User talk:MRSC/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 19

London Bridge railway station

Just to let you know I accidentally rolled back your edit by mistake. I've undone the reversion and your edit is in no way to be considered vandalism. Mjroots (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No offence taken. Thanks for letting me know. MRSC (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Citation step free south east rail

Template:Citation step free south east rail has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see no reason for this and think you should withdraw the nominations. Citation templates are not new. MRSC (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to this at the nomination page. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you use "m" for minor?

Dear MRSC, you have made many edits recently to railway articles which happen to be on my watchlist. The result is that that list comes up full of your edits. I do not wish to say that your edits, which seem mainly to be improving categories for the articles are minor in the sense of trivial but I wondered if I dare suggest that hitting "m" for minor edit would give me, and perhaps others, a clearer view of what is happening to our watched articles. For example hidden in my latest list (principally of your edits) was an ill explained edit of an article which in fact needed reverting and suggested that some other of its editor's flurry of edits needed examination.--SilasW (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gogar

This seems a bit funny in that the railway station still seems proposed although will be part of both the tram network and EGIP (a separate article should be created on that) which is to happen. So this somehow fits in between the two. Simply south (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It might make sense to put the detail of EGIP in the Glasgow to Edinburgh Lines article as it is currently underdeveloped. MRSC (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it would make more sense to create an article on EGIP (similar to ELL and GWL) with an expansion of the other article involving a summary of the lines and a mention of EGIP as it looks as though EGIP is going to encompass more than just these lines. Simply south (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox UK place

Hello MRSC, I hope all is well.

You were involved in the original set-up of this template. Could you take a look at Template talk:Infobox UK place (under the heading Dublin)? I would be interested in learning of your opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Upminster Bridge tube station GA

Hi, Upminster Bridge tube station which you nominated has been passed as a good article. That makes it the first tube station to achieve this rating. --DavidCane (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really pleased. Thanks for taking the time to review it! MRSC (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Docks on the River Thames

Hi, thanks for tidying the Category:River Thames, however the category Docks on the River Thames should be Shipyards on the River Thames please. That's the theme I'm following in creating or expanding most of these articles. The dock would have been just one aspect of the yard. --Robkam (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll change it now. MRSC (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Barking market town

Well done!--Storye book (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Barking has a surprisingly rich and interesting history, as do many of the suburbs. MRSC (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I know. My gg granddad was smackowner and master Christopher Spashett, friend and contemporary of Sam Hewitt. Sam had all the codboats mortgaged to the Short Blue, and around 1854 called for cash, and broke everyone. But Christopher was made agent for the Short Blue when it moved up to Gorleston around the same year. The fishing boom happened after the Napoleonic wars ended, partly because the fish had been left alone to breed for while. This fishing boom caused an overwhelming influx of fishermen from Portsmouth. My people arrived before that in 1797, though, via a privateering career during the wars. So yeah, Barking has a history.--Storye book (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Towns in.. -> Market towns in...

I see from my watchlist you are recategorizing several Towns in... to Market towns in... can I just ask how market town is defined - do they have to have a charter or licence to hold markets or fairs a few hundred years ago or can a more colloquial centre for shopping be considered a market town?— Rod ^talk 15:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just using their membership of Category:Market towns in England as a basis. I started with London and created an article List of market towns in London. I then added or removed from both the category and the list based on published sources. This will need to be done with every county. There are two ways that a market town can be verified: mention of market charter or inclusion in one of several directories listing market towns. MRSC (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK I've added some to Category:Market towns in Somerset where there is good evidence of a medieval charter.— Rod ^talk 16:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you do any more- can you discuss this please on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:England, where I have opened a section Personally, I am happy with them going in an extra category, but former cities such as Rochester need to be left in Towns in Kent where most users will look for them.. I just cant see rhyme or reason for removing a town from its natural category.--ClemRutter (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied there. MRSC (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I get a second opinion from you?

While trying to clear up the never ending morass that is Unassessed London-related articles, I've come across Category:Hotels in London. It seems to me that at least 1/3 of the entries here should never have been created, and I prodded what appeared to be the worst offenders; however, most of those now seem to have been contested.

