London Wiki


Hi, welcome to London Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Wiki page.

Welcome.Oniontree1 (talk) 19:36, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

What are your particular areas of interest? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:26, July 24, 2015 (UTC)


I think the 'multiplicity of overlapping categories' arises in part from 'London being a large place with many topics that can be covered' some of which lie outside the interests of those people actually involved on the wiki. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:01, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

Understandable, when it's rare to get more than four editors of content in any given month. But people come and go (and occasionally one comes back). So I expect a gradual improvement. Encouraging people to use Wikipedia category and article names can help to reduce any overlap or confusion. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:46, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
We have our various interests (so may 'just create token articles' for other areas). Some areas get 'dealt with' in intermittent bursts (by two or more people) so different categories get used - 'Museums and (art) galleries' being one such, until 'the proverbial someone' decides to take on the field and sort it out. (One reason for the initiation to take on specific fields on the main page.) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:00, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

Red links[]

Your changes are creating red links from some of the articles linked to the previous names - are you going to resolve them in due course? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:31, July 28, 2015 (UTC)

I can't think what you mean there. Haven't I left "previous names" as redirects? List examples and I'll check. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:37, July 29, 2015 (UTC)
If you go to the 'wanted pages' you will find a number - plus a lot of Templates and other material that do not seem to be relevant to LW (eg Template:Juventus F.C. managers‏‎ and Template:Bayern Munich managers‏‎). I am not a 'designer and modifier of templates' - and they tend to dislocate easily. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:33, July 29, 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite aware of Special:Wantedpages. It had some entries before my recent work. I created pages for some, I think. Red links don't hurt the wiki, and as their colour is not very different from the internal link colour I doubt if most readers of articles will find them a problem, but I'll have another look at the list. I don't know what you mean by "dislocate" or by "red links from some of the articles linked to the previous names". -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:03, July 29, 2015 (UTC)
I've found the football club managers. They're in an example of how to use or modify a template. Ordinary readers and editors need not be concerned about them. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:18, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes (re)moving one character changes the whole format - and (for example)some of the station names are/were X Station or X Railway Station.

Given the nature of the wiki somewhat less detail may be needed on London Wiki than Wikipedia - eg there is only one Central Station here but several there. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:48, July 29, 2015 (UTC)

OK, but there's not just one Victoria Park. (That was 4 red links, and I don't think I created any of them!) -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:18, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
'Category of things current participants rate low-priority for themselves.' :) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:27, July 30, 2015 (UTC)

I think it is mainly that 'most participants here' are more interested in developing articles in their areas of interest than in 'looking into technicalities' (beyond setting up tables etc). Jackiespeel (talk) 12:51, July 29, 2015 (UTC)

John Bury[]

For the purposes of the London wiki the list could probably be simplified (with a link to the Wikipedia disambiguation page) - or are you going to write the several articles? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:50, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

I simplified it hugely. Which of the remaining gentlemen do you think does not deserve an article? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:27, August 1, 2015 (UTC)
The Cambridge MP at least - and the List of Sheriffs of London should 'point to' the relevant JB not to this disambiguation page. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:17, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

Conventions in this wiki[]

What do you wish to add to this page? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:39, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Nothing stands out there. But it would be better moved to the "Project:" namespace because it's not an article about London. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:40, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

Sir Charles Hobhouse, 3rd Baronet[]

... was a case of the 'ex-relative syndrome' - someone who was thought to belong but didn't (being confused with the other Hobhouse). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:31, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

Importing pages from Wikipedia[]

If you wish to import material from Wikipedia please remove square brackets from 'topics which are not London based' or link them to the several Wikipedia pages. Otherwise, rather than spending time developing London Wiki as such, I (as the person mainly active on the wiki) have to spend time removing links to Colchester and Hadrian's Wall etc. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:43, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

