User talk:MRSC/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

EasyPizza conflicts

I thought I'd let you know that there's currently a conflict over the contents of EasyPizza. As it was listed, I nominated it for AfD for spam and notability concerns. During this discussion, another user discovered that there is a company doing business as "EasyPizza" and that has multiple mentions in reputable sources [1] [2], so I withdrew my nomination and changed the article to refer to the notable version.

Politakis keeps reverting to his version and characterizes our edits as vandalism, though he has yet to provide any WP:V references to his version of the facts. The only reason I am not changing the page back currently is that I want a resolution, not an edit war. I'm awaiting his response on his talk page. But I figured you should know the version of the article you are editing, at least currently, does not appear to meet WP:V. lowercase 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

easypizza

I respect the fact that common sense at last seems to be prevailing. The areas Crouch End, Hornsey, Muswell Hill Haringey are the areas in which EasyPizza has branches, and it seems fair that only one link to one homepage should be allowed ie easypizza so i propose that the geographical areas easypizza has branches are ok to include, the nearest stations is simply what it is the nearest stations to easypizza branches but ok i dont mind if you wish to exclude them. However, one caveat, easygroup has dozens of backlinks surely to be even handed only one should also be allowed? And User:Lowercase is wrong in saying that the articles posted by him on the web about easygroup pizza are the only ones out there. If lowercase wishes me to post news articles and press releases regarding EasyPizza then its not a problem. User:Lowercaseis an employee of Easygroup so under WIKI rules is in fact not allowed to edit these disputed pages.

Wikipedia rules state that any corporation is entitled to post an article. EASYPIZZA LIMITED, 48 TOPSFIELD PARADE, HORNSEY, LONDON N8 8PT, Company No. 03362247, Status: Active, Date of Incorporation: 29/04/1997, Country of Origin: United Kingdom. Therefore under the rules EasyPizza is entitled to its own WIKI page please see [3]

i also feel that the easygroup pizza should also have a backlink ie: if you want the original EasyPizza go here or non easygroup pizza or whatever you think is appropriate

Lordship Lane disambiguation

Thanks for fixing the Discussion redirects, I'd forgotten about those. Your approach to separating the two London streets from those elsewhere looks very neat. I've got a number of reservations though about linking the street name to the wiki article for its area:

  1. Its confusing. It seems intuitive for a reader to expect a street name to link to an article about a street, and an area name to link to an article about the area (which is how it was before). Why give readers surprises if it can be helped.
  2. It's thrown away useful information. Twice:
  • Having the street names in red or black tells the reader that there's no need to click here. Having the area name in blue tells them that they can find out about the area if they want. This is particularly useful if the street name is red or black.
  • Some of the instances lie in two areas but can now only link to one (so who, how decides which?).
  • It's unnecessary. At Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Redlinks we find the following example:
Flibbygibby may refer to:

You'll notice that this contains both red and black instances of the term, the distinction being that in one case an editor thought the instance might be worth an article one day, and in the other, not. No doubt you have good wiki policy reasons for changing the page as you did. It would be interesting and useful if you would share what they were. A R Driver 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The third paragraph in WP:Notability says: Lack of notability is often designated by the phrase "non-notable" or the abbreviation "nn". Whenever using the term or its abbreviation, please explain briefly why you consider the subject to be not notable (e.g. "has written a book but it was never published"). You haven't. The most relevant article I can find is Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Roads and streets which reaches no consensus. Personally I'm with the "Wiki isn't paper" and "All roads except the most minor are potentially encyclopedic" camps. YMMV.
But this is all a bit of a red-herring and lumping together (as it seems appeals to nn often are). Let's take them case by case:
  • Cottenham. This is the one with a significant archaeological site on it and numerous Google references. A reasonable candidate for being a red link.
  • Orston. Best left in black for now.
  • Letchworth and Norton. Ditto.
  • Stoke-on-Trent. This one has an external web page, so someone out there thinks it's noteworthy
  • Frodsham and Helsby. Best left black for now.
  • Selby and Wistow. Ditto.
Under this scheme, we'd get:
So what's the problem with that? Case by case, please. A R Driver 22:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very debatable statement and somewhat presumptions. How can you possibly know until such an article exists and you've seen what's in it? However, we seem to have reached a compromise of sorts. Let's leave it at that. A R Driver 23:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject London

Hi,

You are currently listed as a participant in WikiProject London, so you may like to know that the participation list is being update. Contributors are asked to bold their names if they are still contributing to London-related projects. Inactive members will be removed at the end of the month. Thanks for participating, COME ON ENGLAND! DJR COME ON ENGLAND! (Talk) 15:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unqualified use of terms like "County"

