User talk:Crouch, Swale

Welcome!

Hello, Crouch, Swale, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. ϢereSpielChequers 13:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Crawshaw, West Yorkshire

Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Crawshaw, West Yorkshire, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Submitting "uncontroversial technical requests"

I have declined a move request you placed under "uncontroversial technical requests" because of you being restricted from moving pages, and me having the impression that having others move pages for you as "uncontroversial technical requests" goes against the spirit of the restriction. I will restore your request if whether such a request does not breach your restriction can be verified. (Also, apologies for calling the request "evasion". That was not civil of me.) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Mellohi!: It does not breach my restriction on moving pages, see Special:Diff/969670285 and #RM above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Alright, reverted my revert. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I've completed this request. Please let me know if there's anything where you need my help. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 18:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mellohi! and AafiOnMobile: Thanks, all done, links have been fixed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Eltham, New South Wales

Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Eltham, New South Wales, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Preston, Northumberland

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Preston".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Crawshaw, West Yorkshire

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Crawshaw".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Folkingham

Hello. Folkingham has recently grown, and looks like an article that might benefit from your expertise. Certes (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: Everything looks fine. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Rfc raised

Hi I raised an RFC, as it just seems to us two talking about it, the government can't be consistent on naming and should we really have districts, councils or both, we really need community concensus. I have mentioned the conversation on the pump policy so hopefully it will be get some more discussion. I have tried to put a neutral rfc together and I will stay out of the discussion and let the community decide. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Spittalfield

Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Spittalfield, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Nested categories

I am surprised to see that Bletchley doesn't have a Category:Milton Keynes. Before I just assume that this is due to someone's odd perspective, could it be that it has something to do with nested categories (which I have never really understood and help:categories doesn't really help. Advice? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

A stalker writes: It's in via Civil parishes in Milton Keynes Borough. Other members of that category aren't added directly to Milton Keynes. Certes (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thks. But the CP is Bletchley and Fenny Stratford, which contains two towns. Either way, it just seems really odd if such major components are not visible at the top of the category. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

and, fwiw, "Bletchley" (as locally understood) also includes West Bletchley CP. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thinking in a bit more detail about this, there are actually two natural hierarchies to take into account:

• administrative: borough, cp, (neighborhood)
• settlement: city, constituent town or village, neighborhood.

Does that imply two category nests? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• @John Maynard Friedman: Yes the Category:Civil parishes in Milton Keynes Borough comes from being nestled in Template:Milton Keynes parishes (at the bottom of the template in between the </noinclude><includeonly> </includeonly> the category is there) which I have removed from the article and added Category:Milton Keynes directly. I'm not sure that Category:Civil parishes in Milton Keynes Borough should exist as its generally not desirable to subdivide by district apart from things directly related to the district like elections of maps of it (on Commons) and people from. I would personally put all civil parishes in Buckinghamshire in just Category:Civil parishes in Buckinghamshire and Category:Milton Keynes as the majority of readers probably won't know which district a parish (or settlement building etc) are in. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as we already have {{Milton Keynes parishes}}, that cat would seem redundant. If you want to propose a CfD/CfM, I will support. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 26#Category:Civil parishes in Milton Keynes Borough. Due to the nestling some articles such as List of places in Buckinghamshire, Broughton and Milton Keynes Parish Council and Tyringham are there but don't belong there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't have (and couldn't justify) separate articles for Tyringham with Filgrave, so the T with F CP is described in the Tyringham article. So what doesn't belong? Or have I missed your point? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC) revised --17:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Broughton and Milton Keynes redirects to Broughton and Milton Keynes Parish Council but presumably redirects can have cats? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I get the B&MK one: two CPs with a joint PC. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Well the parish "Tyringham and Filgrave" has a distinct name and is quite different to the village "Tyringham" so I don't see why we wouldn't have separate articles but even if we don't have an article for the CP the categorization is inappropriate and per WP:TCAT this kind of nestling generally isn't a good idea so even if we keep the MK CP category it should probably be removed from the template. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC) @John Maynard Friedman: It looks like the parish has existed for a long time (1639). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it legit to create a redirect article for the correct CP name (to Tyringham#Civil parish and put the cat there? Ditto for Milton Keynes (civil parish). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Tyringham and Filgrave already redirects to Tyringham#Civil parish and is in Category:Civil parishes in Milton Keynes Borough directly but if created separately {{Milton Keynes parishes}} could be removed from the village article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I've removed the nestled category and tagged Category:Civil parishes in the City of Milton Keynes for deletion following the consensus to delete the original. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Districts

