Talk:London

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

All discussion of London's districts structure is at Talk:London/Districts. Please direct all future discussion to that subpage.

Archived discussions

Inner London/boroughs[edit]

I made the change earlier to "Inner London" rather than "Inner boroughs" but I've been told to discuss it here first - the reason for this is that the listings beneath it don't really conform to the boroughs. The East End for example isn't a borough. Also, I meant to change the section "Outer boroughs" to "Outer London" similarly because the listings are not borough related at all. Non-Londoners might think that Wimbledon and East are the names of some London boroughs, when they're not. 77.98.10.23 22:12, 12 June 2011 (EDT)


Good points I think. Any objections? I ask as the districting of London was one of the most involved tasks ever undertaken at WT so I think any changes, even of nomenclature, should be discussed first. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:20, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
Sounds like a fine change to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:58, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
Sounds good to me too. "Boroughs" is a little American for my liking and Inner/Outer London are the terms used in real life. Robinjfisher (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to the party, but "boroughs" is the correct and proper term for the 32 administrative division of Greater London (excluding the City). Not saying it should be used here. Just indicating that there's nothing particularly "American" about the word in this context. --Nricardo (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

wifi[edit]

that information is needed for travelers. otherwise they may not be able to access the information. —The preceding comment was added by Billycop32 (talkcontribs)

See the Contact section. Globe-trotter (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi where are the wifi networks specially for business? Cammythysse (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Conductor != Driver?[edit]

It's me, or there's something wrong in this sentence?

two bells is the signal the conductor uses to tell the driver to continue past the next stop

--Netol (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

on the Routemasters they do have a conductor and driver. I'm not sure if it's factually correct about the two bells though. Robinjfisher (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, two dings in rapid succession is the signal (inherited from the original signal to start the bus moving again after it had made a normal stop at a bus stop). A series of rapid dings is the emergency signal - so don't do that! BushelCandle (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Tube 'Knowledge' folder[edit]

The document linked here was released in response to an FOI request... http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/111942/response/275411/attach/3/Knowledge%20Book2008.pdf

It may be of interest to those adding ttube stop details.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

Possible alternative:

Sunset panorama
One of many many many skylines
City Hall
Buckingham Palace

Jjtkk (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Very nice! LtPowers (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Nice! The only reason I didn't use that picture was so that we could continue using our original 'top image'. --Nick (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
That pic of the Tower Bridge could be moved to London/East End. LtPowers (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a lovely sunset, but is there any way it could be moved up so that the tops of the skyscrapers are in the picture, or is that just the photo we have? Having the towers all but cut off looks a bit weird. If this were chosen for the page, we'd probably have to get a new leading photo, to avoid Tower Bridge overload!
P.S. I think the current banner would suit the City of London page much better as it basically depicts the City's skyline and to be honest I'm not really a fan of whatever that metallic glass thing is (an office block?) in the current banner. It doesn't really sum up the vast history of the City or in any way make it seem an attractive place to visit. Just some thoughts... Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If I'm honest, I'm not sure that I don't prefer the current image here. The bridge image just looks a tad too clichéd here to me and has comparatively little interest on its right side which is most exposed. I do, however, agree that the City pic is a tad dull. I was just trying to prevent every city pic from being a skyline/panorama shot, but it looks like that may be an inevitability. Any thoughts on Westminster? --Nick (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I still think this is an improvement over the current banner image, which doesn't look very Londony to me. LtPowers (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Other options may include: Jjtkk (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of those, I'd go with the palace or the bridge (if the latter then we'd need a new leading image of course). Would it be out of the question to give each of them a 'trial run' to see how they look on the page itself? Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've changed it to the Palace for the moment and moved the existing banner to London/City of London. Any thoughts welcome! --Nick talk 22:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What about either of these?

River Thames
River Thames

Nick talk 23:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The palace pic looks tilted to me ... or is the pavement outside really sloped like that? LtPowers (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The bottom river shot is better by far; it has the right light level and clarity which the top one doesn't possess, but I still think the palace pic is superior. It goes very well on the page. I must admit I hadn't noticed the tilt until you pointed it out, LtPowers, but it is definitely there, and Buckingham palace isn't on a slope. Not sure if it would particularly noticeable for our readers (if indeed there are any). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the original, it may just be an artifact of the panorama process, but it struck me as out of place almost immediately. A rotation and re-crop might fix that. LtPowers (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll straighten it. Jjtkk (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
That's definitely looking better. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel the Palace Banner is right as it doesn't show the diverse attractions in London, The Palace is a small part of What London has to offer, the Royal Family represent the whole of the UK and the Commonwealth. I feel the Sunset Panorama with Tower Bridge and the city shows a contrast of old and new and better represents London 81.178.162.248 19:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with anon that the Tower Bridge banner is amazing. Of course we'd then need to find a lead image, but still... Globe-trotter (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Well when we find a new suitable lead image, let's give it a try to see how it looks. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
With a good page banner we don't need a lead image. LtPowers (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
While I agree it's not a necessity, I think two images can really showcase the diversity a destination has to offer. This is perhaps especially important with a city as architecturally and culturally diverse as Ldn. But as I've said before, we can try out any number of combinations and variants before deciding on the best one. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I tried another option with doubledecker as lead. Jjtkk (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As a transport geek, I love the bus / sunset combo in the lead. My only thoughts are, would a traditional routemaster pic or perhaps one of the new Boris buses look better (i.e. more unique / iconic / of interest to travellers) than a generic modern double-decker? Just a thought but one worth considering should the right image be found. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as no-one has responded to this in four weeks, I'm going to go ahead and replace the modern bus with a (I think) suitable image of one of the routemaster heritage buses and gauge the reaction from there. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Scam[edit]

