This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crouch,_Swale.
Hi Crouch, Swale hope your doing okay. Was just wondering without seemingly canvassing. Do you think Buckinghamshire has possible grounds for a unitary area article similar to Shropshire? DragonofBatley (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand why you have recreated this article. An explanation of what a name means is not an indication of notability. Its just a part of Thornhill, not a separate place or even a civil parish. The reference can be transferred to the Thornhill article which could and should be expanded. What is it notable for? Esemgee (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esemgee: There has been debate about notability, see the page history, you merged it with the reason "single-line unreferenced referenced stub, not edited for years" and it was restored with a PROD and then redirected again, I then restored it with a ref meaning you're merge reason no longer applied. I'm not sure if it qualifies for a separate article but given the history I'd suggest tagging it with {{Merge to}} and start a discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But another user has already restored it with the reason "A 17 years old stub should not be redirected (removed) without consensus." and I also restored it with a source. That seems to make it controversial enough per WP:MERGEINIT. In terms of notability (1) it has a reliable source discussing its name history and (2) its an OS settlement which may qualify it as legally recognized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other user wanted to restore it to delete it. A name on a map does not make a place notable. I don't know where you got that idea. I don't think you understand notability. Esemgee (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started an article on Leckhampton with Warden Hill, which you might like to elaborate on... in 2011 census it was only called Leckhampton, so I don't know whether it's expanded?
But here's another anomaly: Cheltenham says "The borough contains three civil parishes within its boundaries." (under "Neighbourhoods") but also "Four parishes—Swindon Village, Up Hatherley, Leckhampton and Prestbury—were added to the borough of Cheltenham from the borough of Tewkesbury in 1991." (under "Administrative history") and the L with WH parish council website says "Leckhampton with Warden Hill is one of only five parishes within Cheltenham Borough Council's area".
@PamD: Thanks for creating it, I have added an infobox etc. It appears per UKBMD to have been renamed in 2019 however there is an Order in 2018 using the longer name but I'm unable to find any other sources for a rename so we'll probably just have to go with 2019 for the rename since as you say the 2011 census uses the shorter name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother adding a ref if it's already dead? You seem to have blindly copied the 2011 census figure, complete with a 2015 access-date, although we know the "neighbourhood statistics" refs are all dead. Surely if you add a ref you check that it works, and fix it if it doesn't? Or perhaps you don't, and the people who turned down your appeal know it. And although I gave you the source, above, you didn't mention that the area of the parish was increased susbtantially, not just a rename.
@PamD: Yes the ref was moved from the other article with a 2015 access date which seems correct, when moving content from another Wikipedia article I think we would keep the access date for when the content was added to the other article even if the URL is today dead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should add any reference without checking, ourself, that it supports the content, and updating to the date we have added it. You are responsible for references you add, and it doesn't make sense to add a reference which you already know doesn't work. PamD12:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You talk about "when moving content from another Wikipedia article", but there are two possible scenarios:
# You copy text and refs from another article and acknowledge this with the proper {{copied}} template on talk page of both articles
# You add material yourself, with a reference which you may have found in another article but which you have verified for yourself.
