This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

welcome back after your near year break. Simply south ( talk) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto ... but, now I'm on a break .... All the best Kbthompson ( talk) 09:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both. MRSC ( talk) 09:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And myself - great to see you back. -- Jza84 |  Talk  18:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you too. MRSC ( talk) 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked this a Template talk:Location map, but is it possible for the red dots to be used as the link to the articles, without the labels showing? If so, it would be possible to link to articles where the mill is no longer standing too. Mjroots ( talk) 08:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How about using numbers as the label links? You can then provide a key in the map caption. MRSC ( talk) 09:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it might work. Mjroots ( talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've redone the Kent map. Not sure about caption because it will be quite large. Maybe a note to click on the number to access article? Mjroots ( talk) 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the look of the Kent map now. Lots of information, but easy to understand. You could pipe the numbers on the map, like this too: 1 MRSC ( talk) 16:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I was having trouble accessing link on single digit numbers, so decided against piping them, works better from the key. Mjroots ( talk) 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi MRSC/Archive 13! A Wikipedia:WikiProject Northamptonshire has now been created. If you wish to help out improving articles relating to anything in the county, please don't hesitate to go to the page and sign up! -- Kudpung ( talk) 13:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do barnstars and all that rather OTT stuff but just wanted to drop by and say well done for recent work on Romford. DaveK@BTC ( talk) 22:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Praise alone is more than enough. Thanks. MRSC ( talk) 09:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:People from Dingle, Liverpool ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Rodhull andemu 00:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i see you made Upton,_London a disam page because there is an Upton, Newham. I just want to double check, is there a separate place called Upton in Newham, or is that meant to be Upton Park in Newham which already has an article? BritishWatcher ( talk) 18:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm i took a look at the OS map and some others and they do show it as a seperate location yes. I also looked up the postcode for one of the streets there, which is E7 but the Upton Park article only mentions E6 / E13 not E7. It seems rather strange, i would of thought all parts of London would atleast have a stub page. perhaps we could mention this on the London wikiproject page and for the time being put a see also Upton Park on that disam page? BritishWatcher ( talk) 19:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm thinking it may be wise to clarify the status of metropolitan boroughs on the new Unitary authorities of England page. Rationale being that I recently went in to a discussion at User_talk:Jza84#Calderdale about Calderdale being a unitary authority of Yorkshire - West Yorkshire having been laid waste in 1986 of course. Just a thought. -- Jza84 |  Talk  17:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, just a quickie, why did you remove Historic counties of England as a category from Essex? BTW, well done all your good work on Romford getting GA. DaveK@BTC ( talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Dagenham civic center london.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Dagenham civic center london.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Dagenham civic center london.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 20:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Dagenham civic centre close up.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Dagenham civic centre close up.jpg. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 20:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated these categories for merger, since the {{ category redirect}} was added to the first category without discussion. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 8#Category:Metropolitan Borough of Walsall, if you would like to participate. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 10:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there once a CfD along these lines? Thought you might remember. I'm sure Lancalot used something along the lines of Category:Places formerly in Lancashire before. -- Jza84 |  Talk  12:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the Worcestershire category you removed from this list. Unless I have missed something, this list clearly has something to do with Worcestershire.-- Kudpung ( talk) 10:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is already contained in that category as a sub-category of Category:Local government in Worcestershire. MRSC ( talk) 10:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

During your absence earlier this year Leeds and City of Leeds were merged (dispite quite alot of vocal opposition and citation provided). It was claimed Leeds was a special case, as the two entities were close enough to warrent merging. One of the advocates for merging them then went on to merge Carlisle and Bradford, not for the same reasons. Carlisle was sorted out so it appears, like Salford and Lancaster, to be a disambiguation page. But Bradford is still in a mess, and User:Christieboy attempted a merger again.

