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.

Section moved to Talk:Strand, London#Article name and replied there. MRSC ( talk) 19:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Section moved to Talk:Nottingham City Council#Council type and replied there. MRSC ( talk) 19:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: If you put Category:Non-metropolitan districts of COUNTY in Category:Local government districts of REGION (as well as Category:COUNTY), then it wouldn't be necessary to put the district articles in the region category. Kanguole 14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought of that, but the problem is not every non-metropolitan district is in a non-metropolitan county and I don't want to mix ceremonial and non-metropolitan counties in the category scheme. MRSC ( talk) 14:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't we always use ceremonial counties for categories? Kanguole 14:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We do, but the only way you can meaningfully categorise non-metropolitan districts in a two tier arrangement is by non-metropolitan counties. MRSC ( talk) 14:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a centralized discussion of this categorization anywhere? Kanguole 06:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it has been done on a piecemeal basis up until now. We'll need to start one to work out what to do with the contents of Category:Local government districts of England by county. MRSC ( talk) 06:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi MRSC/Archive 15. Civil parishes in England, an article you have contributed to, has been reassessed to C class from Start class. Apparently many people watch and/or visit this page as an alternative to the broader Civil parishes article. I've quickly scanned it for needing a possible copy edit, but it already looks reasonably good to me. However, I did feel it just needs a little attention such as adding more inline refs. It's not tagged or anything, but if you can help ut with a source or two, it would be much appreciated. Perhaps from your other work on geography articles, you will know where to look, and we will be able to promote it to 'B'. Kudpung ( talk) 12:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have restored all of the UK/Ireland maps that were deleted, just need the appropriate info adding to them. Keith D ( talk) 23:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started a page here: User:Morwen/image licensing to work out licensing issues. Will take a little time of course. MRSC ( talk) 05:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you removed the Local Government category? Ironholds ( talk) 10:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the parent of Category:Local authorities in London. MRSC ( talk) 10:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi MRSC,

I'm slowly returning back to editting on a moderate scale (I won't be as active as I was until 2011 though), and, was a little miffed that 'the counties' issue has appeared a couple of times again in the last few months (an example being Talk:Ancient counties of England). I really meant to do this years ago, but I have started a FAQ at User:Jza84/Counties, with the view that it can be a space to deconstruct several myths and remain so in perpetuity. Once it's of a befitting standard, I'll protect it, and it can serve as a point of reference for users who are new to the issue. WP:UCC never has nailed this issue for me. -- Jza84 |  Talk  23:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi MRSC. A couple of editors are not quite sure what the Category:English district articles with deprecated infobox is to be used for. Template:Infobox UK place is a permanently protected feature of Wikipedia site software.It can only be modified by an administrator. As far as I and other editors can ascertain, it is being used correctly on UK settlements. There appears however, to be some confusion over the definition of what constitutes a UK place. Some of the tagging seems, on the surface, to be indiscriminate, might I therefore suggest that it may be a prcautionary measure to stop taggig major settlements and cities with Category:English district articles with deprecated infobox, until this has been resolved as it is bordering on an editwar. Thanks. -- Kudpung ( talk)

All the relevant articles have already been tagged. It only applies to settlements that area also districts of England. Have a look at the last two edits to Adur (district) and you should understand. 06:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that a couple of editors may not fully understand the purpose of this category, how another infobox (which one?) overrides UK settlements, and why the tagging with a new category is oreferable to carrying out any fixes on the spot.-- Kudpung ( talk) 06:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is too big a task and needs to be organised, preferably completed by more than one person. ;) MRSC ( talk) 06:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think your new category might be going to meet with some resistance, particularly when it appears that the new cat is being applied to numerous settlements that are quite legitimately displaying the UK place infobox. If you look at the edit histories of Reading, Berkshire, Worcester, Eastbourne, Tamworth, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, Coventry, Coventry, Gosport, Gloucester, Corby, which seem to me to have been supported by a reasonable rationale. However, edit warring is not going to be a way of either asserting or contesting any possible problems that may or may not exist with this category, and what its use incurrs. -- Kudpung ( talk) 06:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We've converted the majority of the articles that fall into this category (see WP:UKDISTRICTS - there are about 45 in total). These are just the leftover few. So it is isn't contraversial. If I thought it was I wouldn't have considered using the category, it was just a way for me to organise the work I was doing and point others to where things needed updating. There is no need to restore the category. The argument for using {{ infobox settlement}} is that it has far more fields and therefore display much more data. MRSC ( talk) 06:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm beginning to understand. So the cities I listed (cats originally reverted by User:Jeni) were inadvertantly tagged for that cat in good faith. If it's a question of fields, maybe a RfC would be the best path to getting the UK place infobox improved, rather than risking an editwar amongst some of our more respected editors. but for now, I don't personally see it as a priority.-- Kudpung ( talk) 06:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