In the article, what does the following line refer to? "In a well-known scam, an older gentleman will ask you for directions, convincing you that he thought you were English. This scam has been used for over ten years" Am I being really thick, but where is the scam in this? It's just an elderly man approaching a stranger for directions. This bit should either be edited to include what the actual scam is (if indeed there is one, otherwise what's the point in including it here?) or be deleted. Regards --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

One of two of the world's leading "global cities"[edit]

"one of two of the world's leading "global cities'". Let's not leave the reader wondering - what is the other one? Nurg (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It would probably make sense to just say "one of the world's leading global cities". I see no reason to have London compared to NYC just for the sake of it, so let's leave the numbering out of it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I also suspect the original author had NYC in mind and agree that this is a bit contentious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city http://www.atkearney.com/en_GB/gbpc/global-cities-index --W. Franke-mailtalk 12:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

thx. Done as suggested by TT! Nurg (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Nice one :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Create a new 'Transport in London' page[edit]

Hi Wikivoyagersǃ You may have noticed that the 'Get around' section has become increasingly long and detailed. Although I think all the information there is practical and informative enough to be retained in some form, it is getting to the point where the section is so sprawling that it's hard just finding key bits of info, let alone digesting all the minutiaeǃ It certainly covers a disproportionately large percentage of the total article, when compared to, say, the 'See' and 'Do' sections.

So, I don't know if there's any precedent for this sort of move on Wikivoyage, but would it make sense to move the bulk of this section to an entirely new page, perhaps titled "Getting around London"? Obviously key bits of info need to be kept on this page, such as the different ways of getting around and advice on how to use the tube.

On the other hand, does this article really need detailed zonal fare tables, a list of all the riverboat routes and their attractions, or a million and one do's and don'ts? All these could be saved for a separate page to be printed and read at a traveller's leisure, as and when they need it. (The observant among you will have noticed that I just added some interesting stuff on the architectural history of the tube which is just the sort of fascinating trivia that I think would be best suited to a dedicated 'travel' pageǃ)

As I said, all the information listed is of use to travellers but I fear that in its current form this gargantuan section is more intimidating than helpful, which is ironic considering its purpose is to make getting around easy and stress-freeǃ

Any thoughts? ː-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a Huge City article, it's natural for the Get In and Get Around sections to be longer than See and Do. Along with Districts, those two sections are arguably the most important on this page. Also, since we have to keep some Get Around information in this article, I'd worry that a subarticle would largely be duplicative. LtPowers (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Still is there anything, in your opinion, that could be removed to trim it down a little? Or do you think it's fine the way it is? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly a lot to take in, though I'm reluctant to make specific suggestions as I'm not at all familiar with the city. I think a lot of the "how to get to the airport" information in Get In can be moved to the individual airport articles (for the big three, at least), and summarized in this article. "By skate" in the Get Around section should probably be folded in to "By foot". I would guess the details about the Oyster card could be condensed some, but I don't really know. LtPowers (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, those suggestions could work, though I'll wait to see if anyone with a a better knowledge of London could wade in on the situation. Cheers ː-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It was originally a seperate article, until it was felt that it wasn't an article on it's own. If there is consensus to split it out again.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Shangrila hotel?[edit]

recently opened, near the Shard. Do we have it listed? Pashley (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Great help your article. Thanks! --91.61.57.4

Dead parrot[edit]

Large statue of a Norwegian Blue, belly up. One of the districts' See sections should get a link. Pashley (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, cool sculptureǃ It's in Potter's Field, which is just by City Hall, so perhaps it could be tacked on to the listing for that (the parrot probably doesn't warrant its own listing), which is in the South Bank district article. I'll do that today if there are no objections. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
On second thoughts, it looks to be a (very) temporary structure, so may not be worth listing at all. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I imagine it won't be there long enough to merit a mention in a travel guide, even an online one. Powers (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

By Transfers[edit]

This stuff was added by a logged-out user a while ago, and it seemed to me that it was just spammy promotion of a particular minicab referral service. I've removed it, but if you disagree, then please feel free to revert me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"Get Around" suggestion[edit]

Section seems to be missing mention of the multiple brands of hop-on/hop-off buses that variably crisscross the city. Could well be a viable mobility/sightseeing option for visitors. While routes may be too much to describe, someone might be briefly discuss them generally and list operators in an existing sub-section. Though I have used one there for two days, am unqualified to make necessary entries. Hennejohn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice suggestion, Hennejohn. One question, to both yourself and other editors: would these bus tours belong in 'get around', or would they in fact be better placed in 'do' (seeing as they are considerably more expensive than the ordinary bus service and may be considered a sightseeing activity in themselves)? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
That sounds more ==Do== to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll vote for "Do". That's how we've really used them elsewhere. Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Access and Luggage[edit]

Rework of suggestion: "Get in" could greatly benefit discussion of challenges to accessing and carrying luggage on the several modes of transport discussed. Are the Tube cars to/from Heathrow International designed for it? Complications may be great in any conveyance during rush hours, or on certain types of public buses. Some Tube stations seem to lack escalators or lifts; apparently, many do have them but still have significant steps somewhere between street level and train platform (e.g., per [1] and [2]. Regrets, have no real experience to make the needed entries. Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Another useful set of suggestions, in my opinion. This excellent Tfl guide might be a starting point for some of the points you raised. I have to confess I don't really understand the point you're making with "Complications may be avoided for "Tube" trains to/from Heathrow International if the cars are designed for it.", though that may be just because I am tired. If you are asking whether the Piccadilly line trains to Heathrow Airport have provisions for travellers (luggage racks, etc.), the answer is a flat no. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that (whether the trains to the airport have luggage racks) is exactly what he meant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for trying to understand my poorly-expressed suggestion. So I reworked it as above. Good referenced article. Think folks who really know should work the WV content; discussion may sometimes be crucial for strangers to the city. Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Good news everyone![edit]

