Talk:List of stations in London fare zone 3

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of stations in London fare zone 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117151557/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/fares-and-tickets-zones1-6.pdf to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/fares-and-tickets-zones1-6.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119220745/http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1991/fulltext/305c10.pdf to http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1991/fulltext/305c10.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of stations in London fare zone 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013151520/http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/news.php?id=412 to http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/news.php?id=412
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of stations in London fare zone 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107063732/http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/news.php?id=518 to http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/news.php?id=518
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hello. Regarding this recent edit, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements suggests to me (and as detected by AWB) that the only thing appearing after Category is Stub. Thanks. JabberJaw (talk)  22:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Interlanguage links were listed after Stub, but removed in  by someone who assumed that Wikidata would remove the necessity for interlanguage links but didn't realise the severe limitations of Wikidata. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ok - so that shows that my edit was not incorrect in terms of current guidelines. my next Qu.s would be, why wasn't this 'problem/issue' detected for 5 years? and why does MOS/AWB still suggest otherwise (given the only reason I was here was because of AWB)? Thanks. JabberJaw (talk)  23:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: AWB is a pain, it isn't always in sync with normal practices. It assumes that any code that resembles a template transclusion  which occurs in the last section of the article must be a footer template, and must be gathered together after the external links and before the defaultsort, unless it can be positively identified as one of a number of exceptions - such as , defaultsort or a stub template.  is probably not in the AWB list of exceptions, and I don't know where that is held so can't amend it. There are not many pages that use the template - just 22 at the time of writing, so it's almost certainly something that few people are aware of. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ok - I understand. I would also say that AWB is useful if it gets policy clarified though. Maybe a report/feedback to AWB re this issue will help out, as will a comment to MOS talkpage re. the lapse. I assume AWB follow things such as MOS, so having that updated will flow back into AWB. Further, given just 22 instances as mentioned, is it so problematic if they happen to be auto-moved? (i.e. what functionality breaks when moved?) Anyway, I will endeavour to avoid these 22 exceptions from now on if I see them again! Thanks JabberJaw (talk)  00:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit