Jump to content

Talk:City of Westminster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demographics

[edit]

The demographics in the info box do not agree with those in the main article.

I think the demographics needs more info, better explanation and a reference, for:

"According to the 2001 census, the borough had a population of 181,279. Westminster City Council undertook several studies, supported by both political parties on the council, that indicated that this figure was too low. The Office for National Statistics eventually added 17,500 people to Westminster's population, increasing its grant from the United Kingdom Government."

Reference for this would be nice, what were the studies why was the population too low on the census and why add 17,500 people why that number. Why can they change their population? what's the point of an official census if they can just say "no that's wrong our population is actually this..." was it just to get a higher grant.

I'm not saying I don't believe it, it just seems odd and I would like to read more info on it and have a reference. Carlwev (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

I think we need a few more pictures of non-central/touristy areas of Westminster. I can add some of Bayswater (Westbourne Grove, Greek Cathedral, Whiteleys, Hallfield Estate) and Little Venice but what about (say) 1 each of Queen's Park/the Harrow Road, Maida Vale, Pimlico and St. John's Wood? Gerry Lynch 16:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals

[edit]

There is a section on individuals. Some are fictional, some are real. I don't know what this section is trying to tell me! Were they born in the City of Westminster? El.Bastardo 16:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see, 2 fictional characters,a composer born in Westminster, a couple of Westminster local policians and a 17th century activist...doesn't make sense, I'll remove the section. Paulbrock 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delistify

[edit]

This article is basically a collection of lists. It needs to be turned into prose. MRSC • Talk 09:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some lists, generally cleaned it up and removed cleanup tag but it does need a lot more work. I'd like to take out the list of districts & put in some text instead but I haven't the time today. The lists of schools needs to be put elsewhere too. Data on tourism figures etc would be excellent as well as other pertinent data. SuzanneKn 18:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Point

[edit]

What is a Juice point and what do people use them to recharge? their cars? travel cards? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of section on Banksy

[edit]

This section has now been deleted a couple of times by an anonymous IP user. Please could 90.199.27.146 explain what his/her objection is to the section on Banksy in the article? The section is relevant and properly referenced, and does not appear to violate any of the principles of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance Asteuartw (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This assessment of "relevant" is rather bizarre as it seems unlikely that anyone seeking useful information would be interested in public vandalism masquerading as art. Allowing such entries appears to be quite a grave infringement of the Wikipedia ethos.
hmmm...perhaps you could point to the specific part of Wiki ethos which you feel is being gravely infringed by the section on Banksy? For example, you might look here: Wikipedia:Five pillars, or here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It's obvious that you disapprove of the content but I am not sure that is enough to justify deletion. Perhaps you might edit the content if you feel it is in some way inaccurate, rather than delete the whole thing? Asteuartw (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not wish to patronise an apparently experienced user with minutiae but perhaps you should take another look at pillars 1 & 2. There is an obvious dividing line between worthwhile free expression and wilful self-indulgence - the image of London in the public perception has suffered enough damage without this kind of criminality being lauded.

90.199.27.146 I still don't see why the section on Banksy deserves deletion. The question of whether it damages London's reputation, as well as Banksy's criminality, is irrelevant. The only question is whether or not it deserves inclusion on its merits - and you still haven't pointed out any good reason to remove it. Asteuartw (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It should be evident that one reason is an attempt to protect Wikipedia's reputation for responsible and impartial provision of information. Or are the pillars to be ignored by apparently self-appointed arbiters of "relevance" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.27.146 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

90.199.27.146, please explain how Wikipedia's reputation is at stake here? And which Wikipedia rules would be violated by including a section about street art/graffiti and public policy? Asteuartw (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you instigated this discussion should be sufficient explanation - a worrying number of contributors seem to believe that simply because something exists on Wikipedia then it must be true and worthy. Please take your hands from over your ears and do everyone the courtesy of listening. As for public policy on hooliganism, that hardly needs to be reiterated in an article of this type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.27.146 (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