I know you know a great deal more about local government districts than most, so I trust your judgement. What's your take on Bradford and City of Bradford? -- Jza84 |  Talk  17:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A conversation that developed here has been moved to Talk:Bradford#Merge.2Fsplit:_infobox. MRSC ( talk) 06:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The changes you have made are to urban areas of the city, they are not distinct settlements such as villages and they are not civil parishes. The guideline states: "In England, disambiguated place names should go under placename, ceremonial county. Where this is inappropriate placename, Town/City should be used." You really should have raised it on the talk page first. Chrisieboy ( talk) 22:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm toying with the idea of taking the bull by the horns and making a start on a List of people from Lancashire. Normally, I take the inspiration from the List of people from London, and create things like the List of people from Greater Manchester and List of people from South Yorkshire etc etc. Lancashire's a little different (as we know) and so I'm trying to think of a way to mention/present in encyclopedic terms that notable Lancastrians may include those from pre-74 boundaries (a nightmare, again!). Didn't know if you had any thoughts? There's no rush, I'm just in a (mental) planning stage really. -- Jza84 |  Talk  20:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I am plodding away on an expanded version of County Borough of Leeds on this user page. Constructive criticism or even a mild version of the other sort welcome. I've got as far as the original 1927 extension bill, which would have added Gildersome to Leeds (Morley grabbed it in 1937 instead). The politics section is pending too, plus stuff on Leeds City Transport, police, water, gas.... Lozleader ( talk) 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic article. What is going to be more fun is trying to condense it into a paragraph or less as a summary on Leeds or History of Leeds etc. I say "go live" with it ASAP. MRSC ( talk) 14:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with an opening to the Leeds draft, akin to Salford, Greater Manchester and Carlisle, Cumbria that's going to serve as proof of concept in Wiki-terms. I would say "Leeds is the predominant settlement of the City of Leeds. It is a major urban centre housing the majority of the governmental, cultural and commercial functions of the wider City of Leeds...." but it'd be a little bit of conveinience and filler on my part that is not likely to be accepted. Because there's such a burden on references, I'm thinking of going for:

Leeds (English pronunciation: /ˈliːdz/) is located in the City of Leeds, a metropolitan borough of West Yorkshire, England. It is situated in the eastern foothills of the Pennines astride the River Aire in the northeastern part of the West Yorkshire Urban Area.

...all of which is verifiable. I'm going to try and invest in some Leeds books asap, but for "Leeds is located in the City of Leeds", we can use the 2009 MiniScale map from Ordnance Survey to verify this (but I can't find a way for the OS's "Get-a-map" website to auto-direct to the right scale). Thoughts? -- Jza84 |  Talk  16:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The text is pretty much what I had in mind, focussing on geographic location. The need for "Leeds is a city..." to start the article is of course false. In 1893 City status was conferred on the borough of Leeds, at which point there was also a smaller parish of Leeds, so "Leeds is a city" referring to the settlement has always been dubious (at least on the terms we have found ourselves in!) Can Ordnance Survey be referenced by sheets? MRSC ( talk) 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they can, and usually have an isbn number too. I usually use Rochdale Library for reference material - it looks like they have something I could go check (I'm basically using the key to establish the fact that there is a "place" called Leeds within a metropolitan district called Leeds that has the status of a city). I'd be interested to know what's on the other side of the road, in the other direction, to this sign and what stands here at the moment. I may dig out the SatNav and pop across the M62 and find out.... though I feel I shouldn't have to. -- Jza84 |  Talk  16:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We do need reliable sources for the Talk:Leeds/draft article in general. I've found problems with the sources used in Leeds right now. In particular use of hotel guides, and pre-2007 local news reports for growth and size of financial industry etc. This will have changed significantly since then and will need updating. MRSC ( talk) 17:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about these three, found by J3Mrs ( talk · contribs): [1], [2], [3]. This is on top of some of the stuff I provided here in January. -- Jza84 |  Talk  21:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sagan & Halkier is exactly what is needed. MRSC ( talk) 21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it hit the spot more than the others. I have several Leeds history books on my eBay watchlist, so hopefully this will also help piece together more of the draft. On another note, File:Leedsnight.jpg smells of a copy vio. It looks like it was uploaded at Flickr by a puppet account to circumvent licencing rules here. I'm on the hunt for something more legitimate, and may use something from here. -- Jza84 |  Talk  21:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and have a look at finding something about the geography of Leeds proper, and I'll see what kinds of things we've used for Salford, Greater Manchester. Most of my books at home are either about the United Kingdom or the North West - I have some "short guides to Britain" that may help a little about Leeds.