Remember that we do not consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source, so you cannot just copy chunks of one article, or refs, into another article unless you have verified the content and the sources for yourself. "Access-date" means "date I have seen this material online and confirm that it supports the content I am using it to support". You should not be adding content to an article unless you have seen the source for yourself. PamD12:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would fall under the 1st option and I attributed the content in my edit summary which seems to be enough given the content was minor though I admit I have moved larger amounts of content before and only used edit summaries when I could also have used the template. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does readers, and your editing reputation, a diservice when you introduce material sourced to a dead link, especially when you know how to find a usable source instead. Copying a useless reference is pointless. PamD18:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GabrielPenn4223: Pageviews are the main way of determining if something is primary by usage as it shows how many people read the relevant articles, obviously it doesn't show what terms people use to get there but if you have "Foo (film)" and "Foo (album)" and both get a similar number of views it probably shows they aren't primary by usage. The other things I commonly use are Google (main) which is also useful for usage but can be biased due to location, Images which tends to be less biased but can overly show PTMs (like Lincoln mainly shows Abraham Lincoln for example) and Books which can show long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot verify that it meets WP:NGEOGRAPHY. Online results mostly concern a vineyard; a cursory search on Google Maps points to a small forest, not a hamlet. Evidence of settlement is just one passing reference in a town council meeting to a "residential burglary", while the county council results either speak of a wood being cleared or a road called Winding Wood. All this is insufficient evidence of human settlement or a notable wood.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi there - thanks for your message about my PROD of Government Colony High School. already at AFD though as a speedy keep but even still should probably go again not PROD. I am new to Wikipedia - so still discovering the best way to do things. Could you please explain your message and what I need to do? (I think you are saying that PROD is not appropriate and I ought to trigger abother AFD process. But I am not sure if that is what you are saying. And I am not sure how to do it). Thanks - Newhaven lad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newhaven lad (talk • contribs) 09:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined your R3 / replaced with a G4 request, as I don't believe the page qualifies for speedy deletion under either rationale. Capitalization changes at the beginning of words, or disambiguators, are not implausible typos. Regarding the RfD discussion linked, that's not particularly relevant given that this redirect was not included in that batch. To be clear, that batch of nominations cannot be used as the rationale for pages that were not included in that batch and I agree with @Jay's reversal of @JalenFolf changing the speedy deletion tag from the R3 that you applied to a G4. WP:RDAB is an essay and if you want this type of redirect to be eligible for speedy deletion then it needs to be proposed for inclusion under an existing or new criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: I think it does qualify as a recently created misnomer. As said on the talk page and RFD redirects from other capitalizations can be helpful if they are part of the title without the qualifier. There is no more reason to have a redirect at London (Disambiguation) than at Paris (Disambiguation), Jupiter (Disambiguation), Mercury (Disambiguation) or Manchester (Disambiguation) or any of the other 220,510 DAB pages. I agree G4 doesn't apply because the redirect wasn't nominated though it was discussed when (at that time) it didn't exist but I think R3 applies and the consensus there supports deleting and yes there hasn't been consensus to create a specific criteria for such redirects but the existing R3 can probably be used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Words utilizing title case as opposed to sentence case do not quality for R3 as they are not implausible. You're welcome to bring this up on at WT:CSD, and I'd be glad to respect the result of a discussion with more experienced admins, but I don't see it fitting under any of our current deletion rationales without an expansion or more details being added to them. Note that this exact redirect (which was created after the discussion took place) was discussed with @Thryduulf at WT:CSD, who also thought that improperly capitalized disambiguators shouldn't be speedily deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not immediately certain which redirect this discussion relates to, but "(Disambiguation)" is a plausible search term so definitely not speediable. I don't advocate creating them as a matter of routine, but if they are created that indicates someone found it useful and as there is no benefit at all to deletion, deleting them is a small net negative to the project. Something like "(DIsambiguation)" on the other hand is not a plausible and would be eligible for R3 (assuming the other requirements of that criterion are met). Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I think the discussion Hey man im josh is referring to is this one. As Uanfala noted in the RFD there is no particular reason these should be treated any differently to the other DABs and that miscapitalisations may be useful but even that is applicable to the specific part of the title, "Foo (bar)", and not the generic or technical portion, "Foo (bar)". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never the less, it doesn't fit the scope of any of our current CSD criterion, so I don't think debating it is particularly relevant here. If you want it included and to be CSD-able, then you need to make a proposal for such. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You can certainly argue that, but as I (and many others) disagree it's very clearly not something suitable for speedy deletion. From a reader's perspective there is no difference between using a different capitalisation to the one we have chosen (sometimes arbitrarily) in the "generic" and "technical" portions. The only other argument I recall seeing is that it makes things harder for some tools, but we should always alter our tools to deal with the encyclopaedia as it is rather than alter then encyclopaedia to make life easier for tool authors/maintainers (unless such changes are truly invisible to readers). Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a reader's prospective there is nothing different about London (Disambiguation) than Paris (Disambiguation) or Jupiter (Disambiguation). Also searching for "Jupiter (Disambiguation)" with the search box returns the correctly titled DAB page Jupiter (disambiguation). As a reader I find redirects from incorrect capitalizations annoying when they show up in the search suggestions instead of the correct version. From an editor's prospective these redirects are inconvenient. There is no reason to have a small number of redirects that are very unlikely to be useful to our readers due to the incorrect capitalization of Wikipedia qualifiers that the search corrects anyway so I can't see why we need them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a reader perspective I don't care whether I arrive at the page I want directly or via a redirect. I do care that I arrive at a page inviting me to create an article and/or search instead of the page I wanted. Search suggestions are only available for a subset of the ways people look for Wikipedia content, and matching of different capitalisations is available for a different subset. Multiple search suggestions are absolutely trivial (but phab:T24251 is a request for a way to manage these) in comparison as both will take you to the page you want to go to.