The creator is citing Articles for deletion/Covent Garden Hotel as a precedent for keeping them, but to me that "keep" appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:N as "anything mentioned in the press warrants an article". Middletown, NY is a notable topic and Walmart is a notable topic, but Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on Middletown Walmart, despite the fact that it's easy to find mentions of it in reliable sources; likewise, Radisson Hotels and Heathrow Airport are notable, but to me that doesn't make Radisson Edwardian Heathrow Hotel notable, even though it has no doubt been covered by reliable sources at some point (even if the news coverage is just "New hotel opens"). To me, while obviously the "big name" hotels like the Ritz, Dorchester etc warrant their own article, there's no need for Wikipedia to be hosting unexpandable sub-stubs on generic individual branches of chains which would be far better served (and of far more use) as paragraphs within List of hotels in xxx.

Before it goes to what will no doubt be a foul-tempered bulk AFD (the creator of most of the articles is already bombarding me with personal abuse), can I get a second opinion from you on this one? – iridescent 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, it comes down to if all 5 star hotels are automatically notable. Without notable architecture or history and as part of a wider chain it gets difficult to argue notability and hard to imagine a fully fleshed article. However, I do think that a concentration of 5 star hotels is notable, either in one place or owned by one company. The information would therefore best be in presented in a summary article, such as List of five-star hotels in London or List of Radisson Edwardian hotels. Something similar exist for List of five-star hotels in Dubai. MRSC (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hardly "bombarding you with personal abuse". But if we tried to work together to expand some of the 5 star London hotel articles which should meet requirements first instead of doing anything hasty then I would not snap at you. Justification for the existence of many of them is not based on Covent Garden hotel. It is based on the number of sources and coverage in reliable publications which I believe most will pass on.. I know that for WP:Hotels 5 star hotel especially in a global city such as London as generally an indication of the elite. However based on a London criteria, I am well aware than some smaller boutique hotels and airport hotels may not be as notable as historical building hotels which are part of the city's heritage. So a three star hotel building in central London architecturally may be more of note. But above all my intention was not to spam but was genuinely geared to improve coverage of London hotels which I think ought to be covered. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes we all get the order of doing things a bit wrong. We create a string of very short stub articles and then spread ourselves thin trying to maintain them. What we should have done is start with a listing summary article and get that to an advanced stage, and then, based on that expand the subject into new daughter articles. I would recommend redirecting all the very short London hotel stubs to a list article, that has all the relevant statistics, dates of construction, # of beds, maps, location, etc. and then create new articles on the hotels that require expansion. Just because an article is redirected to the list now is not a bar on further development later. This encyclopaedia is not printed on paper, we can adjust the organisation as we set fit from time to time. MRSC (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We have Hotels in London. The idea was that they branch out into articles and be expanded, not remain as stubs. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 16:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Upminster Bridge

I think your find that the crossing is in RM14. RM12 starts much further up. I live in the area and happen to live in RM14 past the bridge. Please state where you got the infomation from before reverting my edit again!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.162.213 (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgive the intrusion, but I noticed this comment and investigated. Though the Upminster Bridge crossing is in RM14 (Upminster post town), it is only 100 yards from the tripoint with RM11 and RM12 (Hornchurch post town).[1] Indeed, Upminster Bridge tube station is on the RM12 side of the border. The crossing itself straddles the boundary between the parliamentary constituencies of Hornchurch (Hacton ward) and Upminster (Upminster ward).[2] So the edits by User:MRSC are sound. — Richardguk (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ruislip

Hello, i was recently adding material for the article on my home town of Ruislip (specifically about the shops and local business's on the high street) and you have removed the majority of the information.

What i am asking is what was your reason for carrying out the removal, as all of the shops listed such as franchises like Costa Coffee, Baskin Robbins, McDonalds and Wimpy as they all have their own Wikipedia pages and on those pages they have their own company websites listed.

So can they be added to a wiki page about a section about our local high street or not?

If you could show me the reason for these deletions i would be most grateful.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your message. I've left some notes about at Talk:Ruislip#Layout and sections. You can also ask any questions on that talk page about how to improve the article. MRSC (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

London Borough of Barnet

Thank you for rating this article. I've converted most of lists to prose. I would like to get this article to good status. I know it needs some more citations, but are there any other major deficiencies or sections that need some expansion? Grim²³★ 00:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really keen to get at least one borough article to WP:GA. I've left some notes on the talk page and will add more when I get a chance. MRSC (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Manchester City Region

Hi MRSC,

Just wondered if you knew what's going on with the new city regions (Manchester City Region and the Leeds City Region? I'm struggling to understand what's happening and have quite a few questions. There's a breif discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester#Greater_Manchester_city_region to discuss the way forward. It'd be great if you could help (perhaps User:Lozleader will know a little also?). --Jza84 |  Talk  01:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again MRSC,