Why are you so determined to undermine my work to clarify issues which arise when the word "County" is used without qualifiers such as administrative, ceremonial, metropolitan? Having a southerner change articles about towns and cities in my Yorkshire, to make them read as though Yorkshire no longer exists is a grave insult! 194.203.110.127 13:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it all back: your latest edit of Doncaster is most agreeable. 194.203.110.127 14:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Bradford too. I've followed suit with City of Bradford. It's good that between us we've managed to reach a factually accurate consensus. 194.203.110.127 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Shaw and Crompton

Hi, just a message to thank you for your efforts regarding the geographical infoboxes you have been fixing on various articles throughout Wikipedia. You have my full support, particularly as a page I've put great efforts into (Shaw and Crompton) often falls victim to vandalism in this respect. Please feel free to message me should you ever need any backup. Kindest regards, Jhamez84 11:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bus lists

I recently came across all of these in Category:Bus transport in England:

  1. Bus Routes In Chigwell
  2. Bus Routes In Chingford
  3. Bus Routes In Epping
  4. Bus Routes In Hythe (Kent)
  5. Bus Routes In Loughton
  6. Bus Routes In New Romney
  7. Bus Routes In North Weald
  8. Bus Routes In Ongar
  9. Bus Routes In Romford

It seems that these should be combined into the following:

  1. List of bus routes in Essex
  2. List of bus routes in Kent
  3. List of bus routes in London
  4. List of bus routes in West Sussex

However, at the top of these pages was a message saying "DO NOT DELETE" by user:Truffles (which I moved to their respective talk pages). I was wondering if it would be a good idea to create a category to house all of these in. What do you think? --sonicKAI 10:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you've redirected the pages, why have you not transfered across the old info? (I have only looked at the Bus Routes In Hythe (Kent) and Bus Routes In New Romney pages) Olive Oil 14:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you not merge the info in the first place, it is very commendable to tidy up Wiki, but to ignore the info on the original page seems inane Olive Oil 16:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Infobox

Whichever BBC opt-out or ITV station is available in London really is not 'essential' infobox information and therefore does not warrant an entry in the infobox. Likewise for services. Does any other city infobox include this level of information? I think not. That is why I propose to lose this information from the London infobox. Best regards, WikiWitch 12:35, 21st June, 2006 (BST)

I do not agree with you. The infobox should hold 'essential' city facts like population, land, economic data etc. Services and in particular, local TV opt-out info is irrelevant in comparison. Whether it does "no harm" by being there really is not an acceptable justification for it's inclusion. WikiWitch 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EasyPizza

Now that EasyPizza has appeared on BBC news 24 and SKY news as well as appearing in the Evening Standard, Daily Mail, Times, and many other publications this issue of not being in the public interest and not being notable is a non issue. Now we can be sensible and post the EasyPizza page back up. Look at these links as examples [4] [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.100.250.207 (talk • contribs) .

mutual

I think we can safely assume that feeling is entirely mutual. DJR (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of my earlier comments about not needing two templates gave me a good idea - i've done the obvious thing and put in some optional parameters so that the option of a map can (optionally) be included in the standard template. So the other ones can be deleted, and templates can be updated one-by-one without any fuss. Tidy little solution, I thought. Hopefully we can agree to settle this one right here... though I would take the liberty of suggesting that a similar tactic could be used for all the other templates in order to consolidate their use. DJR (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Would you like me to make a start? DJR (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the leaving that out - that wasn't deliberate! I had copy-pasted the code from User:Djr_xi/London place infobox where I was experimenting with the complex codes... sorry though, and I'm glad we're reached some kind of mutually beneficial agreement. DJR (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template updates

Okay I've done the Scotland and Wales ones, and "with map" page of the latter has had all its links redirected and is now in TfD (possibly CSD?). The former had quite a lot of links so that will need to be cleaned up before it can be deleted. I'm out for most of tonight and tomorrow so the England one might need to be put on hold. DJR (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botany Bay and Crews Hill

Hi! You added the infobox to (among others) the article on Botany Bay and Crews Hill. Unfortunately, you added the same grid reference (TQ315995) to both, namely the one for Crews Hill. I manually chose another one for the Botany Bay article, but I'm not sure it's the exact correct one. Is there a specific tool or web page you used to look up the grid references? —Gabbe 22:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Template:London stations

Your recent upgrade of the template is an excellent idea. It provides that important bit of extra space in the infobox and should make the formating a bit easier as well I have already taken advantage of your change on a number of stations that I have previously edited. Thanks, DavidCane 02:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK stations