Apparently, London is slowly but surely making its way to a modern metropolis by introducing (some limited) night service along its subway system. See here for reference. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we were so happy when we heard about that a year or so ago. Great they're finally implementing it! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The opening date was forced through by the Mayor of London without much consultation. LU staff aren't happy about it as it would cause changes to their shift patterns that could seriously disrupt their work-life balance (it's not all revolving around pay as the gutter press would lead you to believe). They may also find themselves staffing stations by themselves. There have been two strikes already regarding this and another is on the way as the unions and TfL can't seem to reach an agreement. The September launch date is a guarded one at the moment. Scalytail (talk)
Nuremberg currently employs automatic subway trains in mixed operations with driver operated subway trains. This might be the destination LU is heading if a Thatcher-like union busting figure were to become mayor... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
There are already driverless Tubes on the near horizon http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11150671/New-driverless-tube-trains-unveiled-by-TFL.html And of course the DLR has never had drivers. As much as I support the overworked and under-appreciated staff on this one, I don't think they or their strikes have much of a future. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Well I guess the only types of public transport that won't be driverless in the foreseeable future are the good ole streetcar (tram) and the bus. Though with recent developments in driverless car technology even that seems to be anything but set in stone... As the grandson of a railroader, this somewhat hurts my sense of nostalgia, but in the grand scheme of things it is probably both inevitable and for the better... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The word "Tube" when referring to the London Underground should always be capitalised[edit]

It might be a slang term but it's a significant one and is pretty much an official second title. I am unsure though as to whether it should be "Tube Map" or "Tube map"! Scalytail (talk)

I would have guessed that "Tube Map" is a proper noun, but according to the Tube map in my hand, the "m" isn't capitalised. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, I didn't have a map to hand! I will try and go through the article and change the capitalisation to the correct one if necessary. Scalytail (talk)

The London Pass[edit]

We known that whereas some London museums are for free, others are ridiculously expensive (like 20 pounds for the Westminster Abbey and 22 pounds for the Tower, which likely is the world record). The London Pass combines some of them, but the is a commercial company. would it be appropriate to mention it here?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that it could be mentioned, but we would need to explain how to get value from it. The pass costs £52 for a day, or £76.50 for 3 days, and the average entry price is around £10, and a lot of sights are free. I suspect that many visitors would only just break even on the pass price unless they arrange the trip to focus on all the expensive sights for one or two days and then visit the free ones (which may be next door) on other days. AlasdairW (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, I will try tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Seating Plans for West End Theatres[edit]

I recently added a link from WikiVoyage's London Page (https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/London) pointing to www.SeatPlan.com under the theatre section.

This is the only specialist seating advice guide to London's theatres and offers up-to-date interactive seating plans for all of the biggest venues in the capital. It's utilised by 2000 people per day seeking advice on where to sit at each theatre, because the information is unavailable or incorrect on other theatre websites.

The link was removed by Ikan Kekek because he believes it violates Wikivoyage's guidelines on what can and can't be linked (I gather because it is not considered to be a primary source). I believe that SeatPlan is just as relevant to a user looking for theatre information as the other websites that have been listed (www.timeout.com and www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk), because the information is unique and beneficial to users planning a trip to the theatre.

Ikan has recommended I start the debate here on whether or not SeatPlan.com can be included on the London Wikivoyages page. Could you all please let both Ikan and I know whether or not you believe this is a valuable resource to include on the Wikivoyage London page? -- Cameronlund 17:50, 21 December 2015 (GMT)

It doesn't matter if it's valuable or not. The reason we don't allow non-primary links like this is because then we have to have one of these discussions every time someone wants to add one. By setting a blanket rule and holding to it, we avoid having exceptions that touts and spammers can point to as justification for their links. Powers (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Yes, it does violate policy, but it is possible to make an exception for a link that's really valuable to travellers. Does anyone else have an opinion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't find this site valuable enough to make an exception. The site still has precious little information, and most of it can be found in individual theatre websites, which are where people will generally end up when looking for tickets for shows. This is just a lead generator which we should not be feeding IMHO. Not sure about the other two sites mentioned, perhaps they slipped through the cracks and need to be removed as well. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's what the "Time Out" item says:

To make the most of the city's tremendous cultural offerings (performing arts, museums, exhibitions, clubs, eateries and numerous others), visitors will do well to pick up a copy of a cultural magazine like Time Out London (available at most corner shops and newsagents) which gives detailed information and critiques on what's around town including show times and current attractions. The website [3] also has major shows listed. There is also a Time Out iPhone/iPod app available although the print version tends to be more detailed.

