Talk:London/Districts

From Wikivoyage
< Talk:London
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Zanygenius in topic Greetings, my case on Sutton (London)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

All discussion on this page prior to 20 December 2009 (16:39) was moved here from Talk:London. Please continue any and all discussion relevant to London's districts scheme here.

Areas of London

[edit]

There's a problem in that there are lots of distinct areas of London, some of which are geographically quite small, and some of which share a name with an administrative unit (Camden is in the London Borough of Camden, which also covers King's Cross, Regent's Park, Bloomsbury, Holborn and Hampstead.

There's a problem with districts - the central area is too small. I'd say it needs to cover Zones 1 and 2 on the Tube map.

Would it be an idea to do a geographic split followed by areas (rather than boroughs)?

It might therefore look like this:

Central London Central Westminster Whitehall Trafalgar Square Oxford Street the City the Temple Leicester Square Covent Garden South South Bank Southwark Lambeth Battersea the Borough North Camden Islington Regent's Park East City fringe Hackney Dalston Hoxton Shoreditch Tower Hill West Chelsea Hammersmith Earl's Court Notting Hill Hyde Park Sloane Square Away from the Centre Southbound Brixton Northbound Hampstead Heath Primrose Hill Eastbound Greenwich Canary Wharf Westbound Kew Garden Wimbledon

Do people think this is a good idea? I can make the changes this weekend and expand as necessary. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Unoriginalname38 (talk • contribs)

Consider recent discussion in Huge City Article template. Basically, the idea there is "1) do not separate a district into a separate article until you have enough content; 2) every change in structure of districts brings much pain in maintenance; 3) keep as few district articles as possible just to fit the content you have at the moment" . The discussion is still not complete, but this summary is good enough to take into account before restructuring. And if you want an example of how painful it could be, consider Talk:Budapest#Done_clean-up and the amount of changes in Budapest and its districts. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:02, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Thanks, Denis. I wasn't talking about districtifying - just a more coherent structure within this page. Sound like a good idea to you? 199.4.27.122 06:09, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Then, that's most likely a useful thing :-). Thanks for reply. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 08:27, 16 February 2007 (EST)


Hello, I definately think the districts need to be changed. It seems at the moment that central London is used to refer to the West End and not the City, yet most people would consider them both central London. I would include them both in Central London or try to refer to them both seperatly. I moved the museum of London from Central London into the City section so that it is at least consistant. I would also add Isle of Dogs/Canary Wharf to your East London District.

Districts

[edit]

I don't think we need districts for London at the level of granularity presented on this page. The twelve top-level (lessee here) boroughs seem like at about the level we should have Wikivoyage articles. I'd like to see this revised to a) use Wikivoyage names for the districts and b) without the sub-districts listed. -- (WT-en) Evan 04:18, 12 Nov 2003 (PST)

I dunno, the boroughs are HUGE I can think of a couple of examples where I as a traveler would rather see things divided up by neighborhood rather than boroughs: SOHO and Camden Town are both part of the City of Camden, but they are very very different in character, and each have more than enough bars/restos etc. to fill a single page. Not that I have the expertise to write the pages, but I would sure love to have a seperate page on each. -- (WT-en) Uchuha 04:32, 2003 Nov 12 (PST)
Right. It's important to remember, though, that we're not writing a Yellow Pages. We don't have to list all the restaurants and bars in an area. We can just pick a few that are good. Similarly, we don't have to nail down the name of every single block and apartment building in a city. We can just give some general areas for discussion. If we really have tons of travel content for each district, we can sub-divide the districts. I just have a hard time believing that London needs more districts than, say, New York. -- (WT-en) Evan 05:00, 12 Nov 2003 (PST)
It does look like they've over-done it a bit, but then Greater London is huge and diverse, and encompases a lot of what we think of in the states as suburb. How many district pages does each of the boroughs of NYC deserve? I can think of about 7 or 8 for Manhattan, and I've only been there once. I'm guessing that one thing that would be good to avoid is having a bunch of mostly empty pages, or pages with dry phonebook like listings... so, maybe a good rule of thumb would be to create the district page as it's needed, or something like that? -- (WT-en) Uchuha 05:14, 2003 Nov 12 (PST)
A couple of things: the idea behind district pages is not to list out every single district in a city. The idea is to break up a city into reasonable chunks, and deal with each chunk at a time. Each chunk should be a destination in its own right. Like, I can go to the Mission and rent a hotel, eat dinner, go out on the town, etc. It's more like a village within a city than just a named set of blocks. Then, let's take Trafalgar Square. This could be handily covered in an attraction listing. As Project:What is an article? says, we don't normally do a full article about each attraction. By the way, the reason that we're not a Yellow Pages is not that we don't want succinct, easily-accessible listings. It's that we don't have to have every listing in the entire city. Some picking and choosing is necessary. -- (WT-en) Evan 05:21, 12 Nov 2003 (PST)
I think we're actually saying more or less the same thing... maybe let's ask the Londoners to pick 5 neighborhoods? I'm going to be in London for a week starting tomorrow, and do have a wishlist for them, but it's doesn't involve 12 districts and sub-districts. I just really want to know about Soho (I'm staying in Picadilly), Camden Town, Kentish Town (Billy Childish is playing at the Dirty Water Club tomorrow night, so I want to know where to go afterwards), and Kensington (Giving a paper there on Tuesday afternoon.. what to do after). -- (WT-en) Uchuha 02:57, 2003 Nov 13 (PST)
I agree with Evan here. Three levels of districts is just overkill for London or any other city. Sure different bits of Camden are different, but on that basis I could justify districts for every city on Wikivoyage. And I do note that six months on from this discussion, most entries are still either empty or vestigial; which surely should send us a message. -- (WT-en) chris_j_wood 00:48, May 24 2004 (GDT)

District Heirarchy (Again)

[edit]

The heirarchy here is just too deep and fine grained. I've got some 'see' and 'do' attractions I want to add, but despite knowing central London I cannot decide which of the lowest level districts to add them to. I mean where exactly is the boundary between Soho/Chinatown/Leicester Square.

This reorg needs some thought though; so I don't lose the attraction into I'm temporarily adding it to a new page at Talk:London/Other Attractions; I'll move it into the right places when I work out where they are.

North East London

[edit]

This is usually counted as part of East London, due to sharing the same postcode prefix (the NE prefix belongs to Newcastle-Upon-Tyne; E is used for the whole of the east of London [north of the river Thames] [apart from various places with IG postcodes...]). Incidentally, the East London article already mentions Walthamstow, which is more north-east than east. So there is no real need for a "North East London" article.

OK. Fix it! -- (WT-en) Mark 18:17, 9 August 2006 (EDT)

Districts again

[edit]

I'm planning on doing some work on the London-related articles (including making some maps) and one problem I see so far, especially as far as maps are concerned, is the difficulty in defining the exact boundaries of areas like Soho or Paddington. One possible solution I've been thinking of is dividing according to postcodes. So major postcodes (like WC1 or E14) have their own articles (though maybe called something else, E14 for instance would be Docklands) while less important areas could be defined according to a group of postcodes or a postcode prefix (SE, W, NW and so on). It might seem an arbitrary division, but anyone who's lived in London will tell you that individual postcodes definitely bring up certain associations (I know people who've turned down properties that were in the "wrong" postcode even though the "right" postcode was on the other side of the street). In any case the Paris arrondissements are just as arbitrary, but they seem to work well there. At least there's a definite way of telling where WC1 ends and WC2 begins in a way that's not true of Soho and Chinatown. --(WT-en) Paul. 23:21, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