At Flickr there are these aerial photos of Leeds that are suitably licenced, and all these beauties of Leeds that are not suitably licenced. I can clean up and enrich the first lot, but they seem to be of suburban Leeds. I could also approach authors of the second set and ask if they'd release it to a CC or PD licence, if you have a favourite in mind? -- Jza84 |  Talk  22:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. No one has asserted that leeds(settlement) is a city. The issue of contention has been that the word "Leeds" in 99% of sources means the city and metropolitan borough, not the settlement. Thus, if Leeds discusses the settlement, and not the city, we are going against stems of Neutrality ( WP:UNDUE, WP:NAME WP Common Names Policy ). Correctly naming the leeds draft as Leeds(settlement) or Leeds Urban Subdivision, or even Leeds Urban Core would avoid this. To aid this it would also be good adding a link to the top of Leeds saying "this article is about the city and metropolitan borough; for the settlement of Leeds at its core, see Leeds Urban Subdivision. -- Razorlax ( talk) 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is just not so; there are severl users who fundamentally misunderstand that "Leeds is a city" and what that means for us here. Have you done a full assessment that all sources mean the city and metropolitan borough? - you're just not being neutral about this, because of course the answer is no. Disambiguation is "PLACE, CEREMONIAL COUNTY" per WP:PLACE. Please don't distrupt the draft-making process. -- Jza84 |  Talk  21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a full assessment was done during the previous discussion (which was unrefuted), following the guidelines of what to do in naming disputes or if there is ambiguity, by seeing what other encylopedia, television, newspapers, government bodies etc mean when they refer to the word "Leeds". If this still results in ambiguity (which it didnt), policy suggests using google to see what the common interpretation is too. I took the liberty of doing this too just to be even more certain, and this also pointed unanimously (99.6% of instances of the word Leeds) to being interpreted as meaning the city and metropolitan borough, not the settlement within. The findings were put here. With regards to the drafts, apologies if it may have seemed I was disrupting the draft by pointing out the misunderstandng over what the issue of contention is/was. That is not my intention. As MRSC has said, there will be oppurtunity at arbitration to point out any fundamental flaws/core policy breaches. -- Razorlax ( talk) 03:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi MRSC, a bit of info for you, [4] link to a geology map

A cholera epidemic of1832 and a second outbreak in 1849 caused the council to begin to address the problems ofdrainage, sanitation and water supply. The original solution for supplying water was to pump water from the Wharfe but by 1860's pollution was causing problems. The Leeds Waterworks Act of 1867 led to the building of three reservoirs at Lindley Wood, Swinsty and Fewston, in the Washburn Valley north of Leeds. ^[1] In 1870 the council took over the supply of town gas so that it could supply street lighting and to the public a cheaper supply than the two companies it bought out. ^[2] In the early 1880s electricity was supplied by a private company, the Yorkshire House-to-HouseElectricity Company,which was bought out by the council in 1895. ^[3]

• Burt, Steven; Grady, Kevin (1994), The Illustrated History of Leeds, Breedon Books, ISBN  1 873626 35 5

I'm still not very good with citations etc, the page nos are correct. I hope you don't mind me butting in but Jza84 has been very helpful to me since I started editing. -- J3Mrs ( talk) 13:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

May be worth reading Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester#Former_county.3F. It's an interesting development. I've seen the term appear in poor quality sources from time-to-time, but this seems different. -- Jza84 |  Talk  17:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if something akin to City_of_carlisle#Parishes would be useful for Talk:City of Leeds/draft? Do you know of a source which I could trace? I'd be interested to know what the unparished area of Leeds looks like ( Carlisle, Cumbria is that of the former County Borough of Carlisle incidently...). -- Jza84 |  Talk  11:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Think it was in Hertfordshire Poor Law County... which means that Middlesex Poor Law/Registration County consisted of two distinct pieces once the County of London bits were taken out of it. The boundary commissioners, whose brief was that county boundaries should coincide for all purposes, recommended seaparating the Middlesex bit into a new Finchley Union. Lozleader ( talk) 15:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The data from GBHGIS Project has it as part of Middlesex, but I am perfectly willing to believe they have either made a mistake, or the source information they were working from was unclear. What I think I will do is build it from the parish upwards covering the whole of extra-metropolitan county and colour code by union. I think they have separate shapefiles for registration counties, so I will check to see if there are any differences. MRSC ( talk) 15:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi MRSC. It's useful, if you're downgrading or not upgrading an article, to leave comments for what needs improving/what the problems are. Keep up the good work. OrangeDog ( talk •  edits) 11:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi MRSC. I note that you have added a map to the page, and that it is now necessary to click the name on the map to gain access to the sub pages. I have two concerns about this.