If you think readers are likely to benefit from "(Disambiguation)" redirects then why don't you start a request to get a bot to create them all? Otherwise WP:PANDORA and WP:OTHERSTUFF are perfectly valid reasons for deletion. There is no reason that I can see that London (Disambiguation) would be useful but every other wouldn't be or don't need to exist. I know you have said something like you aren't interested in getting them created but if you think we should keep some we should do that for all as all DABs are the same and function in the same way so there is no merits to consider that are different about 1 redirect than all the others and Paris (Disambiguation) doesn't exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is almost never relevant - something else (not) existing is not a reason why a given page should (not) exist. WP:PANDORA is even less relevant as it's just WP:OTHERSTUFF with a side helping of WP:CYRSTAL. I also addressed this point in a previous message I don't advocate creating them as a matter of routine, but if they are created that indicates someone found it useful and as there is no benefit at all to deletion, deleting them is a small net negative to the project. So yes, I agree that we should keep all the others that have been created and am arguing exactly that at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 6#Superdome (Stadium). Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eltham".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi! Sorry to bother you ... is this just a simple C&P error or similar? Unless I am going mad, or it is another one with the same name, they're nowhere near each other. I have changed it to Rothley but please tell me if I am barking up the wrong tree here! Hope you are well, Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unparished areas by definition are not administrative areas and do not have official names. Where abolished urban districts or boroughs within the same modern district adjoin, there is no "unparished area boundary" between them - for example whilst Dorking and Leatherhead were separate urban districts prior to 1974, both now form part of the single wider unparished area of the modern district of Mole Valley.
Care should be taken not to give the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough.
This issue has been explained several times. Please stop pretending, as you did with your edits at Ashtead and Ashford, Surrey yesterday, that the "unparished area of Leatherhead" and the "unparished area of Staines" exist or have existed. I very strongly suggest that you do not add any more information on unparished areas to the encyclopedia.
Mertbiol (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mertbiol: The consensus was that unparished areas generally shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. Yes there may be no "formal" boundary but I thought the general rule was that such individual unparished areas should normally be mentioned even if they form part of a wider "unparished part" of a modern district. Unfortunately UKBMD has stopped listing the individual unparished areas but it still mentions the towns in the wider unparished areas. I'd note that with Ashtead it appears that it was part of Epsom Rural District from 1894 to 1933 and then Leatherhead Urban District from 1933 to 1974[1]. The parish council was indeed abolished because it appears to have become an urban parish of Leatherhead UD but the parish appears to still have existed until 1974, at the least it appears to have existed in 1951 as there is still census data, see User talk:Stortford#Woking. We could rephrase it to something like "it became part of the unparished area of Leatherhead in Mole Valley" or use a similar format to Skegby#History. Note that "Ashtead" would not be an individual unparished area even though it appears to have been a parish until 1974 since as noted at Talk:Bulkington#Parish we don't normally use the urban parishes to define individual unparished areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unparished areas by definition are not administrative areas and do not have official names. Where abolished urban districts or boroughs within the same modern district adjoin, there is no "unparished area boundary" between them - for example whilst Dorking and Leatherhead were separate urban districts prior to 1974, both now form part of the single wider unparished area of the modern district of Mole Valley.
Care should be taken not to give the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough.
BMD was wrong when it listed "the individual unparished areas" - it has since improved the way that is displays this information (and it no longer supports Skinsmoke's interpretation that you seem determined to cling to - despite being told serveral times that this is wrong). The quote above makes it very clear that there is and was no such thing as the "unparished area of Leatherhead" - there is simply nothing to debate here. It really does seem that you do not understand what an unparished area is and (more importantly) what it is not. Please stop including information about named unparished areas in Wikipedia articles. Mertbiol (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mertbiol: Although the position of unparished areas being part of a wider district's unparished area was part of the proposal/consensus it doesn't seem like stating that they are part of the modern unparished area's district has ever been used by the proposer, see Special:Diff/1173644621. I don't think it was ever intended for us to simply say that such place is in the unparished area of "Mole Valley". Such a statement is arguably as meaningless as saying Beare Green is in the parished area of Mole Valley as opposed to saying its in the parish of Capel. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: This is getting very tedious. You should not write "the unparished area of Leatherhead" and you should not write "the unparished area of Mole Valley". As you have put it, these statements are "meaningless". They are meaningless because unparished areas are not formally defined. They do not exist in their own right. As Stortford has said "unparished areas - they are not things in their own right, but are rather the absence of other things". By trying to give these areas a name, you are making them sound official, when they are not. Mertbiol (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a consensus that unparished areas can still be discussed in articles though the guidance isn't clear about if this is only for the settlements that were districts or other settlements that are/were within them but indeed in Skegby the fact Sutton in Ashfield UD became unparished is discussed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it doesn't support this today but it used to namely when I set up the unparished categories. Unfortunately the Wayback Machine doesn't show it for Surrey Mid Eastern but it does for Gravesend, see here where it does make reference to the individual unparished areas. While I agree that the Local Government Act 1972 didn't explicitly create the unparished area of "Dorking" and the unparished area of "Leatherhead" it did abolish both district and didn't establish successor parishes so essentially as a result these areas are unparished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A simple "yes" or "no" is all we need. What UK BMD did or didn't say in the past is irrelevant.
So to summarise, you agree that UK BMD does not support the existence of a "Leatherhead unparished area" or the "unparished area of Leatherhead".
Great. We both agree that the Leatherhead Urban District is a pre-1974 district that was abolished under the Local Government Act 1972, so I won't ask you to confirm this. You also agree that the same act did not create named unparished areas corresponding to the pre-1974 districts.
Do you agree that the wording "Care should be taken not to give the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough" in How to write about parishes#Unparished areas means that you should avoid introducing the concept of an "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area". Mertbiol (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both points.
I'm not sure on this, indeed it suggests we should treat both Dorking and Leatherhead as a single unparished area. As I've noted I don't think that was the intention as the OP doesn't appear to have used this and instead as with Skegby made reference to the pre 1974 district being abolished and no successor parish being established and as such becoming an unparished area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so you agree with both points - and it is wrong to write "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article.
The Skegby article does not explicitly say the "unparished area of Sutton in Ashfield", so it is not directly relevant to the point that I am making here. In my opinion, the wording in the Skegby article is in conflict with How to write about parishes#Unparished areas and should be changed. (Although Stortford made a small edit to this article at the end of last year, he may not have noticed this wording.)
Do you now agree that you must not use the phrases "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article? Yes or no? Mertbiol (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the Skegby article does arguably conflict with the guidance but I don't think the consensus was not to do this, the consensus was that they don't belong in the lead and that we need to be careful about how we word things. I think rather we may need to reword the guidance, I don't think there was a consensus to remove unparished areas completely from articles just from the leads and to be careful about how we word things. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to talk any more about the Skegby article - it's a distraction from the main conversation here. We can return to it later.
