User talk:MRSC/Archive 2

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

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:43, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Template:2005 London bombings

Sorry, I didn't mean to revert your edits on Template:2005 London bombings (which definately help), just those of Ed G2s. violet/riga (t) 07:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Place templates

I see you have made some formatting changes to Template:Infobox England place. In the interests of consistency, shouldn't the same changes be made to Template:Infobox Scotland place and Template:Infobox Wales place? Owain 10:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greater London as a Region of England

Please see the other Regions of England, for explanation to the descriptions given at GL. TheUnforgiven 18:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

East Anglia railways

Thanks for your comments. Perhaps renaming the template to "East Anglia and Eastern England" or maybe just "Anglia" would be better than reclassifying the articles? Also, I believe Network Rail classify the upminster branch, west anglia line and LTS line under the same group, and it makes sense to keep them all together. Our Phellap 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I was trying to group the lines according to the old British Rail regions. The "East Anglia" template was for the old Great Eastern region (cambridgeshire, essex, suffolk, norfolk), i.e. services out of Liverpool street, fenchurch street, king's cross and then lines that branch out of them, as far north as Peterborough.

The main reason for doing this is that the lines north of london are generally electrified overhead, whereas the south london lines are 3rd rail. I thought it made more sense to keep all the overhead electrified routes in the same group (i.e. don't put LTS line in with the kent/surrey/sussex routes).

The "South East" template would basically be the old southern region - the 3rd rail network south of london. Perhaps for the lines exclusively in london (e.g. romford-upminster) it might be an idea to have a template "Railways of London". Our Phellap 19:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the title of the template. Is there any point in renaming the template or just leave it where it is? Our Phellap 20:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox England place

I've posted a suggestion for improvement on the above talk page. Please let me know if you have any comments. Bhoeble 01:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flying the Flag

If you wanna drop the flag back to the bottom, do feel free; I just think it looks more prominent and in-place at the top. Not sure how better to do it, really. — OwenBlacker 17:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cool, restoration is much better. :o) — OwenBlacker 21:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I know every single edit he made to Jewish- and Israel/Palestine-related articles was either rubbish or sheer nonsense. I don't know enough about England, politically, to have been able to make any judgments about his "contributions" to those articles. I would have been comfortable reverting him, given his track record for utter garbage edits, but I didn't want to destroy any possibly good edits.  :-\ Tomer TALK 22:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hackney

Really appreciate your crits and backup on our borough. But I likely won't be doing anything much more till next weekend (hope to take a lot more shots if my poor old feet will take it) but would like to keep this moving on (sort of my home town, innit?). Happy to respond to small points in the meantime, though - keep 'em rolling in...

Tarquin Binary 00:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Had to take time out, but have now added a scattering of pics (H Town Hall, Round Chapel, St Augustine's). Really have to move to write-ups now, I think for Stoke Newington, Shoreditch, Hackney Central - will make that my next project in that order. Have lots more pix to drop in for all of those, but need to revamp the copy first.

Good job on the LCC crest!

Tarquin Binary 16:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London place names

Thinking about writing a piece on this alone, given the recent fun we had/are having with Hackney and its districts. (Not a boring tedious pedantic one, I hasten to add, that's a failure from day one). London needs a meta-article of this sort, in my opinion. What do you think?

Tarquin Binary 00:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where were ya born, son?

Ok, about Claire Forlani. I was born in section of Antwerp, Belgium called Deurne. Even though Deurne is part of Antwerp, doesn't make me born in Antwerp, does it? Middlesex is more exact than London, no? Shouldn't it just state Middlesex, London? Please clarify. --None-of-the-Above 16:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

c2c

Just want to say thanks for adding the infobox to c2c's article. That's one down for me to do!

Samluke777 14:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highbury

For the Highbury article, where did you get the OS grid reference from? The reason for asking, is that I was going to add the no. of miles/kms from London (Charing Cross).

