User talk:MRSC/Archive 16

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.

Deletion notifications

Hi MRSC. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (1, 2), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite local authority

Template:Cite local authority has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox public organisation

Template:Infobox public organisation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Acton within middlesex 1961.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Acton within middlesex 1961.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

English counties 1851 with ridings.svg

Hi there. You might want to take a look at WP:RD/H#Exclave of Berkshire in the middle of Buckinghamshire, as I believe you created the map that's under discussion. Tevildo (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Yiewsley west drayton 1961.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yiewsley west drayton 1961.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP London in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject London for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Media workers in the West Midlands (region)

Category:Media workers in the West Midlands (region), 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Rochester: Kent or Medway

There is a discussion in which you may be interested on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Medway_or_Kent concerning the move of Wikipedia articles from Rochester, Kent to Rochester, Medway. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Borough of Poole

moved to Talk:Poole Borough Council MRSC (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Local television in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newcastle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

List of United Kingdom postcodes

Good to see you editing again! I've just noticed the existence of the List of postcodes in the United Kingdom dabpage.

Since most readers visiting the page probably want a complete list (and might not realise that the UK has a thousandfold more postal codes than most other countries), it seemed helpful to add some external links to the complete list, as well as a referenced indication of the approximate numbers of postcodes, districts and post towns to convey that it is impractical to provide a complete list.

The article feedback tool confirms that many visitors to the articles for each postcode area are frustrated by the absence of information about individual postcodes, often because they assume that one postcode covers an entire town, as in most of Europe and the USA.

However, references and external links contradict the guidance at WP:DABNOT, and my edit largely reverses an edit made by you three years ago.

Let me know here (or at my talk or article talk) if you have any thoughts on how to reconcile the standard dabpage content limitations with the likelihood that people visiting the page will be seeking a full list or complete postcodes (not just a list of districts or areas).

Less BOLDly, I have also redirected List of postal codes in the United Kingdom so that it points to the above dabpage instead of to List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom. (This affects links via {{List of postal codes in Europe}}, though that navbox is used in just two articles.)

— Richardguk (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply.

Thinking aloud...

The problem with changing the page from a dab to an article is that the content can never realistically match the title (i.e. listing 1.7m postcodes). Any alternative content would inevitably not match its own title as aptly as it matched the title of one of the other articles (the district/area lists or the general Postcodes in the United Kingdom article), so the title would be misleading, or at least tend to confound readers (ceci n'est pas une liste).

Unfortunately, the stub concept also seems to be of no help, since stubs are defined as articles suitable for expansion, rather than as articles which do not aspire to the depth implied by their titles.

One solution would be to convert to a redirect (to the general article; or to the districts list, similarly to the redirect that existed until today from List of postal codes in the United Kingdom to List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom). But a redirect would frustrate readers seeking a specific postcode or complete list, since they would have to wade through a lengthy article (or list) to find the necessary external links.

For comparison, List of postal codes in Canada consists of a navbox which links to separate pages for each of Canada's 18 postal districts (similar to the UK's 124 areas), which in turn list each of the local sortation areas (equivalent to UK districts), but do not itemise non-rural delivery units (equivalent to UK postcodes sectors or units). So the individual Canadian postcodes are similarly too numerous to be listed on enwiki and their approach broadly reflects the one you have suggested.

However, even if we followed this approach, the separate existence already of List of postcode areas in the United Kingdom means we have a potentially superfluous top layer, compared with the Canadian hierarchy. Also, the UK list of areas contains background information that detracts from primary use as a navigation page.

...Done thinking aloud.

If you remain opposed to the current "dab-plus" oddity and think it best to expand the page as you have suggested, it would be easy to add a map of the areas as you suggest. Is the {{Postcode areas in the United Kingdom}} navbox insufficiently clear as a way of guiding interested visitors to the individual area pages?

— Richardguk (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank for the further feedback. I concede that a dab/article hybrid is incompatible with established practice. I'll have a go over the weekend at converting it to an article that is helpful for navigation. Am now inclined to think that "List of postcode areas..." should be merged into "List of postcodes...", with a redirect from the former (though the former title would be more accurate, the latter title makes more sense as a top-level page akin to the Canadian hierarchy). — Richardguk (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Having pontificated and dithered about the best approach, I've ended up converting the dab page to a brief article, as you suggested.

Assuming no one challenges this approach, I will seek speedy deletion of List of postcodes in the United Kingdom (disambiguation) in the next few days and update related redirects.

