User talk:MRSC/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Response

I presume you're joking? I responded on the talk of the article by the way. As for ownership, it seems you think you own all the templates, even if one is already agreed upon before and looks perfectly fine, if you don't like it apparently it 'isn't good enough'.

I'm not sure what you have against Yorkshire, from the fact that you've tried to make the infobox look not as good, made an alaborate attempt to cover up so called "former" areas of Yorkshire and on an other article tried to cover up the fact that the term Yorkshire is no longer allowed to be used while Lancashire and other are, various other coverups, etc. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I never intended any animosity to begin with, I just want to improve these articles. Yes, I shall attempt to apply myself with more good faith in future discussions, as it seems we will be working on many of the same articles and it will probably be best for their development. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Borough mottos

I hope you feel suitably 'uplifted' by all these bonne mottes. I've tried adding some of the missing coats of arms, many have previously been deleted, either because they were unused, or had insufficient justification - it also appears to help if they're described as Non-free symbol rather than logo. The original creation gave no real thought to fair use, so it's not surprising they were removed, hopefully, they'll stick now. If you get a chance, perhaps you could look at a few random samples and check my work! (I know if a single comma is out of place, they will go again). Sometime, I'll have to do a pass through the lot, as some may claim PD without adequate justification - pre-1890 probably, but 1906?

Anyway, More light, more power! Kbthompson (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There are always problems with images, you're up against a bunch of people who exist to delete them 8^). I think someone tried tagging them with {{coat of arms}} once, but were told off - mmm, redirects to {{Insignia}} - not very helpful.

I think we can just try our luck with a fair use justification for each one. Kbthompson (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. I've had all sorts of problems with civic heraldry images getting deleted for various wrong tag/no rationale reasons. There have been some mass bot deletions at times, like when they abolished the coat of arms tag. Also bots seem to like to change the tag from the one I put on it when i uploaded it. Some GFDL images I created myself have been deleted too.

If you find a magic formula re tagging and rationale let me know because it is, as you know, a pain to keep readding these things.

I do think its worth having a bit of background info, and better still the blazon/grant details too. I can supply most of these from literature I have. and of course there is civicheraldry.co.uk.

There used to be a lot of images taken directly from that site see [1]. I'm not sure about the copyright status of them though...

Lozleader (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add any suitable details about the arms. I've taken the attitude that taking the text from civic chivaldry is a no-no due to copyright. The images are surely copyright the successor authority - regardless of the creator and it seems to me to be best to ascribe fair-use to all of them. I'm not 100% sure the copyright ever expires on a coat of arms! I'm happy to wait and see how we get on with the current level of fair use. Kbthompson (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Willesden 1961.PNG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Willesden 1911.PNG. The copy called Image:Willesden 1911.PNG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Info box North Norfolk

Hello MRSC I see you have removed the info box and replaced it with a very old template which seems to be gradually being phased out of Wikipedia. Rather than just replace newer version with the old one I suggest that you replace this old out-dated info box with the new one {{Infobox Settlement}} that you have mentioned.Stavros1 (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to my question about your change of info box on this page to an outdated box. If you are not interested in changing the info box to the type that you recommended on the talk page, I will revert the changes you made back to the previous box. (Polite Request) Stavros1 (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello MRSC

Your not getting away with it that easy, As you have made the suggestion I presume you will do the work to change the Box Personally I think the Information in the Box you have suggested just duplicates what was already there in the first box you removedStavros1 (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sunbury 1971.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Sunbury 1971.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Acton within middlesex 1961.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Acton within middlesex 1961.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello again,

I think you're the man to ask for this one!... I've been worried for a while now that we are referring to Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford, Salford etc etc as metropolitan boroughs. Thing is, I can't find anything that suggests these have borough status (though of course they have city status). Some (if not all of these) have had borough status in the past, but these were the pre-74 local government districts, which of course were wiped clean by LGA74.

Are you aware of anything that asserts that these places now have borough status? Do cities automatically have borough status? In the meantime I've been using the phrase "X is a place in the metropolitan district of the City of Salford". It may need rolling out nationwide if I've uncovered a discrepency here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I was asked to contribute, here's my tuppence worth:

Looking at the announcements in the London Gazette I find this:

1st April 1974.
THE QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 1st day of April 1974 to ordain that the Borough of Bradford shall have the status of a City, and that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the City of Bradford shall be entitled .to the style of Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Bradford.

THE QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 1st day of April 1974 to ordain that the Borough of Coventry shall have the status of a City, and that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the City of Coventry shall be entitled to the style of Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Coventry.

THE QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 1st day of April 1974 to ordain that the Borough of Leeds shall have the status of a City, and that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the City of Leeds shall be entitled to the style of Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Leeds.

THE QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 1st day of April 1974 to ordain that the Borough of Manchester shall have the status of a City, and that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the City of Manchester shall be entitled to the style of Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Manchester.

THE QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 1st day of April 1974 to ordain that the Borough of Newcastle upon Tyne shall have the status of a City, and that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne shall be entitled to the .style of Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Newcastle upon Tyne.

