User talk:MetrolandNW

Welcome!

Hello, MetrolandNW, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement, and you may wish to read our newspaper The Signpost. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

April 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Wembley Park has been reverted.
Your edit here to Wembley Park was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://lndn.blogspot.co.uk/2004/05/?m=0) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MetrolandNW, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MetrolandNW! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Question for administrator

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I would like an administrator to perform a page move.

--MetrolandNW (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which page do you want moved? PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_a_single_page_move system? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight:He wants you to move Wembley Arena to The SSE Arena, Wembley.[1] It's probably not a very good idea. You could, however, have a talk with the closer of that move discussion (Talk:Wembley_Arena#Move_to_The_SSE_Arena,_Wembley) and explain to them why you don't close discussions if you can't execute on the result. There's a (not-so-)faint smell of socking/COI in the air too. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My justification in favour of the move is the fact that more support the move than disagree (as per the talk page), and the fact that it has been on that page for over a year now, so I personally think it makes sense to go with that, close the discussion and perform the move. EDIT: I've just noticed a user has closed it in favour of move, though the page hasn't been moved yet. I'll inform the administrator above to perform it if they may. --MetrolandNW (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are as follows. Firstly, you should have used the Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_a_single_page_move system. Secondly, I agree with the IP that the closer of that thread should have not closed without being able to execute the result. Thirdly, if the IP feels that there is a likelihood of sockpuppetry then he should raise a WP:SPI report. PhilKnight (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Apologies for not using that particular template system. --MetrolandNW (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naked links

Hi, many thanks for your contributions to London articles. However, I note that you are adding naked URLs as references. Since websites are often reorganised, URLs are subject to "link rot" - they work for a little while, then fail. To make them a bit easier to trace, it helps to use a fuller citation, like {{cite web |url=http://www.abc.com |title=All about the suburbs |publisher=ABC |accessdate=25 April 2018}} which you can put inside ref tags as usual.

One other thing - we normally don't add new material and citations to the lead section: the material goes in the body, and we cite it there, then simply summarize it in the lead. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanger Hill

Hi, I've started an article for Hanger Hill which may be of interest given your username. Crookesmoor (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Circular Road

Just as a general note, highway articles need to keep a balance between a basic description (which can be seen better on a map), politics, environmental concerns and safety, and any general criticism. You might find Roader's Digest - the SABRE Wiki is a more effective place to add basic road information, it also doesn't have stringent sourcing policies here as it caters for an enthusiast rather than a general audience. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, I was not aware. --MetrolandNW (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As an example, as you can see in the current "Route" section of the article, it cites sources including the London Encyclopedia, Arriva, Hansard and local news reports - it shows what is encyclopedically important about the route, rather than just what's on a map (which is indiscriminate). FWIW I was having a conversation with Edwardx this weekend about some of the road / highway articles, and several still don't really cover what reliable sources talk about - I've just done some major work on the M25's article, adding the 1800-strong DANNAG protest group that campaigned (unsuccessfully) to get the section between Swanley and Sevenoaks scrapped. So there's plenty of work to do with mining the information about social, political and environmental issues. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Sounds great, I appreciate the work that's being done to these articles. By the way, I have just created A312 road. It was literally the only major trunk/fast dual carriageway road within London that did not have its own article. --MetrolandNW (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asher's book talks about the Parkway, and how it was built in anticipation of being part of Ringway 3, and hence why it stands out as a white elephant, so there's definitely room for expansion. Part of the problem is the best sources tend not to mention the road number until about the 1980s, so you'll find plenty of government documentation about the London Yorkshire Motorway and the Ross Spur without ever mentioning that these are the M1 and M50 respectively. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added some extra content from what I gathered. I don't have access to those books though. By the way, you may be interested in sharing your views on a merge I've proposed on London Ringways. --MetrolandNW (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't get the books from your local library, you can pick them up from the London Transport Museum shop in Covent Garden, or the Ian Allen bookshop near Waterloo. If you haven't popped into either, it's worth doing if you're interested in this sort of stuff. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. --MetrolandNW (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siobhan Benita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cornish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail leads in Greater London articles