I don't know London at all, but it's been helpful with regions in California and Ohio to find existing borders that can be easily used and just state that for Wikivoyage purposes, that's the divider. London should be sub-divided into districts that people are familiar with, but if you can say that Soho is made up of a group of postcodes, that might be a reasonable way to determine borders. A similar example is Bay_Area#North-South-East-Peninsula, which uses telephone area codes as a divider for one region border, while for Talk:Ohio#Regions we decided to use county borders as a way of delimiting regions. The danger is making sure that we don't use existing dividers to create regions that are useless to the traveler - see Project:Geographical hierarchy#Do we really want counties as destinations? for a long discussion about why sometimes using existing regional divisions doesn't always work well.
Perhaps if you could propose a list of districts, as well as the borders you propose for them, it might help the discussion move ahead more easily. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:40, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
Well first thoughts would be to have the WC and EC codes lumped together into two articles while SE1, W1, NW1, N1 and E14 would be done individually. The rest could probably just be done according to prefix as there's not a huge amount that would be interesting to travellers in those areas, and what there is is widely scattered. To break it down a little
The rest would pretty much match up to the North/South/East/West districts already present. There's a decent postcode map here that shows how the postcodes breakdown, though without streets it's hard to make out the exact boudaries. If you squint at the picture on this page you can kind of make out how the central postcodes break down. As far as usefulness is concerned, like I said it's surprising how neatly the postcodes divide into very distinct districts: EC is the City, W1 is the nightlife centre and where posh people live, SW1 is where the government buildings are, N1 is the studenty area, SE1 is the nice bit on the other side of the river and so on. I tend to agree that following governmental districts blindly isn't always the best idea, but I think if each area has a distinct character then it makes sense to take advantage of predefined boundaries. --(WT-en) Paul. 00:35, 23 August 2006 (EDT)

Districts 2

[edit]
Inner v. Outer boroughs

I think it's fair to say that London has the single worst districts scheme on Wikivoyage. It is rife with overlap, has way too many districts (enough is enough), in places has three tiered subdivisions(!), contains non-articles for streets, parks, etc.; some districts are listed in multiple sections (e.g., Clerkenwell in both Central and East London), and it's not at all clear what the division is between, say, London/North and London/North West. It's a total mess.

For the most part, I think we should draft a new scheme from scratch, and it most certainly should not have 60+ districts. It's a huge city, so best to break it down first into large chunks, which we can then figure out how to split up. But we simply cannot have an article for every neighborhood in London — that would spread our content far too thin. I'm not the best person for this task, since I've spent less than a year in London, and only know a few parts of the city well at all, but I'll try to get this started:

First order of division — Inner and Outer London. It's worth considering moving Outer London out of this article. We could either create a devoted Outer London article, or create a Greater London article that would link to London, as well as to the individual areas of Outer London. To the right is a map of the inner v outer London Boroughs according to wikipedia. It may not make sense to make these divisions exactly by borough administrative boundaries, though, so we might want to refine this split. Anyway, lets put aside Outer London for now, and look more closely at Inner London.

[[Image:Centrallondon.png|thumb|170px|Central London '''current''' districts]]

Second order of division — Individual districts.

The city's too big to tackle all at once, so I'll try to first get the main tourist districts by the Thames sorted out:

  • London/Central. At first this seems a good first division, but not all of the districts within make sense. A few would be better grouped with surrounding areas outside this grouping, and others need serious revision. Since we don't want subdistricts when we can avoid them, this article should be deleted, and its specific content merged to the appropriate district articles listed below; the more general content should be merged to the London overview article.
    • London/Marylebone should be combined with the areas just north and west to cover both London/Paddington (which would need to be merged here) and Regent's Park. It could keep its name as simply London/Marylebone, or have a hypenated name with Paddington.
    • London/Mayfair. I'm less sure what to do with this one, but it's too short of an article. Maybe some time in the future we'd have enough content for this to be a standalone article (I'm skeptical), but for now we need to merge it somewhere else. The problem is that I don't know where... An alternate plan might be to create a London/Mayfair-Marylebone article, and keep Paddington separate (or combine it with something else).
"Neighborhoods" being discussed & their boundaries
    • London/South Bank is fine as is.
    • London/St_James's is, I think, fine as is. It should be noted that the district as it stands includs Pimlico, which I think is fine.
    • London/Westminster should be merged into St James's. The two articles duplicate content (as the area covered in London/Westminster falls entirely within the St James's district...). While Westminster is the more famous of the two names, it is also the more confusing, as it also refers to the large Borough of Westminster, and to the even larger City of Westminster.
    • London/Bloomsbury is a weak article, but I'm not sure what to do about it — maybe merge with a neighborhood to the north (I'm not familiar with the areas to the north)
    • London/City of London is obviously a fine district division, and should be left as is.
    • London/Holborn is a distinct area, but does not have enough content to support a full article. The best recommendation I have is to merge it with London/Covent Garden, even though that article will get a bit cramped.
    • London/Clerkenwell is not and will not likely be a good, developed article, so merge it with London/Shoreditch and Hoxton (Hoxton is already covered in the Shoreditch article).
Proposed Wikivoyage districts & their boundaries
    • London/West End is an absolute disaster, featuring sub-sub-districts, most of which are clear non-articles. A single West End district would be too big, but it does not need to be broken up into 7 sub-districts — that's ridiculous. Since we should not ever have sub-sub-districts (even sub-districts are controversial), the West End article needs to go in order to flatten the hierarchy, and districts like Soho should be raised to the same level of the hierarchy as South Bank, City of London, etc. Breaking up the West End is tricky — I recommend using three districts to start. 1) London/Covent Garden-Holborn as suggested above, 2) London/Soho, and 3) London/Leicester Square.

That's all my recommendations for now—I'm not that familiar with the city beyond these areas (and I'm not even sure how well I know these areas!). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:40, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

Got to start somewhere. I would say that Holborn would fit better with the city than with Covent Garden. Covent Garden could also fit into Leicester Square better than with Holborn, both in terms of geography and feel of the district. --(WT-en) inas 07:08, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
I think Mayfair and Marleybone works fairly well together, they are both mainly residential affluent neighborhoods, with much the same feel if my own meandering experience serves me right. But then there is nothing that really suits Paddington well - maybe Bayswater, down to Hyde park and Kensington, but that area doesn't have a separate guide at the moment. Other than that I like it, and greater London is going to be easy, there is already two fairly established directional administrative divisions of the outer boroughs. Thanks for the effort mate :) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 07:45, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, you're both right. Holborn is a better fit with the City—the problem is that the City works so well as its own article. Per Wikipedia, "The City’s boundaries have remained almost constant since the Middle Ages". Who am I to muck about with that. Holborn doesn't fit that well with Covent Garden, but it also can't (I think) sustain a good article. We could just leave it as a separate district, though, and worry about it some other time.
I've always grouped Mayfair and Marylebone together in my head too. On the map I've already lumped Bayswater in with Paddington, but I don't like the idea of having a "Paddington" article, since there really isn't anything to see there. That I know of anyway—I only ever was in that area for the train station, or aimless nocturnal wandering. If the article is anything to go by, my impression of it as some sort of Hyde Park hinterlands is correct. Grouping Marylebone, Mayfair, and Paddington is a viable option, albeit a forced one with no clear article name. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:21, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
I think if we work on in a bit, Then a district covering Bayswater, Paddington and Maida Vale could work rather well - There is only one museum as far as I can gather, but the area around Little Venice is pretty nice - though I've only walked around there briefly when I was staying at a B&B in Bayswater, it seems like something that could carry an article if combined with the rest, with the canal tours, theatre barges and nice river-front pubs. There is quite a few good galleries about, and Bayswater/Paddington is one of the main budget-mid range hotel area's in all of London. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 10:41, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
OK, I've added Maida Vale, and extended the boundaries of London/Paddington-Maida Vale and Marylebone to fill the rest of the Borough of Westminster. I broke off West Kensington from London/Hammersmith and Fulham to put it in the London/Kensington district. Decided to leave London/Bloomsbury as is, since there are no good options for merging it with surrounding areas. I'm not at all sure of London/South Bank's southern boundaries, so it would be great if someone could check that.
These updates are reflected on the "Areas of Inner London" map below. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:19, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Central London tasks

[edit]

Feel free to update as the discussion progresses:

  1. Merge London/Marylebone & London/Mayfair → London/Mayfair-Marylebone
  2. Merge London/St. John's Wood into London/Paddington; rename it London/Paddington-Maida Vale
  3. Note in London/St James's that the district includes Pimlico & its hotels
  4. Merge London/St James's into London/Westminster
  5. Merge London/Clerkenwell and London/Shoreditch → London/Clerkenwell-Shoreditch
  6. Merge London/Hammersmith, London/Shepherd's Bush, & London/Fulham → London/Hammersmith and Fulham
  7. Delete London/Oxford Street and merge content when/to where appropriate
  8. Merge London/Trafalgar Square, London/Piccadilly Circus, and London/Chinatown into London/Leicester Square
  9. Split South Ken content off from London/Kensington
  10. Merge South Ken content with London/Knightsbridge, London/Hyde Park, and London/Chelsea → London/South Kensington-Chelsea
  11. Merge all High Street Kensington and area of Kensington south of Kensington Gardens and Holland Park information into London/South Kensington-Chelsea.
  12. Merge London/Notting Hill into London/Kensington. Rename and redirect London/Kensington to London/Notting Hill-North Kensington.
The South Ken/Kensington/Notting Hill proposal needs a bit more thought I think. High Street Kensington sits far easier with South Ken and Chelsea than it does with Notting Hill and environs. I propose:
Peter, if you uploaded the svg of Image:Areas_of_Inner_London.png, I could amend it and better explain the (rather late) changes which I have proposed above (and below). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:19, 2 December 2009 (EST)
I'm fine with the Kensington reshuffle, even though I still don't particularly like grouping South Ken & High Street together when that walk is so long. I've uploaded wts:Image:London districts map.svg for you to play with, but I'm not sure how useful it will be, actually, since the base OSM map image cannot be uploaded as part of the SVG. Even if it could be, that image would be far too large to upload to Wikivoyage at any useful resolution (~65MB, I think). Alternatively, you could give me street boundaries, either on an image of your own, or just written here, and I'll amend the map myself. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:14, 2 December 2009 (EST)
Ah right. Understood. I shall then knock up a quick map myself later today showing my proposed boundaries for London/South Kensington-Chelsea or failing that put up a a street boundary description. On the size of the district, yes it is long walk but so it is from one end to the other of many of the the other districts. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:51, 2 December 2009 (EST)
Peter, I think you need to extend the western boundary of London/South Kensington-Chelsea westwards to the border with Hammersmith and Fulham, always staying south of Kensington Gardens and Holland Park line. All of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea north of that becomes London/Notting Hill-North Kensington. If that is not sufficient info let me know and I will try again with some road names. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:54, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I uploaded a PNG of the current district boundaries overlayed on OSM for you to draw the new boundary, keeping in mind that we decided to put the entirety of Hyde Park into the South Ken-Chelsea article (allowing for minor duplication in other articles for things like Speakers Corner). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:04, 3 December 2009 (EST)
Many thanks for that file. I have marked the boundaries I think are sensible and re-uploaded. My only re-think was to include Olympia in the South Ken district as intuitively visitors will look for it there. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:46, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Rest of the inner boroughs

[edit]
Areas of Inner London map

Here's where we get to trim the number of articles — there are tons of useless, empty pages waiting to be merged into larger districts. I do not know these areas, so it might be necessary to use more nuanced divisions than these. Still, until we have that sort of input, better to reorganize all these articles — the result won't be worse than what we have now!

I agree with most of the changes proposed, I think the larger central area is better since it will include most places that someone staying in London for a few days would wish to visit. I live in Ruislip, West London, but have lived in other parts of North and West London.
  • I think it would be better if the combined London/St_James's was called London/Westminster. I am not aware of St.James's being used to describe the area. Most Londoners know of St.James's Park but, if you asked where St.James's was, they would think you were asking for directions to a local church. Everyone knows where Westminster is. In central London, most Londoners do not know where the boundaries of Westminster borough are, unless the actually live in it.
  • On balance London/Hyde Park is best in London/South Kensington-Chelsea since most of the significant features are on the south side.
  • London/St. John's Wood is OK in London/Paddington-Maida Vale , but the map needs to be amended with the border along St.Johns Wood Road.
  • London/Docklands would be better called Tower Hamlets since Docklands just refers to the old docks area. Tower Hamlets is a recent name created for a new borough. Most Londoners would call the area the "East End" but that might be confusing for visitors. The boundaries for the "East End" have always been rather vague.
  • I think London/Bromley is an error in the Tower Hamlets list above. It is an outer London Borough.
  • London/St Pancras should be in London/Camden Town. It is next to Kings Cross.
  • London/Kilburn would be best kept in Outer London. Although Kilburn High Road is on the border of Brent and Camden, most of Kilburn is on the west of this road. This keeps the Inner/Outer London border in line with the borough boundaries.(WT-en) Chris1515 18:09, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
Your suggestions seem spot on to me. A few things:
  • I actually meant to merge St. John's Wood to Mayfair-Marylebone — do you think that would make sense? If not, where should we draw the St John's Wood boundaries when moving it to Paddington-Maida Vale?
  • Bromley in Tower Hamlets was indeed a simple mistake.
  • I think merging London/Hyde Park to South Kensington-Chelsea is a fine solution. The biggest problem with this would be Speaker's Corner, which should clearly be grouped with Mayfair-Marylebone. I say lets give up, and allow that relatively minor content duplication. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:32, 7 August 2009 (EDT)
  • My reasons for suggesting that St.Johns Wood should go in London/Paddington-Maida Vale was that it is a residential district like Maida Vale, and to make the London/Mayfair-Marylebone area a bit smaller. The border would be along the north side of Regents Park, (Prince Consort Road) and St.Johns Wood Road. Alternatively the border could be the Regents Canal slightly to the south.(WT-en) Chris1515 18:45, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
Again, please excuse Johnny-Come-Lately here.... I do not think London/Tower Hamlets is the right name. That name means little to anyone outside of municipal council circles. Far better I think would be call this district the already-existing London/East End - instantly recognisable, has some great connotations attached and would make a lot of sense as this is the traditional east end area of London. I would also include Shoreditch in this area (and northern and eastern Clerkenwell into London/Islington, the rest of Clerkenwell into London/Holborn and thereby lose Clerkenwell/Shoreditch altogether). I will keep on looking.... --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:37, 2 December 2009 (EST)
I'm inclined to agree re: East End. We'll need good street boundaries to split Clerkenwell-Shoreditch into three parts, and are you sure it makes sense to split Clerkenwell across two district articles? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:20, 2 December 2009 (EST)
I think splitting Clerkenwell that way makes some sense, especially given historical associations in the area. However, it is not a major tourist district and it would be OK I think to put all of it into London/Islington (but not all into London/Holborn). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:26, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Inner boroughs tasks

[edit]

Feel free to update as the discussion progresses:

  1. Merge London/Kings Cross and London/St Pancras into London/Camden Town
  2. Merge London/Kentish Town and London/Primrose Hill into London/Hampstead.
  3. Merge London/Archway and London/Finsbury Park into London/Islington. Content may need to be merged from Islington to Clerkenwell, depending on how sloppy things are at this point.
  4. Merge London/Bethnal Green, London/Mile End, London/Whitechapel, and London/Docklands → London/Tower Hamlets
  5. Merge London/Battersea, London/Putney, & London/Tooting into London/Wandsworth
  6. Merge London/Brixton, London/Clapham, London/Crystal Palace (west of Gipsy Hill Station), & London/Kennington → London/Lambeth
  7. Merge London/Crystal Palace (east of Gipsy Hill Station) & London/Dulwich into London/Southwark
I am very late into this discussion and apologies for that (strange how your city of birth takes 2nd stage huh?). I am a bit concerned about some of these merges (although the plan is quite logical) and it is inevitable I think that we will well get a lot of the old articles becoming sub-districts of the ones we are merging into. Nothing wrong with that at all, but for a traveler some of the associations might not make sense. But plunge forward and let's see. One that is defintely wrong though is to merge London/Kentish Town into London/Hampstead. It should go into London/Camden Town for all sorts of reasons. Great initiative and I will try to help and apologies for not doing so before. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:21, 2 December 2009 (EST)
This one is pretty easy, since London/Kentish Town had zero content to be merged anywhere. But I presume the map will need amending? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:22, 2 December 2009 (EST)
Yes. I would suggest including Kentish Town as far as Tufnell Park Tube Station in London/Camden Town. From Tufnell Park north-eastwards goes into London/Archway. London/Hampstead should only come as far south as Gospel Oak. I could draw this much easier than I can explain it! Not really time right now though. As a note Peter, I am very willing to help with precise street boundaries for the London mapping when the time arises. I lived the first 26 years of my life in London, in four different inner boroughs. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:39, 3 December 2009 (EST)
And then, London/Archway. I would strongly suggest changing the name of this article to London/Archway-Highgate. Dear old Archway proper has very little going for it visitor-wise but rather posh Highgate is a major pull with Highgate Cemetery, Highgate Woods, eastern fringing of Hampstead Heath and some truly top class pubs. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:39, 3 December 2009 (EST)
Oh dear. I see Archway has gone anyway. How embarrassing is that?. So the whole of the Archway/Highgate area goes into Islington. That's OK I think but Islington is bloody "long" now. It is a long way from Clerkenwell to Highgate Cemetery! --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:46, 3 December 2009 (EST)
That's one of the problems with merging Clerkenwell into it—it was meant to cover precisely the borough. Maybe we could create a Holborn-Clerkenwell article, merge Shoreditch into East End, and then leave the Islington article alone? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:09, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I am probably just over-complicating. This is a problem when you know the area quite well I think. So, if the Borough of Islington is a consideration then all of Clerkenwell should go to London/Islington as it is a defined council ward within Islington. Culturally and historically, most of Shoreditch would sit best in London/East End. Shoreditch is however part of the borough of Hackney, so to be consistent I guess it should go into London/Hackney. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:40, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I don't want to see administrative divisions take priority over sensible ones, so lets not force that. We can explain in the intro to Islington and/or Hackney that Clerkenwell and Shoreditch are covered elsewhere. Now it's just a question of where to put those new boundaries... ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:56, 3 December 2009 (EST)