I don't know anything about this publication, but that feels like a lot of attention being given to a single publication in what is presumably a large market with significant competition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Time Out used to be fairly unique as a paid for listing magazine, and it main competition was the culture sections of newspapers. But I see that the print version is now free so things may have changed. I think that it worth mentioning it, but a single sentence should do. Unfortunately Seatplan wanted me to sign up before I could see any seat details so I don't think that it should be listed. AlasdairW (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Surely you have all heard of Time Out? There's a version for every major city in the world, though I believe it started in London. It is definitely worth a mention, and is seen as indispensable for its 'what's on' listings by many tourists and locals. I can't say the same for this sea plan thing, it seems like a bit of a scam to be honest. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Putting embassies on the map[edit]

I quite like the idea of embassies being pinpointed on the dynamic map (as is already the case of the American Embassy, see the green number 6 on Grosvenor Square) and I'd like to add more, but listing all 160-odd would make the map over-cluttered. Should we focus on English-speaking countries' embassies? Or else list the embassies of the 10 - 20 countries where the most visitors arrive from? Alternatively, is there any way of getting more than one of these maps on the same article, as a separate all-embassies map could be helpful. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be a problem to add coordinates for all embassies (well, it'll take an hour or two ;)). Readers can zoom and move around on the dynamic map and it would be beneficial not only for travellers from exotic countries, but also to Europeans who want to get a visa to some exotic country that has formerly been a British colony and have to visit the nearest embassy (ie. in London) for an interview. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I am willing to do the leg-work, if people think it's a good idea. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
99% of the embassies are of no use to any given traveler; it'd just be clutter. I don't think it's a good idea. Powers (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, it would represent a great deal of clutter. I don't have the exact count, but I'm estimating over 200 embassies listed on this article and the result will be a map of (mostly) central London filled with orange plus signs. It will not be easy to use even for the 0.01% of visitors who need to know this. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
As this map presently only has embassies and a few stations and airports marked it may not be a bit issue. However I wonder if the list should be made into a travel topic "Embassies in London" or "Embassies and Consulates in the United Kingdom" - maybe more useful as some consulates are scattered about. (There is a Danish Consulate in Wick, population 7333!). AlasdairW (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow, Denmark sure does have a lot of consulates! I'm guessing though that most are what would be termed as 'honorary consulates', run by volunteers who have a connection to Denmark and of little, if any, practical use to Danish people abroad or potential travellers to Denmark. . Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, there's also one in Hull, of all places! I got the impression it was run as a bit of a hobby by the guy who did it (Danish-born, but resident of Humberside since the 1950s...)
Back on topic, I like the idea of a new article dedicated to embassies in the UK. London particularly must have more or less the largest concentration of embassies in the world, perhaps more than even Washington. I disagree with assertions that these embassies aren't of use to the traveller (if they were of no use, we wouldn't list them at all), especially if the great mass of information is moved to a separate page. The clutter also shouldn't be an issue, given that you can click on the coloured number in the listing and it takes you straight to the location on the map, zoomed in so you can clearly see the exact location. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually a list of London embassies would be useful for many European countries as well. Getting a visa to a remote destination may be hard to get in most smaller European countries. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly ϒpsilon's point, if I understood him correctly, and a good one at that. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Also, I assume there are many former French colonies who have their only European embassy in Paris. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting embassies[edit]

I think at the very least we should put geo-co-ordinates for the largest English-speaking countries' embassies (Ireland, Canada, Oz, NZ, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Nigeria; anywhere else?) into this article so they show up as points on the dynamic map. If there are no objections, I'll do that in the next couple of days.

The Embassies and Consulates in the United Kingdom article was a decent idea. Is there any support for that? If so, should it just consist of a large map with all the embassy points and a list (divided by region and city presumably), or is there some further content that could be included? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There have been no further comments, so I'm going to plunge forward and add the co-ordinates for the countries mentioned. Any thoughts about an Embassies and Consulates in the United Kingdom article? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

November 2019[edit]

Just as an explanation for User:Carsten R D: the reason I rolled back your edits is because the embassies in the list with geocoordinates are not just random; they were very specifically chosen as belonging to the planet's major English-speaking countries. There were concerns in the thread above that adding too many geocoordinates would lead to too much clutter, so the compromise I proposed and implemented was just to add a few pertaining to the embassies which are most likely to be of use to a majority of our readers. Let me know if you have any questions, or a reason as to why you think I'm wrong! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a way to make a map show some types of listings but not others. In other words, I think there's a way we could add a map to the "Cope" section and show all the embassies in that map while still keeping them out of the map in "Get in". I can't remember how to do it though—I'll see if I can find another page that does something like this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
See Sheffield#Do for example. I wouldn't mind that happening here, but it would be a lot of work to complete, and I'm not volunteering :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

London#By boat[edit]

Do we really need to have the routes listed? It is a very long list, and all of the routes are along the Thames. Couldn't we leave it at that, and let the traveller read up on the routes at the station, as they would for the Tube or the Overground? Ground Zero (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be better, yes. We may also link directly to TfL's map, done rather charmingly in the style of the Tube map. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Charming, indeed. Be really sure to mind the gap. Ground Zero (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Getting around[edit]

This section seems to have enjoyed a lot of attention from Captain Obvious and the Department of Redundancy Department. I have editted this fairly heavily. If I've taken out anything important, please add it back in, but don't tell readers to exit after a door has opened - that's a bit insulting. Ground Zero (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. I took out some more content and rearranged a bit for easier reading. The section is far too long to be useful.
Also, I move the following infobox to this discussion page. Almost all of it applies to any public transportation/subway, and shouldn't have to be mentioned specifically in the London page. The exception being "Drinking alcohol or smoking anywhere on the London Underground is illegal." Xsobev (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work you've done to this section, Xsobev. I agree it was getting unwieldy. The only thing I have re-inserted is the line about standing on the right on board the escalators. I don't know about the rest of the world, but outside of London almost nobody in the UK seems to follow the two-lane escalator system, so that info will be useful to British travellers if nothing else. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