90.199.27.146 There may be good reasons to delete the section on Banksy, but since you have not yet identified one, I am restoring the deleted text. If you feel I am wrong, please don't simply revert the edit, but rather identify a good reason why the section violates Wikipedia principles and should not be included. Wikipedia works better if we try to seek consensus by reasoned debate, rather than by edit wars. - Asteuartw (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several coherent reasons have in fact been provided, which are there for all to see, concerning both medium and content. However, you alone have decided that they are not "good" and should therefore be discounted. It would be a shame if your blind devotion to all things in Wikiland resulted in a somewhat Pyrrhic victory so let's just revert to my version and bring this rather unnecessary debate to a happy conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.27.146 (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

90.199.27.113 why not create a user page, log in and start editing constructively instead of just deleting the same passages, including the criticism on your talk page. Get to know the rules and start to make some useful edits. You might find you enjoy it - Asteuartw (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a question as to whether the art / graffito is relevant to the significant information on Westminster. While this information has a place on the Banksy article this seems to have little significance to the city of westminster. Note how the refernce used doesn't use the phrase Westminster. Just because it meets verfiability doesn't make it more than trivia. The article is not even just about the council but an area over 1000 years old. Even viewing it as art there is no section on works of art in Westminster. To give this prominance here fails WP:REL and WP:UNDUE Tetron76 (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked more closely it is a duplicate of the section on the Banksy page this inclusion is completely unsupported by the references. It only mentions Westminster Council and Soho so also fails WP:OR I very much doubt that this information is relevant to either of the other pages but I have to support 90.199.27.146 although he hasn't given any wikipedia reason for the change - I have seen no reason for its inclusion in the first place and so I am going to remove the section. Tetron76 (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone reincludes this information consider that incidents such as the Blitz are not discussed here further. There is no greater conversation about grafitti for Westminster than anywhere else. Even the title of the section was wrong as it had more relevance to CCTV but none to the City. This is supposedly of Top importance to a wikiproject and if you really view this as essential information you should aim to gain consensus from them before adding questionable sections.Tetron76 (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

This section currently has one reference which is clandestinely labeled as "Gray, p68" with no other information. Not only is this information incomplete such as Liberty of Westminster or the abbacy before that. some of the claims are unclear such as Geographically separate. I don't have the sources or expertise to correct this myself but it needs some work or at least references.Tetron76 (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]
Ethnicity35.2% White British
2.3% White Irish
0% White Gypsy or Irish Traveller
24.1% Other White
0.9% White & Black Caribbean
0.9% White & Black African
1.6% White & Asian
1.8% Other Mixed
3.3% Indian
1.1% Pakistani
2.9% Bangladeshi
2.7% Chinese
4.6% Other Asian
4.2% Black African
2% Black Caribbean
1.3% Other Black
7.2% Arab
3.9% Other