Firstly, although most of us in the United Kingdom will understand the abbreviations used, many foreign users will not necessarily comprehend that, for example, Warks means Warwickshire. In addition, anyone unfamiliar with the geographical position of a county needs to search the map for the county they require (again I would imagine this would be a problem mainly for foreign users).

My second concern is that the map may not necessarily open in some browsers, and am not sure whether it will still be possible to access the sub pages if that is the case. I would have thought Manual of Style : Accessibility applied, in particular Where possible, any charts or diagrams should have a text equivalent, or should be well-described so that users who can't see the image can gain some understanding of the concept. Have you considered linking by numbers, with a table providing the actual link (something similar to List of windmills in Kent, which I think you had a hand in)?

Incidentally, the City of London and Greater London are separate ceremonial counties and have separate sub pages at present, though it may make sense to merge the two. As it stands, the map only provides access to the sub page for Greater London. Skinsmoke ( talk) 00:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:List of civil parishes in England. MRSC ( talk) 06:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article London Transport (brand), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 06:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good rescue; thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to find this resource exists [5]. Entire census reports not just the bits and pieces that Vision of Britain serve up. Browseable but not searchable and images rather than text but still! Lozleader ( talk) 22:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to see some of the original notes too. MRSC ( talk) 18:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Following the enactment of the proposal at WT:ENGLAND, I got in touch with Kbthompson ( talk · contribs) about the use of using WP:AWB to fix the incoming links to the new disamiguation page. The discussion was at User_talk:Kbthompson#Sunderland, but he's not around.

There's a tad bit of resistence to the change (as anticipated) at Talk:Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, but it's not grounded in fact but POV, so I'm confident it doesn't change the spirit and momentum of the proposal.

That said, do you know anything about WP:AWB or any way of fixing the links? It can't be done by a bot because (as discussed at WT:ENGLAND) it's likely that a substantial percentage of links to Sunderland should have been the City of Sunderland. -- Jza84 |  Talk  15:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is fairly easy to run:

• Download AWB version 4900: [6]
• Extract folder to program files
• Open AWB and log in to Wikipedia using File > LogIn/Profiles
• Change Source: on the left to "what links here" then enter "Sunderland" (I right click to alpha sort them, but don't have to)
• Click middle disambig tab. "Sunderland" should auto populate. Then click "Load links".
• Click start tab. Enter edit summary "fixing links". Lock edit summary. Hit start.
• You are then presented with a drop down option box for every instance of "Sunderland".

I've tested it and it works in this version of AWB. MRSC ( talk) 05:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I got it up an running eventually.

The proposal is facing a lot of unusual opposition. It's being criticised from two opposite viewpoints, that strangely only agree to the extent that they oppose it. The first is the age old one about the districts and settlements should be merged. The second is that the settlement should occupy the common name because it recieves (recieved) more traffic. I usually make these debates worse - would you be able to comment at WT:ENGLAND? -- Jza84 |  Talk  20:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this name particularly works for the article. I've made an alternative suggestion, though I do think that moving it from City of Durham was, on balance, probably a good idea. -- Pretty Green ( talk) 09:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have deleted as requested but cannot follow what is going on as that breaks some redirects, one was made from Government of Leeds that you were working on and another user appears to have since redirected. Keith D ( talk) 12:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Things are hopefully moving towards a working split of content between Leeds and City of Leeds, even if it is more along the lines of London and Greater London rather than Carlisle, Cumbria and City of Carlisle. MRSC ( talk) 13:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

hi MRSC did you remove the link * Black Country Connections- A project aimed at building a Genealogical tree of Black Country people in the external link section on the Black Country page if so could you tell me why as if the people and there ancestors who made the are not relavent than what is as from the link people can see how certian name are accosiated with certain area for eg groves of halesowen etc is there a way it can be rewriten as to stay in the external link? hope ive posted this right ? Peterjd ( talk) 16:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone else removed the link, but I can't see why, so I've reinstated it. MRSC ( talk) 16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