Rellis1067 21:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Titular county

Where does the 'allowed' come from? Certainly only a few do, but I'm not aware on any restrictions from others doing so. Morwen - Talk 10:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see now the external link. I regard its description as nonsense. Looking at the search engine, it regards Herefordshire as a 'titular county' but not Rutland - both councils call themselves "County Council", the only difference I've seen between them as that Herefordshire is sometimes officially called "County of Herefordshire" in contexts where Rutland is called "Rutland" - but this doesn't derive from any difference in wording in the orders [1] [2]
Morwen - Talk 10:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should get rid of it, unless we can find a better source than Vision of Britain. Whilst in some ways they have done their research very well, there are all sorts of odd anomalies in their terms list. I think distinction between Thurrock and Herefordshire is perfectly well explained by ceremonial county status. Morwen - Talk 15:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground

You're doing a great job. I'm not trying to argue with you about anything; I'm sure we're on the same side! I hope to add some pictures of Woodside Park station tonight so you may want to look at that tomorrow. Good luck being a student; hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
Londoneye 16:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reedham station

I was just wondering why you moved the Reedham (Surrey) railway station article to Reedham railway station? The general rule if there are two or more station with the same name is to use "xx (county) railway station", and then make the "xx railway station" page a disambiguation page. That way it saves confusion. Our Phellap 21:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Central London

Just for the record (as you say, everyone's definition varies), here's mine. It's only for the northeast quadrant, I've never really got the hang of west London.

I would describe the boundary as: Prince Albert Road -> Albany St -> Euston Road -> Pentonville Road -> City Road -> St Leonard's Church, Shoreditch. (Haven't made my mind up about Tower Hamlets yet.)

Notes:

1) In defining the areas of Camden in the centre, I forgot that a big chunk of Regent's Park, including the zoo, is in Camden. I reckon most people would consider the whole of the park to be in Central London.

2) I don't think one has to include too much on the north side of Euston Road. The main thing is the railway termini, and maybe the British Library, could be seen as small Central London enclaves. Maybe 'including the immediate north side of the road' would do it.

3) I agree with you that we should now consider the Angel to be in the centre. It's just a question of how far up the High street/Upper St you go. My conservative definition leaves out the Screen on the Green, which has been described by Time Out as a 'West End' cinema for a long time now.

4) I don't know about putting just Wapping and the Isle of Dogs in - bit messy and disconnected. Given its prominence, I could get tempted to put at least 50% of Tower Hamlets into Central London to join things up. Or maybe it should be all or nothing, if the whole of the traditional East End were defined as central it would balance out the West End, but I think this could be controversial.

Oh - just added Bermondsey (fringes), too. Can't see how we can leave City Hall and Shad Thames out of Central London...

Tarquin Binary 17:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for the changing of Non-metropolitan county to Administrative county on various county pages. I didn't know the latest in Wiki county stuff, which seems to be constantly changing. I will get to work in changing the other county articles to the metropolitan/non-metropolitan county standard if that's okay with you. David 17:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London stations

Hi - I noticed your template which you've added to Stockwell and Brixton tube stations. I think it's a good idea to have an info box but I'm not sure this one has what we need. I think for London Underground stations the information at the bottom of the article - lines and neighbouring stations - is more useful than how many platforms. Maybe we want better location information as well - say OS grid references? Secretlondon 23:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just dropping by to say I think the station infoboxes are cool. And number of platforms and such is useful information for trainspotters and other enthusiast types.. --Mpk 13:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bermondsey

Hi - I'm hoping to roll more into the Bermondsey page. I've not had much contribution experience, so please let me know if I'm treading on editorial toes! --Robert 09:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail stations info box

I believe the images can be used under Network Rail's non-commercial use policy (i.e. the Paddington railway station entry). See [Network Rail Legal Notice], point 2. Let me know if you think I have mis-interpreted this. (Sloman 08:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

EEEK! Is it possible to just change the colour, or do I need to create images from scratch? or do you know of any PD source? (Sloman 08:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Adding another field to Template:London stations?