The banner hasn't been properly displayed, at least on my computer, for several weeks. Was this a problem for anyone else? I just edited the banner template, removing an element I didn't recognise (origin=-0.5,0), which appears to have solved the problem. Could it have been that element causing the problem, or have I just made a boo-boo, removing something important? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The origin parameter is valid; it affects the display of the banner on mobile or small screens. Powers (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I reverted the change and it appears to display correctly. Powers (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that. The reinstated version is certainly affecting the display of the banner on my screen, however. It's back to being tiny. I am editing from a 13½ inch (340 mm) screen, which I don't think is especially small. I wonder if the same issue is affecting others working with a similar screen. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
What's your resolution? Can you take a screenshot so we can see what the problem is? Maybe the origin is improperly located. Powers (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, resolution is 1366x768. I will take a screenshot and attempt to upload it in the next few minutes. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Here we are:
Wikivoyage London banner glitch.png
That's weird. I'm also using Chrome on Windows, and I can't get it to do that no matter what size I make the browser window. Is it only London? What about Sydney? Or Melbourne? Powers (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I have a feeling I've noticed it on other articles, but none that I can remember by name; I'll keep my eyes peeled. Sydney and Melbourne are displaying fine. Funny, you mention Chrome, which led me to check this page on Internet Explorer, and the banner is displaying normally. I'm clearly no expert, but that suggests a problem with (my!) Chrome, rather than Wikivoyage. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I would also suggest you try clearing your cache. Shift+F5 on the page should force everything to reload. It's weird that it seemed to fix by removing the Origin parameter; Sydney's banner also has that parameter, so it should be giving you the same problem if that was the source of it. Powers (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Nice idea, but it didn't work. Still, it's not the end of the world, as it's only a picture. My only worry is that other (non-active) users could be experiencing the same issue, because we have no idea what's causing it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I am accessing the page on Chrome from my work computer, and the banner is displaying properly. So, maybe it's just my laptop that's the problem. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

London tips[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I'm posting this here rather than Talk:London to get more eyes on it and to also encourage others to see if they can find tips-and-tricks posts like this for other articles. Additionally, I don't know anything about London, so I'm not sure how legit these hacks are. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Calling these "hacks" is a stretch, as many are well-known attractions (perhaps not by tourists). We already list a lot of them, but maybe not all. They're worth looking at anyway, to check we haven't missed anything. Not sure whether you saw, Justin, but that article belongs to a whole section called "Hack your city", and has similar articles on Denver, Philly, Toronto, Houston... --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!: I did, yes. But I'm ignorant about those cities as well, so I'm not sure the extent to which I want to blindly port them into our travel guide. I think it's a very useful resource in principle. Thanks, TT. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
They're definitely worth looking over. I'm looking through the London one, and if there's anything that seems legit and we haven't already got, I'll add it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

So many good London tips here.Hill is fantastic for celebrity spotting too! Also, since Tube Strikes have been on the rise, it's good for visitors to check these possiblities too. The London Pass is a great suggestion. Bitgid

Key attractions in district list[edit]

It would be helpful to travellers if between two and five key attractions were listed as part of the district descriptions. I got the idea from the Paris article, although there it is executed comparatively poorly.

The new district list, as I envisage it, would look something like this:

Central London[edit]

  Bloomsbury
Vibrant historic district made famous by a group of turn-of-the-century writers and for being the location of numerous historic homes, parks, and buildings. (British Library, British Museum, University College London)
  City of London
The City is where London originally developed within the Roman city walls and is a city in its own right, separate from the rest of London. It is now the most important financial centre in the world, but an area where modern skyscrapers stand next to medieval churches on ancient street layouts. (Bank of England, Museum of London, Tower Bridge, Tower of London, St Paul's Cathedral)
  Covent Garden
One of the main shopping and entertainment districts, and part of London's Theatreland. (Covent Garden Piazza, London Transport Museum, Royal Opera House)

Or it could look like this:

Central London[edit]

  Bloomsbury (British Library, British Museum, University College London)
Vibrant historic district made famous by a group of turn-of-the-century writers and for being the location of numerous historic homes, parks, and buildings.
  City of London (Bank of England, Museum of London, Tower Bridge, Tower of London, St Paul's Cathedral)
The City is where London originally developed within the Roman city walls and is a city in its own right, separate from the rest of London. It is now the most important financial centre in the world, but an area where modern skyscrapers stand next to medieval churches on ancient street layouts.
  Covent Garden (Covent Garden Piazza, London Transport Museum, Royal Opera House)
One of the main shopping and entertainment districts, and part of London's Theatreland.

Well, you get the idea. Any thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea. I think italics may be a way to go. I don't think bolding is a good idea because it makes the attractions as prominent as the names of the districts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea too, and I agree that bolding makes the attractions too prominent. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed: the italics option is more elegant and attractive. Ibaman (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There is one other option. This is basically copying the format of district list on Berlin, where the names of the official boroughs feature alongside the Wikivoyage district name. So for London, we could have the attractions instead:

  Bloomsbury (British Library, British Museum, University College London)
Vibrant historic district made famous by a group of turn-of-the-century writers and for being the location of numerous historic homes, parks, and buildings.
  City of London (Bank of England, Museum of London, Tower Bridge, Tower of London, St Paul's Cathedral)
The City is where London originally developed within the Roman city walls and is a city in its own right, separate from the rest of London. It is now the most important financial centre in the world, but an area where modern skyscrapers stand next to medieval churches on ancient street layouts.
  Covent Garden (Covent Garden Piazza, London Transport Museum, Royal Opera House)
One of the main shopping and entertainment districts, and part of London's Theatreland.