I have uploaded a map showing the boundary adjustment I suggested for Hampstead/Camden and Kentish Town. I have also included on this a suggested northern addition to London/Hampstead (in green) so that Golders Hill Park and The Extension are in the same district as Hampstead Heath proper - they are intrinsically linked. I hope this map is helpful Peter. I will also try to do similar for the itchy problem of Clerkenwell/Shoreditch. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:34, 4 December 2009 (EST)

I have also uploaded a map which removes the Clerkenwell-Shoreditch district. Some goes into London/Holborn which I think should be renamed London/Holborn-Clerkenwell as previously mooted and some into London/East End. This keeps Islington north of Pentonville Road where it belongs! On the same map I have also drawn the part of London/Bloomsbury which should go into London/Holborn-Clerkenwell - culturally, Bloomsbury cannot go east of the Grays Inn Road. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:34, 5 December 2009 (EST)
Great! I'll get up a finalized map soon (busy over the weekend). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:09, 5 December 2009 (EST)

I will do my best to work through all of the inner borough articles and get the correct perspective into the Understand sections and work on the tube stations (at least). Have made a start with London/Holborn-Clerkenwell and London/Soho. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:00, 8 December 2009 (EST)

London/Camden Town should be renamed London/Camden I believe. I should have brought this up earlier. Camden Town is a very specific area of the Borough of Camden and it really jars to use it for a wide-ranging district which includes Kings Cross etc. Camden is much better. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:44, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Done. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Outer boroughs

[edit]

These should be simpler. Again, this is unknown territory to me, outside Richmond and Heathrow. Using the current scheme (and I'm certainly open to changing to a different scheme) of North, East, South, and West, I recommend:

London/North stands out as being rather small. Thoughts? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:45, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

  • I do not think Richmond should have its own area. The current London/Richmond-on-Thames page is almost empty. The main problem with not sticking to a North, South, East, West division for all boroughs is that some other Wikivoyager may then try to create a page for another borough that they think deserves one. This would undo the work you are doing to sort out London.
  • It is clearly difficult to divide this Outer London ring in to 4 sections. The only obvious boundary is the wide River Thames in the east. Richmond is on both sides of the river in the west. I would put Richmond in London/West and then Harrow and Brent in London/North. This makes London/North larger. I think most Harrow residents would say they are it North West London, but if asked to choose they would go for North rather than West.
  • Note that although most London boroughs are named after the main town that is also the administrative centre, some boroughs were created in the 1980s by combining smaller boroughs and given compromise names that are not major places. These are listed below:
  • Brent - Wembley
  • Havering - Romford
  • Hillingdon - Uxbridge
  • Merton - Morden
  • Waltham Forest - Walthamstow
  • I do not think there should be a page for each borough, the next level should be towns. The page for each town in the above cases should have a note about the borough that it is the centre for. There could also be a redirect page for each of the boroughs listed above.(WT-en) Chris1515 19:09, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
Fair enough. I think it's probably best to wait before creating town articles below the "quadrant" districts. I'll draw up a comprehensive districts map in the next few days based on all the above. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:27, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
On second thought, I'll draw up that map next month—I'm busy now, and I'll be offline in the mountains for the rest of August. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:06, 20 August 2009 (EDT)
Will this still be done? (WT-en) Globe-trotter 15:09, 2 December 2009 (EST)
Outer districts, OSM
Absolutely, by the end of the month for the CotM. I'll wait until we finish sorting the districts, though, in case more revisions become necessary. For now, here's an overlay map of the outer districts. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:10, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I think it would be pretty cool removing the station names and see if it was possible to line up this map with the Thames, for use as an overlay. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 10:21, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Where to merge?

[edit]

The following articles have not been mentioned on this talk page. I guess all of them should be merged into some of the existing articles, but where?

  1. Acton → London/West
  2. Chiswick → London/West
  3. Uxbridge → London/West
  4. Crouch End → London/North
  5. Wood Green → London/North
  6. Kilburn → toughy — it's actually split across three boroughs, and three of our districts. The majority is in London/North, and I think we should redirect to there, but we'll have to be careful to get the listings in the appropriate places, possibly into London/Hampstead and London/Paddington-Maida Vale. There is almost nothing in London/Kilburn which is a bit surprising. The two listings there are good places though, even if they are not listed properly and I will put them in the right article and re-direct London/Kilburn to London/North.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:02, 4 December 2009 (EST)
  7. Wembley → London/North
  8. Brick Lane → London/East End
  9. Stratford → London/East
  10. Walthamstow → London/East
  11. Wimbledon → London/South
  12. Lewisham → keep as is — my fault for omitting this one from the inner boroughs list above
  13. Tottenham → London/North
  14. Finchley → London/North
  15. Golders Green → London/North
  16. Ilford → London/East
  17. Southfields → London/Wandsworth

Furthermore, there are a number of sub district articles, which I think should be deleted?

  1. South West]
  2. North West]
  3. South East
  4. Central
  5. West End

(WT-en) ClausHansen 17:13, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Wow, I can't believe there are so many that I left out—this guide was truly a mess! I've written above to where the lost districts should be merged. Regarding the directionally named districts at the bottom, I think it best to redirect them to London#Districts, if only to preserve their histories. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:16, 3 December 2009 (EST)
The South Bank Walk also seems to be listed as a district.. Shouldn't it be a travel topic? (WT-en) Globe-trotter 09:45, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Definitely not a district. Good read though. Travel topic. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)


I checked all the districts of London at . Where do the following districts go?

  1. Neasden → London/North
  2. Feltham → London/West
  3. Kew → London/West (London/South is arguable)
  4. Richmond-on-Thames → London/West (London/South is arguable)

Also, what to do with the following strangely named redirects?

  1. London (West)/Acton Redirect should go to London/West
  2. London (West)/Chiswick Redirect should go to London/West
  3. London (West)/Kensington Redirect should probably go to London/South Kensington-Chelsea
  4. London (West)/Notting Hill Redirect should go to London/Notting Hill-North Kensington

(WT-en) Globe-trotter 10:04, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Oh me oh my. Has WT ever had a bigger mess than London? :). I have made my suggestions for those further districts above. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:23, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Re: Richmond/Kew, I know that Londoners think of them as being in the south of the city, but with a quadrant division, they are pretty clearly in the West. Although, I should say that I'm still very much tempted to give Richmond it's own article—there's a lot there. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:13, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Agreed. A Richmond-Kew article would perhaps be even better. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:22, 5 December 2009 (EST)
Yes, Kew had a lot of valuable information in it, and so did Richmond. A Richmond-Kew article would be interesting. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 10:38, 5 December 2009 (EST)

I found yet another - Roehampton. Actually some not so well known attractions in Roehampton . Will empty and re-direct to London/Wandsworth. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:31, 5 December 2009 (EST)

West End

[edit]