In several Greater London articles, such as Pinner I notice you are adding a lot of and very specific information about distances to nearby places. That detail is not contributing anything to the articles and in any case is too detailed for the lead which is meant to summarise the article below. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Aricles are not improved when they contain multiple "distances from", as is the case at Croydon and many other places you have added these to. Please take a moment to read WP:NOTTRAVEL. Also, in places which use the metric system, the metric distance comes first in the conversion template. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger 8 Roger: @Magnolia677: I'm guessing I did go a little overboard on some of them such as Northolt. Having said that, I don't believe having just two or perhaps three destinations for example would be an issue, and I wouldn't personally consider it violating WP:NOTTRAVEL. I've seen many UK places in the past that have three "distances from". For example, Basingstoke, or Sale, Greater Manchester. Some have even greater ones like Maidenhead. Certainly, if there was a wide consensus that these would all fail WP:NOTTRAVEL then these articles wouldn't have already been like this. I think for outer Greater London towns it is definitely suitable to have up to 3 destinations. Perhaps, an alternative would be to remove the distances and just say e.g. "lies to the east of X" to reduce excessive detail. --MetrolandNW (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being in articles elsewhere does not mean it is the way to do it. UK places are heavily edited by new editors and IPs which causes a lot of variation to what has been accepted as consensus ways to do things. As well as that, each region will have its own consensus approach, Greater London being one such case. For example, places in GL are supposed to be called districts, not towns. 'Distances from...' is such an arbitrary fact that it cannot really be measured properly and would not get agreement or be confirmed by reliable sources, especially when talking about areas within a conurbation like GL. Why not visit the appropriate wikiProject for GL or wherever and look at the numerous discussions about all sorts of things to do with UK places? (Roger8Roger)

I disagree with GL places being called only "districts". That may be true for Inner London areas but, for major places outer such as e.g. Orpington or Uxbridge, they do identify as "towns", especially considering they are outside the London postal district. Notice that the "distances from" edits I made only mentioned major Outer towns such as Ilford or Ruislip (but not e.g. Gants Hill or Ickenham).

I'm willing to open a case for discussion with other users if it gathers support, although looking at WikiProject London I'm not very sure where to post it. --MetrolandNW (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP London and WP UK Placenames is where to go. The overriding rule is common usage in reliable sources, and if needed weight. I understand that the term district is used by Greater London Authority, so the term district has a sort of official status and that has been adopted by W-Project London. Common usage still comes first though. As a rule WP increasingly uses 'London' to refer to the entire 'Greater London' ceremonial county area. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brentwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

London geography

Your additions to London geography articles, using odd language such as "southern Greater London" when clearer alternative "south London" exists are being reverted by other editors. Please stop introducing or reintroducing this or adding it to other articles. MRSC (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MetrolandNW. If you want to stop "South London" being used to describe a location in the outer suburbs of the ceremonial county of Greater London, then you need to show that that location is described as being in somewhere else, such as in Outer London, Surrey or Greater London, by reliable secondary sources.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

London articles, again

Same issues as have been highlighted here before are cropping up with your edits to London articles. Discussion centralised here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Geographic_location_in_neighbourhood_articles MRSC (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This time I have only made "London > Greater London" changes rather than additional "Distances from Charing X" etc. See the WikiProject archive, I made a post in August (but only about the latter issue, not the changes I made yesterday) but no-one started a discussion. How can I discuss this issue when no-one is replying? I will make another post now about the Greater London naming and hope to see something come out of it. I've also completely avoided weird namings like "southern Greater London" or making additional distances in the leads, but I can't see anything wrong with having Greater London rather than London. --MetrolandNW (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sky Store.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sky Store.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bromley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sundridge

Colindale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Queensbury

Hayes, Hillingdon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Harlington

Hendon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kingsbury

Orpington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Farnborough

Uxbridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cowley

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]