There is a ridiculously long and detailed list of population by ethnicity in the infobox (19 lines, or about half its lenght), that is not consistent with the purpose of an infobox to "summarize key facts". I don't know how to clean it up because of the excessively complex system of transclusions used by this infobox, so if anyone can fix that would be great. --ELEKHHT 23:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly against infobox demographics removal
  1. I doubt it engenders much ridicule and I don't think it's very detailed.
  2. Half the nous in the title, City, means "a union of citizens, a citizenry", it contains the government of a country which heads a global commonwealth, it was the capital of a former global empire, is in the hub of a globally per-eminent country for of finance / music / fashion / etc., it's a globally attractive tourist destination and, IMO, it's within the union of citizens that is the greatest cultural melting pot on the planet. Thus, these are key facts!
  3. It's pixel cost is low for most viewers except those using smartphones in portrait orientation, i.e. it's on the right and of a width semi-reserved for pictures, with plenty of space to the left for useful, possibly optimal, text width.
  4. Assuming much of the space won would be given over to pic's, sight-impaired readers would get a loose-loose deal.
  5. There may be practical scope to reduce the default area by setting it to be initially 'hidden' (folded-away), for a variety of and/or all screen dimensions. – Calling all programmers!
  6. There may be practical scope to reduce the full area by a using reduced font size(s), possibly in combination with text/background colouring. – Calling all programmers!
  7. Other things, possibly to do with WP:CSB and/or the design principles used to create Template:Infobox London Borough.
Please change the section title to something less ambiguous which better summarises an explicit proposal, e.g. "Infobox demographics <your bit>".   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to misunderstand: no "infobox removal" is proposed. Only making the section on ethnicity more compact. Currently it looks like on the right. Remember this is an encyclopedia and no need to repeat things twice. --ELEKHHT 13:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.". Now is it really necessary to have the infobox indicate "0% White Gypsy or Irish Traveller"? --ELEKHHT 20:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 0% is a good point, either the precision is incorrect or the proper rounding is 0.0% and it should be absent. There's also a lot of allusion/redundancy in the While/Black permutations, e.g. I think, "White & Black Caribbean" means "Caribbean: ethnicity undisclosed".
Yes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes presents a judgement call and what we have seems the result of a London-wide consensus. NB: When I say "level of [demographics] detail [...] is a keeper", I'm referring to informational payload (esp' see 2, 4 & 7 in my o/p), not the horrid presentation (esp' see 3, 5 & 6). I think there's heap of scope for the more clarity for the same info', comfortably, in a smaller space (mostly involving understanding of the code structure and reprogramming or overriding / skinning / templating / injection / etc.). It may end-up that Template talk:Infobox London Borough become the best home for, at least, some of this discussion.
Meantime, we are free to prototype our ideal precision / grouping / aggregation / aesthetics for our box (your table is an ace baseline, BTW). I'm thinking of a two columned table: | self-identified origin | self-identified ethnicity | ... with ethnicity/unspecified percentages per row (rev' size order) and, obviously, origin-grouped (rev' group size order, where again 'unspecified' is a group). Add row/coll-spans as required. Same info', cleared, more inference, and above half the size! Howzat? (Assuming Yorkshiremen remain qualified to use the term.) :P   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did the update with the 2011 census details, so maybe I can add a bit to the discussion. I did worry about the size of the infobox but decided not to be too ambitious in my first try at amending a template, especially one this complicated.

There were 18 categories in the 2011 census in England and Wales, 2 more than in 2001, as described in [Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom]; the new ones were Arab and White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller. The previous infobox had always shown all 16 but used truncated names and I followed that, though I couldn’t come up with a good truncation of White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller that would fit on one line. I don’t know if those additions tipped the whole size over some threshold of obtrusiveness.

The full names in the source are considerably longer:

White: English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British
White: Irish
White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller
White: Other White
Mixed/multiple ethnic group: White and Black Caribbean
Mixed/multiple ethnic group: White and Black African
Mixed/multiple ethnic group: White and Asian
Mixed/multiple ethnic group: Other Mixed
Asian/Asian British: Indian
Asian/Asian British: Pakistani
Asian/Asian British: Bangladeshi
Asian/Asian British: Chinese
Asian/Asian British: Other Asian
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: African
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Caribbean
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Other Black
Other ethnic group: Arab
Other ethnic group: Any other ethnic group

The “mixed” categories weren’t used for undiscloseds or unknowns. Respondents did have a write-in option but I’ve not noticed any reports on that.

The figures in the template aren’t formatted by the template; you can enter 4 or 4.0, 0 or 0.0 and that’s how they’ll appear. The original showed all figures to one decimal place but the method I used to generate the template from the source didn’t and I thought that looked good enough or even better so didn’t make the extra effort. I could do that if preferred.

I don’t know if there’s an easy way to omit lines in particular cases where the source gives zero. At present, if you don’t provide input then you still see “% White British” or whatever. I don’t know if it’s possible to control font size or columns.

I’m risking TLDR already so I’ll throw in just one point to consider. I’ve seen figures for ethnic groups vandalised repeatedly in various WP articles, which isn’t all that surprising. Sometimes it's blatant and sometimes it's cunning. I never saw the figures in the London Borough infoboxes vandalised and now that I’ve edited them I’m not surprised about that either. I think that’s a fair argument for keeping the current complicated system and maybe even for keeping it with this level of detail, on the grounds that any changes in the body of the article will be that bit more obvious and might be deterred. NebY (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC) What's TLDR? I would say, "Go for it" if it improves the Article. -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on City of Westminster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on City of Westminster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City of Westminster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City?

[edit]

Wait, is Westminster a city and London also one or are they both the same? I see a similar thing with Salford and Manchester? DragonofBatley (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a case where the information on the page answers the question. The city of London is to the East of the city of Westminster. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:City_of_Westminster&oldid=1211987312"