I think this combines the best elements of both of the above; the use of italics that you all seem to like but the attractions don't just look like they've be tacked on the end as an afterthought as they do in option 1. It strikes the right balance of prominence and deference to the district name. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The third option looks good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Super. Anyone else got an opinion before I implement the plan? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the 3rd option is a good, go for it. --Traveler100 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Leichester Square to West End[edit]

Hello,

I am taking care of the translation/adaptation from English to Italian and I noticed that Leichester Qquare article is wrongly named, as it should be "West End" (with Leichester Square being part of it). This way also could be the missing companion to the East End already listed. Would it be possible to change the article's title name?
Thank you.
--Lamacchiacosta (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Lamacchiacosta. The West End is considerably larger than you seem to realise. Even by its most conservative definition, it covers all or part of the following Wikivoyage districts: London/Covent Garden, London/Leicester Square, London/Mayfair-Marylebone, London/Soho, London/Westminster, while some broader definitions will include virtually all of inner west London. It therefore would not be accurate to rename 'Leicester Square' as 'West End'. The London/East End article, by contrast, covers a much larger area which does by and large conform to the popular definition of the East End. I hope this makes sense. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
It makes sense, but is very weird that an article gets the name of an area whithin the one we are actually talking about. We could create the "West End" one with a note that the areas with a lot to do and see (Covent Garden and so on) have their own article to simplify the reading and to keep all in a better order. Personally I think that a traveller who reads the main London page will find it less confusing if both East End and West End are listed, I was confused (thinking there was a lack of articles) until i eventually read Leicester square. As a Londoner, the area described in the Leichester Square's article, mirrors what we describe as West End, while Covent Garden for us is Covent Garden, Mayfair is Mayfair, we only think about CG being "West End" when we look for theatre tickets, while Mayfair remain Mayfair. Obviously the choice goes then to the community or the spokeman, you. Up to you then. Thanks. :-)--Lamacchiacosta (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you're in a minority if you don't consider Covent Garden and Soho as part of the West End, at the very least. You can walk from Covent Garden through Leicester Sq into Soho in about five minutes :-) Granted the others depend on who you ask, because 'West End' and 'East End' aren't official terms, but in general terms the West End is the central neighbourhoods west of the City and the East End is (a larger area of) neighbourhoods east of the City.
If you think the lack of a West End district is confusing, then we can always mention in the descriptions for the West End districts "part of the West End", or something like that.
Remember that whatever is decided on English Wikivoyage, you can do your own thing on It Voy ;-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer and for the corrections on the IT page, please keep in mind that the LS article is not finished yet, it has been translated in full but there is still a lot of work to do before approval, so please feel free to pop in any time to double check. As I started that article with the translation I was asked by the IT admin to ask if on the english side would have been possible to make the same change, to keep a straight mirroring of the pages. If not, is not the end of the world, of course, we all have different ways to organise subjects and we will change it. Thanks.--Lamacchiacosta (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Transit icons[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I hesitate to bring this up because User:Inferno986return is clearly putting a lot of effort into this project, but I don't think it's a good idea, and I'd like to get the community's views on it. S/he is adding coloured icons to London articles to indicate the Underground lines on which stations are located where the stations are identified in listings (for example, City of London). I think we have to balance the information added by adding these icons against its impact the visual appeal of the article.

To me, and maybe it's just me, this makes the article harder to scroll through and read because of the jumble of colours. I thought we had a general policy against adding too many symbols to text, but I can't find it.