— Richardguk (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Piped links

It's not necessary or correct to create piped links from links that already work -eg this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grimsby&diff=510597475&oldid=508168836

See WP:Piped links for more details.Oranjblud (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Check again the link was going to a *general page* unitary authority and now goes to a *specific page* Unitary authorities of England. MRSC (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I see what you did there now.Oranjblud (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all! :) MRSC (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:People from Calderdale (district)

Category:People from Calderdale (district), which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chipping Ongar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ongar

Greensted (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ongar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

All-figure numbers now

A tag has been placed on All-figure numbers now, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Vacation9 (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at All-figure numbers now

Hi MRSC, you recently removed a deletion tag from All-figure numbers now. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liberty of the Savoy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lancaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Affluent areas in Bromley

I saw you recently removed the passage about affluent areas from the Bromley page but it would probably be a good idea to add it to the Bromley Borough page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgravy (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:25 largest settlements in the UK by urban core population

Template:25 largest settlements in the UK by urban core population has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JimmyGuano (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Postcode area articles

I've recently updated the 121 UK postcode area articles (AB etc) and London postal district to include SVG maps from Commons. Some of these supersede PNG maps which you had uploaded.

The new maps use the <imagemap> extension so that readers can click on surrounding areas on the maps to jump directly to the relevant postcode area articles. At the same time, therefore, I removed the transclusions of {{Adjacent postcode areas}} which you created a while ago, as it only provided an approximate description of the relative positions.

If you agree with this (and assuming that the replacement is sufficiently accessible to visually-impaired readers), it would make sense to nominate {{Adjacent postcode areas}} and {{Adjacent postcode areas/areaname}} as templates for deletion.

I am currently working on additional maps for postcode areas where the city centre districts are too small to be easily visible on the entire map (AB/Aberdeen and London/central are prime examples), but I think only around a dozen supplementary maps are necessary as most areas have districts of broadly similar size.

I've also uploaded KML files for each area article, via {{Attached KML}}, so that readers can click through to Google Maps or Bing Maps and zoom in to see the exact boundaries in relation to specific streets or places of interest.

By, the way, thanks for picking up on my failure to remove E6 from Dagenham. I've tidied up a few infobox entries whilst categorising all the UK post towns (which unintuitively include a few non-towns in the ordinary sense – discussed here; no one now seems to be objecting to the new category tree).

I'd be grateful if you'd let me know (below) whether you have any reservations about deleting the above templates which you created, or any comments on the new templates and layout of the area articles. Much appreciated.

— Richardguk (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Maps look great. They also reveal some recent changes. E20 appears to be completely surrounded by E15. The only such district?

If the old templates are now unused I think you can nominate them for speedy deletion.

Post town categorisation makes sense. I can't see any other meaningful way of recording that data. I wonder in the case of Stansted (and any others where the post town name is significantly different from the article name) if it might make more sense to create Stansted (post town) and categorise that and then redirect it to the most relevant article?

One other thing: the layout of the postcode area articles might work better if the map is first and the coverage after? MRSC (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Great feedback, thanks.

Enclaves and exclaves:

E20 is a unique case. I've derived the boundaries algorithmically (computing Voronoi polygons from the OS OpenData median point for each postcode, with minor changes to merge trivial exclaves). At present, E20 is officially a wholly non-geographic district, most of which I have not mapped since non-geographic postcodes are inherently sparse or assigned to the sorting office (the Boots site at NG90 slipped in by mistake). But E20 was widely publicised as an addition to the high-profile London scheme and will soon encompass post-Olympic housing estates as a conventional district. So I made an exception by including the small polygon generated from the non-geographic postcodes already created, hence it appearing as an enclave of E15. Eventually, I expect that it will extend to the borders of E9 and E10.
There are quite a few enclaves where one district serves a town centre and a doughnut serves the surrounding villages. (Well that might be overstating the prevalence. In addition to E15/E20: CF48 contains CF47 in Merthyr Tydfil; CV23 contains CV21+CV22 in Rugby; DT2 contains DT1 in Dorchester; HS2 Isle of Lewis contains HS1 Stornoway; LA8 contains LA9 in Kendal; LE12 contains LE11 in Loughborough; LE14 contains LE13 in Melton Mowbray; OX29 contains OX28 in Witney; PE31 King's Lynn contains PE35 Sandringham; PL30 contains PL31 in Bodmin; SA62 contains SA61 in Haverfordwest; SO21 contains SO22+SO23 in Winchester; and SP11 contains SP10 in Andover. — Richardguk (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)) More unusual are the post towns which are enclaves of another post town: CM Stansted within Bishop's Stortford (quasi-geographic post town primarily for the airport), HS Stornoway within Isle of Lewis, LE Wigston within Leicester, M Salford within Manchester, NR North Walsham within Norwich (but touches the coast), and PE Sandringham within King's Lynn (special treatment for Her Majesty!).
NE Newcastle upon Tyne is unique in having two mainland exclaves. CW Crewe, DA Erith, DY Kidderminster, and LL Amlwch are the only other split mainland post towns. The only split mainland districts are BS2, CV7, G4, LL68 (Amlwch again), and (within Shetland mainland) ZE2. (I forgot Northern Ireland. BT80 Cookstown is split into eastern and western parts by BT45 Magherafelt and BT71 Dungannon. There are no district enclaves in BT, and the only town enclave is four airport postcodes within BT29 that have a Belfast post town instead of Crumlin, but I have treated this as non-geographic since it is too small to map. — Richardguk (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC))

