User talk:MRSC/Archive 3

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Non-metropolitan districts

Hi. Please stop adding nonsense to wikipedia. Hull and Bristol are still non-metropolitan districts, as are all unitary authorities apart from the Isle of Wight, (and the metropolitan boroughs etc). Morwen - Talk 10:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then it needs to be called category:Former shire districts. It seems we've a lot of nonsense over the terms non-metropolitan district/county and shire district/county in our articles generally. The terms are definitely not synonymous - non-metropolitan district is a formal legal term; whereas shire district is a descriptive term tied to two-tier arrangements. Similarly for counties - Leicester, Rutland and Leicestershire are all non-metropolitan counties, but that doesn't tell you anything useful about them. Morwen - Talk 11:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've started and populated category:unitary authorities in England, and have started category:shire districts and category:metropolitan boroughs. Let's get to work! ;) Morwen - Talk 11:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Thinking about it that would have been better named category:metropolitan districts. Morwen - Talk 11:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. We need to work a lot the main article, I guess. We have too much about boundaries and not enough about politics and functions. Morwen - Talk 12:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

Like that solution. Morwen - Talk 09:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For East Sussex I would say 1974 (ceremonial), historic (administrative). Also there's the issue of what to do with Rutland, Herefordshire and Worcestershire - maybe historic (restored 1996/8)? Morwen - Talk 09:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London Government Act 1963

Hi there. Thanks for all your good work on London. I'm not convinced that creating London Government Act 1963 as a redirect to Greater London was the best solution. I tend to feel that if something should have its own article, creating it as a redirect to a connected but far from identical page makes it less likely that the "real" article will get created, as it'll no longer show up as a red link and hence will be a less obvious gap (for example, on pages like List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1900-1999).

Having said that, you did prompt me to actually create some content about the act to replace your redirect - so maybe your solution does work (but only for inveterate Recent Changes watchers like me!) --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-metropolitan counties of Wales

No such thing! The LGA1972 enacts the English and Welsh counties in seperate parts, and the wording says

20.--(1) For the administration of local government on and after 1st April 1974 Wales shall be divided into local government areas to be known as counties and in those counties there shall be local government areas to be known as districts.

(2) The counties shall be those named in Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act...

Whereas, paragraph 2 of section one, for England says "The counties shall be the meteropolitan counties named in Part I and the non-metropolitan counties named in Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act".

I'd keep with administrative counties of Wales. Obviously, this is a misnomer (because they weren't just administrative counties but ceremonial counties as well), but better to keep a popular misnomer than to make up a new term. Morwen - Talk 14:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about "statutory counties"? That's made up term as well, but at least its descriptive. But to be honest, I think "administrative county" will do. Morwen - Talk 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hi. I added in the map image to the infobox, as per other info boxes pertaining to cities/towns/regions. I am in the process of changing the few that use this infobox so that there is no wierd stuff in the articles.--Bob 19:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome

--Nabs 10:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finsbury Park station

Hi, I have just seen your reformating of the Finsbury Park station article and I must say I don't think it is an improvement. Not only do we now have two station info boxes with information duplicated in each but they are now pushed down the article rather than appearing at the top. For users with lower screen resolutions, they are initally going to be off-screen.

I also feel that splitting the history into two parts between the mainline and the underground is inelegant, cumbersome and unhelpful as the development of the station above and below ground did not take place in isolation; it was linked. By separating the history as you have, you make the chronology more difficult to follow.

Three examples:

The reason the GN&CR platforms were built below ground was because the GNR refused to allow a connection to the surface platforms.
The separation of the Edgware Branch line (under National Rail heading) from the Northern Heights project and War and cancelled plans sections (under London Underground heading) is illogical as they are closely linked - they are all, in fact, about the same line.
You have included the transfer of the Northern City Line under the London Underground heading but this could equally have been placed under the National Rail heading as the service was transfered between LUL and BR.

You have also removed information from the article which would be useful to users:

The note that GNER and Hull trains services do not stop at the station
The history section of the infobox has been stripped out removing all the post opening dates and the internal links to sections of the article.