  1. You, of all people, don't have to. To quote your words of 3 years ago: those and other red links "can be left for 'the proverbial someone' to deal with :)". Red links don't damage the wiki; and, as I have said before, the colour is not too different from the live links and will therefore probably not annoy many readers if any. Readers who do appreciate the difference will know not to expect an article if they click on a red link, whether or not it is London-based. If you are really so averse to red links, why is Sheriffs of the City of London (redlinked from Francis Lycett) still red after over three years? It must have been obvious when Special:Wantedpages was shorter.
  2. My geography must have misled me into thinking Colchester would be close enough to get a page here. I'll fix that.
  3. I thought I'd fixed Hadrian's Wall because I know it's away up north. I'll check it.
  4. Londinium was so long that I ran out of time before meal break. I'll resume converting its links shortly (well, maybe tomorrow).
-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:05, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that #London wiki is not intended to be a clone of Wikipedia/have wholesale copying therefrom#; and that while there are approaching 9 million people in Greater London, there are only a handful of people editing this wiki - who have only a certain amount of time we can devote to it, and we have our own interests. What we can do will be done - and if you can get more people in to write articles to fill the gaps do so. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:07, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

... and red links do matter if they are to topics which are not relevant to the wiki. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:11, August 15, 2015 (UTC)


Should there be a 'this page is currently being developed (add comments/suggestions to the talk page' header-note, for eg Londonium and other articles so that the users who are here don't tangle up each other's planned ongoing work? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:08, August 17, 2015 (UTC)

That looks like the sort of thing some wikis have in an easy-to-remember template. "Under construction", or some such. Do you have such a template here? (Though the keen users have their own interests and won't often want to look at other recently-started articles on subjects that are of little interest to them...) -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:16, August 17, 2015 (UTC)
There is 'Category TPH'; the next stage along and possibly with a 'working on until' date (so articles don't get forgotten about). Jackiespeel (talk) 13:59, August 17, 2015 (UTC)
Sorted. See Template:Construction. No "working on until" date - people can't accurately predict when they will be back working on something; but it is designed to appear in a category under "Maintenance" so as not to be completely forgotten. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:34, August 18, 2015 (UTC)
There is a point in having some time limits before 'someone else deciding to improve or add to the article' - whether 'minor changes' or more extensive work. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:42, August 18, 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you have a time limit system, either you let people state their own expectations (and you don't complain if someone says "give me 6 years" - or the wiki doesn't ask people to set their own limits but sets a policy, e.g. "any article stated to be under construction may be edited by someone else if the original author has not edited it in the past calendar month (though obvious typos and factual errors may be corrected 24 hours after the last edit)". (This discussion would be better placed on Template talk:Construction. Let's move it there.) -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:55, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages[]

Please do not just copy them over wholesale - #tidy them up first# - and see the comment here [1]. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:18, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

  1. As I do not currently have a wordprocessor, I can't tidy them before publication; but I do comment-out much of what would be untidy once I see it on the wikia page or even in the preview.
  2. I do at least acknowledge the source of the copying, which you as a presumably responsible wiki-adopter should do but frequently do not.
  3. I find it difficult to predict how much tidying they will need in order to satisfy you because your standards seen to vary from week to week (or I misunderstand them). If there is a policy within this wiki that every page should be "tidy" before publication, why haven't I found it?
  4. Pages from Wikipedia would look much tidier if you two active admins agreed that InstantCommons could be enabled here. Lovely photos would appear instead of links. Surely you can just say "yes" or "OK" - much quicker than writing rather repetitive paragraphs criticising a contributor who started work on this wiki several years before you did and who is ranked #5 in total edits.
-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 05:55, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Standards do not vary from week to week but on the nature of the articles - and perhaps you could include 'This article contains material from Wikipedia page (link)' at the top - or, if you have the time, a précis with a link to the WP article (and anything else appropriate - eg for Londinium links to the Museum of London/Museum in Docklands website(s), and a variety of the other websites available). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:26, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Putting the acknowledgment at the top is no problem for me but it makes readers scroll further to start seeing page content - is that really preferred? Of course, you can move it; you've spent many minutes editing Londinium despite the request at the top. The page has a link to a Museum of London archive; with your local knowledge I'm sure you can add even better links to websites. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:55, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Just accept that those already on LW have had no need yet for InstantCommons, and want to direct the wiki more towards Original Research than copying Wikipedia text wholesale. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:41, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain the relevance of the phrase "already on LW". I can see that two such people want to employ original research and are doing a splendid job at it. But wikis benefit greatly from pictures, which is what InstantCommons is about, not text. Surely you would like to add the occasional photo without having to upload it? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:57, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia requests material from their website be acknowledged.
You do seem to enjoy telling other people what to do when you could do at least some of it yourself. 14:31, August 28, 2015 (UTC)


You are saying that people will be put off by reading one line acknowledging the source of information - but you have copied over a number of pages from Wikipedia without acknowledgement and claiming to be the author of the article. This is bad practice and could lead to accusations of plagiarism.