Again, yes or no - do you agree that you must not use the phrases "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article? Mertbiol (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so we need to go back a step. You have already agreed that the 1972 act "did not create named unparished areas corresponding to the pre-1974 districts". Do you agree that writing "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article gives "the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough"? Mertbiol (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, as I said the "Dorking" and "Leatherhead" unparished areas resulted from the districts being abolished and no successor parish. I agree the way I wrote it may well give that impression and the way Skegby was changed to avoids this. When I've added the information on former parishes normally I add the population at the most recent census and when the parish was abolished and where it went to. With areas that ended up in unparished areas I tend to just put the individual unparished area but I agree this may suggest it has an official name/boundary so it may be better to state that the urban district the parish was in was abolished and no successor parish was formed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. So do you now agree that you must not use the phrases "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article? Mertbiol (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before we talk about an alternative wording, I need a yes or no answer to the question.
Do you now agree that you must not use the phrases "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article? Yes or no? Mertbiol (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! Let's think now about Skegby.
It's good that this article does not explicitly mention the "unparished area of Sutton in Ashfield". This is the final sentence of the relevant paragraph, which says: "No successor parish was created for the former urban district and so it became an unparished area." The problem comes with the second half, which could be read (as you have already noted) that there is or was such a thing as the "unparished area of Sutton in Ashfield", when in fact it should simply indicate that Skegby is not part of a civil parish.
Thinking more broadly now. I would be happy for you to use the following wording in similar articles:
"In 1951 (or whatever the last census available is), the Civil Parish of X had a population of 9876.[Vision of Britain] Y Urban District was abolished in 1974 to become part of the new district/borough of Z. No successor parish was created for the former urban district and Settlement X became part of an unparished area.[UK BMD]"
I think the current wording is preferable, it seems like a reasonable compromise to saying its in Sutton in Ashfield unparished area so I'd suggest to leave it as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not an "official" one but one that resulted from the abolition. As noted the person who proposed the changes wrote this so it doesn't appear it was the intention to remove individual unparished areas completely just to be careful about how we word it which the current wording does seem to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The official unparished area is the one we need to be concerned with. We can't invent our own unparished areas or use unoffical definitions. As the guidance says (and we have discussed above) "Care should be taken not to give the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough." Do you agree that we need should use official definitions only as defined by UK government legislation - yes or no. Mertbiol (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The accepted definition for unparished areas does appear to be the pre 1974 UD. I agree we need to be careful about how we word it but stating that a former UD became an unparished area doesn't seem against the guidance. As noted UKBMD did formerly lists such individual unparished areas. I think we need to be careful about how we word things that don't have official definitions but I don't think its prohibited to use such things as long as we be careful about how we word things. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just wrong: "The accepted definition for unparished areas does appear to be the pre 1974 UD." This is also wrong: "stating that a former UD became an unparished area doesn't seem against the guidance."
We are beginning to go round in circles here - you are rowing back on the very clear yes/no answers which you gave earlier in this discussion. I think the thing to do now is to ask for Storford's input into the specific wording on the Skegby article. I will leave a note on his talk page later today and will invite you to join that discussion. In the meantime, I am grateful to you for agreeing that you will not use the wording "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in articles. Mertbiol (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After allowing a little time to pass, I just need to tidy up a loose end or two from our discussions earlier this weekend. With the input of both Stortford and Rupples, the Skegby article has been improved. We now have a good paragraph that describes the abolition of the relevant civil parish, without diving off into original research. I expect you to use this form of words in articles (adapted as appropriate with no mention of unparished areas whatsoever) going forwards.
I would note that the consensus is further from your own position than the compromise paragraph that I proposed above — there is a lesson in there for you, but I doubt very much that you will learn it.
I'm sure that you will respond to this message by protesting how you still feel that some of Skinsmoke's ideas are justified. But I am not interested. We have been over this ground several times and I will not be commenting further. I regard this matter as closed.