Could you possibly add another field to the London stations template, namely "Previous names"? A lot of stations (especially on the Underground) have changed their names over the years and it would be useful to note this. -- ChrisO 13:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good - many thanks. -- ChrisO 16:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb images

Please do not set these images to "user preference" I did not know that it was possible to set a preference. Something like 99% of readers are not registered, so they cannot set a preference. Also, I doubt that anyone would really "prefer" to have all images the same width regardless of their height, their nature, or how they fit in with the text. Honbicot 14:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thumb preference thing is a new feature of wiki that came out in the last update. Your 99% figure is drawn from which orafice exactly?? Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with the preferences/files section options. Mrsteviec 14:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make vulgar attacks. Wikipedia has half a million registered users and 12.8 million unique monthly visitors in the U.S. alone. The fact that it is a new feature is another reason to use it as it will be little known even to registered users. One should not have to "familiarise yourself with the preferences/files section options" to have a good reader experience and I am quite certain that most readers won't even if you think they should. You have not addressed my other points. I hope I will never come across you again if this is typical of the way you conduct yourself. Honbicot 14:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that this newly added feature should never be used? Mrsteviec 14:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does seem to be woefully misguided. It is likely that the large majority of visitors will always be unregistered, and as the number of features increases, even registered users will use a smaller and smaller proportion of them, as happens with most technologies, eg mobile phones and PCs. Honbicot 14:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is something you should take up with the developers, not with me? Mrsteviec 14:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But unless people like you wipe out other people's careful work in sizing photos it is irrelevant. You are the problem, not the developers. I don't want all pictures the same size. Few books or websites have all their pictures the same size, and there are good reasons for that. Honbicot 14:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you are personally going to send directives to each editor that uses this feature? I think you need to think about what you are likely to achieve by that. Perhaps you should investigate why this feature was added before you go on the rampage after those of us that use it? Mrsteviec 15:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that you are the one on the rampage, deleting good work and damaging articles with little thought for the majority of users. I will naturally do what I can to improve the quality of the presentation of images on wikipedia. You are yet to mention any good aspects of this "feature", but rather are simply abusing me. The default size is not even in accordance with the recommendations on appropriate typical image size. There has always been a default size for thumbs. If users now have the option to change it, that is something the individual can use to resize those images that have not been individually sized. It is not a reason to impose your preference on all the millions of unregistered users - which indeed contradicts the assumption that different people will have different preferences Honbicot 15:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Taken from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide:_Setting_preferences#Files : the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences; this can be overridden by an image width specified in the image tag; the latter is typically not advisable, in order to respect the users' preferences. Mrsteviec 15:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A sorry example of the self-absorption of the clique of insiders, who forget that they are a miniscule minority of readers, and no more important than other readers. However, due to said self-absorption, it is probably pointless to try to overturn it. Thankfully, the great majority of pictures have been sized by people who do think about the majority of readers. Honbicot 15:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London area station boxes

Sorry about all the changes to London Paddington. I hadn't realised so much was done already in London; there was a lot missing from the rest of the UK. I can see that you've put a lot work into London in general. BTW, I do admire the way you tell it like it is, politeness is good but sometimes it gets us nowhere - I'd rather be corrected sooner than waste loads of time doing things inappropriately. (Sloman 19:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Apologies

My apologies re: the line changes. The edits made were for use with an infobox for Washington DC area stations. Didn't realize at the time that they were in use elsewhere. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Dogs

Eltham was part of Kent until 1909- I have re-insrted, as it geographicaly and historicaly accurate,best wishes, Lion King 21:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen it- yes he's right, Eltham Palace was his "Country" residence, MY MISTAKE! Be lucky. Lion King 15:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southall Railway Station

Hi, Donna here. Just wanted to check with you that I'm not breaking any conventions for articles about railway stations, as I see you've done a lot of work in that area. In the Southall railway station article, I've set the 'bi-lingual sign' photo to float 'none', so that it'll sit neatly under the text referring to these signs, and avoid the large gap in the text. Expanded the History section, and added a "References" section for an online reference to relevant info on the history of the station. I also added a "Related links" heading for all the links to other stations etc - is that OK? DMS 00:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eltham again

Hi again Steve! Can you please tell me reference for 1889 re Eltham - mine says 1909 one of them must be wrong! Best Wishes,Lion King 19:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I got 1909 from the archive of The South London Press. thanks for your time. Best wishes,Lion King 21:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnet

Hello Steve I need you to stop changing my history pages in Barnet. Apart from making it difficult for me to legitimatly continue provide material for the pages given, you have also reorganised it in such a way that it no longer makes sence. I understand your point, but you are simply making it much worse. The idea of Wikipedia is that individuals in the know can contribute pages in depth. Do you have such knowlege? You confused Church End Finchley with Church End Hendon. What sort of structure do you think it should be?