DavidCane 00:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I reverted your seemingly reflex-inspired reversion of my most recent edit at Circle Line. Please don't revert all edits by red-linked users, we aren't all vandals. Some of us are red-linked for good reasons, not because we are noobers smearing poo on the walls. Cheers! 72.25.110.56 21:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good job adding the category to circle line party article... remember the manual of style is just a guide... note the word 'Mostly' in the relevant paragraph, lol, I've done a lot of editing to the WP:MOS myself, remeber it's just a guide, and always in a state of flux like the rest of wikipedia... haven't read your recent message... now I have, remember also that people skim articles:

Open Circle Line article/hmm interesting, what else ya got?... see also: oh, subway is another word for it... oh, thought the Circle Line Party was opposing Labour this year, seems it's not that sort of party...

I prefer to have a 'see also' section for each and every article, if you would like to replace my 'see also' section with a better one, that would be brilliant, otherwise, might we consider it acceptable to have the three offerings I have suggested as the most relevant related articles? I prefer not to insist on it, I'd rather have your consent and assistance than any other way. Please? I'm at work and don't have time for many 'stolen moments'. 72.25.110.56 21:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I really must point out to you the 3-revert guideline. Can you possibly explain here on your page why you insist on removing the 'see also' section from the article Circle Line? Discussion on my user page is pointless as I'm not logged in and don't wish to advertise to the entire world who my employer is by logging in and connecting this ip address to my user account. 72.25.110.56 21:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Harvest College AfD

Can I urge you to recondiser your vote concerning the Dream Harvest College entry? The information on this entry is entirely unverifiable, the college is not supported by or even mentioned on the London Borough of Newham webpage (the link merely points to the front page). The entry was created by an IP associated to the listed address of the college [RIPE] and no information on it turns up on the college or any past or present students on google other than text which is nearly exactly the same as the wikipedia entry. Dream Harvest's web site points to wikipedia in the context of "Wikipedia world encyclopedia remark on Dream Harvest College", an endorsement created by themselves.

Additionally, since the privatisation of Further education in the UK I don't know if any colleges can be described as council supported. FE colleges do however recieve public subsidy, with most local authorities having a college bearing the borough name. Fees are charged with respect to the students circumstances (for example, under 19s get courses free and the unemployed for a nominal fee). Dream harvest seems, contrastingly, to be an entirely commercial venture, charging flat fees for domestic and foreign students.

The article is unverifiable, trivial, POV and quite probably commerically motivated. Jamorama 10:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jamorama. I live in Greater London. Beyond what I can find on the net (nothing) I know that the accreditation agency mentioned is a fee for listing place (they don't check). Colleges are notable. This is not a college, but rather a small business trying to start up using Wiki as a refernce. Obina 12:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One (train operating company)

I saw that you added a NPOV header to the criticism section of the one railway article. I've rewritten it to try and make it more neutral and I'd appreciate your comments. RicDod 12:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London railway station

I think it's a great idea to have the London railway station article, to explain why London has got so many railway stations. Just one comment: I think the "London services" column of the table needs a bit more explanation. For instance, it took me a while to figure out why you hadn't given Blackfriars or City Thameslink an "S". Presumably you were only counting the Wimbledon/Sutton Thameslink services as "London services", and not those heading to Gatwick and Brighton. I think the Thameslink station should have an "S", as Brighton-bound Thameslink services do stop at East Croydon, and also as Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Streatham etc. can't really be described as South-west London. --RFBailey 14:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Upload

Thanks --- But does it have to have the same filename and/or filetype and/or extension? I'm repalcing Jpgs with pngs..... Lozleader 21:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitcham

Hi. VoB has Mitcham UD being formed in 1915 with the breakup of Croydon RD. If you know otherwise please revert me - but would like to the source. VoB isn't infallible but seems to be reliable enough I'd like to see a separate source. Morwen - Talk 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for butting in... Youngs Local Administrative Units has Mitcham UD formed in 1915 in the main part of the book but 1907 in part 2 which is an error (Merton UDC was 1907). So you can quote your source for the 1915 change as FA Youngs - Guide to the Local Administrative Units of England, Vol. 1, London 1979 (p.485 if you're interested!) VOB get a lot of their data from that book, but their database structure is rather inflexible. Lozleader 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Yeah, damn them with their system of thinking that things can only be part of one other thing of a particular type at a particular time. They obviously didn't design the database with 19th century English local government actually researched, but retrofitted it afterwards. ;) Morwen - Talk 23:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orpington