TBH I don't see it an issue. I'm going to work my way through the 100+ articles on my list. MRSC ( talk) 07:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It might become an issue if the county project members are being told without consensus that they should use a district infobox instead of the right one.-- Kudpung ( talk) 07:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice you have been tinkering with the info box for City of Winchester could you also update the info box to reflect that the council is now run by the Liberal Democrats? Thanks -- Wintonian ( talk) 12:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I've updated {{ English district control}} as you requested. MRSC ( talk) 12:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I realy must pop over to the ONS and read up sometime. -- Wintonian ( talk) 13:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Should it be added to the list of boroughs? (I'll let you do the honours if so.) David ( talk) 22:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Section moved to Talk:Newport, Buckinghamshire (hundred)#Name of this article and replied there. MRSC ( talk) 16:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to correspond with me e-mail? I from Czech Repuplich and I want to be better in English. Write me on my takl page. Hi K123456 ( talk) 10:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I am slightly disconcerted by some of the changes you are making from "some previous version" to " Islington London Borough Council". Some of these that I have noticed have replaced the former linked text which was often "Islington Council". These would seem to have been correct, no matter what the underlying technical name of the body is; I have never heard a single example of someone referring to the Council in common usage as "Islington London Borough Council": I would expect the usage almost always to be "Islington Council", unless of course it was a torrent of abuse beginning "those £%%$^* ..." I wondered if it might be possible, please, for you to change the underlying link without changing the linked text where it is already "Islington Council"? Thanks and best wishes, DBaK ( talk) 09:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Just thought that I would let you know about this discussion on changing the naming conventions within England for places. Mainly using the town/city in preference to the ceremonial county. Keith D ( talk) 20:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi I also just thought I'd let you know about ongoing policy discussion and the sudden resulting discussions at Talk:Peterborough, Talk:Dover, Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall & Talk:Cambridge. Mainly to do with renaming or disambiguating these cities in preference of their namesakes in other countries.-- Kudpung ( talk) 08:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've seen the individual discussions, but hadn't seen the centralised discussion. MRSC ( talk) 10:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the RtC. Your proposal of 12:04, 27 October 2010 looks good to me. You might add "... but Warrington, in the north of the Borough, is Warrington, Buckinghamshire". I also think that it would be wise to mention the Southampton examples which provided the precedent for the MK districts RtM. The places in the precedent were originally independent but now clearly part of Southampton. Though I suppose in that case, wou would need external sources that confirm the attribution...? I'll let you do the honours. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi MRSC - in a simillar vein to the above, are you aware of this change? I goes against my understanding of how the page came about. -- Jza84 |  Talk  00:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The article Roomes Stores has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable 3rd party source

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.    Racconish ^Tk 16:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this template, {{User MAW400}}, interest you? — Robert Greer ( talk) 23:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am curious to know why you moved this page? Jezhotwells ( talk) 13:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I've renamed any articles that deal exclusively with wards to Foo Bar (ward). Where articles deal with a locality that is also a ward I've followed the usual WP:UKPLACE naming convention. This is why I moved some of the Bristol articles but not others. MRSC ( talk) 13:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Section moved to Talk:List of people from Barking and Dagenham. MRSC ( talk) 07:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added some more info relating to the NLR and the platforms from Peter Kays books. The bible for the LT&SR. Three volumes (published 1996, 1997, 2010) and one to go. REVUpminster ( talk) 20:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! MRSC ( talk) 22:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, now that Parroquia is a disambig, please don't forget to WP:FIXDABLINKS. This tool makes the job much easier. Cheers, -- JaGa ^talk 18:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, May I ask why you created an extra article about some London Councils? It seems like some councils e.g. Lewisham, Greenwich... ect have two articles the original and now the new one you created.

Also another problem with this is some councils don't even excist on the 'Local authorities in London' template examples: Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Kingston, Richmond, Wandsworth, Harrow etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darianthomson ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A borough (the territorial area) and a council (the local authority made up of councillors etc.) are not the same thing, which is why there are two articles.

Initially we made details of the councils a subsection of the borough articles, but as the encyclopaedia grows it is common to create new articles to deal with one aspect of the subject (such as the council as distinct from the borough). Typically in this case because election results or other political details dominate an article primarily about a location.

The reason the other councils articles are not linked in the template {{ Local authorites in London}} is because, unfortunately, some contributors get upset when they see red links (i.e. links to as yet unwritten articles) and remove them, especially in those navigation footers. So, for the time being, I'm just adding the articles to the footer as I write them. In the meantime, you can see which are yet to be written here. MRSC ( talk) 06:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Craven, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Because, after the discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 16, the Category:People by school in the United Kingdom was renamed Category:Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom and most of the subcategories were renamed correspondingly, I nominated Category:People by school in London, which you created, for renaming to Category:Former pupils by school in London. If you would like to add any comments, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming here. Coyets ( talk) 11:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at a recent suggestion that the borough article be merged with Middlesbrough (which is to my mind clearly wrong) and at earlier discussions on the same page. It got me trying to find the table of districts which are/are not considered to be coterminous with their main settlement. I eventually found it here. I just thought that the very useful table should not be archived as it remains useful for reference when such debates arise. Sussexonian ( talk) 22:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Cotswold, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} ( Talk) 15:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello there,

I recently decided to have a go at this after seeing it on the UK Geography project to-do list. After some fits and starts as I slowly got a feel for it, a good number of the non-metropolitan districts now have the settlement infobox in place, and I should finish those remaining with luck in the next day or so.

I'm holding off on the districts that aren't non-metropolitan for now, as the nomenclature isn't as clear-cut as it was for the non-metropolitan districts as in the Arun example. I've detailed my progress so far and some items that might need guidance on the category talk page; Perhaps you might chime in if you have a moment. I'm also going to solicit input from the wikiproject talk page.

Cheers, NORTHUMBRIAN  SPRǢC 19:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC) mea culpa!

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article River Ward (ice hockey player) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River Ward (ice hockey player) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Larkspurs ( talk) 18:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the duplicate nomination and moved the second one - the one with comments - to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River Ward (ice hockey player). FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, MRSC, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Danish furniture designers whether the article List of Danish furniture designers should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving List of Danish furniture designers, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 19:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Bus list requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Rcsprinter (converse) 20:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)