Hi. I notice the options you've introduced to this template: generally a good idea! However, the names "exits" and "exit" are too similar for my liking: maybe something that emphasises which includes "millions" would be better. Not sure what to suggest though. But I think we need to make this template user-friendly: I've just had to change to this template from {{UK stations PTE}} at a load of Lancashire stations, where the PTE had been entered as a local rail users' association(!!)..... --RFBailey 09:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better. On the other matter, you can tell I was in a bad mood when I wrote that. --RFBailey 10:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Want to be nominated? TruthCrusader 10:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional counties of England

Just wanted to say thanks for your input on this talk page. It is much appreciated.

I proposed the change as I felt "Traditional" was not an appropriate term for this system. I've since voted for "Historic", but depending on how this develops, my second option is for a change to "Ancient".

In the meantime, thanks for your efforts; particularly to that of placing the counties (quite rightfully) into all the infoboxes - it did not go unnoticed, and I thank you for that.

Please do keep up the great work, Jhamez84 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I've since noticed that you've also come across some of Lancsalot's (provocative) edits.... particularly to Fred Dibnah.
I've had a few problems with him for a while now, but the rate of his non-consensual edits have escalated in the last few days as seen here, here, here, and finally here. There is also a threatening edit, here. These edits all relate to the County Watch cause.
I've tried messaging him not to make such assertions, but he simply reverts my warnings. I take a zero-tollerance stance on these kind of entries, but this user is becoming increasingly stubborn and vindictive and may need to be watched tightly over the coming weeks if a transistion is to occur on the Traditional counties of England page which he may not like.
Thanks for your support however on the Fred Dibnah page, I was unable to intervene personally due to WP:3RR. Jhamez84 22:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, just to let you know I've since reported Lancsalot for violation of 3RR - it's a long-shot as he's editted in a precise and timely way, but it's 6 reverts in 30 hours.
...With regards to West Yorkshire and the West Riding... (I'm presuming you mean for inclusion on the Huddersfield article?) Personally, I did find it repetitive.
I changed the lead (and the infobox) slightly in the last few hours to be slightly more NPOV, but didn't want to remove it as I'm not from the Yorkshire area, and was not sure how strongly people identify with the old county system from Huddersfield.
I was inclined to leave it in as it was an afternote to the modern system (which is at least a start!), and inline with the conventions as far as I could see.
I always think that the formulation used on the Oldham article is a fair compromise.
Maybe Huddersfield article could copy that, placing West riding in a later paragraph in the lead. Any thoughts? Jhamez84 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oldham is a fine example of a workable consensus. Moving the West Riding of Yorkshire to the "history" section of Huddersfield was not. Yorkshire Phoenix 10:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic District Infobox

Hello Steve,

I see you added the Historic District Infobox to the North Riding of Yorkshire and West Riding of Yorkshire articles, and completed them with details of the former administrative counties (LGA 1888) of those names.

This raises the question of whether the former administrative counties should have separate articles from the historic subdivisions of Yorkshire, which did not end in 1974 and were not succeeded by the metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties (LGA 1972) detailed in each infobox. This can be very misleading but it is also useful information about the former administrative counties which i would be reluctant to see removed.

See Talk:West_Riding_of_Yorkshire#Historic_District_Infobox. Yorkshire Phoenix 10:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Hill, London and Forty Hill

I have now created articles on these. Btw, could you also slightly rearrange the attractions sections. For some reason i feel it sounds slightly like a tourist brochure. Oops. Simply south 23:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:London.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:London.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSS

Hey, could you have a look at Talk:List of Virtual Boy games#Removing the table colour, as someone who might know a little about CSS. Thanks in advance. ed g2s • talk 11:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect bypassation

Hi, I noticed that you made an edit to bypass a redirect at Forest Gate. However, WP:REDIRECT specifically forbids editing solely to avoid redirects - it introduces needsless verbiage at a net heavier load on the servers. Please bear this in mind when you are pondering circumventing redirects. --Sam Pointon 22:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there were something to fix, you would have a point. But redirects (of the type you were removing links to) are not harmful to the encyclopaedia. And yes, WP:REDIRECT is only a guideline, but it makes a good case for leaving redirects as they are. I am keen to hear your arguments for removing them. --Sam Pointon 22:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comments on the subject: reply to Sam - Schmiteye 21:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, especially following your reply to Schmiteye, can I enquire what aspect of redirects (beyond misspellings and incorrect namings) needs fixing? I can't recall having my previous query answered. Regarding 'pointless causes', 'fixing' redirects, compared to genuine housekeeping tasks, is a perfect example. --Sam Pointon 13:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My earlier comments contain my reasoning. Briefly, it is:
  1. Needless verbiage is introduced by piping to the direct article, thus making pages harder, if even only marginally, to edit.
  2. Being done instead of legitimate housekeeping tasks (typo fixing, copyediting, wikification, etc).
  3. And, finally, cluttering up watchlists and RC. Changing, say, association football to football (soccer) would literally affect hundreds of pages on my watchlist, obscuring real changes.
Also, my initial complaint did not intend to use server load as a primary argument. I mention it purely because some people 'fix' redirects because they believe they are expensive. I shall be more specific about this in future. I again call upon you to explicate your reasoning, beyond an initial unclearness of reasoning on my part and something about discretion. --Sam Pointon 16:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

County Templates

Hello. I just wanted to say thankyou for your work on those county templates that I made. I never was sure whether having them stuck at the side looked right. Certainly the Lincolnshire one has benefited as the "major" settlements now seem to have more of a place. So, were I to create another county template, ought I to do so along the lines of a footer box? Thanks again, Lofty 08:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you could spare the Yorkshire template, as that is about the traditional county? It would be a shame to see some of the good designs being lost. Could one alter the footer templates or would designs such as county flags on those pose a problem? Lofty 08:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Yorkshire be an exception, I just wanted it to be there as usage for the traditional county. Thanks for trying on the flags, I always like to see nice template designs, it gives wikipedia an overall air of quality. I just wanted to know, where and by whom was this template standard decided? Thanks Lofty 09:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The change to the page on my user space is fine - in fact what is there now is what I would want it to show! I have started creating some generic county templates. So far I have only implemented Cheshire and Derbyshire ones. I have also made some progress on a few others. I lost some enthusiasm when I found out I couldn't use the coat of arms on them due to the rules on fair use of images. They are not allowed to be used on templates unfortunately. Phildav76 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

District template

Have you ever considered turning the manual district infobox that appears on many pages (Scarborough (borough), City of Bradford, etc) into a District infobox template? I would have a try but wouldn't know where to start (and I didn't exactly do a great job of editing Template:Infobox England place until Owain saved the day!) Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Because the abbreviation "Constituent" just looks, and is, daft. "Constituent" what? "Constituent" is an adjective, not a noun. --Mais oui! 18:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that these parameters are added to Template:Infobox Irish Place (where all parameters are optional), or, alternatively, and probably preferably, that we create a Template:Infobox Northern Irish Place. --Mais oui! 18:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm... just like you did before unilaterally changing those other infoboxes? :) --Mais oui! 19:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"... whereas there is no such contention with England, Wales and Scotland." Mmmm... well, we'll see about that.
I suspect that certain people will contend that Wales is a "principality" and not a "country" (this despite Luxembourg , and other sovereign states, being only a "Grand Duchy" and suchlike, which is below the (supposèd) status of a principality.)
And certain others will get hacked off with the word "country" being used at all, eg prefering "nation".
In summary, you really have opened up a box of worms here. But, in your favour, perhaps it wasa box which needed opening! Let's see where this goes. But, whatever happens, we cannot allow Eng, Scot and Wales to have one system; but let NI drift off in its own little universe. We need constistency of usage in this, very tricky, issue. --Mais oui! 19:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brunswick Park

Btw, Brunswick Park is a seperate suburb. It is not another name for New Southgate.

Map source.

Simply south 11:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support!

Thanks for the support. I was thisclose to giving up and then when I read your opinion and also saw how involved you have been, I decide to forge ahead. A very small number of my edits involve redirects, but the ones that irk me the most are misspellings that DON'T get fixed. I think Sam's efforts would be better employed chasing vandals! We are the good guys! Cheers! Schmiteye 18:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template:London railway stations

TfD nomination of Template:London railway stations

Template:London railway stations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

per advice, thought you would want to comment on this. It is too big, containing ALL of London's railway stations. Simply south 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warley, West Midlands

Is there really any value in having this as a separate article to County Borough of Warley? It doesn't seem to be in active use as a name other than meaning the part of Sandwell which isn't West Bromwich... 80.168.29.18 08:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, it doesn't even exist as an article yet! Would it not be a good idea to create an article there before creating a bunch of redlinks, which were perfectly well served before by pointing at the dab page? — sjorford++ 11:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charing Cross London station