Just a note that I've put User:Jza84/Sandbox0 together, ready to move to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority page. Was hoping you could give it the all clear - it is based loosely on the Greater London Authority article. It doesn't seem to breach WP:FUTURE. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. I'll edit it accordingly and copy it over to article space. Thanks again for you guidance and assistance. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

...and I've just realised new authority could adapt a famous tune as a regional anthem, if you use the abbreviation GMCA... --Jza84 |  Talk  18:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. It is/was inevitable that a strategic authority would appear for GM, just as it was for London. The conurbation is too integrated, and has -certainly since the late 1990s - developed all the geographical hall marks of a homogenous metropolitan area with a definate CBD. The only real resistance is the northern distrust of beurocracy and politics, and the traditionalists who think the move will supplant identity and customs with the dominance of Manchester proper (in the local press there was anger directed at GMPTE surrounding the demolition of this "historic and iconic" building - when it is a wooden shed on breezblocks that could be remade using materials avaliable at a local B&Q).

I think it's an interesting time for the reforms in the NW. I believe the overwhelming rejection of the Manchester congestion charge by referendum was a shock to the authority leaders, while I think there is a real desire for huge improvements to public transport throughout GM (which can only be provided for strategically) - particularly when once sees the standard of London's transport. I find the real interesting bit to be the "tip-toeing" into the reforms, the careful avoidance of "county" (using city region instead), and the lack of mayor and fanfare. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Ruislip

I have not reverted the article on purpose - i did an alteration and something caused a reversion! Regards msa1701 (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I can easily fix it. Thanks for letting me know. MRSC (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

msa1701 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

about junk

Hey, i object to this edit labelling my work-in-progess as "junk". It is perhaps somewhat unsightly, but it really is in progress, and I myself had tagged the article with {{NRHP dab needing cleanup}} to flag it for me to get back to and finish. I have others in the cleanup category which i am addressing too. I don't mind working on this one sooner rather than later, but it does not help to move stuff to talk page. No biggie though. --doncram (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't take offense. It does appear as junk on the screen and that is all I meant. A note on the talk page explains this. I'm sure the work you do is very valuable. MRSC (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

no problem. i shoulda inserted a smilie or two, no offense taken. :) i replied also to your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, too. Thanks for fixing all the links to the Sutton House article, which i see is clear now, while Sutton House, London now has many, which i am presuming were fixed by you. --doncram (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wembley Arena

As you've helped with other problems in this quarter, I'd like to ask your advice; if it's just a pointer to where I should ask next, that's fine. Is it worth trying to clean up Wembley Arena? I look gloomily at the list of about 100 singers & bands that are said to have played the new arena (I'm confident that UTC have not but I haven't checked the rest), let alone the paragraphs about sell-out tours and attendance records. Some of the material may come from Arena staff, but some certainly seems to be from fans. I can't say I'm eager to enter into an edit war with 100 different batches of fans based on nothing but my limited knowledge of Wikipedia policy and practice. NebY (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, if you start to create an article that is exceptionally well referenced others will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to argue for unreferenced material to be included. What I would do is move the list of appearances to the talk page, and reintroduce the entries only when you have a reference. I did something similar with List of people from Barking and Dagenham. People don't like to see their contributions fall into a black hole, so this overcomes that. I also wonder what is notable about the list. I imagine some of these were part of significant tours. It might be a good idea to include the dates of appearance and the name of the tour, and a wikilink to the relevant article, or section of article, where that exists. MRSC (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a very constructive approach - thank you! Now I must learn a few things at last (setting up a sandbox, drafting and creating a page and who knows what else) but I can see how it'll all work. Might take me a while though. :) NebY (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Postcode districts transclusion test

Hello, MRSC. You have new messages at Richardguk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Further reply. — Richardguk (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of London Buses route 66

London Buses route 66, an article you contributed to, is now up for deletion, you are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77. Okip 15:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ireland WikiProject template

Jza84 suggested you as a template guru who might be able to assist with an issue we are talking about. The issue concern the possibility of categorising images by the project's assessment banner. We don't know what may be possible so if you would read the discussion at Articles needing a photo you will get the full context. If you think you can assist, please post on that talk page with any suggestions. I am also asking these three editors, Worofdreams, Thumperward and Pigsonthewing who were recommended. Hopefully one of you can help. Thanks in advance. ww2censor (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Disused station category cfd

Why wasn't i informed of this? Simply south (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Guide/to do

blanked page

Hi MRSC, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Guide/to do. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 09:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Pinter

I reverted your recent edit as East London is mor appropriate in this context. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. It should have been changed to "east London" and I've made that change now. MRSC (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bexley Logo.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bexley Logo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Place name elements