I recall SilkTork writing to you: "there is a limit to how much time can be given to assist one person before good will and patience starts to wear out... [you give] the impression that your focus is on yourself rather than the project and those others who volunteer here.... You have over the years taken up a deal of my time..." I know exactly how he feels. Mertbiol (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mertbiol: The discussion and guidance does say "It may be appropriate to mention in a governance section on the pages for those settlements that they are now an unparished area, but this information is best presented alongside discussion on the current administrative arrangements for that settlement. Care should be taken not to give the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough. As such, it is best not to mention unparished areas in the lead.". Yes stating such a settlement is now in the unparished area of X gives the impression that there is an "official" unparished area but given Stortford made mention of Sutton in Ashfield district having no successor parish and becoming an unparished area. Yes I understand how Stortford put it gives less of the impression of an "official" unparished area than the way I was putting it but as mentioned it doesn't seem there was a consensus/the intention was to not mention them at all. You appear to be saying that they suddenly shouldn't be mentioned despite the guidance apparently saying they can though as mentioned its not clear if that refers to the likes of Sutton-in-Ashfield or other places in the former UD like Skegby. I will however not add anymore mentions of unparished areas until we get consensus on this though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sharlston Hall, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
@162 etc.: Because there seems to have been concern at the discussions at Talk:Stressed Out about Psychological stress though its only listed in the "See also" it is linked directly in the hatnote at Stressed Out which also suggests it is a plausible target. It seems there is consensus that the song is primary for the upper case version but not for the lower case version. However I'm not sure if "Psychological stress" is really a likely search term even for lower case so it might be worth a RFD which I can start if you want. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason for Stressed Out and Stressed out to arrive at different articles. Should an RFD be opened, I would be in favour of making the lowercase a primary redirect to the article at Stressed Out as an R from lowercase. At Talk:Stressed Out, the consensus at RM was to make the song the primary topic; I don't see any consensus (or any discussion at all) concerning a different target for Stressed out. 162 etc. (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
DAB pages can have red links, see MOS:DABRL. If you think its a problem with the link being red you could create an article on the Tewkesbury one or redirect it to Bishop's Cleeve (and mention it there). There isn't a Brockhampton in the town of Tewkesbury but there is one in the district of Tewkesbury just like the other is in Cotswold district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Eyre, Raasay, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Eyre".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Old Custom House, Ipswich, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
I'm finding this latest batch odd/irritating. Take Tŷ Mawr, Dingestow. The article is about the group of buildings. Its first line says, "Tŷ Mawr in Dingestow, Monmouthshire is a complex of farm buildings". Why therefore would you pick the gatehouse out? KJP1 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Could you please take at look at Ollerton and Ollerton and Boughton (parish), as it's classified as a town council with a mayor; I'm unsure how this omission should be reflected on-Wiki. I don't have time to research or enough background, but it would probably be expeditious for someone with your interests. Thanks. 82.13.47.210 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, strange, and IMO even stranger not to include mentioning the town council-with-mayor, presumably as not in context to the chosen - considered - content of the articles. I emailed the parish clerk (for want of a better title) probably a year ago - maybe as there was no press coverage - but forgot until today; I don't think there was a reply.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the town council and mayor should be discussed in the parish article, I was just saying I don't think we should describe the parish as a town. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore this redirect that you deleted out of process and reopen the discussion that was ongoing. G7 does not apply when there are good faith recommendations to do anything other than delete, and there was no case for a SNOW closure as (despite what you might personally think about the outcome after a week) there was no consensus at the time you closed it, and a real prospect of an uninvolved closer determining a different outcome on the strength of the arguments (despite assertions to harm no actual explanation for why it was harmful or evidence of harm had been presented). Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've left a message on Jake's talk page. To avoid this sort of mistaken accusation (for which I apologise) in future, consider being explicit about who deleted the page in the closing summary (e.g. "deleted by Thryduulf" rather than "delete"). Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I did think after I noticed the 2nd keep !vote that maybe I shouldn't have closed it but I thought it may well qualify close to show but I just thought that I'd leave it closed and if someone objected (as you have) I could just revert. I did mention who deleted it namely by saying "The result of the discussion was speedy delete''' per G7 by {{admin|Jake Wartenberg}}" as noted by WP:NACD "If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone with a registered account may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale.". Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steinsky has not edited the article, as far as I can see, and that talk page discussion does not justify having data in the article with no visible source. Please add a ref. Thanks. PamD06:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: I'll wait for them to reply, yes I realize I probably should not have added data that I could not see myself but hopefully they can show us how to access it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using the data I imported to Wikidata, you can use {{subst:User:Steinsky/ref census2021}} as a citation. That goes a little further than the suggested ref code I gave in the discussion on the infobox page, in that it names the specific table that the data comes from -- because ONS only publish the data in spreadsheets you have to download, and the Wikidata reference structure doesn't make it easy to add that kind of detail. (I've started going even further and adding the specific GSS code and parish name to my citations, just for added verifiability hand-holding if somebody really wants to download the spreadsheet and jump to the relevant row, but I haven't gotten around to looking up the code to automate doing that yet.) Cheers, Joe D(t)11:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the population needs to have a ref in the article too: the infobox should only be duplicating content already present and sourced in the text, surely? PamD11:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsky Thanks for your work on this. It's such a shame that NOMIS no longer provides the all-on-one-page parish data complete with helpful map. OK, looking at it again now, I see and can follow the reference. Another helpful "handholding" might be to remind people that it's (in this case) "Charnwood" that they need to use in selecting the "Geography" in the search, for someone who wants to see just the one parish's data without downloading the whole spreadsheet.
At this level the note about adjusting small numbers to preserve personal info probably kicks in, so I wonder whether we should cite the "9" as "approximately 9"? I see they were in approx 6 households, too: the properties on the site which is about to be (is being?) redeveloped with 3,200 houses. PamD12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a parishes geek, can you shed any light on "former civil parish" here, given that the source provided is positively contradictory? PamD12:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Small cat has been deprecated. It is no longer a Wikipedia guideline. The current most related guideline is narrowcat, which says we should not have categories covering topics so narrow that we do not have adequate articles yo create a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading template on your user page
Hi, I'm Kolano123. I would like to let you know that you left the banned user template on your user page, and it may have to be removed because it is quite misleading. After it is removed, you may convert it to a proper user page about yourself. Remember, do not add inappropriate or suppressible information to it. Doing so can get you blocked or even banned from editing. I know we don't want that, Crouch, Swale. Kolano123 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, bans do need consensus to be carried out, and there is no current consensus or discussion for it, as the ban discussion closed many years ago. Kolano123 (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Former civil parish
Hi, I am not sure that making an edit like this is particularly accurate. The article is about the current unparished area in Greater Manchester, not the parish of a former version of Cheshire which existed 1866 to 1894. Not looked at whether you've made any others. Have you got a comment? Rcsprinter123(chew)21:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rcsprinter123: The article deals with both the current unparished area in Greater Manchester and the former parish in Cheshire. If a current unparished area was also a parish (which most were as most urban districts that became unparished areas contained only 1 parish of the same name) which most were then they are put in both the unparished area category and the former parishes category. Also note that the correct county is the area the former parish is now located rather than when it functioned, see Category:Former civil parishes in England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
As parishes geek, could you check the statement that " the parish was abolished and merged with East Barkwith and Wragby."? There seems no sign of Panton in the map of Wragby parish. Thanks. PamD08:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Most of the former parish went to East Barkwith and the village of Panton is today in East Barkwith but according to the source part went to Wragby (probably a small western part). Its also possible there could have been further boundary changes moving land from East Barkwith to Wragby if it doesn't look like any of the former Panton parish is in the current Wragby parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typos