The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 1st day of April 1974, to ordain that the Borough of Salford shall have the status of a City.

28th May 1974.
The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 28th day of May 1974, to ordain that the Borough of Sheffield shall have the status of a City, and that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the City of Sheffield shall be entitled to the style of Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Sheffield.

The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 28th day of May 1974, to ordain that the Borough of Wakefield shall have the status of a City.

25th June 1974.
The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 25th day of June, 1974 to ordain that the Borough of Birmingham shall have the status of a City, and that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the City of Birmingham shall be entitled to the style of Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Birmingham.

The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 25th day of June 1974 to ordain that the Borough of Liverpool shall have the status of a City, and that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the City of Liverpool shall be entitled to the style of Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Liverpool.

There are similar notices for non-met districts: city status (for a district) appears to be an add-on to borough status. The borough charter (which the council applies for) preserves the mayoralty and any other ceremonial bits and bobs. City status is done by the exercise of royal prerogative.Lozleader (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Having said that this [2] says The metropolitan district of Liverpool has the status of a city. Does a borough cease being a borough when it becomes a city? Incidentally Bradford City Council calls itself "City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council" and "Bradford Metropolitan District Council" on its website. It also seems to be called "City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council". Wakefield seem to do a similar thing. By googling, they seem to the only councils to use the term "Metropolitan District" None of the other metropolitan cities seem to call themselves either met district or met borough

Of course we should not forget that the City of Westminster is definitely a London Borough Lozleader (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wood green 1961.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Wood green 1961.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Yiewsley west drayton 1961.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Yiewdsley west drayton 1961.png. The copy called Image:Yiewdsley west drayton 1961.png has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Gunnersbury Park

MRSC, in editing out the comment about Ealing residents regarding the park as part of Ealing, you miss the point. It was the Ealing and Acton councils that purchased the park, not Hounslow. The fact that Gunnersbury now lies administratively within Hounslow hardly changes its historical and social perspective. Ask the local residents whether they think Gunnersbury park is in Hounslow! Peter Maggs (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Harringay series box

How did you move that? Does it just default to where it is now after pasting below the info box? hjuk (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Highest points in london

North Hill of Highgate is about 10 ft higher than the highest point of Hampsted Heath (which is towards the north-west side and is 446 feet high and so higher than parliament hill). This makes north hill the highest point in the central area of london - this is with ref to your edits on Highpoint I and Highgate. This is an independent point from Highgate hill - the two are different. OS Maps are more useful than web-quoted sources here. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

'central area of london' is unfortunately a somewhat elastic term. MRSC • Talk 12:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

true. Former county of london? In any case, the List of highest points in London suffers from several glaring omissions. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

On second calculation, the 440ft for hampstead heath is right, but I made it clear it's not parliament hill. It appears north hill is also around 440ft or just above - there is very little to choose between them, maybe a couple of feet. It is also difficult to get detailed enough maps to give very accurate spot heights, even from the OS. Do you know anyone who has access to the 1:5000? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Counties of England

Sorry, I was under the impression you were agreeing to do the work. I really do not think this should be left as it stands. I've left a note to that effect on the talk page. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You do not seem to be watching the talk page. As stated above, I really do not think it should be left in this condition. Please finish what you started or restore to the original separate templates in the interim. Chrisieboy (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind addressing the issues in hand, before going off on a tangent on my talk page. I think your comment is unfair, as I have kept to the issues in hand during these discussions and refrained from making personal comments, unlike certain other editors. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As you mentioned etiquette on my talk page, would you mind responding to my comments at Template talk:England counties, which I made a week ago. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case I propose to make some changes, the effect of which will be to revert to two separate templates: (1) ceremonial and (2) historical, as was in place prior to your edits of 01 December 2007. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I have already made my reasons clear on that page. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Scotland county

I note you have worked on this infbox template. The template appears to me to be almost designed to produce nonsensical results. See also Talk:County of Nairn. Laurel Bush (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

London

I've change the lead image per the discussion at Talk:London. I hope it helps. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck

The very best of luck with whatever you're supposed to be doing. Kbthompson (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

nxea color on station pages

hello, i was just wondering why you put the one railway color back as the silver describs nxea better then ones blue id thought id discuss it rather then making the same mistake twice.--19andy91 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Borough status

Hello,

Borough status in the United Kingdom was redirected and divided to the home nations. Is this the right way forwards? Maybe it is but thought you would have an informed opinion on the matter. City status in the United Kingdom seems to be a single, effective article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Football League 2 Venues - Victoria Road

Hi,

I shan't keep reverting London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Stadium to Victoria Road on the Football League Two venues info box if you are going to revert it each time (be a waste of time for both). But a bit of a precedent seemed to have been set where the traditional ground name not the sponsored name has been put in otherwise we would have the Fraser Eagle Stadium, The Balfour Webnet Darlington Arena and the Coral Windows Stadium. (I also think the main article should say Victoria Road also known through sponsorship rights as the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Stadium) kroome111 (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LogoLda new.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:LogoLda new.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Cite british history

Template:Cite british history has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ctempleton3 (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)