What will we do with West End, will it stay a region or will we split it up among the three districts (Soho, Leicester Square and Covent Garden) and get rid of it? (WT-en) Globe-trotter 21:36, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Yep, the decision above was that the West End is too dense for just one district. I think grouping the three under the name West End on the main page would be a good idea, though, in the style of Washington, D.C.#Districts. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:05, 3 December 2009 (EST)
I have moved all useful info out of London/West End and re-directed it to London/Leicester Square (most appropriate of the options). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:18, 4 December 2009 (EST)
I'd say that was a mistake. We currently have London/Piccadilly_Circus, London/Chinatown, London/Trafalgar Square and others redirecting to London/Leicester Square which strikes me as silly. The article belongs at West End with the others redirecting there. The districts with independent articles, Soho and Covent Garden, get links from West End. (WT-en) Pashley 20:33, 8 December 2009 (EST)
The article currently has this description of Leicester square "West End district comprising Leicester Square, Chinatown, Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus". No. L Square does not include itself or nearby areas. The West End includes those plus, I think, Soho & Covent Garden. (WT-en) Pashley 20:43, 8 December 2009 (EST)
That's a fairly fundamental re-think and I am struggling a bit to see how it would be more helpful to the traveller:
  • Nomenclature is always going to be a problem with a big city article like London - a city which has grown organically over many centuries with no real structured planning. I actually think London/Leicester Square could be renamed and that would deal with the issue. Equally though, as long as London/Leicester Square is defined properly, then is it an issue anyway?
  • London/Soho is part of what is normally regarded as the West End, I agree. It is also worthy of its own article though - with little love to date, it is already quite impressive. London/Covent Garden is not so obviously West End though (and in any case is already a well developed article in its own right).
  • Large parts of London/Mayfair-Marylebone are also in the West End as are some parts of London/Westminster.
  • That makes it clear that we cannot have one article for the West End - it would be truly enormous. I think therefore that the only way to do this would be to have London/West End as a district of London and all the others as sub-districts - the dreaded three tiers which I am told Wikivoyage tries to avoid in a city structure. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:01, 8 December 2009 (EST)
I've only spent about three weeks total in London, spread over several visits, so I don't know it at all well. In my oversimplified view (not that it matters), the West End is everything that's South or West of Bloomsbury and East or North of Chelsea.
I have no problem with London/Soho or London/Covent Garden, or with trying to avoid a 3-layer hierarchy. I agree, nomenclature will always be a problem. What would you rename London/Leicester Square to?
What I find strange are various redirects to L square from areas nearby and the description quoted above. London/Central has "West End (Covent Garden, Leicester Square, Soho)", which I much prefer. (WT-en) Pashley 21:30, 8 December 2009 (EST)
Also, when someone mentions London's West End, the first thing I think of is theaters in London/Covent Garden, an article that starts off "Covent Garden is an important part of the West End of central London...", so having the West End article as redirect to something that does not include that area seems wrong. (WT-en) Pashley 21:37, 8 December 2009 (EST)
Leaving all the actual guides as they are and making West End a disambiguation page would be a reasonable solution, I think. (WT-en) Pashley 21:53, 8 December 2009 (EST)
That the article descriptions need work is beyond doubt - we are only a short time into a truly massive restructuring job here. I think I am one of few Londoners here so I have taken on the task of getting those descriptions right. It will take time but see London/Soho#Understand which I wrote yesterday.
I take your point about re-directing of West End but there are definitely more theatres and cinemas covered by the scope of London/Leicester Square than by London/Covent Garden. At the moment, and absent a different structure, redirecting to London/Leicester Square makes most sense.
Your own understanding of what comprises the West End is even larger than my explanation above :). It really is impossible to have one West End article unless it is a district article with several subs sitting below it.
I am thinking about possible new names for London/Leicester Square. It is not easy. The scope of the article is Leicester Square itself, bits of Piccadilly, Trafalgar Square and Charing Cross. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:57, 8 December 2009 (EST)
A look at wikipedia:West_End_of_London#Districts_in_the_West_End should show why it's not feasible to work a London/West End article into our districts scheme—it's basically everything west of the city, and that spans about nine current district articles. We could create a West End grouping in the main article's districts section (akin to what we have now for "Central London," "Outer London," etc.) But I think the "Central London" concept discussed on this page is a more useful way of looking at things from a travel perspective.
I'd recommend redirecting London/West End straight to London#Central London, since it's problematic. The Leicester Square name for that little amalgamation of high density city is also a bit problematic to a lesser degree, but I cannot think of a better one. Leicester Square is certainly the central area, while Trafalgar Square seems more a singular attraction, Chinatown doesn't strike me as particularly important to note, and of Picadilly, really only the circus is included in the article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:59, 8 December 2009 (EST)
That is all very sensible and true Peter. There can never be a perfect solution for a huge city as insane as London. There are arguable points in just about every inner article but unless they are fundamental, I think we should leave alone and let the articles find their shape. By-and-large, a great job done with the districtification.
I have thought long and hard for an alternative name for London/Leicester Square and short of something very ugly and unwieldy, there just isn't one! --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:30, 9 December 2009 (EST)

When merging London/... articles

[edit]

When merging London/... articles:

  • Please be sure to redirect any redirect pages that link to London/... articles that are moved, to avoid double redirects.
  • Look out for disambiguation pages, mentioned in the other uses section, to ensure they are not orphaned.
  • Perhaps, move those disambiguation pages to their simplest English names, rather than [[..... (disambiguation)]] ???

I am also concerned that in the haste to pull all the district content into fewer larger articles, that a lot of the weaving of extra links that were threaded into the old scheme is now becoming unravelled as those districts are chopped and changed and moved around. - (WT-en) Huttite 03:52, 4 December 2009 (EST)

I think almost anything is better than the chaos that was London 1 week ago. This is a monumental task but I have great confidence that within one month, the improvement will be enormous. I also think that the chaotic oganisation has contributed to the London articles generally being of low quality. The two will go hand in hand - better organisation will encourage better articles. It is for example extraordinary to see some of the greatest museums on the planet with no description at all (a name and a website if you are lucky). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:46, 4 December 2009 (EST)
The first stage will be to get the districts re-sorted; the next job on the CotM is to go through and clean up the articles, which will include the internal links! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:05, 4 December 2009 (EST)
I have now updated the links to articles merged into other articles. (WT-en) ClausHansen 18:18, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Refining the boundaries of inner districts

[edit]

Peter, I see you have uploaded a number of London inner district maps at shared. Are these intended for comment/refinement? I was just going to do so, but thought I should ask you first out of courtesy. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:20, 5 December 2009 (EST)

Updated Audit List of Articles

[edit]

After all the merging to date, I think the list now stands as follows (please do add or correct):

  • (✓ = proof-read for listings being in the correct article)

Updated list of Central London articles

[edit]

Updated list of Inner London articles

[edit]

Updated List of Outer London articles

[edit]

Outer borough articles to probably be merged and deleted: London/South West , London/North West , London/South East. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:17, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Maybe London/South West can be turned into London/Richmond-Kew ? (WT-en) Globe-trotter 18:01, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Sounds like a good idea to me. We might have to rework those outer divisions after trying them out, though. London/West could potentially be pretty empty without Richmond and Kew (much of which is in that article, e.g., V&A Museum, is most certainly misplaced).
I amended the districts list above to have three, rather than two, sections: central, inner, and outer. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:51, 8 December 2009 (EST)
Well done. As aside, it struck me that we have already made a lot of progress with London. Huge improvement from 10 days ago and another 3 weeks of collaboration to go. Very well done everyone involved so far. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:07, 8 December 2009 (EST)
I think the Inner London articles are taking shape quite nicely now. I have started the large job of getting all the attractions into the right articles - lots were understandably misplaced when the merging was done. Same job will need to be done with hotels, pubs and restaurants but attractions have to be more important. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:47, 12 December 2009 (EST)
It would be useful, so that we don't duplicate work, to indicate which district articles we have proofed to make sure all the listings do in fact belong there. I added check marks next to the two I have proofed, and would appreciate it if others would do the same. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:04, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Yes indeed and done. But the pubs and restaurants still need more checking and will do so. The most confusion was with the inner west end and with Bloomsbury and Holborn. One basic question that I cannot find the answer to. For boundary roads between districts is the dividing line down the middle of the street? Or....? Important in these West End districts. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:24, 12 December 2009 (EST)
I've been waiting for this problem to surface ;) It seems to be a much larger problem for London than it has been for other cities.
I think we'll need to decide that on a case by case basis, sadly. Here are some of my suggestions:
  • All boundary roads for Leicester Square should be included in that article, rather than those surrounding it
  • Don't include any of the boundary roads for Covent Garden (I think they fit better in the surrounding articles)
  • Chelsea Bridge Rd & Sloane St should be in South Ken-Chelsea, not Westminster
  • All boundary roads for South Bank should be included in that article
  • Kensington High St should stay in South Ken-Chelsea
Beyond that, I'm not sure I have much to contribute. I can fiddle with the "placeholder" district maps to try and make it clear what goes where. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:12, 12 December 2009 (EST)
 :) and all sensible. My three biggest concerns were Charing Cross Road and Haymarket (both clearly now Leicester Square) and High St Ken. I will plug on. This is even more work than I expected :) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)