thank you i put this link on about 8 or 9 times and some one keeps removing it but much apprecheated Peterjd ( talk) 17:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Uxbridge Lido is my first WP article, created from scratch. It was previously at User:Lidos/Uxbridge Lido until made public. You made some changes today which I've looked at under (diff). Some I understand, but if you have a moment could you briefly describe the changes you made and your reasons for them. (Some I may undo!) Many thanks. Style is an art not a fixed set of rules, I understand.-- Lidos ( talk) 19:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a manual of style that we stick to and editors will change articles to comply with it. Seeing that you were new, I should have linked to it: WP:MOS. MRSC ( talk) 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're not prepared to describe the changes you made?-- Lidos ( talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Put a note on Talk:Uxbridge Lido of anything that requires clarification. MRSC ( talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove this from the category Thurrock archaeology and history? Rjm at sleepers ( talk) 14:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I think I see what's going on. Rjm at sleepers ( talk) 14:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I just though Category:Buildings and structures in Thurrock was a better category. We don't tend to categorise buildings in history categories just because they are old. I have no objection to it also going in Category:History of Thurrock if needs be. MRSC ( talk) 14:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I wanted to let you know that I've proposed the renaming of a few of the categories which you have recently created. The general principle of categorising hundreds by county is good, and the work you've been doing is very useful. However, you've used Category:Hundreds of x for several counties which did not have hundreds, but instead had wapentakes or wards. The renaming proposal is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 31#Category:Hundreds of Yorkshire; I'd be glad to have your comments. Warofdreams talk 14:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm having some problems using Template:Infobox former UK local authority which you seem to have done a lot of work on. I've put a comment on the talk page: "Is there a problem with this template or am I just using it wrong. I wanted to use it for the rural districts etc which are redlinks on List of civil parishes in Somerset and I tried it first on the existing Axbridge Rural District, however the last line higherunit= seem to jump Somerset County Council into the text rather than the infobox." Have you any idea what might be causing this?— Rod ^talk 09:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting the better infobox & doing Axbridge Rural District. Using that as an example I've started Bathavon Rural District but I'm having problems with finding & matching population & area data. Any ideas?— Rod ^talk 12:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Vision of Britain has it in nice tables for each unit. It is found under "Historical statistics" and then "Population" (this includes the area figures). If you want a double check you can call up the original census documents here. MRSC ( talk) 13:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Your help with the prose style of the Worcestershire article is much appreciated. If you are able to contribute with local knowledge please don't hesitate to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire, where this article is high priority and needs all the help it can get. However, 'copy editing' may not quite be an accurate edit summary of your contribs.-- Kudpung ( talk) 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else. MRSC ( talk) 06:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, re these edits to Template:Infobox London station: one, two, three - please note that "depreciated" (with "i") is an accountancy term concerned with the valuation of assets. When dealing with templates, parameters, wikicode etc. that should not be used (whether superseded or not), the term is "deprecated" (no "i"). -- Redrose64 ( talk) 13:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. MRSC ( talk) 13:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you'd please mark these with {{ db-c1}}, the template will be deleted in due course. Thanks. Skier Dude ( talk) 07:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, re this edit; it depends upon what you mean by "hide categories".

1. A hidden category, such as Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot), is hidden because the category page contains the "__HIDDENCAT__" magic word, or the {{ hiddencat}} template. I don't think that's what you meant.
2. If you want to specify a category to be used as a wikilink instead of placing the page into that category, as I did with Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) above, insert a colon at the start, thus: [[:Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot)]]
3. If you want a category to be placed in a template so that the template itself does not go into a category, but the articles which use the template do, use this construct: <includeonly>[[Category:xxxx]]</includeonly>
4. Conversely, if the template should go into the category, but the articles shouldn't, use <noinclude>[[Category:xxxx]]</noinclude>

-- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to be able to put a working example on the page without placing the documentation and template pages in the relevant categories. MRSC ( talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, have now looked at the template code for all places where a category is used. There are only two, and they're together, which makes it easier. You have this:

{{#if:{{{fare_zone|}}}|[[Category:Stations in London fare zone {{{fare_zone}}}]]}}
{{#if:{{{fare_zone_1|}}}|[[Category:Stations in London fare zone {{{fare_zone_1}}}]]}}

(I've put in an extra line break for clarity). I believe that you need to test the namespace, so enclose them in a further test, like this:

{{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | Template ||
{{#if:{{{fare_zone|}}}|[[Category:Stations in London fare zone {{{fare_zone}}}]]}}
{{#if:{{{fare_zone_1|}}}|[[Category:Stations in London fare zone {{{fare_zone_1}}}]]}}
}}