I'll borrow a digital camera, and take pictures of the Priory and the church. The High Street doesn't look very interesting. I'd like to get a good picture of the source of the River Cray but we haven't had enough rain lately! CarolGray 16:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain to me why you removed the external links? I put them back in, I thought, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Position in article. Maybe they should have been in "References" instead of "External links"? I feel it should be clear where an external link is going to take you, especially in relation to Priory School, where there are two completely unrelated websites - one for the school and another for the dual-use sports facilities. CarolGray 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. On that basis, I am quite happy not to have links to sports clubs, but I do want to have a link to Bromley Museum both as a reference and as a source of further information about local archaeology. Bromley Council's website is chronically underfunded and creaking, and its search facility is poor. CarolGray 13:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herne Hill railway station

I've just added some pics of Herne Hill railway station. You may wish to put one in the info box. - Londoneye 12:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your London Stations Template

Is it possible that you could help me tailor your template, so that it becomes a general UK Stations template rather than specifically for London, Ive had a go @ Template: UK Stations, using yours as a basis (I know Ive should have asked first, but I didn't know who had designed it until just know), so I've got the table but I don't know how to insert it using a kind of syntax like the one you gave me on London Stations. Ta and Sorry again Djm1279 22:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essex/West Essex/East London/London

why are you removing info fron East London page - those boroughs were part of Essex - everyone knows that! Paki.tv 09:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ELL

Does this mean that the East London Line is no longer going to exist? Simply south 16:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Station Info boxes

I thought that it was looking like a travel guide also and ruined the KX page. I'm pleased you've changed them back. Hope you don't get into a RV war - it could last forever!! leaky_caldron 16:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The .infobox class exists for a reason - so that Wikipedia has a consistent look. The same reason we have a .thumb class for thumbnails. If everyone designs their own infobox based on their personal preference, Wikipedia would end up look like a myspace website. ed g2s • talk 15:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with those infobox and they are widely in line with others on Wikipedia. Things need to be consistent but everything doesn't have to look exactly the same for the sake of it. Mrsteviec 15:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. The 2px border stands out in comparison to every other line on the page (image boxes, navigation boxes, article frame etc.). ed g2s • talk 15:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if a user wants to customise his viewing experience of wikipedia by modifying the .infobox class in his monobook.css file, your custom styling would override this. ed g2s • talk 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, the related Template:Infobox TfL line. ed g2s • talk 15:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which looks nothing like either version of template!! Mrsteviec 15:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, but for the content and header backgrounds - it is exactly the same. ed g2s • talk 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you have finished with what you are doing can you please ensure you leave the PTE, London and UK templates consistent with each other as at the moment they are not. Mrsteviec 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. A couple of things to point out for your future reference:

Table headers (<th> / !) are automatically centered and bold-face.
Bold-face should be implemented using ''', not CSS.
The .infobox class automatically adds float:right, margins and other properties (see MediaWiki:monobook.css).

ed g2s • talk 15:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what browser are you using that renders th's on the left? Or are you not using the monobook skin?ed g2s • talk 15:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

c2c trains

Please note that c2c trains used to operate under wiki/C2c but now lives under wiki/C2c_trains. this is because the pages C2c and C2C need to be shared as a disembag. Some of the old C2c links now redirect to C2c_trains but others will redirect to the C2C disembag, where a link to C2c_trains will be found. Thank you for participating in this wikipedia improvement experience. JayKeaton 09:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out all the inbound links - I couldn't face doing them all for a second time! Thryduulf 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

c2crv

Just to note i have reverted you on the C2c toc page (not the c2c[Train operating company] page) until, if it does, c2c is moved back to its original page. Before it just went to the c2c redirect page Simply south 21:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please?

user:Arnzy has listed every single article in category:London bus routes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I would really appreciate your help in saving all of the pages created, since you helped me with them. --sonicKAI 16:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC) click here to go straight to the debate[reply]

The Chafford School

Thank you for putting the article into the correct categories. I knew the existing ones were wrong, but I had to make a guess as to the correct ones. --Usgnus 19:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just took another look and was wondering if The Chafford should be under T or C in the category sorting. I'm guessing the former. --Usgnus 19:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lordship Lane