I just moved Llan as a placename element to Llan (placename element), before noticing your edit summary for the previous change. Sorry. But more to the point, has there been any discussion of the changes in article names which you've undertaken? On the face of it, it seems to me as though it goes against usual practice and WP:TITLE. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I grouped that and similar articles in Category:Placename element etymologies and then applied a consistent naming. I have no strong feelings in any direction towards the naming (I also considered the naming you suggest). If you change one, can you change the rest? Thanks. MRSC (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The most relevant guidance seems to be WP:NCDAB - "A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:

• the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (mammal); or
• the subject or context to which the topic applies, as in Union (set theory), Inflation (economics)"

Certainly, in my experience, the usual practice is to use parentheses in the title rather than a phrase. If you're happy, and if it hasn't been discussed more widely, I'll move them all to be consistent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. MRSC (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, done - thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Park, Barnet

Hello, the article Victoria Park, Barnet could lead to some confusion between two parks in the borough. The article is about the park in Finchley but there is also a park in the town of Barnet called Victoria Recreational Ground [3]. So although I agree it's tidier to use boroughs in article names, I think in this case it may be better to use the old name "Victoria Park, Finchley". What do you think? Grim²³★ 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've followed Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Naming conventions. Obviously this has been broken a little for Victoria Park, London but that is because it is significantly more notable. I've added hatnotes based on what you have said which I hope will clear it up. MRSC (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a neater solution, thank you. Grim²³★ 23:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

London: Its districts, divisions and regions

section moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London

West London

Hello. I noticed that you are disambiguating places identified as being in West London to simply "west London". Are you aware of this article? I feel that linking to this article makes the most sense. I've already changed the Hayes, Hillingdon article, and am interested in hearing your thoughts before I go on. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 22:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"West London" =/= the subregion. However, I guess there is no harm linking to in cases where it is suitable. MRSC (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This person clearly does not have a clue about west London and is utterly unqualified to edit, or even comment, on articles about the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.87.131 (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OS OpenData

I'd be grateful for your thoughts at Talk:TN postcode area#OS OpenData. You probably know that government has recently released postcode-related data under a CC-by licence, and I have used this data to justify and reference a revert. But this seems to be novel use for non-file articles and I know WMF is very sensitive about copyright issues, though this is clearly the sort of use that Ordnance Survey intends. Clearly it would be good if we could apply this to all postcode areas, but the page layout (particularly {{Postcode area table start}}) might benefit from being updated to reflect the need to link to the licence and perhaps directly state the copyright notice. I am therefore keen to get feedback. Thanks in anticipation. — Richardguk (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It might have been a random act of vandalism. I think that providing one reference for a column is problematic, but I'm not entirely sure what the solution is. A casual reader sees something they think is wrong, "corrects it", not seeing the reference in the column header. The column could be automated using a lookup table? MRSC (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My main concern was satisfying the copyright and licensing requirements of both Wikipedia and Ordnance Survey, and I've seen some FUD in earlier OpenData discussions on enwiki, but Moonriddengirl has confirmed that they are compatible and has inserted the relevant CCBYSA template which could be customised via a new template specifically for OpenData attributions.

As for marking or protecting columns: I think it is unlikely that we could define a canonical list of places under "coverage" so it makes sense to keep those easily editable, but "post town" and "local authority area" have well-defined and fairly stable values so a lookup would make sense, leaving page editors free to edit the "coverage" wikitext as an unformatted parameter.

There might be performance issues with a simple #switch on all districts, though it would be a shame if we had to complicate maintenance with sub-switches and sub-templates but worth experimenting with; and also a chance to implement <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> in all area articles, as previously discussed.

I've still got old <onlyinclude> test pages for each area at User:Richardguk/AB postcode area etc, out of date now but, if you think it would make sense in principle, I'll try to find time to prototype an implementation there.

— Richardguk (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks MRSC. I didn't realize there was a style guide on English counties. Derbyadhag (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Could I have the link to the style guide? Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 23:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:UCC MRSC (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

List of people from Bromley

I noticed an edit you made on List of people from Bromley which tidies it up and reduces the fluff, and believe a few of your updates could be added to the other pages similar for different areas although am curious why you chose to remove the year links. This is not me correcting you nor debating for the links to remain but asking the reasoning. (Zachary.burrows (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

I should have linked to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). We used to link to dates and years for technical reasons, but we don't do that anymore. MRSC (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Subdivisions of England

moved to Talk:Subdivisions of England

Category:People from London

Moved to Category talk:People from London