please comment below. Any queries please post on the same page.

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 23:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the formatting on the List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom for you. To make sub-entry in a bulleted list uses two asterisks: e.g.

*First level
**second level
***third level

produces:

• First level
  • second level
    • third level

The same principal applies to indented lists, (use : instead of *) and numbered lists (use #).

All lines that start with a space are rendered as pre-formatted text (as if they were in <pre> html tags, which also work).

For more on these (explained better than I've done above) see Help:Editing and Help:List. Thryduulf 20:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you signed the message on my talk page correctly. Don't be afraid to ask questions, everyone was new once so we all know what it is like. You will pick most of it up pretty quickly - I've been here over a year and I'm still learning some things! Thryduulf 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as those in First Capital Connect, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! --Grouse 17:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You changed this article to claim that the station is in Hertfordshire. Can I ask what your source was, since the OS's current on-line mapping places it several hundred metres on the Cambridgeshire side of the boundary? I've changed the article back to say Cambridgeshire for now -- please feel free to revert that if you can cite got a better source than the OS. --bjh21 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, when you leave a comment on a talk page (either for an article or on a user's talk page), remember to sign it, using --~~~~, so that anyone who reads it knows who left it.

Second, regarding your use of Southeastern (train operating company) and South Eastern Trains as an example, this illustrates my point. There is a massive amount of duplication across those articles, even more so than at South Western. In fact, much of one looks very like a cut-and-paste of the other, with some of the past/present/future tenses suitable modified (e.g. The London termini of their services are Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street, and Victoria. Southeastern operate on 773 miles (1237 km) of track, with 178 stations. 82% of their train services run into London. versus The London termini of these services are Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street, and Victoria. SET operated on 773 miles (1237 km) of tracks, with 178 stations. 82% of their train services ran into London.. That's not to mention the station lists, fleet lists etc. which are identical. So if anything, those two articles should be merged; there is very little value in having both of them.

Once the new South Western franchise has been awarded, a suitable article for the new franchisee can be created, if necessary. --RFBailey 17:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You seem to be having difficulty with external links.

If you want to just display the URL (like this: http://en.wikipedia.org) then just write it out, without enclosing in in square brackets. If you want to just give it a number, like this [1], then you should enclose it in a single set of square brackets (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org]). If you want to include some text as the link, then put the URL in square brackets as before, but afterwards leave a space and then put the text you want; for instance [http://en.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] produces Wikipedia.

In all cases, you need to remember to put the http:// at the beginning, otherwise it won't work!

Hope that helps. --RFBailey 19:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not related to RFBailey. Hammersfan 12/04/06, 21.30 BST

No, definitely not. Can I ask why you thought so? (I'm sure Hammersfan is as perplexed as I am!) --RFBailey 22:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I used the Southeastern example is because you drew my attention to it! (See here.) The fact that Hammersfan also used that example is probably just coincidence. I don't see what you're confused about: the fact that I have been having a separate conversation with Hammersfan (about something else) is nothing to do with this. --RFBailey 16:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. But you need to get used to the fact that two people can, independently, have the same idea, and to remember to assume good faith! --RFBailey 16:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the ELL extension is complete it will be handed over to National Rail. However, it will be managed by London Rail and not the Department for Transport. It will no longer form part of the Underground. London Rail and London Underground are both part of Transport for London and share common branding. The extended East London Line will not be part of the Underground network in any way shape or form and has already been excluded from the part privitisation all the other tube lines went through so the split has already started. Mrsteviec 19:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll not find a reference to "plug-in" templates anywhere as its a term I made up in that comment as I couldn't think of anything better (and still can't!). What I was meaning was a set-up similar to the route boxes which are not a single template but several stacked on top of each other, combining to make one functional unit from the component parts needed. Sort of like an identikit photo I suppose - you select the template you want for each line and together they make up a whole. I'll try and explain this better if you still don't understand!

To create a template, all you do is create a page in the Template: namespace - e.g. Template:Foo is {{Foo}}.

Similarly to create a category, you write the description on a new page in the Category: namespace, making sure to place it in at least one parent category (in the same way you add an article to a category). You then edit the articles and add Category:Foo to them as you normally would.

See Help:Template and Help:Category for more. Thryduulf 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you post a note about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways as well. I'm just off to bed but I'll have a look when I get chance. Thryduulf 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What will happen when you have two or three bus routes with the same number but run through different areas of London? Simply south 16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't happen anymore. The closest situation is with the 77A and the 87. The 87 ran in east London, but was withdrawn and the route added to London Buses route 5 on 25th March this year. The 77A, which runs in south London, will be renumbered 87 on 3rd June this year.--sonicKAI 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a brave edit! But well done, it is a more correct title. I just followed the redlink that was on the UK Railway Stations list when I created the page.

I have changed the link that you missed on Carbis Bay. If you want to check for missed links, search for the old page title and at the top of the page will be a link to the redirect page that has been created. Click on this and you can check the What links here in the tool box to see if there are any more links that need changing.

You don't fancy heloping me do a move on the South Devon Railway page do you? It needs disambiguating but no one seems interested in joining the disucssion about it.

Geof Sheppard 07:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Simply south.

I see you reverted ThurnerRupert's edit at "London Underground". Regardless of whether it's better to have Imperial or S.I. units come first in this article, your reversion made the article inconsistent. The rest of the article uses the form "S.I. (Imperial)", and ThurnerRupert was making that one exception ("Imperial (S.I.)") match the rest. It doesn't matter to me which comes first, as long as it's consistent throughout the article.

President Lethe 14:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Soryy. Do people normally revert themselves? Simply south 15:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what people normally do. I have reverted myself before. It seems an easy enough thing to do; and then the edit summary could explain that you've now noticed that the other person's edit was making the article consistent—which might also slow down anyone else who (as you and I both did) at first thinks the edit is about which system of units is 'better' instead of just consistency. President Lethe 15:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you eventually cover these or not really? (ob ref to Herts 242 as eg) Simply south 11:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will eventually, but I want to get those on london done first in order to enhance Portal:London. --sonicKAI 12:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if i have been a bit too (word needed for asking too many queries and something something).... Simply south 12:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking questions is how you find out stuff. Think nothing of it. --sonicKAI 12:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture added. Hope you like it. --bjh21 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I don't know enough about the tunnel to write about it. But perhaps you or someone else could add a paragraph to the Oakengates railway station page? I know it's the longest railway tunnel in Shropshire - the only other being at Ludlow. David 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The message invites users to edit the article and points to the London WikiProject for more information. Mrsteviec 13:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need take no action. That message has been, or should have been, placed on every place in Category:Districts of London. Mrsteviec 14:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to ask about that. Why do you add Hertfordshire stub messages. No part of Enfield is, or ever has been, part of Herts. Mrsteviec 14:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. The only parts of London to have come from Herts are in the London Borough of Barnet and then only a small part of that borough Barnet, Totteridge and East Barnet. Mrsteviec 14:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is already, obviously! Mrsteviec 18:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry i must have missed the London Portal images when looking through the article. Oh well. Sorry. And yes it is more clear on the Portal london page. Should i get rid of my comments on the London talk page and WikiProject London talk page? Simply south 10:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - it was slightly ambiguous so it needed a bit of fine tuning. Thanks for bringing it up - DJR (Talk) 10:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know really what i should type for the introductory part of this page. Also, do you know where i should link this page? Simply south 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intro needs to be changed to make it easier to exclude certain places. Ie if someone adds a garden centre and its obvious that they are the owner and are only doing it for promotional reasons.

This aims to be a list of all places of interest in Hertfordshire. If you know of a place of interest in Hertfordshire that is not on the list please update the page accordingly. It probably still needs some work...