Your idea of using place names instead of Post Codes (where possible) seems good. However, moving the two London streets with this name into a disambiguation page of their own and so loosing any hint that there are other Lordship Lanes in the world seems a retrograde step. Unless you can come up with a compelling reason for the second change, I propose to revert it, while keeping your renaming. Please reply here to keep the conversation in one place. Arbus Driver

(I've copied your message from my talk page to here to try keep the conversation coherent) A R Driver

Hi and thanks for your message. The other Lordship Lanes are non-notable and the only two of note are in London. Mrsteviec 04:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arbus_Driver"

Whether they are notable or not is debatable. A google search suggests that at least one of them hosts a significant archaeological site. But more to the point, the fact that they exist is of itself an interesting fact (in the light of the two existing wiki articles). Having them on the disambiguation page does no harm, may be of interest to a reader or may even prompt someone to create a new article. Given all this, why your insistence on a London specific disambiguation page? A R Driver

At such a time that there is an article about another Lorship Lane outside London there will be a disambig page located at Lordship Lane, until then it redirects to Lordship Lane, London. Mrsteviec 12:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arbus_Driver"

It's curious that you choose not to address any of the points in my earlier post, but resort to simply asserting that the disputed change stands as is. That's a debating technique generally employed by folk who know they have a weak case :)

It's a shame too. As a relative newbie (but one who has read a lot of the help for editors) I'd hoped to learn something from the discussion. It would still be interesting to read your considered reply to them, and also to the following:

Where exactly is it written that a disambiguation page cannot contain instances for which Wikipedia articles do not yet exist?
Regardless of its content, is not the correct suffix for a disambiguation page "…(disambiguation)" rather than "…, London"? A R Driver 10:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lordship Lane redirecting to Lordship Lane (disambiguation) would be a malplaced disambiguation. Mrsteviec 12:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arbus_Driver"

Have finally had chance to read the reference you provided. While a little counter intuitive (to this user at least), it seems logical once it's explained. But following the spirit of the discussion at malplaced disambiguation, the correct disambiguation page for the case under discussion would seem to be Lordship Lane, would it not? A R Driver 00:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the dab being at Lordship Lane. However, lets say we had loads of articles about all the Lordship Lanes all over the country, there would still be a dab at Lordship Lane, London as that phrase requires disambiguation. i.e there is more than one Lordship Lane, London. For example Plaistow and Plaistow, London. Mrsteviec 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arbus_Driver"

Fair enough, but taken to it's logical conclusion that would suggest the need to create dabs or redirects for all likely search terms for all articles in wikipedia... In our specific case, redirects for at least all the permutations of Lordship Lane, postcode. Is that the correct approach or am I missing something?

PS I've reverted the indentation because, otherwise, by the time we get to the end of our discussion we're likely to be off the page on the right. I hope you don't mind.

Crews Hill

What information am i meant to add to the London WikiPortal and where? Simply south 13:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean i am meant to edit the WikiPortal page or is it just showing that it is part of the WikiPortal London project i.e.. just one of the many settlements around London? Simply south 13:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate issue

Just to say i've just created an article on Hadley Wood Simply south 14:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herts stubs

They're close to the Herts border so just assumed they use to be, or are part of, Hertfordshire, Good point though. Simply south 14:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London

Shouldn't this page be part of the wikiproject? Also should i query other users on this? Simply south 16:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DLR stops (All saints and devons road)

Why did you revert these? Simply south 09:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed services

Was this talking about the DLR stations? If so, there is something else on another route that is not DLR that i have in mind changing. Simply south 11:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King's Cross Disambiguation

King's Cross is the name of a suburb King's Cross is small and really covers the area surrounding the station. This includes the residential area nearby. For example, see Location of King's Cross in London

Simply south 18:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not kidding although i am going on what i have seen labelled on several maps (For examples Collins, Philips etc). No these names are not made up. Collins comes in a white cover and is generally hardback and is white. Philips has the name Street Atlas and comes in a dark blue cover. Or even look at AZ. Simply south 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i always assumed that a suburb was an area created or swallowed up by the city and it applied to anywhere in the city, including the city centre. Numerous articles on Wkikipedia seem to confirm this. Simply south 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the term "inner-city suburb"? Simply south 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "small area" to be a bit more general. Simply south 19:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]