 million! One big problem is illegal immigration in both London and Moscow, but most would think this a bigger issue in London. I've seen figures (from TfL studies on numbers of people using the London Underground) that there could be more than 3.1m more people in GL than everyone says! MarkThomas 12:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Greater London's population underestimated by 50%, uh? That's a worse record than even the statistical office of Nigeria. Do you really believe in all the extravagant things you say? or is it just a game? Anyway, I'm wasting my time here. Hardouin 12:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's you who is game playing. Since when did the urbanity of London have a popn of 6.2M?? 15m would be nearer the mark. Probably best if you do run along. MarkThomas 12:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transport in London - "The Tube"

"Tube" might be a nickname but its origin is specific to tube trains ("The Twopenny Tube") not to Underground trains in general. Deleting the mention also deletes the link which leads to the explanation of what is "wrong" about the current usage and leaves the origin unexplained; it also fails to explain the "colloquial" element of what has degenerated to yet another buzz-word used without paying attention to the correct meaning.--MBRZ48 00:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because its origin was specific to deep-level tube tunnels doesn't make it any less valid as an accurate description of today's London Underground. That logic would suggest you can't call a ballpoint pen a biro, a vacuum cleaner a hoover, a moving stairway an escalator, or even any word which used to mean something more specific, like "car".

"Tube" is not an accurate description; as explained in the "London Underground" only 45% of the system is in tunnel (and that is not all tube tunnel). As for the examples there are many cases where the wrong name cannot be used (principally as brands) and "car" (an abbreviation of "carriage") can be very non-specific without surrounding context.

The link doesn't explain why current usage is "wrong" - it just says that there is a different between deep-level lines and sub-surface lines, and makes no mention of terminology.

"Sub-surface versus tube lines"

".. deep-level or "tube" lines...."

I don't understand the last sentence. The article clearly mentions that "the Tube" is a colloquial term. It certainly isn't a buzz-word;

A buzzword as in a word used without regard to the true meaning and aping others usage.

people have been calling the whole London Underground "the Tube" for decades.

Not when I was a lad [TM]. It's a 1970/80s phenomenom.

Transport for London themselves use the term extensively - hence why system diagrams are labelled "Tube Map", why the London Underground website is at www.tfl.gov.uk/tube or www.thetube.com, or why TfL press releases freely interchange between use of "London Underground" and "the Tube". TfL policy is that both are acceptable in business relations or when talking to customers. The only time "the Tube" is incorrect is probably in legal documents,

It is also incorrect in operational use if applied to the whole system.

as the company's true name is London Underground Limited. --Dave A 19:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

--MBRZ48 02:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)