This whole exercise has demonstrated how important it is to include post codes with any listing in London. Nailing down the location is so much easier - just drop the post code into a locater and get the map with the building pinpointed. Please everyone when placing a listing in any London article, include the full post code. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:21, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I think we should reconsider whether to include post codes or not. It seems that post codes might be helpful when creating the articles but are of no use to travelers. Futher, I guess the street name and number will be sufficient to locate the listing in a locater or Google. Finally, according to Project:Accommodation listings no post codes should be included and none are in fact included in any of the star articles, I have seen. So, I recommend that we do not include these codes. Comments? (WT-en) ClausHansen 04:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)
Hmmm. I had not appreciated that guideline. How long ago was that policy formulated I wonder and would it be different today when post codes are the easiest way to locate a building (SatNav, www, GPS)? How can that be of no use to travelers? I do realise that the aim of WT is be a fully usable when printed, but I still see a strong case for including post codes (not only in London) and cannot imagine why it is undesirable?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:54, 14 December 2009 (EST)

What will we do with London/Central? I suppose the article's content should be moved to the relevant districts and the article be redirected to Leicester Square? (WT-en) Globe-trotter 12:43, 13 December 2009 (EST)

After merging, I'd prefer we redirect it to London#Central London. The Leicester Square district is really one of several "Central Londons". --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:35, 13 December 2009 (EST)
OK, I cleaned it out, moved info to the districts and redirected it to London#Central London. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 12:05, 18 December 2009 (EST)
Very well done. Some of the info was duplicated but no problem to tidy that up. Good job. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:12, 18 December 2009 (EST)

As per concensus, I have now created London/Richmond-Kew. A lot of yet work to do but a quick glance will tell you that the content more than justifies its own article. And London/West is still quite substantial without the Richmond and Kew content. I have assumed that the small area of Richmond north of the Thames should be included in his article. Important as this I think contains Hampton Court, Twickenham Stadium and Bushy Park. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:27, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Boundaries of Westminster

[edit]

Peter, looking more closely at the draft map you uploaded, I think we should adjust the western boundary of Westminster to the borough line (Lowndes Sq, Eaton Terrace, Holbein Place, Chelsea Bridge Rd) - i.e. Belgravia goes into Westminster and not London/South Kensington-Chelsea. This is arguable but I think it makes sense to follow the political boundary here, especially as South Ken-Chelsea is already very large. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:08, 11 December 2009 (EST)

And as I have not said it already, thank you for the updated inner districts map. Great work. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:29, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Thanks, I'll have a new outer districts map too—all that's left is tracing the very large number of parklands. I uploaded a new version of Image:Westminster OSM map.png, making the adjustments to include Belgravia. I drew the northern boundary west of Hyde Park Corner just a little south of Knightsbridge (road), to emphasize that Knightsbridge (neighborhood) is firmly within the South Ken-Chelsea district article. If you (all) approve, I'll make the change to the main article maps. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:54, 11 December 2009 (EST)
I definitely agree. It is an important distinction to make.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Done. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Boundaries of Mayfair

[edit]

I knew there would be a number of issues here. The boundaries as drawn are fine I think but we do need to make some decisions about exactly where the dividing lines come.

  • Hyde Park is part of London/South Kensington-Chelsea and that makes sense. But what about Marble Arch, Wellington Arch and Speakers Corner? Instinctively they all "feel" like Mayfair to me. Or is it inconsistent not to consider these as part of Hyde Park?
  • The whole of Piccadilly (the street) should be treated as part of Mayfair (although Green Park is part of Westminster).
  • The whole of Upper Regent Street between Oxford Circus and Piccadilly Circus should be treated as Mayfair I think. None of Regent Street feels right for Soho. So the likes of Hamleys, Liberty, Asprey's and Aquascutum would be in Mayfair and not Soho. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)
The northeast corner's attractions do not fit well with South Ken at all (and actually, I didn't think Marble Arch is within the park). I say we mention them under a Hyde Park subsection of See in the South Ken article, and in that mention provide a link to the Mayfair article, where we will cover them. Your other recommendations sound right to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:30, 14 December 2009 (EST)
The arch itself is officially not within the park but the usual approaches and the highly-related Speaker's Corner are. Therefore important I think to keep Marble Arch and Speakers' Corner in the same article. Your solution sounds good to me. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:04, 14 December 2009 (EST)

London/South, Wimbledon, Southfields and London/Wandsworth

[edit]

We will need to take care in these areas. Wimbledon seems to be in London/South but Southfields, where quite a few Wimbledon (in the tennis sense) facilities and the main tube stop lie, is in London/Wandsworth. Peter, it would be really helpful if you could upload a map extract of the London/South and London/Wandsworth border area. Also, given the volume of listings for Wimbledon (and its fame), it might actually be better to have a specific article for this area? But first, I think a close examination of the boundaries is in order. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:49, 15 December 2009 (EST)

There's the border, and you'll note that OSM very helpfully shows the border with a dashed line (so you can look at this at a higher resolution, if you like). I can't comment on whether Wimbledon should get a separate article, or on whether London/South would survive that split well, as I never made it out there! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Thanks as usual Peter. For now I think we assume that Wimbledon is not a separate article and therefore all of it should go into one article - South is better than Wandsworth I think. So South should take in the area around Southfields Station which is currently in Wandsworth plus that litle triangle of Wimbledon Park which is also shown in Wandsworth. No need to be too precise and just use convenient main roads as the border lines. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:00, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Outer Boroughs Map and Listings

[edit]

Having contributed to this discussion back in August, I was pleased to discover all the work that has recently been done. Peter, Would it be possible to add one or more icons to the red line on the Outer London districts map to indicate that it is a road and not an administrative boundary. I have created an M25 logo by modifying the E20.png route icon using Windows Paint, but there is probably a better way of doing this. Maybe the line on the map should be blue, as the used for UK motorways, although the I understand the normal Wikivoyage colour for roads is red.

Is it intended to list the boroughs in each of the 4 Outer boroughs regions in the reqion description lines of the London article or does this information go on at the top of each article? Or both?

Most towns in the UK have branches of the same national chains of shops and restaurants. Should the borough Buy and Eat listings just include the location of the local shopping street/centre/mall, and only individually list those shops and restaurants that are unique to the area?

I am a bit busy at the moment, but will try to systematically read through all the London articles after Christmas, checking the content and links.(WT-en) Chris1515 06:29, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Chris some help from another Londoner would be greatly appreciated :) and especially so as I see you contributed sensibly early in this discussion. My responses to your points are:
  • Yes, the boroughs making up the outer district should be mentinoned in each respective article. I always prefer that sort of info to be in an Understand section.
  • M25 icons - great stuff and definitely a good idea. The map has lot of refinement to come and I am sure Peter will use the M25 icon.
  • On shops, I would recommend not individually listing chain stores and keep that privilege for especially interesting local shops and markets. A shopping centre as one listing with some mention of the chain stores in it sounds right to me. Same for restaurants. And with restuarants try to prioritise the obvious 'Londony' ones, eg good Indian places, great fish and chip shops etc.... --(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:22, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Yes, I have a lot of plans for the for the big SVG map I have been working on, including road names/signs and transit maps. I'll probably have to run the transit maps off separately, though, since it will get crowded. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:47, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I notice that the Harrow listings were moved on 14th December to London/West. Should they not be in London/North ?
As I understand it the current plan is,
with boundaries matching the borough administrative boundaries.(WT-en) Chris1515 11:48, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Yes, all Harrow content should be in London/North. The only area where we have boundaries for an outer London district that don't align perfectly with borough boundaries is around Wimbledon, where we now include a little bit of Wandsworth in London/South. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:35, 18 December 2009 (EST)

I have had a go at the introduction format for London/North. Basically: the boroughs that comprise the district with their official urls then a list of worthwhile areas within the district with re-directs emboldened. The rest of the article is still a mess but I think we should try to agree a standard format for the start of each of North, South, East and West. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:58, 23 December 2009 (EST)

South Bank

[edit]