Was there a discussion that I missed about this, and is there a consensus that this is the direction we want to go in? If not, do others like this innovation or not like it? Ground Zero (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Commerical travel guides to london that Ive encountered use tube station references a lot, and prior to the updates the tube station name was what was given. I didn't have an issue with that. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: I take it we're talking about {{Station}} and {{Rint}} here. We've had a discussion about those templates here back in March. I didn't get a lot of feedback on it, but the addition of many colours was one of the issues we encountered (see also 1, 2, 3 for the earlier discussions). To solve this, we decided to make the route label that RINT prints smaller. I'm not blind to the issue you're encountering here, and it is justified, but in my honest opinion, if Station is an issue, then dynamic maps such as the one for the City of London would be an issue as well.
As for how to solve this: RINT (and by extension Station) weren't supposed to be used all over a template, or at least, not in my vision. Again, referring to the City of London, we can opt to remove the instances of RINT from the individual listings leaving just the name and moving the colourfulness of RINT to the 'By tube' section. It's a bit late now to revoke RINT, and I wasn't planning on doing that. I'm not sure how long you've been hesitant about bringing this up, but a better time would have been back in April when you swept the discussion from the pub. A concrete consensus was never reached, but I never heard anyone voice an opinion against RINT and Station, hence they are now in proper usage.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Not an easy one this. Having next to a POI information on which tube station to get out at is a very useful thing for a visitor. Saves having to look at a secondary map and work things out. So from that point of view I would say keep as is useful to the traveler. However I agree on PC/laptop browser the colouring is a but overwhelming. Interestingly on mobile, where it would mostly be used, it does not look so bad. My suggestion is make the icons a little smaller. Could consider some smart dynamic mouse over option, like hover over tube station name then displays the tube lines. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This isn't terribly different from what we have already been doing, for a long time and uncontroversially, with subway information in the NYC district articles. I think the aesthetic concerns are minor compared to the practical usefulness of including this information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Traveler100: Mouseovers may work for PC, but wouldn't work on mobile. People would have to know that they have to tap the station to find out what lines connect to that station. Nonetheless, I'm tagging Andree.sk, since they did nearly all of the work on {{Station}}, which would be the template with this function. I can, however, demonstrate the difference between the current size of RINT and a possible smaller size:  CIR   CIR . It doesn't look bad, but looks worse as soon as you enter it in Station (or so it does by my opinion): Example  BAK  CIR  H&C , my main issue being that the smaller instances of RINT are impossible to center vertically (or to my knowledge at least). The vertical alignment to the bottom of the span in {{Station}} is what I find unappealing about this option.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
My intention was to make the listings more intuitive by showing line connections for each listing's tube station. Even as a Brit myself I am unaware of which lines are connected to which station (I was also unaware prior to editing Wikivoyage that the Waterloo & City line even existed). However I agree it does potentially add clutter to each listing. Perhaps a possible solution is to add the RINT icons to the 'By Tube' section with anchor links in the listing to each section so that you can click to go up the page. As a visual learner myself I do like the icons and would like to include them in some capacity to each London article and potentially other cities abroad. Inferno986return (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wauteurz: This is the first time that I have seen RINT and Station being used so extensively in an article, to the point where I think it is an issue worth raising. I did not read the previous discussion as I am not technically-oriented. I do sweep the pub to help discussions remain focussed on current issues. Sweeping the pub does not mean picking up each piece of paper and reading it before putting it into the bin. If sweeping the pub means I can no longer raise any questions about any of the issues, then I guess I shouldn't sweep the pub, but leave it to others who have the time and interest to read everything, and are willing to accept the accountability risk. If such people exist. Using the fact that I swept the pub to challenge my raising the issue is, I think, poor form.
My concern seems to be shared, at least in part, by some other people, and not at all by others. There are valid arguments on both sides. I think it would be useful to wait to get more views to see what the consensus is. Ground Zero (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: My apologies, reading back what I wrote before is, put lightly, aggressive if anything. I didn't intent to make it sound like this was something you did wrong, nor do I think that such is the case. I meant to give you a heads-up about there having been discussions before and remarking that you might have come across it before. Without knowing my intent, that did not show in text. Again, my apologies.
That aside, I am more than happy to get you up to speed about anything you need to know about RINT. I can't say the same about Station (Andree made that alongside RINT and we were pretty hands-off about what either of us were doing), but if needs be, I'm sure I can put the workings of the template into common English. I'm happy to have this discussion, even if I would have been happier to have had this discussion half a year ago. If people have concerns or are running into issues, then we need to discuss how to solve that, and it's better to do that late than not at all.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, on both counts. Ground Zero (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I find the smaller icons good.Having the lines is useful information. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
{{station}} is pretty trivial actually, it just adds a almost-invisible box and acts as a shortcut to {{rint}}. And mainly - it could help keeping the style same across articles. We didn't conclude to any visual styling, so it is what it is... Regarding the current topic, I guess the main issue is that while most cities have simple 1/2-character line names (like  A ), London has these long names which really interfere (more). I'd probably vote for the smaller icons, even with the bad alignment (for the time being). -- andree.sk(talk) 20:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
London used to have four symbols the way I initially designed it, and dropping it down to just two would most likely make it loose all meaning. The idea of RINT was to do away with loads of images, but I suggest that we make an exception for London, being a somewhat special case. I suggest that we switch back to what was used in the original Rail-interchange template and go with the SVG roundels found here instead, which would print as Farringdon Metropolitan lineCircle lineHammersmith and City line. Alternatively Farringdon Metropolitan lineCircle lineHammersmith and City line is an option as well, the only difference being the text on the roundels which isn't even readable at 20 pixels. This doesn't remove the colours, but makes them less wide and therefore makes them occupy less of the page.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not keen on the look of City of London at the moment. It seems odd that the Get in - By tube section doesn't have the line colours, but these appear in the listings. In the case of a central district it might be better to give full details of which lines each station is on in Get in (aswell as more info on each station - does it have a lift etc), and then just give the station with each listing. In a central district most readers will just take a tube into the district then walk between individual sights. However in a much larger outer district like London/North the lines would be useful. AlasdairW (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I kind of like this approach. It should make it easier to figure out what's easily accessible from where you are. (The roundels are pretty, but impossible if you're color blind.)
Recently, I've been wondering why travel guides (not just us) aren't more oriented towards mass transit. Given how intimidating it can be to change lines in an unfamiliar city (or inefficient, in some cities), it seems like you ought to be able to figure out what lines run to the airport and/or what line(s) run to your main destination, and find a list of hotels, restaurants, etc., along those lines. For example, surely I could find a hotel, a couple of places to eat, and a few interesting things to look at right along the Piccadilly line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It seems that there is general support for keeping the icons in some form, although some share my concern about clutter. Wauteurz, I appreciate the effort you've put into creating alternatives, but I agree that the roundels don't work very well as you'd really have to know the line colours to be able to read them. The capsules are more effective at conveying the information. I do like AlistairW's proposal of keeping the capsules in the Get in section for Central London articles, and not including the in the listings. I think that achieves a good balance. Would you be comfortable with that approach? Ground Zero (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You want them in ==Get in==, but not in ==Get around== (where the map with the colored lines is)? I'd rather see them everywhere, but if we decided to compromise on parts of the article, then I don't think that excluding them from the map section would be desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I am happy for them also to be used in ==Get around==. Earlier I said ==Get in==, because in the specific case of City of London, all the tube stations are listed there. I am also happy for them to be used in other listings of larger districts, the issue is with compact central districts that no two listings are more than about 30 minutes walk apart. If it takes less than 20 minutes to walk between two places it is quicker to walk than take the tube. When I was visiting the City of London, my main consideration in choosing which tube lines and station to use was where I was coming from. AlasdairW (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd personally argue to put them in Get around as well, and list an overview of the lines as they are in that district. I may draw up the HTML behind that later, but in essence, it would be a glorified Routebox with up to ten or so stations/stops and the adjacent districts. @Ground Zero: Like I said before: RINT was originally supposed to be used in routeboxes, but were swiftly moved to {{Station}} during development of both templates. The last place they were to be used for would have been Sleep, Eat and Buy listings. If possible though, I'd like to see this discussion carry on to generate some guidelines for when to and when not to use RINT, or at least find out where the border is between too many and a good usage of RINT labels. In any case, I'll revisit my previous statement about not liking the smaller icons (  CIR  as opposed to  CIR ). Sure, they may be a bit off in {{Station}}, but we can work on that. In any case, I'd like to know if there's a wish for a template like described above in this comment: A line overview with up to X amount of stations. If so, I'd happily draft up something for that, even if it would only be used in the district articles of cities with dense networks, such as London and Paris.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and started a vote on changing the size of RINT on its discussion page. I'd appreciate it if those involved here would also mark their opinions there.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
In the category of "It helps if you pay attention": Wauteurz, earlier I didn't notice that the roundels were accompanied by the line of the name (spelled out in text, right there before the icons). I therefore withdraw any objection to that approach. It might actually be better than an abbreviation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Split Getting Around to it's own article?[edit]

