User talk:MRSC/Archive 14

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)