Hi - I came across this and just thought I would drop you a line to congratulate you on an excellent piece of work! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: Thanks, yes I do a lot of work with settlements and administrative units. Most of the time an article exists on the settlement such as Colchester and post 1974 district Borough of Colchester and the district council Colchester Borough Council redirects to it, see WP:UKDISTRICTS. In some cases like Eastbourne there is no separate article for the district normally because the district was reconstituted in [1] 1974] (for districts 6 and 7 only 1 former district is listed while most of the others were formed from multiple districts merging) with no significant boundary changes an no parishes have since been formed so the district is a single unparished area. When there is no separate article on the district an article on the district council should exist namely Eastbourne Borough Council. The district that are combined with a settlement, are a single unparished area and there is no separate article on the district council either are Crawley Borough Council, based at Crawley Town Hall (also missing), Gosport Borough Council, based at Gosport Town Hall (also missing), Hastings Borough Council, based at Muriel Matters House (also missing), City of Lincoln Council, based at Lincoln City Hall (also missing), Tamworth Borough Council, based at Marmion House (also missing) and Woking Borough Council, based at Civic Offices, Woking (also missing). So yes the buildings as well as the councils appear to be missing though I'm not sure if I named all the buildings correctly. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I will take a look at some of these. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: As you can see following the creation of City of Lincoln Council the list has now been updated to show that although there isn't a separate article for Lincoln district there is one for the council. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi - Articles on all six borough councils now completed. Please feel free to expand them. I am not planning to write articles on Muriel Matters House or Marmion House as they don't look particularly notable to me and I have already written articles on their predecessor buildings, Hastings Town Hall and Tamworth Town Hall. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: Thanks, will expand them, I could also produce a list of municipal buildings that are HQ for county and district councils but as you note not all of them are necessarily notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am already pretty familiar with the ones that are notable. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: I've expanded them, thanks for the new articles. Its possibly one day someone will create separate articles for the districts themselves in which case the councils should be merged but until/if that happens everything's good. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: I've created User:Crouch, Swale/County council buildings which lists the current county council's HQs, as you can see all have articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: I've created User:Crouch, Swale/District council buildings and done the unitary authorities but I'm not sure how many of the missing ones are notable though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Quite a few of them are modern office blocks of limited notability. By the way Cornwall Council is based at New County Hall, Truro. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: Thanks, I've corrected Cornwall, I wasn't sure despite checks. I agree I don't think those that are little more than office blocks are notable but most of the town halls probably are. Like you I created some of the town hall Commons categories and you're new building articles have frequently shown up on my watchlist due to them being added to the categories I have created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Dab

Hi. I'm just curious why you didn't dab this yourself instead of just tagging it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung: It wasn't at all clear to me what it referred to. I thought originally it may have been the place but the article didn't suggest it was for the (chef) hat since I was just looking at the lead of the hat article not further down. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links#How to help item 7 its generally better to tag than guess. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought you would have known that toque is the proper name for a chef's hat. But of course a lot of non English (or French) readers might not and that's why we link such words. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd never heard the word before, when looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluelink patrol/Places I assumed the word referred to tourniquet. When looking at fixing it I read the article several times but couldn't work it out. Yes I'd say a lot of readers like me who don't know that much abut hats or chefs may well not know what it is so indeed linking is probably helpful unlike say linking cars. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

City of Peterborough

Hi Crouch an anon just removed the city of Peterborough district article and I've restored it but would you be able to help monitor this page incase the anon resurfaces to remove it without following the guidelines to discuss their issues etc? Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: I left the editor a message at User talk:95.149.88.147#Peterborough shortly after they merged it. They claimed it was undiscussed per BRD but it was discussed at the UKGEO project and UKDISTRICTS supports it. I was going to give them a few days to respond before restoring but as you have done so it can stay unless they respond or re merge it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Crouch thanks for that. I'm glad you kept tabs on it and glad other wiki pages agree to keep it. I'll help keep tabs on it too. Thanks for your response though pal DragonofBatley (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: It can sometimes be better to leave a message on the talk page of the user who made the edit (if unregistered) or sometimes on the talk page of the article and let them explain rather than reverting straight away as that can sometimes hurt people's feelings if there is a simple misunderstanding as I know before you have felt upset by other user's comments, some editors may be upset about being reverted. But now its restored I'd just wait and see what happens. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