The getting around section is quite extensive, would this be appropriate to be split to a Getting around in Greater London ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we've done that for any other city, have we? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Not that I know of. The closest equivalent might be Bay Area public transit. If the section is too long, I'd suggest editing it for conciseness first. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The thought was to split of both Get in and Get Around but leave summarised sections in this article,

How does the Bay Area and Greater London compare in size... On a related note are there other metropolis where a 'transport' split could be considered? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bay Area is vastly bigger in area. To give you a couple of examples: Berkeley to San Jose is 45 miles and about an hour's drive; Sausalito to San Jose is about 60 miles and takes at least an hour and a quarter. And the Bay Area is composed of dozens of independent cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm... My criteria would perhaps not now be Greater London, but possibly, Getting in and around inside the M25. The other criteria would essentialy be the area that counts as Zone 6 on a Travelcard. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Get in/Get around link conflict[edit]

Hi. At the start of the Get around section, there is a summary of the main transport options, with internal links to the relevant sub-sections. However, if I click on the By bus or By National Rail links, it actually directs me to the By bus and By train sub-sections in the Get in section, not in the Get Around section. Does anyone know to make these links direct to the correct By bus and By train sub-sections? Thanks. Royboymaps (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. Normally, a link such as [[#By bus 2]] would link to the second heading in an article called 'By bus', i.e. the 'Get around' one. It worked for 'By train', but not for the bus one for whatever reason. So instead, I've placed an anchor link before the Get around - By bus subheading; invisible but formatted like this: {{anchor|By bus 2}}.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Brilliant! Thanks for that. Royboymaps (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Some venues might not re-open...[edit]

https://www.timeout.com/london/restaurants/the-london-restaurants-and-bars-that-wont-reopen-after-lockdown

I assume it's Okay to remove closed venues from listings? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. We don't keep old listings for posterity, just delete them. Though it might be worth checking with each place's website, just in case Time Out have it wrong.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we should try to be as up to date as possible, so if you know some places don't exist any longer, do delete them. --Ypsilon (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Long list in "Go next"[edit]

London#Around the UK has 26 bullet points, much more than recommended at Wikivoyage:Avoid long lists. Could we split up the list by region, distance from London, or type of destination? —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Or should we cut this list down? We don't want to copy half of the England article in here. Maybe restrict it to major destinations and leave out the "abroad" destinations. Including Amsterdam because you can fly there in an hour (leaving out getting to the airport, security, waiting, disembarking, getting to the city from Schipol...) seems ridiculous. There are lots of places you can fly to from London. Ground Zero (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the list looks insanely long. One way to make it shorter while "keeping" many if not nost destiations would be linking to surrounding county articles where readers could select destinations in the county articles' city and other destinations lists. Also, we shouldn't add places you can fly to in Go next unless flying is the only option or only practical option in and out which obviously is not the case for a global city like London (side note: the world's third longest nonstop flight takes you from LHR to Perth, Australia...). Ypsilon (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Broadly supportive of cutting down the list, but worth noting that Amsterdam is actually one of a handful of overseas cities to which you can catch a direct train from London.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but its a 4-hour trip. Even with airport time, you can fly a lot of places in under 4 hours. Just how many "go next" places do we want to keep? Ground Zero (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Oops, I never replied to this - sorry! I don't see planes and trains as being comparable; even though there are some security proceedings to clear at St Pancras (taking 30 min max), trains go from city centre to city centre. With the exception of LCY, all London airports are about an hour outside town, and all airports recommend you arrive two hours before takeoff. So virtually any journey from Central London involving a plane, four hours in you'll still be in the air.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There remains the issue of The Very Long List. I suggest that, to start, we remove the details about getting to these places from London. The information is provided only for some of them, and will be more up to date on the articles for those places. Ground Zero (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Definitely agree with that. I'm not quite sure how to actually cut down the list, but making each item less wieldy is a good start.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Vagina museum?[edit]

The World’s First Vagina Museum Is Now Open In London. Museum site says closed because of COVID & need donations. Pashley (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Dynamic map[edit]

Districts of London

I understand that a static map is preferred over dynamic maps on articles like London. Still wanted to add the dynamic version here, in case the sentiment changes in the future. The advantages of the dynamic version far outweigh the drawbacks in my opinion. --Renek78 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)