Jump to content

Talk:London, Ontario/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

The "Coloured Metal Trees" in London.

I think it's worthwhile to mention the controversy about the coloured metal trees in Downtown London. Londoners were given no warning that they were coming, *real* trees were taken out to make places for them, and in general, Londoners consider them to be a bloody eyesore and wish they would be removed and the real trees brought back. London is known as the "Forest City:, after all, for having more trees per capital than any other city of its size in North America. Replacing real trees with ugly, metal abominations struck more people as an insult to London's tradition of maintaining the "forest" Darkeforce (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The average urban street tree has a lifespan of less then 5-6 years. A metal tree lasts forever. I'm not sure if it's noteworthy, but if you did add it you'd need to find some sources to back it up and word it unbiasedly. Might be tricky to do. UrbanNerd (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
They don't last forever according to this rusted photo: http://campl.us/qHs3 76.70.7.192 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The metal trees were placed where existing trees were dying or cannot grow due to various reasons like lack of sunlight. I personally don't like the trees, but it is a symbol of art in London. It could be expanded if a source is given surrounding the controversy. Other public art exhibits like the Thames River Fountain are less controversial. Haljackey (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Whether they are "ugly", "controversial", or "an insult to London" is in the eye of the beholder and not encyclopaedic. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"international centre of higher education, scientific research and cultural activity"

I'm a hometown boy too, but this is just *absurd*. London is a *regional* centre of education and health care, UWO academics have produced the odd piece of internationally relevant research, and the place is a cultural desert. I'm changing it to "regional centre of education and health care." 99.249.15.40 (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

University of Western Ontario (UWO) now known as Western University

The University of Western Ontario (UWO) in London, Ontario, Canada is now known as Western University'Bold text'

99.248.244.63 (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)William Greenhow, September 17, 2014

That's only for branding purposes; the official name hasn't changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Flags

"May include" does not mean "must include"; the Ontario flag in particular is illegible at icon size, so provides little benefit by its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And it also means that it may include, like most other articles of this type, so Why make this one different. I thought the point was to build a respectable encyclopedia, not a mish-mash of whatever here and there. If there is cause to remove the flags, that have been there, than we can discuss, otherwise no reason to remove.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I just gave cause to remove: it's illegible and so not beneficial (and potentially confusing). Further, "most other articles of this type" don't include the two flags. What you call a "mish-mash of whatever" is a reflection of the guideline's flexibility: it allows flags to be included when they improve the article, and excluded when (as in this case) they do the opposite. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Remove. Consensus here will decide on flags use in infoboxes. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion, but they are rather small and you can't tell Ontario from Manitoba from that resolution. It makes more sense to remove. What's it adding having it there anyway? Mattximus (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
So the whole "process" of discussion, coming to a consensus, that just means "I don't agree, I've said so, therefore it is" to you? The NORMAL process is to leave the article status quo, until the discussion is complete, and a consensus is reached, not just after placing your opinion and imposing it. Carry on. I've got better things to do with my time.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
What a strange response. I asked for any alternative opinions, arguments for keeping them, in order to balance them against the fact that they are rather small to see. This is exactly how discussions work right? Comparing alternative views? Mattximus (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on London, Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted Cyberbot II's edit because the archived page it used returns a 404 error. Haven't found a good alternative reference yet. PKT(alk) 19:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on London, Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent sections being rewritten quite poorly

I just noticed that several sections have been rewritten with poor quality prose. Paragraph structure is all over the place, and the sentence structure is not of high quality. Here is an example without a citation:

"Since the economic crisis of 2009, which gutted many of London's manufacturing jobs, the city has transitioned to become a technology hub."

  • I think they are all good faith edits, so I have not reverted, I just want to see if other users agree. Mattximus (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • They may be good faith entries but they do need to be rewritten --TheKevlar 17:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Insurance Companies, Development section re: 1869

Moved here from my Talk page.

At London, Ontario, with this edit you wrote: "Several insurance companies had offices in the city." You cited page 269 from this source. This does not appear to be supported by the source. What was your source? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion to the Talk page of the article. It does not belong on my Talk page. The section about London is multiple pages long. If you scroll down to the pages with specifics, you will find a section about Insurance companies. this source Page 271, Local Insurance Companies. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian: First, please indent your talk page comments one tab. Will you be fixing the sourcing in the article? It still shows only page 269, which is not correct. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I did indent it. How far do I need to indent? See 23:15, 22 April 2017‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (115,123 bytes) (+96)‎ . . (→‎Insurance Companies, History, 1869 section) Peter K Burian (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, all it took was changing the page from 269 to 269-271. Done. And I completed the full citation; I'll bet that even @User:Moxy will agree that the citation is now well done. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Sentences like this: "The Crystal Palace was a beautiful building used for exhibitions and fairs" are not encyclopedic, and highly subjectively worded. Mattximus (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed; I have re-written that section with additional information and Wiki links. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on London, Ontario. 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) 11:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on London, Ontario. 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) 12:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Intl. Test Pilots School

Just a remark not a start for discussion. I was trying to add a short fact concerning the ITPS located in London, Ontario. However, the edit was reverted by Magnolia677 for the reason: "no article; not notable". I have no problem with the decision but I'm surprised that this fact is less notable then, say, info concerning the Fanshawe College (4 lines up in text)Apetrov09703 (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I saw that this morning. We typically don't include information about colocated businesses/organizations/institutions in a city's article unless they're important to the city itself (i.e. London is known for hosting the Pilots School), and a reasonable test of this is whether or not the business/organization/institution has its own Wikipedia article. Do you have enough material to write an article about the school? (Courtesy ping Magnolia677) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Greg, for prompt reply and reasonable clarification (I mean "don't include information about colocated businesses/organizations/institutions in a city's article unless they're important to the city itself"). Concerning the ITPS dedicated article I'm not sure that ready to spent time on it, will see. Regards, Andrey Apetrov09703 (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
You could always try drafting an article beforehand, either in your sandbox or probably at Draft:International Test Pilots School or Draft:ITPS Canada. You could also look at the articles listed at List of test pilot schools for examples to get you started. Good luck! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

crime

in the crime paragraph it used to say that there is a high level of crime in the whitehills area including blood and crip sets and now it is deleted along with a line talking about the rising crack/cocaine problem in london

i pesonnaly live in london and i know for a fact both those statements are true and they should be replaced immediatly


there is also a large graffiti problem someone with more info should find someway to add that to the crime section

I also live in London. I agree that there is a major drug and crime problem in London, although mostly non violent. Maybe the reason why drugs and crime are not in the article is because nowadays hard drugs(and crimes associated with drugs) are everywhere, even in small cities. Drug epidemics were once a "big city problem" but sadly, hard drugs are everywhere now. The problem is no longer exclusive to larger communities such as London. Joe Eggett (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"Fake London" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fake London. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 29#Fake London until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. funplussmart (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"London, Ontario trivia to delete" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect London, Ontario trivia to delete and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 13 § London, Ontario trivia to delete until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Image update

The image for London's skyline at the top of the composition is very outdated, being over a decade old by now in the fastest growing city in Ontario.

I emailed the Tourism London and they said that as long as they had licensing they would allow an image by them to be used that provides a better view of London's downtown, and is a lot more similar to images used for cities like New York, Hamilton, and Tashkent (just giving various examples) instead of a very zoomed-out bird's eye view.

Anyways...I'm not very good with this kind of editing. If anybody is willing to assist here please respond and I'll show the image + email with licensing details?

- Maketrad Have fun on Wikipedia! (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Population

London hasn't had 423,000 since 1998, the population has been ever growing and is around 519,000 as of August 31st, 2023 I'm guessing the housed population might be along these lines but with the amount of labour trafficking and homeless on top of mass immigration I believe these numbers should be adjusted accordingly to more properly reflect London's population. 2605:8D80:622:1DAF:3DA7:F368:97CF:43B1 (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Take it up with Statistics Canada - we rely on their census data. They tell us that the city population was 422,324 in 2021. They also say that the London "Census Metropolitan Area" population was 543,551, but that includes other towns and communities all the way down to Lake Erie, and it includes St. Thomas. PKT(alk) 17:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) According to some social media the city put up new population signs with a figure of 423,000 just last year, but we go by the published census statistics for city populations, and the sources are given right next to the figures in the article. The most recent census was in 2021, in which the city of London had a population of 422,324 up from 383,822 in 2016. For the census metropolitan area (CMA; includes at least Strathroy and St. Thomas; rough map) the population is 543,551 up from 494,069. In the 1996 census (the most recent prior to 1998) the city had a population of 325,646 (per [1]) and the CMA had a population of 398,616 (per [2]), and I recall signs saying 326,000 around that time.
The census does only count people who live in a dwelling, but there is no similar survey of unhoused population at the city level. If you have a reliable source perhaps it can be included in the article somewhere. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The Creation of the Wharton Armouries

In the current article, under Development it is mentioned, "A private investor purchased the historic site and built a new hotel (Delta London Armouries, 1996) in its place, preserving the shell of the historic building." This is incorrect. While it is true that the building was purchased in the 1970s, it opened in 1986 as the Wharton Hotel or Wharton Armouries (Not sure which). I worked there in the late 1980s, so the opening date of 1996 caught my eye right away. From what I remember, there were other offers at a much higher price to buy the land and destroy the Armoury, but Wharton agreed to incorporate the distinctive red brick structure and make it commercially viable by putting a large tower in it. Verification of the date and hotel can be found here 24.246.83.207 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London,_Ontario/Archive_2&oldid=1188994964"