I have been avoiding this one as I knew it was complicated :). If (only if) we want to use the definition of South Bank as per the current article and London/South Bank Walk, the boundaries on the map need extending way to the east. Traditionally, South Bank would only have been regarded as the area as far east as London Bridge station (ish). But that is probably no longer the case and the eastward progression used by the current articles may well be valid. If we accept those then the boundary should go east to Tower Bridge and a little further taking in Shad Thames as far as St Saviour's Dock. A sensible southern boundary would seem to be the St Thomas St, Druid St, Jamaica Rd line. If that is agreed, then I will thoroughly check the article listings. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, it is a problem now that more attractions have been built east of London Bridge. If South Bank is extended eastwards as suggested then most of the listings in Southwark will have to go in South Bank making it a large article.
I have always thought of the South Bank as being the area between Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges, not the entire south bank of the Thames in London. An alternative option would be to have an extra district! Bankside for the area east of Blackfriars Bridge (or split at the borough boundary west of the OXO Tower). Bankside was redirected to South Bank in 2004 but could be revived.(WT-en) Chris1515 12:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)
In principle, I would like to see this change, and would prefer using a separate Bankside article per Chris' suggestion. But I am a bit worried that we'd be left with a permanently empty article for London/Southwark. Is there much to write about it south of the proposed Bankside district? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:15, 17 December 2009 (EST)
Southwark without its bits by the Thames will be empty. It is fairly empty even with them. And this raises another issue. Take a look at Lewisham. Two inner areas that are probably as much as 95% residential housing and just not very interesting for the visitor. Lewisham has one attraction I can think of (Horniman Museum)! I propose:
Makes perfect sense to me, especially as I now see how this would enable the nice parallel with the itinerary article! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:59, 17 December 2009 (EST)
OK, I wil get on with merging those two then... will not take long :) As an aside I think South Bank along with the City and Hampstead are probably guide status now.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:30, 17 December 2009 (EST)
And if anyone is bored, there is lovely :) listing task detailed here. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:48, 17 December 2009 (EST)

More bad news for Southwark-Lewisham. I am fairly sure that the whole Crystal Palace area is in the Borough of Bromley and therefore should be in London/South. Please could one other user confirm that understanding before we move the content. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:39, 19 December 2009 (EST)

It's a complicated area. Looking at the map, I figured the Palace and Park is in South, but much of the drink and eateries are split between Lambeth and South, depends on which side of the road (though I have no idea where they went?!). (WT-en) Globe-trotter 10:04, 19 December 2009 (EST)
Yes difficult and unclear. Peter, could you please have a look at your master map and let us know what it implies re Crystal Palace? I think this is the last area of confusion to resolve in all the London articles. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:42, 20 December 2009 (EST)
Crystal Palace area
The park is certainly in London/South. I don't know the area, but here is an quick, ugly illustration from the master map. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:26, 20 December 2009 (EST)
So it could go either way. Given that London/Southwark-Lewisham is really struggling for content, I suggest we treat all of Crystal Palace as falling into this article and adjust the map to include the Park.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:36, 21 December 2009 (EST)
Most of the restaurants are in the street west in Lambeth. Maybe we could include that into Southwark as well? They were included in the previous "Crystal Palace" article. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 09:16, 21 December 2009 (EST)
Sounds very sensible. Let's just keep all Crystal Palace listings in one article. This will allow a final tidy up of London/Southwark-Lewisham. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:53, 22 December 2009 (EST)
If one of you would be so kind as to draw the new boundaries on that little map, I'll update the master maps. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:09, 22 December 2009 (EST)
I placed my suggestion as a black line on the map, also wrote where most of the Crystal Palace listings are. Would like to hear Burmesedays' input though, as he knows the city better. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 23:37, 22 December 2009 (EST)
Absolutely fine as far as I can tell. I am a bit weak on South London tbh. North Londoners only venture south of the Thames when they have no choice :) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:01, 23 December 2009 (EST)
Done. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:07, 26 December 2009 (EST)

Updated districts map and London/South

[edit]

The districts map is looking great Peter! I think this one might just turn out to be a real masterpiece :). Looking at it I am convinced that London/South is far too big. There is significant content for both Wimbledon and Croydon. I do now think that London/Wimbledon becomes a new article and we re-assess London/South after that split.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:23, 19 December 2009 (EST)

I also think Wimbledon could suffice it's own article, especially due to it's history and the amount of content. I don't know about Croydon though, we also got to leave some for South. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 10:06, 19 December 2009 (EST)
Yep, spot on. That's why I suggested extracting Wimbledon and then re-assessing South before making any decision on Croydon. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:10, 19 December 2009 (EST)
With two definite agreements and some soft support previously, I will go ahead and create London/Wimbledon. Peter, I do realise how much of a pain it is to keep the changing the maps! Hopefully this will be the last district change. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:58, 19 December 2009 (EST)
Any chance I could persuade you to choose the district borders? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:53, 20 December 2009 (EST)
Of course :). I have had a go at drawing it but Image:London_districts_map.svg has not been uploaded and without that I am not sure I have got the existing London/South : Wandsworth boundary correct. Please see here.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:54, 20 December 2009 (EST)
I also noticed Wimbledon is placed in Inner London, while technically it's in Outer London. We could move Wimbledon to Outer London (so it's correct with official rules), or we could move Richmond-Kew to Inner (so that all separate articles in the London guide fall in Inner London, as opposed to the North, East, South and West articles). (WT-en) Globe-trotter 23:48, 22 December 2009 (EST)
I originally added it to the outer regions table. My guess is Peter moved it when he updated the map (great job again with that by the way). Wimbledon definitely sits more comfortably with me in the outer regions with Richmond. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:53, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Status of district articles

[edit]

Great progress I must say. I have upped the following to guide status:

And I think a number of the other articles are now strong usable, not far from guide. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:39, 24 December 2009 (EST)

District Status Missing
Front Page Guide


Bloomsbury Guide


City of London Guide


Covent Garden Usable


Holborn-Clerkenwell Usable


Leicester Square Guide


Mayfair-Marylebone Usable



Notting Hill-North Kensington Usable


Paddington-Maida Vale Usable


Soho Guide


South Bank Usable



South Kensington-Chelsea Usable


Westminster Usable


Camden Usable



East End Usable


Greenwich Usable


Hackney Usable


Hammersmith and Fulham Usable


Hampstead Star


Islington Usable



Lambeth Usable


Southwark-Lewisham Usable


Wandsworth Usable


West Usable



North Usable


East Usable



South Usable


Wimbledon Usable



Richmond-Kew Usable



Made a list of statuses, I think it's important we first get them all up to usable (although some are close to guide status). (WT-en) Globe-trotter 10:06, 24 December 2009 (EST)