I've had a look at Essex and Bedfordshire and they have self-contained lists. The reason for this seems to be lack of entries. Therefore they aren't very helpful for working out where to link from. You could probably add a link to the top of the visitor attractions in Hertfordshire category page. Adding a link to each of the articles in the list may be an idea too, but probably needs to be approached with caution to avoid getting people's backs up. It might be best to only do a few at a time and see what the reaction is. RicDod 21:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the NPOV! Got to go now but I'll have a think about it and come back tomorrow. RicDod 21:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Simply South. I've just noticed the edits you've made to add headings to a number of articles that I have worked on previously and have in my watchlist. I'm not sure that articles that are as short as Tooting Bec tube station really need the additional headings for history and structure, but if they do the Wikipedia standard is that they should be formatted as sentences with only the first word or names having intial capital letters. The heading "Structure" may also be a bit ambiguous - it could mean the physical structure of the building (as you mean) or something more abstract. DavidCane 23:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simply South. This is a common problem and I'm not too sure of the answer. What you have in your article are the details of railway routes in a geographical pattern, ie from start to finish, along which train services (on many different routes) travel. The problem is that PR by the train operating companies (TOC) gives the services names, even though many of them (especially those out of a terminus like King's Cross) travel exactly the same tracks. The Great Northern franchise (GNF) which you quote is simply a shorthand way of describing the group of lines, I think. The franchise itself is in full Great North Eastern Railway; I don't think that GNF is a separate one is it? To a railway buff such as myself I much prefer the well-established method of describing a line in itself - stations, junctions, tunnels etc - and then commenting that X and X and X services (each of whom should then have an article to itself) use the line. Unfortunately if you use the TOC publicity material it clouds the issue. Is that of any help? Regards Peter Shearan 10:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mention of proposed services is enough. Adapting the nav boxes for every proposed service, which are subject to change and cancellation, is messy and a step too far. Mrsteviec 11:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking surely? Kings cross is an inner-city district. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a suburb or suburban. Not by any accepted definition anyway. Mrsteviec 18:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing its existence but I'm not sure in what way those documents indicate that Kings Cross in Central London is suburban?

And by suburban I mean: Suburbs are inhabited districts located either on the outer rim of a city or outside the official limits of a city (the term varies from country to country), or the outer elements of a conurbation. Mrsteviec 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In London I would say suburban describes places that are mostly residential development, which is a massive area consisting of all of Outer London and much of Inner London. Many outer suburbs such as Romford, Kingston, Bromley or Uxbridge also have retail or commercial districts at their core but are surrounded by expansive beLts low density residential property.

Places in Central London and its environs with mixed commercial, industrial or high density residential use would be described as inner-city or built-up but definitely not suburban. Mrsteviec 19:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a terminus in a large city will be divided into long distance services and local ones. The local service platforms (particularly if they are physically separate from the long distance platforms) are sometimes called the "suburban" platforms, deriving their name from the nature of the services rather than the location of the terminus. Just a thought. Britmax 22:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe i should start answering things on my talkpage, on my talkpage more. Anyway King's Cross is an actual suburb in London, not just the name of the station. This discussion was over a dispute on the disambiguation page of King's Cross. Simply south 22:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And true. Sometimes you come in in the middle of something and miss nuances - or whole concepts. That said, I think I vaguely recall the platforms of Kings Cross Thameslink being called the "Suburban" platforms. Though that may have been unofficial. Is it me or is this Wiki thing habit forming and insidious? I'm going to bed now. Britmax 22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have added Manchester Victoria to {{UK Major Railway Stations}}. I hope that you read the discussion that we had on its talk page first! Also, regarding the usage statistics, see this discussion. --RFBailey 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for creating the template! Aquilina 20:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create redirects from the article space to the "Wikipedia:" space. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:3RR User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Midlands main railway stations. I suggest you might want to add a list of the related templates to the talk page, so that editors who want to improve the structure of the template in the future can find all of the others more easily. Also again a list of criteria would be useful to avoid the template becoming overly large. As to the name, both main or major seem fine to me, but you should try to keep consistency in the names of the whole template series. Road Wizard 15:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Merseyside_main_railway_stations I think producing the template was a good idea, but the criteria just seem a bit fuzzy. The more I think about it, the more I think it would be better to have templates for each of the Merseyrail lines instead. I'll try and starting putting something together on those in the next few days - they could run alongside the existing template, which would obviously include more stations. Mtpt 21:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

np - I realise it wasn't Merseyrail-centric, but it's liable to end up that way because of the number of Merseyrail versus non-Merseyrail stations in Merseyside. Mtpt 21:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments here. I have similar thoughts applying to the West Midlands and Greater Manchester templates.

By the way, what on earth do you mean by "attempting template" in your edit summaries? It doesn't make sense! Do you mean "adding" or "appending" instead? --RFBailey 08:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're testing things, try and do it in your user space (in the sandbox, or in subpages of your user page) rather than in the main article space. Take a look at my proposed template, and leave comments on the talk page at Template talk:Merseyside major railway stations.

On a related subject, when moving a page; make sure you move the actual article, and not just the talk page!