I am sorry I/those of us on LW cannot live up to your standards - but #we only have a limited amount of time# and I am having to spend much time tidying up after you (and you still have not removed all the 'LW-irrelevant links' on the Londinium page).

If you were to set up another wiki on Wikia (which is very easy) you would be able to show us what you mean. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:44, August 31, 2015 (UTC)

  1. I'm sorry if I've accidentally omitted to acknowledge the source on any page using Wikipedia. (Probably fewer than you have! Merely saying "The Wikipedia page is ..." is not an acknowledgment of source.) You're welcome to point out any of mine that you find; of course, that can be reciprocated.
  2. (What is this "those of us on LW"? I was here years before you were, and I have the 5th-highest edit tally.) After you started tinkering with Londinium, ignoring the request at the top, I lost enthusiasm for it. I've told you before that you don't have to tidy up after anyone and that your time (which you keep on expending by telling me you have very little of it) is much better spent on what you are really good at.
  3. I have set up several wikias. The one that appears at the top of this page is the Imperialism Game Wiki, but its subject-matter is quite different from LW. What do you think I could show you about what I "mean"?
-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:55, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

Just accept that as this is a small-field wiki we can simplify to some extent; because there are presently only a few of us here we have to simplify; and that those of us here sometimes go on the basis of 'if it is simple and it works, do it' (and give others the opportunity of improving articles). Circumstances mean a more laissez faire approach is at present appropriate - but a more rigorous one is not necessarily wrong. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:29, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

Dates question[]

'Doing a rough straw poll' - what would your preference be with my dates discussion on London Wiki talk:Conventions in this wiki? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:07, September 13, 2015 (UTC)

Placeholder question[]

Would you be able to devise something equivalent to the Thoroughfare Placeholder (see eg Queen's Gate) for some of the Category entries? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:16, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

Well, the coding for that one looks easy enough to adapt - change the text, the border widths, the colours, ... . Have you looked at ? Anyway, which category entries are you thinking of? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:47, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
Whichever of the categories on the 'wanted pages list' you are interested in - probably all that is needed is 'replace T-for-thoroughfare with D-for-date or B-for-buildings' (and perhaps the text should read 'This [thoroughfare/date/building/etc)-related stub....
Then 'all that needs to be done' is matching up categories and articles. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:05, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean now. Someone can scroll through Special:Wantedpages and grab articles that belong in a selected category. Disadvantage of that, as with the thoroughfares, is that the articles will no longer be red links and therefore a casual reader who might know a lot about the article's subject will not realise that the article needs content. Keen contributors such as you can use the wanted pages list just as easily as a placeholder category when you want to attack the red links, so there's little or no advantage for you while there is the above-mentioned disadvantage regarding less keen contributors who might be inspired to start writing by the sight of a red link. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 21:58, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should have a slightly wider audience. I'm copying it all to Project:Red links and placeholders. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 21:58, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

The equivalent of Wikipedia's 'x-field/related stubs' (and the TPH pages-identified pages appear on the short pages list) - so 'anything which works which produces a similar result' (or which someone familiar with the Wikiverse will immediately recognize as being of that nature).

On the main page there is a 'list of areas to be developed' - so there could be a lead-off from there (and a few more persons with particular interests'). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:00, October 31, 2015 (UTC)

Categories and Templates[]

As these now form a significant proportion of the 'Wanted Pages' what should be done with them? I don't mind 'putting in text' where appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:08, February 3, 2016 (UTC)