The first line tests which namespace the template is being used in. If the namespace is "Template", it does nothing (the third field is empty), but in any other namespace, the fourth field is used (your two lines from earlier). You can run all this together onto one line if you like, but personally I like to split if-tests and similar, to make it easier to pick out the different elements. Further information at Help:Magic words. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I can give you a categorical assurance that NX will be allowed to re-bid; and to prevent them from doing so would be against competition law. Unfortunately, most of the press seem to have bitten the DfT spin that they will not be allowed to. The local seems to have got the correct line though. Mind including this and correcting the lead? ninety: one (reply on my talk) 23:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Added. MRSC ( talk) 23:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The London portal image on talkpages is not being displayed, instead it says "File:File:Trafalgar Square Christmas Carols - Dec 2006.jpg". I can't work out how to fix it do you know how? Thx Grim²³ ★ 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Found it here. MRSC ( talk) 06:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, with my insomnia and and your early risings we've virtually got a 24h watch! :-) Grim²³ ★ 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI. A change was made to the image used for {{ Location map United Kingdom Greater London}} which I reverted. MRSC ( talk) 08:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. I just think the background is a little too dark... I was wondering if you could create open street maps of Cardiff and Manhattan like you've done with the central London map. At present I'm working through London 5 star hotels but city maps for pin would be useful for these. Any chance you could help me? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I will have a look at Cardiff when I get a moment. MRSC ( talk) 16:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks I'll have a look. I've made Template:Location map United States Los Angeles, Template:Location map United States Manhattan ‎and Template:Location map United Kingdom Cardiff in advance. Ah I see it displays the coordinates when you save, I'll try uploading Cardiff now.. The central London map is great and the hotels i've been working on look great displayed on it... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope I tried it and it always saves as "map.svg". Then when I go to find it to upload it isn't there.... Could you do one of Manhattan New York City? Zoom in on New York City and try to make one of Manhattan.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See File:Cambridge-Openstreetmap-08-06-13.svg. Basically I just exactly the same sort of image of Cardiff, Los Angeles and Manhattan part of New York City so it outlines the whole area, see the article map and you'll find it. on OSM it is marked as simply "New York" and says Manhattan in the top centre of the straight.... So zoom in on Cardiff in south Wales and take a similar size crop... I can't seme to save it properly... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

i wish to know how do we create a city area locator map. I tried doing it with inkscape but it was quite difficult, especially drawing roads. i wish to create a Pune Area locator on lines of .thnx Nirvanareborn 11:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You've swiftly, cleanly and thoroughly accomplished something that would have taken this neophyte such slow and hesitant labour that I'd still be tinkering with it this time next year. Now I can get back to trying to be constructive - excellent! NebY ( talk) 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, thank for sorting out this problem. Grim²³ ★ 02:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For efficient editing of the NWLLR and related articles. Grim23 ★ 02:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is UK telephone code misconceptions. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK telephone code misconceptions. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The category you removed referred to the Tovil Goods branch, the only bit of the line ever to see any traffic. I know that the cats looked self-contradictory, but they were correct. Would you consider reverting your change? Mjroots ( talk) 08:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Added with a note. Thanks for letting me know. MRSC ( talk) 08:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Mjroots ( talk) 08:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi MRSC

I thought I should draw your attention to my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Category:Abandoned_London_Underground_projects, just in case you missed it.

Happy New Year! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

See also my comment on your proposal to depopulate two more categories. Please don't just depopulate categories; there is a procedure for seeking consensus at WP:CFD. It's also less work for you to use WP:CFD, because if a proposal gains consensus, it will be implemented by the bots. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. MRSC ( talk) 15:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi MRSC, isnt there a map more clearer than this one: {{ citation step free south east rail}}, most people would not know a 'filled' circle means step free access as there is no key/legend. also it's dated 2006 when King's Cross Thameslink was still open. This is why I was using maps from TOCs beacuse they are clearer and have keys. Likelife ( talk) 17:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is much better to use one citation wherever possible. Because of the nature of templates, when the map gets updated we can update it on all the articles in one edit. Using a variety of links from different sources is difficult to maintain because website urls become broken and the operating companies also frequently change. As disabled access is not something that generally gets added and then removed, I would suggest using the two templates in all cases, unless there is a more recent source that has newer information and then use that. I am somewhat amazed that ATOC/National Rail has gone to all the trouble of producing quite extensive disability access plans for their stations in the last year, but has not updated the UK map yet. MRSC ( talk) 17:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)