Incidentally, I wouldn't keep on saying "I'm new round here" for ever: you'll need to learn some time..... --RFBailey 22:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm glad you didn't remove your remark from my talk page: deleting things from talk pages is generally considered a big no-no.

Second, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a "major station". It is, by nature, completely subjective. That's why there was all the arguing at Template talk:UK Major Railway Stations. What happened there was that an earlier version grew so big with people blindly adding what they regarded as "major" stations to it, then there was a long debate about which ones to remove. A version based just on usage statistics was almost implemented, but this was also absurd, as it contained some very busy but otherwise unimportant commuter stations in the South East (e.g. Chelmsford). Eventually it was cut down, but then people stated suggesting others that could be added to it (e.g. Derby, Manchester Victoria), and there is a danger that we'll end up going round in circles.

While there is a case for having regional "major stations" templates, there is also a danger that this could cause even more arguing, something which I'm keen to avoid.

I don't want to discourage you from creating templates, but you should bear in mind:

• Any experimenting should be done in your user space. Only move it into the main article space when you're happy with it.
• Think about the likely consequences (e.g. the potential for massive arguments) that creating a template is going to have. Also, ask yourself, "Is this template actually useful, or am I creating it just for the sake of it?".
• Make sure you get the facts right!

I hope this helps. In the mean time, good luck with your exams! --RFBailey 09:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment here. Incidentally, the Wirral Line template wasn't my idea: it was User:Mtpt's. My suggestions are here, here and here. --RFBailey 21:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When asked a question on an article's talk page, it's best to reply on the same page, rather than on the questioner's user talk page. That way the discussion is kept all in one place, and enables anyone else who reads it (especially later) to follow the conversation. --RFBailey 13:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that I understand your question, but if you are wanting to get more information on the Subway then you could either ask me (if you have a specific question then feel free to ask, I'll try my best to answer) or try Wikipedia:Reference desk. You could also try posting on Talk:Glasgow Subway Cynical 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, hold on. Just read your Talk:Glasgow Subway post. I understand now - I'll see if I can expand the articles you created. Cynical 22:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note and your work on the FCC article! I have fixed up the references you have provided if you want to see an example of how to do it. There is more info on citation style at WP:CITE. However, simply being able to verify the information is more important than the particular style used for citation. You can insert simple web links using single square brackets instead of the double square brackets you use to insert WikiLinks. I still don't see anything in the linked sources about FCC's decision being under review. --Grouse 19:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem then is, if my IP changes and someone else gets that address it'll cause major confusion for everyone. It'll probably also get blocked for being "confusing" or "impersonatory". It's one of the better ideas I've heard yet, though... 68.39.174.238 17:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of table do you want to create? how many rows & columns? I generally steal an existing table & then amend it - that one I stuck in Talk:UK Railway Stations - S might do for a start. I'll have a look for a table tutorial - bound to be one somewhere. But tell me what you're wanting to do and I'll help if I can. Nah, I'm not into footie either, it was just an excuse not to do the work I've been avoiding for the last two days. So is helping you with tables :) --Tagishsimon (talk)

Ah yes: Help:Table --Tagishsimon (talk)

Hi Simply south, I have responded to your question about the Heavy rail section of Transport in London on the talk page for future reference for others editing the article. --Dave A 23:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page back to its original place. Although 'Buchanan Street bus station' may be its common name, that is of no consequence. If there is an official name then the Wikipedia article should use that - for example Glasgow Subway is almost always referred to as 'the Underground' but the page is still called 'Subway' because that is the actual name. Cynical 13:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

OK, there was some extra information in the 'uppercase article'. I've moved it to the 'lowercase article' (which seems to be the convention for such things - e.g. Cowcaddens subway station, Glasgow Queen Street station) and made the 'uppercase article' a redirect. Problem solved (hopefully). Cynical 18:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, for templates there is a Templates for deletion procedure. Any user can make a proposal, so you are allowed to. However, I would not recommend this course of action. In the case of Merseyside, I don't quite know what we should do, but I don't think deletion is the answer. In the case of the West Midlands, I haven't had any disquiet about my all-encompassing template proposal, so I think I'll go ahead and add it to the articles. (Similarly, for the other metropolitan counties.) In that case, your templates can be converted into redirects. --RFBailey 20:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's about improving the encyclopedia, user sub pages are fine: Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page? -- Jeandré, 2006-06-17t22:13z