TFD:

As agreed, I'll nominate the redundant templates for deletion. (Now nominated {{Adjacent postcode areas}} and {{Adjacent postcode areas/areaname}} for T3 speedy deletion. Notified to User:WOSlinker, who was also involved in creating the subtemplate. — Richardguk (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC))

Categorising redirects:

I've so far categorised existing redirects but only where the article clearly refers to a separate location or more than one settlement (IP: Harleston, Norfolk not Redenhall with Harleston; KT: East Molesey and West Molesey, not Molesey; LA: Askam-in-Furness not Askam and Ireleth; LL: Cemaes Bay not Cemaes; NE: Boldon Colliery and East Boldon, not The Boldons; PH: Corrour not Corrour railway station; SA: Clarbeston Road not Clarbeston; TN: Mayfield, East Sussex not Mayfield and Five Ashes; and TS: Trimdon Station not Trimdon).
I've sought to avoid categorising redirects, because the destination article then lacks the category link to signal the information to the reader (though the redirect makes more sense from the perspective of someone reading the category page). Most post towns cover surrounding villages and farms so have an inherently broader domain than the article. It might therefore exacerbate confusion to single out some non-towns for redirecting when many conventional towns and villages also have vastly different extents from their post towns. Is there any useful policy guidance on redirect categorisation?
To my pleasant surprised, no one has complained or reverted, other than over Stansted where I reached consensus with an editor as mentioned above. I was expecting some confusion or hostility after categorising the Scottish islands and Crown dependencies as post towns, but there's been no comment so far (perhaps the anomaly is well-known to those who live there after the status change from postal counties a couple of decades ago). But, with the above caveat, I've no strong objection to an alternative approach.

Layout:

Glad you find the maps useful. Would make sense to swap the section order knowing now that I'm not self-promoting my own work! But there is a broader issue: the infobox floats top-right, whereas the maps and the tables are inline left. {{Attached KML}} floats its own linkbox to the right, and at present I've positioned it immediately above the map (if the display is wide enough, it will then nestle to the right of the map). Elsewhere, KML templates usually appear under External links but I wanted map users to realise the close connection as they might otherwise not notice that there is an alternative way to zoom right in. But the map, KML links and coverage table all fight for width with the infobox (since very few areas have a lede longer than the infobox height).
Not sure what to do about this, so with the tables currently first I've recently added {{clear}} to make the tables full-width and avoid excessive line wrapping. But an odd gap will remain if the maps are first. Should the infobox map be smaller? Is there an alternative way of presenting the location map alongside the area map? (Bearing in mind that the dozen supplementary maps I'm currently preparing will add a third graphical element, further reducing the neatness of the page; but combining two or three maps into one SVG risks making the graphic too big to be easily read and downloaded. Or perhaps I fear that combined maps would be too fiddly for me to create!)

Further thoughts most welcome!

— Richardguk (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm wary of creating article redirects, but where the article name is sufficiently different to the thing that is actually being categorised I think it might be the best thing to do (see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects). I definitely don't see any point redirecting merely because the post town and town article represent different areas. With a few exceptions the idea is that routing is via that place at the very least, so it is a valid categorisation.

It is probably a good idea to put a small copy of the coverage map in the infobox and then have it again, larger/clickable further down the article (for an example see the 020 article. This seems to work quite well. Playing around with layout to suit one screen is almost always fruitless as it breaks on another screen size or format, and this would be the least disruptive. MRSC (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I've sought to follow Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category, which takes as the key question whether the destination article "look out of place" on the category page, rather than judging how well the category name sits in the context of the article text. The guideline singles out redirects of merged articles, reflecting my approach with Harleston etc (above). And, as you mention, each categorised article does cover the routing place after which each post town is named. Indeed, every post town (even the airports and islands) corresponds semantically with the categorised article as a location, it's only confusion over "town" which is the problem (which redirects might obscure rather than obviate). Given the benefit of the reverse link from article to category page when redirects are avoided, I'm still minded to keep the current scheme, but let me know if there are specific changes you'd propose.

I'll update the layouts of the postcode area articles in the next few days. Increasing the infobox height with an additional mini-map might exacerbate the problem with overlapping block elements in subsequent sections (depending on screen width and the width of the main map), so some trial and error might be necessary. The 020 article is well presented, but the postcode area articles lack the flowing text that allows the 020 tables and images to align neatly.