Hugh Petrie

Hi Steve, thank you for your advice, and I take your point, however its all getting more jumbled. Is there a hiarchy of places? I would like to place some of the places which have ambigues(?)boundaries together for example Golders Green and Temple Fortune (Golders Green Police Station is in Temple Fortune). Another is to bring Childs Hill and Cricklewood together. For some reason (and we all suffer from it) we have no problem understanding Fallow Corner and Woodside Park as being a parts of North Finchley, but somehow Temple Fortune is not in Golders Green.
As far as I am aware everything I have contributed has been my own writing (or sourced from writing in my own copyright). Where was the attatched bit you spoke of.

Anthony Hutton

He deserves his own article due to the other winners having their own articles. All it needs is someone to "spouse" it up a bit. SGCommand

Cheers

Thanks for the welcome message and the useful links. I'll enjoy checking out some of your work. — Essexman 23:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upminster Windmill

Apologies for posting personal messages to you on this page, I know now to do it through here. Your refusal to accept my addition to wikipedia is incredibly frustrating, my fact is NOT vandalism:

'Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.'

(taken from en.wikipedia.org/Vandalism)

You think of my information as misguided or ill-considered but it is a fact and I am simply trying to improve the page. If you continue to hassle me I will contact wikipedia directly with this problem.

Both of you should take a time out from this article. You're both in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule. Please work these differences out on the article's talk page. I agree that Wikipedia is no place for rumor unless it's well-cited, but that is no reason to break 3RR. —Cleared as filed. 15:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoreditch

Nice edit. Obviously, I have to high-five myself for laying the foundations :-), but tucking the TOC beside the town hall is the icing on the masterstroke cake. A big improvement on this mess.

chocolateboy 17:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo

I can see you've done a lot of very good work on places in London - please could you give me some advice? I've been disambiguating Waterloo (the battle, and the station), and I'm left with three articles which use "Waterloo" to mean the area around the station (one of which is Central London which is where I found your name). I'm reluctant to create a "Waterloo, London" article, because it would either duplicate most of the information at South Bank, or it would contain so little information it would get deleted. Any suggestions? CarolGray 09:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lambeth's a good idea, thank you very much. CarolGray 13:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

I've just spotted your edit at the Mile End tube station article, and you were half right regarding the dates. The day and month, and the year should be linked, but not together - i.e. [[25 November]] [[1899]]. This allows the date preferences system to work its magic fully, i.e.

  • 25 November 1899 ([[25 November]] [[1899]])
  • November 25, 1899 ([[November 25]], [[1899]])
  • 1899 November 25 ([[1899]] [[November 25]])
  • 1899-11-25 ([[1899-11-25]])

Thryduulf 21:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The year has to be linked to allow it to be displayed correctly for those people who use one of the year first styles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting. Thryduulf 12:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arms

Thanks for the note! I being ignorant on the subject, it just looked like an oversight that the arms images were unused. As you can see from scrolling down in Category:Orphaned fairuse images, there are a bunch slated for destruction - do you think they are worth trying to save? Stan 17:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! As you may have heard, we're on a campaign cracking down on the illegitimate images infesting WP, burning through lots of old junk in the process. Stan 17:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done a few. I admit to not being bothered enough to sort through them all, (not very keen on us having them at all). We know where they came from, too, so the images can be extlinked to or got when needed. Morwen - Talk 18:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totteridge

Not sure I agree with your edit. There are farms along Totteridge Lane, and (as the article notes) "many spacious detached properties in a rural setting". But I won't revert. - Londoneye 19:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Will you amend the article to remove the word "rural" in the quote above? But I must disagree about all land within the M25. Your link showed entire local authorities. Obviously, most of Barnet isn't rural; that doesn't mean that there are no small areas that are rural. And clearly deepest Epping Forest is rural. - Londoneye 19:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]