You might want to check the preamble of your post about districts, to help people read it. I think "but" might be "about" and "on" might be "or", but leaving it to you in case not. PamD06:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very aware of the history you have at ArbCom (other than what was recently filed), but you might want to consider contacting admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks if you just want to leave and have a hard time doing so. I'd rather people not leave the project (and whenever I've seen you around, I've had a good impression) but I also realize that Wikipedia can be addicting and I understand if maybe you find it hard to just logout and not log back in. Regardless, I wish you the best in life. Clovermoss🍀(talk)22:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, if it's a matter of not feeling you're good enough, please reach out to your friends. I don't know you that well so I'm not the best person to give a pep talk... but if it helps, know that we are not our worst mistakes. My email is open if you want to reach out (although I also understand if you don't want to). Clovermoss🍀(talk)22:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add the hatnote ... just stopped for a pot of tea! I don't often bother creating infoboxes, so thanks for that too. I saw the comment at Talk:Wragby#Another_Wragby_-_West_Yorkshire and couldn't resist the challenge. Much more of a place, at least historically, than many wards/"suburbs"! PamD18:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Looking for areas to focus on? I've been cleaning up Carlossuarez's Iranian stuff and there's still loads in there. Sri Lanka is also a big mess. FOARP (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: I check the geography deletion discussions and proposed deletion but I don't know much about what should and shouldn't be included in terms of abadi etc so I wouldn't know what should be deleted and kept if I was to go through Carlossuarez's articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't begin to understand about Categories.
I know if I don't include enough, I get folks telling me to add more.
And when I add more, someone comes along and deletes it?
(when in my eyes its perfectly valid}.
Already had a link to RNLI lifeboats, which is why I reverted your edit.
So while you may well be correct about Norfolk category - although goodness knows how anyone is supposed to know, you really should make an effort to explain why you are deleting something. AND - if its not valid to have in a Norfolk category, why haven't you then gone through all the other listings in Norfolk category, and amended them too?
Hi Crouch, Swale. Thank you for your work on Hadleigh Hamlet. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
A hamlet (still an occupied place) with at least 2 references, although all references are routine listsings. There isn't an easy alternative target to merge the hamlet to (located between Boxford and Kersey), and the article matches the quality of several in Category:Former civil parishes in Suffolk.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
@PamD: Where does it say "Hadley Heath"? Its not a hamlet at least not today (unless its been mixed up with Wicker Street Green) but it was a parish so doesn't need to be merged. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Thanks fixed mistake, I used the search box to try to find "Hadley" in the text and couldn't and didn't notice "Heath" instead of "Hamlet". There is a hamlet called Hadleigh Heath in the parish of Polstead but this article is about the former parish in between Boxford and Kersey. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, sorry, I complicated matters by misspelling the first word while querying the second. Sorry about that! PamD18:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojsyork: Unfortunately some users just revert an entire edit which contains a minor problem instead of fixing the minor problem even when easy to fix, see WP:FIXFIRST. The fact that you're good contribution of creating the article had a minor problem (the category being removed) shouldn't mean that you're whole edit should be reverted instead the minor problem should be fixed which I have done. Don't worry too much if you do remove categories in the future when creating articles on redirects as its easy to fix and content creation should be the priority. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean minor stuff like you did, which was quite correct anyway.
I have someone who systematically and deliberately reverts and edits lots of my work, just because he doesn't approve of pretty much anything I create. He will change whatever he can, even changing things that he did in the same style previously, just to make it different, and stamp his mark. But done strategically, leaves its maybe 6 months, so I can't complain of edit waring.
Expect to see edits of Yealm River and Watchet Lifeboat stations sometime in about 6 months!
I never expected someone would be so bloody minded...!!
Thanks for the advice, but we are at a point where discussion is useless.
It doesn't matter what I say to protest, highlight the ridiculousness, it all falls on deaf ears, and it will get changed, be it now, or in six months. He's been amending everything I'd done since I started editing 13 months ago, despite having been here 10 years, and had plenty of time to do it first.
It need someone else to be questioning his actions, as we now have no mutual respect for each other.
.jpg)