So should i revert my move of this? You have put Charing Cross as a redirect to London, obviously so it leaves me confused as to revert or not. Simply south 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i've discovered a way to revert it back. I am not sure if it works or if i am allowed to do it but we'll see. Simply south 19:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't exactly what i was meaning or going to do. There is an edit counter now up and running (Interiot i think) which shows the different types of edits and also shows logs. Am i allowed to touch these do you think? Simply south 20:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble accessing them. Maybe i was wrong. Or maybe there's network problems. Simply south 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to access it. However you were right. I cannot revert and it requires an adminstrator which i am not. :( Simply south 18:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting information from pages

Please be very careful when you delete information and links from pages. Wikipedians have to be aware that they do not own Wikipedia. If they are incorrect or nonsense, you may delete, but you must not delete relevant and interesting information simply because you do not consider it appropriate. Other editors on Wikipedia often add information which I disagree with and the controlling part of me often wants to delete things that I don't think are relevant, however, I am very careful not to delete what other people consider to be notable. Please carefully consider your rationale for deletion: NPOV/bias, incorrect information, vandalism, etc., please delete, but not just because you disagree. Thank you for your attention. Nickg1980 12:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stats\disclaimer

You were right on the Metroline page as i have seen on the postal counties page

Seperately
1 What is a disclaimer?
2 Would this document work as disclaimer for 2004-2005? Station usage 2004-05 notes

Simply south 21:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm clueless. Is this report useful? Simply south 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usage i have figured out. Its the disclaimer i am clueless over, as my first message. Simply south 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... Never Mind. Simply south 15:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny problem

Its good that there is an update now. Anyway there is a slight problem in that when people are updating the stats, they are now coming out at for example 7.123 people or 18.958 people etc, without the million part. This happen only at some stations before corrected. Simply south 11:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for fixing it. Simply south 13:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox England place

Apologies for breaking your infobox! I'm not very well acquainted with the finer points of templating. It was just a minor addition anyway, which I've described on the talk page. — Wereon 12:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Passenger Transport Area

I do have such a map, but I'd have to redraw it for 1.) copyright reasons and 2.) the original has a nasty fold down the middle. It's a wee bit complicated, because there are also some dotted lines running in and out of the boundary showing restricted and unrestricted inward and outward runnings by the board and other operators, and things like that. Leave it with me...Lozleader 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your work on BT postal area - I hadn't expected anyone to be quite as quick in collating more accurate information for the article! :) --Mal 20:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London Districts

Hi, noted the deletions from the London Districts info box, which I think are generally OK. I hope the "Rotherhiteites" don't take offence at being described as a backwater and I was thinking of removing Old Malden myself (I come from Morden only about 2 miles away and can't ever remember there being any news about the place). I was surprised to see you had removed Merton (historic parish) as this aricle covers the history of both South Wimbledon and Colliers Wood. I added this to the list as these are, like Wimbledon, Mitcham and Morden, among the principle areas of the London Borough of Merton.

Should the London Districts template be removed from these articles now?

Whilst on the subject there do seem to be a few omissions in south-west London for areas that might be candidates for inclusion. How about Streatham, Balham and Tooting? DavidCane 13:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand your point about not wanting to include anything historic in the districts list. I picked the name of the Merton article to pull together the histories of a number of places within the old parish that go by different names now (South Wimbledon, Raynes Park, Colliers Wood, Merton Park) and which have, through their parish ties, a common history but not enough individual history to fill out a full article of their own.
I suppose that Merton shouldn't be included on the template as it fails the test of "notability" - as I wrote in the first sentence of the article, it is not a distinct area any longer. It seems a shame that the parish that gave the borough its name is missing, although it isn't unique in that either - no Brent, Havering, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets or Newham either all for much the same reason that Merton isn't included.
I do quite like the idea of a list of London's ancient parishes. From genealogical researches I have done, I know that there were dozens of these and in the late 19th century as the population of the city grew and the urban area expanded many of these were sub-divided into smaller units as new churches were built. As most of the existing London Borough boundaries relate to the preceding municipal boroughs and urban districts, which in turn were inherited from parish boundaries , it would be an interesting way to look at the city. DavidCane 21:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Spa Road Junction

What are you doing? Spa Road Junction rail crash was merged with Spa Road Junction per AfD close, did you not see that. And the material originally in Spa Road Junction has been removed. This was just discussed and decided at AfD. There was some dispuation over which article should be be the target and which the source, but that doesn't matter, but the merged article has to be recreated. Herostratus 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah. But the graphic and template for the rail junctions is missing. Herostratus 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MRSC/Archive_4&oldid=1140411456"