I've just fixed a few of the "most" wanted, but am rather busy with family matters for the next few months. For categories, a direct copy from Wikipedia will usually suffice but with some deletions of parent categories that London Wiki doesn't want. You, or any other keen "clean-up" person, could look at today's Wikipedia-based edits and compare the differences with the originals. Templates can be a bit trickier but can, in principle, be copied similarly (with the {{Wikipedia}} in a "noinclude" section). One thing to note is that where a Wikipedia page has a [[Wikipedia: link it is referring to its project namespace and we must add another "wikipedia:" at the front. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 22:49, February 8, 2016 (UTC)
As is probably evident I am a historical researcher - and WP and Wikia technicalities do not entirely correlate. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:43, February 8, 2016 (UTC)
As I have previously acknowledged, you are a good historical researcher and need not bother with wikia technicalities. The "Wanted pages" list is one of many pages you can safely ignore because it does the wiki no harm. Carry on with your excellent historical fact-collection, creating web-searchable pages, and you should eventually attract a few more Londoners and others who will feel like tidying up technicalities. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 20:59, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

When will you be free to deal with the 'wanted' Templates (so I can find the 'wanted' historical pages more readily) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:12, May 16, 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the top half-dozen. As there are over 500 "historical" wanted pages, a quick scroll down should bring you plenty even if there are a few templates among them. Let me know when you feel that the templates are too large a proportion of the wanted pages. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 23:10, May 16, 2016 (UTC)

{:If templates were 'a quick copy this and add that/add equivalent to the TPH tag and wait for someone with the time and interest' job would do it myself :) And it is also very easy to 'dislocate' tables. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:26, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

Possibly if you deal with the footnotes on the Londinium page some of the entries will be resolved. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:38, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

Colour of links[]

Do they come up correctly now? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:46, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, super! -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 22:18, June 8, 2016 (UTC)

Deleting categories[]

As the categories were for 'England' rather than 'London' there is some reason for deleting them (and for the Italian football clubs etc in due course).

Perhaps #you# should go and add the relevant categories (or a more generic 'Category:Year event/birth/death etc') to pages. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:34, June 8, 2016 (UTC)

If you want to ignore the Home Counties, that's your choice. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:59, June 8, 2016 (UTC)
The geographical boundary to London drawn somewhere - and the generic categories I suggest would resolve the problem (at such time as they are actually needed). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:17, June 8, 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that you have a closer look at the most recent few days of the deletion log, Jackie, including the carefully-selected wording that was on at least one of the "England" categories. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 22:24, June 8, 2016 (UTC)
I have suggested a compromise above - which should resolve the issue. Perhaps you could start adding articles to the relevant year categories? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:20, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Deleting templates[]

I deleted the template because it was not being used, it generated a number of totally-irrelevant-to-this-wiki wanted entries, and #you# were not willing to modify to solve this issue. At such point #as it is required# it can be re-created. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:46, June 22, 2016 (UTC)

If you would rework the entries so that the various non-London related templates ('Template:Deputy Prime Ministers of Ireland', 'Template:F.C. Internazionale Milano managers‏‎' etc) no longer redlink it would solve the problem (and enable those of us who wish to do so to clear the wanted pages).

Please do not make snarky remarks about the people on the wiki who are actually developing it. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:44, June 22, 2016 (UTC)

As I have said before, you do not have to do anything about the "Wanted" lists because they are doing the wiki no harm. Normal readers, and probably most contributors, won't see those lists. If you wish to clear those pages, that is your choice, not a requirement. I have also said before that you have much better things to do with your time. You have said that too. I hope you continue to do what you do so well. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 21:47, June 22, 2016 (UTC)
You are coming across as #very# patronizing.

'Normal viewers' may well look at the lists and wonder at these 'totally irrelevant entries' which make it more difficult to spot the actual wanted entries. If you can be bothered to deal with the problem I will stop complaining about it. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:24, June 22, 2016 (UTC)

Public highways placeholder[]

As I am adding 'links to TfL local buses' to various of the articles on public highways, would it be possible to alter the template to accommodate this material? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:38, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be possible. As far as I recall, it is a fairly straightforward template, with text that can be edited by anyone. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 09:51, September 11, 2016 (UTC)


If you look most of those being removed are unused redirects - as it is London wiki 'X, London' is irrelevant as the 'London' is understood; a few arising from inconsistent usages in linked terms in other articles and similar reasons. Mainly a 'tidying up exercise' ahead of the 10 000 page mark. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:25, October 24, 2018 (UTC)