Thanks for the further advice. Sorry for cluttering up your talk page. I'd like to think that the exchange of views and background info might be useful reference for others too. Feel free to move to category talk, article talk or my talk page if you wish.

— Richardguk (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Godstone Rural District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chelsham and Farleigh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Whitechapel and Bow Railway

Hi, regarding recent edits to Stepney Green tube station and Mile End tube station - it's not really correct to put

| original      = [[Whitechapel and Bow Railway]]
| pregroup      = [[Midland Railway]]
| postgroup     = [[London, Midland and Scottish Railway]]

because the Whitechapel & Bow was not absorbed by the Midland. The W&B is explicitly named in the Transport Act 1947 (third schedule "Bodies whose Undertakings are Transferred to [the British Transport] Commission", page 149, 17th entry), so it continued to exist right up until nationalisation, even though both joint owners did get swallowed up into larger concerns. Personally I would put

| original      = [[Whitechapel and Bow Railway]]
| pregroup      = Whitechapel and Bow Railway
| postgroup     = Whitechapel and Bow Railway

It was at some point during 1948/49, when the relationship between British Railways and the London Transport Executive was being tidied up, that the various joint lines were split up between BR and the LTE (the LTE got most of the W&B line, but BR got a very short stretch just before Campbell Road Junction). It's since been altered again; when the northern pair of former LTSR tracks between Campbell Road Junction and Upminster were transferred to LT about thirty years ago, the short bit of the W&B near Campbell Road Junction was transferred at the same time. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It is a bit of an oddity. W&B doesn't seem to have any public facing existence. The stations had exterior signage indicating they were "joint" stations of the respective owners:

I'd be inclined to leave the original company and remove the other two, then explain the rest in the text. MRSC (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've found the actual date: see

Lee, Charles Edward (1988) [1956]. The Metropolitan District Railway. The Oakwood Library of Railway History (2nd ed.). Headington: Oakwood Press. p. 53. ISBN 0-85361-361-3. OL12.

where it says "On 23 January 1950, various lines which had for some time been controlled by London Transport were formally transferred by the B.T.C. from the jurisdiction of the Railway Executive to that of the London Transport Executive. These included the Whitechapel & Bow, the East London line ...".

It seems that the W&B was promoted independently, but was always controlled jointly (by the District and the LTSR, or their successors). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Great. Here is the relevant public announcement:

Edinburgh Gazette [1].
London Gazette [2] [3]

Although carrying the date 27 January 1950. MRSC (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that they needed two instruments - one to revoke the powers delegated to the Railway Executive, and one to delegate the same powers to the LTE. Regarding the date - the London Gazette wasn't published daily in those days (I think it was Tuesdays and Fridays), and (then as now) only published information after the event, as a formal record of what had been done (this still happens: the National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Act 2012 received Royal Assent on 12 November 2012 (it came into force "on the day after it receives Royal Assent" according to section 3b of the Act); but wasn't published in the LG until 16 November). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Kew

I'm well aware that Kew is not a Person from Kew, but much of the article is about historically notable people - who are listed, all with citations, in the sections Artists associated with Kew and Other notable inhabitants - so including it the People from Kew category will help signpost it to others looking for Kew biographies. Headhitter (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't see that. Although the lists should be integrated into List of people from Richmond upon Thames. Place articles should be a prose summary and not contain exhaustive lists. MRSC (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the information already appears in List of people from Richmond upon Thames but it is organised by occupation, not location. Are you content for me to reinstate the deleted Category tag? Headhitter (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It should not be added to that article. A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. MRSC (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I might be able to atain my objective if there were a Category:Kew that I could link the Kew article to. But I don't know how I go about creating a category, and my search of the Wikipedia Help pages hasn't come up with the answer. Could you advise please? Thanks. Headhitter (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I've stated the category and put Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew in there to get it going. You can start a new category at any time by adding it to the article as if you were adding an existing one. MRSC (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Great: thanks for all your help. Headhitter (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

More at H:CAT. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kennington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of common land in London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Petersham Common

Water supply and sanitation in London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to River Lee

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Garrett Green

I've deleted your redirect as it appeared to be going to the wrong target (Hackney) and I could find no mention of it at Hackney or in the Wandsworth Borough article (Wandsworth being the place with a Garrett Green in it). The editor who tagged it was confused by there being an American sports person by the same name - who doesn't seem to have an article anyway. In view of there being no mention of either the common land or the player around, it's probably best to not have the redirect. If you think I'm wrong, let me know. Peridon (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

London Boroughs

Thanks. I'm going to try to get them all up to a fairly decent standard. Eventually the borough articles will need to be checked and edited to provide only a summary. But not quite there yet. MRSC (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)