Good, good, we have 1½ years before it should be featured as DoTM, so there is plenty of time :) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 10:17, 24 December 2009 (EST)--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:31, 24 December 2009 (EST)
Excellent work GT. That table really does crystallise the current status and shows where energy should be directed. It would be great if we could get all the articles up to usable by the time the CotM is over. Of the articles that are still just outlines:
  • London/Hackney is very nearly usable I think - just needs a bit more in Drink and Eat. See and do are very good already. There are very few sleep options in Hackney, so that should not concern us too much.
  • London/Wandsworth is virtually there. I will tidy that one up a bit and add a couple more hotels and then it is certainly usable I think.
  • London/Hammersmith and Fulham needs more listings, especially from the Fulham part of the borough. Again . not hard. There are even places I know quite well that I have not yet added. Will give this article some attention and I see no issues with getting it to usable.
  • The problem children are North, South, East and West. I am not even sure what these should look like. The geographical coverage of each is huge. It is no surprise to me that these have been left to the end :) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:31, 24 December 2009 (EST)
I agree that making something nice of West, North, East and South might be hard, and I don't really know how to deal with them. Maybe there are some star districts like these for inspiration? (WT-en) Globe-trotter 13:29, 24 December 2009 (EST)
I don't think we have any star articles for really expansive outer districts like these, although I'm pretty confident that Chicago/Southwest Side would pass if nominated. Chicago/Far Northwest Side, Chicago/Far West Side, Washington, D.C./Upper Northwest, and Washington, D.C./Northeast are also fairly good articles of this type with which I am familiar. (I'm not sure how well these U.S. articles will resemble a UK counterpart, though.) The most important place to start, I'd say, would be to identify and explain the important neighborhoods/towns/mini-centers that comprise the district in the understand, as done in the above articles. From there, I think the task is just what it would be for any article—identify the worthwhile attractions, restaurants, pubs, etc. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:09, 24 December 2009 (EST)
I really like the map Chicago/Far West Side with the neighborhoods color-coded, that definitely helps to get a grasp of such a large area. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 15:30, 24 December 2009 (EST)
I see that Claus has had a go with London/West and bravo for that. It is a different approach to the one I put out for comment with London/North (up to and including by tube). Both approaches have merits. I am worried though about creating a Districts section (which in effect are the council boroughs making up the scope of the article) when the article itself is already a District. Have we used a districts section before in a small city template so the effect of this can be seen? A districts section implies to me that each district will then have its own article. And with Ealing for example listed as a district of London/West ... the main area within the London Borough of Ealing is Ealing itself (which is currently missed out at London/West).... how to express that? I am still far from sure about how to tackle these 4 articles but am sure that they should follow the same format. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:27, 25 December 2009 (EST)
We should be careful with the word "district," to avoid confusion with the hierarchical structure. I'm inclined to say that a basic mention of the boroughs included in the district is all we would need, while it would be more important to explain in detail the centers, where a traveller would likely go (like the example Ealing, rather than the Borough of). That information should go in the Understand section, either directly or as a subsection. The Chicago articles linked above are analogous in their descriptions of "neighborhoods" (I'm not sure whether that is the appropriate term for Outer London destinations). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:16, 27 December 2009 (EST)
I think that is more or less what I have done with the introduction and understand sections at London/North? I can certainly do the same with the other 3. In many ways the Understand and Get in sections are hardest with these districts I think.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:59, 27 December 2009 (EST)
I prefer the London/West introduction and understand layout to the London/North option. It looks neater with places are listed under each borough, rather than in a long list. A short description for each place in the list is useful. Where there are full paragraphs for some places as in London/North and London/South, these can follow the list. I have added a few items to the London/West article as an example that would apply to the other outer London articles.- I have explained that many places in Outer London have the name of the former county as part of the address. I have added the administrative town for each borough, at the top of the list, and noted that it is the administrative town of the borough where it is not the same as the borough name.
Moving on to the Get In section. The order is rather confused in places. My thoughts are that for the outer London districts, the Get In section should begin with single By Tube, By Train, By Car sections describing the main routes through the district. This would then be followed by information about specific places where there is something to note about the transport system such as the location of the station, particularly if there is more than one of them, bus interchanges and similar information.(WT-en) Chris1515 18:37, 29 December 2009 (EST)
I am fine with the London/West structure now (good that the Districts section has been renamed). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 19:42, 29 December 2009 (EST)
Any chance you could look after doing this Chris? The introduction, understand and get in sections are key for the four outer boroughs articles. The attractions and listings will look after themselves. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:22, 3 January 2010 (EST)
OK. I have changed the the other 3 outer London understand section to the same format as London/West. (WT-en) Chris1515 05:11, 5 January 2010 (EST)

City of London Boundaries

[edit]

Peter, I suspect you will have used the official boundaries for the City. This creates issues with the Tower of London and Tower Bridge which are both just outside the boundary (most folks do not realise this). If you have used the official boundaries please adjust to include these two major attractions as it makes no sense putting them into the East End. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:27, 24 December 2009 (EST)

It appears that I have until today been most folks. I will move the boundary ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:40, 24 December 2009 (EST)
Done. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:07, 26 December 2009 (EST)

Boundaries of London/Camden and London/Hampstead

[edit]

Peter, when I suggested the changes regarding Kentish Town I messed up a bit on the boundaries. The Gloucester Avenue area (just east of Primrose Hill) must be in London/Hampstead and not London/Camden Town. I have adjusted this on the Hampstead map. When you next change the master district map, please reflect this. Thanks. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

What should then become of that short stretch of Prince Albert Rd currently in Camden Town, but which would be left between Regents Park and Hampstead? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)
Instinctively, Prince Albert Rd "belongs" more to Regent's Park and my preference would be for it to go into Mayfair-Marylebone. If that shape it too odd though, it can easily go into either Hampstead or Camden Town. The Hampstead map currrently stops at the bottom of Primrose Hill taking in none of Prince Albert Rd (the old issue of "which side of the road" :).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:23, 3 January 2010 (EST)
Peter, before I forget, after making such a good job of Leicester Square, were you imminently planning any more maps? I ask only because I am about to start Soho, but of course do not want to duplicate any other efforts. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:06, 4 January 2010 (EST)
OK, I'll put it in Mayfair-Marylebone. And yes, believe it or not, I was planning a Soho map ;) For very small districts geographically, it's fairly easy to import the street map, buildings, etc. from an OSM Mapnik SVG export, as I did with Leicester Square. So, if you'd be willing to pick a different district, we'd keep up the collaborative force. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:57, 4 January 2010 (EST)
No problem, I shall do Bloomsbury :) You might want to wait a few days on Soho a I have quite a lot of listings to add (it was always number 2 in my mind after Hampstead was done).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:25, 4 January 2010 (EST)
I did a lot of work on Soho listings today Peter which will make your mapwork easier. Notably, the addresses were sketchy and virtually no post codes were included. Britain's building-specifc postcode system is a God-send for map makers :) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)
Give the word when it's ready—it was an easy map, and is just waiting for listings icons. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:50, 5 January 2010 (EST)
I am now done with the volume of listings, so fire away! I will leave you the pleasure of sticking it up to guide (which it certainly will be once the map is done).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:39, 6 January 2010 (EST)
Done. I'm inclined to keep going, and would like to do Westminster, Covent Garden, or the City next—any preference on your part? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:14, 6 January 2010 (EST)
Keep on rolling please :) I am doing Bloomsbury by hand tracing (I just cant get the OSM data export to make any sense in a Windows environment and I dont have UNIX access), so it is taking a while. My only concern would be how well developed and accurate the listings are in those other inner districts as I have not really worked on them at all. But that can of course be put right later on the maps. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)
Bloomsbury done. I must say that was a tough and very fiddly one to draw by hand. I am pleased with the graphical result though. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:04, 7 January 2010 (EST)

Article status

[edit]

Now that the four outer boroughs are in good enough shape to be usable articles (cheers Chris!), I think we can elevate London to guide status. Quite incredible when you think what an unholy mess it was 40 days ago. Any reasons left for it not be a guide? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

actually, London/East needs a bit of work to get it to usable. So when answering the question above, assume there are a couple more Eat and Sleep listings in London/East.
I have been working on the outer borough articles for the past few weeks, reworking the understand and get in sections to get them in the same format. I have also checked all the links in and out for these pages and made various corrections. I note Peter's comment about the understand sections being a bit of an eyesore at the moment with the long list of areas. I could have just listed them on one line instead of bullet points, but I am hoping others will add some one line descriptions. I have done this for London/West, where I live, but don't feel I know enough to do this for the other areas.(WT-en) Chris1515 10:16, 11 February 2010 (EST)
I still would eventually like to get rid of the bulleted lists altogether, and rework that information into more enjoyable prose. But that's certainly not enough to keep the article at outline status. Great work. I have now updated the districts status to reflect the fact that we now have no outlines, and that the guide overall is now at guide status! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:09, 11 February 2010 (EST)

West End, again

[edit]

Is there any way we could maybe treat the West End as a pseudo-district, where the user searching for such would be taken to a page explaining that London's West End incorporates all or part of districts X, Y, Z, etc.? (WT-en) LtPowers 11:24, 9 November 2010 (EST)

How about redirecting it to West End#England? I cleared up which districts comprise the West End, although that is something of a contentious definition. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:59, 9 November 2010 (EST)
That might be the best bet then. All I know is that when I hear of London's West End, I think of the theatre district. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:57, 10 November 2010 (EST)

Greetings, my case on Sutton (London)

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you to User:AndreCarrotflower for directing me here despite there being a low chance of makingit. :-), but :-(

Recently, I made some improvements to Sutton, south of London Proper, complete with individual government and police force, and school aystem. However, this appears to be somewhat covered in a broad South London article, and User:Andrewssi2 and Andre thought it would be better that way. What do you think?

If Sutton isn't allowed, you should consider divising London by reigonal quadrants, (as noted by User:Andrewssi2), as they are so seperated vy miles and each contains so many towns

-Signed, the amazing Zanygenius. Visit my chat page 05:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Having lived in South West London, I can assure you that travel from the South West (Chessington for example) to the South East (Bexley for example) is very far. I would probably have taken a train to central London and then another train to my destination in the South East.
I'd like to break this up into London/South West and London/South East --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree witg you, and I'll recover the article for you! You can see my progress |here bexause I want to perfect the article before I send it out! -Signed, the amazing Zanygenius. Visit my chat page 03:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London/Districts&oldid=3656616"