NPP

In case you missed it, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up again lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated and active editors with good knowledge of notability guidelines are encouraged to request the reviewer right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I support the work NPP does but I don't know much about which tools are better than others, I normally just look through Special:NewPages but I did a few weeks ago look through Special:NewPagesFeed. If more needs to be done with the software then I support that but I as noted don't know what software issues the WMF need to look at. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The list of required attention to the NPP software is here but it would suffice if you were to consider supporting the appeal to the WMF to finally do something about it bu adding your signature. Additionally, if you know enough about notability, you may wish to help out by becoming a New Page Reviewer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung Done, I have another suggestion, how about when a DAB page is turned into an article namely this could perhaps catch removal of the likes of {{disambiguation}}. This is like when a redirect is converted into an article but is unrelated to the suggestion of not having DAB pages flagged as having no refs. Regarding the suggestion about NPR I don't think I would be able to do that as indeed I don't think I have enough understanding on what topics (especially non geographical) would be acceptable and what ones may need deleting, thanks for the suggestion but I just don't think on notability etc. I do however regally check the related changes to thinks like {{Infobox UK place}} and improve new articles created with that infobox. Perhaps at ARCA this is also something that could be mentioned but the answer may be similar to User talk:Amakuru#Page move restriction since I have a page creation restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the DAB issue. I would like to see an example to understand more. As regards ARCA, I'm not exactly a fan of Arbcom, but we all have abide by their decisions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Per WP:NPPREDIRECT is a redirect is removed (namely someone removes the "#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]") it goes to the NPR. The same could happen if someone removes the {{Disambiguation}}. Regarding NPR my editing restrictions don't prevent me from NPR but I don't think people would think its a good idea to do it. If its possible to limit the review feature to only show geographical topics then that's something I would be interested in helping out with I would not have much of a clue what other issues with notability etc may need fixing for other types of articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

For NPR I find User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting helpful for limiting topics, as I personally usually only look at biographics and STEM. Can't promise how good the automated topic sorting is though... -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the geographical topic seems to be a biography from a place but at least that should give me something as I don't think I should just be reviewing anything. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Spittalfield

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Spittalfield".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Rattray, Perth And Kinross

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rattray".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Crouch, Swale. Thank you for your work on Oldbury, Warwickshire. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Tanworth-in-Arden

Good to know that you are interested in this topic, I think I used to hike through that village sometimes when I was a youth... 🤔  — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I was going through Category:People from Warwickshire to find places that had a "People from X" category but no category for the place "X". Having spent months on East Sussex there was only 1 other place without a category namely Category:Barford, Warwickshire! My list of former parishes in Warwickshire at User:Crouch, Swale/Warwickshire/User:Crouch, Swale/Warwickshire/Exists also lists Tanworth because it was renamed which I added to the article. As you can see Category:Tanworth-in-Arden has some 15 articles but none (part from the main article its self) are in the village, all the rest are places in the parish. The question that can be asked is if there should be separate articles for both village and parish namely Tanworth-in-Arden and Tanworth-in-Arden (parish)? Are parishes notable? yes municipalities are inherently notable, are villages notable? yes villages are generally presumed to be notable as long as their existence/status can be confirmed. Should there be separate articles? Probably not per the consensus at the parishes RFC, see Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements and WP:NOPAGE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Thirteenth First Edit Day!

Hey, Crouch, Swale. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Plural page moves

Thanks for keeping an eye on the poorly named WP:BPAT/Places and for proposing or supporting moves of base name titles which are not primary topics. I'm sorry that I've not noticed many of the RMs until the resulting page move appeared on my watchlist, or I'd have commented, usually in support of your views. Certes (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks, if you keep an eye here for RMCD bot you should find all the discussions as they come. Taps is the most recent one done. I think most have been checked but a few like Cheaters may still need to be looked at. When you add more entries to the list I'll check them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I've probably listed as many as I can, unless you can think of other significant categories of single-word proper noun. I saw Taps and tidied up the few remaining incoming links. From a British perspective, the move is clearly correct, but I can see why someone who calls taps "faucets" and the Last Post "Taps" might disagree. Certes (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: I can't think of any of the top of my head but if I later do I'll suggest to you. The district links may be a good place to find lots of incorrect links but those a proper nouns with others not generic v proper nouns though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was going for the easy win of looking for a lowercase initial. For example, links to departing are not going to be about the album Departing, but links to Departing may be (and checking all links to 1360 articles would have too many false positives to be worthwhile). We have loads of cases like Cambridge where many incoming links are for a similarly named place, with the same capitalisation, but checking them requires different tools such as User:Certes/Backlinks/Report. Certes (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah most likely such lower case links can just be removed as you did with a number of similar cases but indeed as noted it could also be the case someone accidentally didn't capitalize in which case the error is capitalization. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I've added one more short section. The main page of interest there is Blistering, which usually means blistering. Certes (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: I'd consider starting a RM for Blistering. The one I'm going to start a RM for is Minds which isn't clear cut since mind doesn't generally seem to be countable but it does at least sometimes, there was an informal discussion in 2015 to move it to the base name where only 2 users participated. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm in two minds (sorry) about Blistering. Searches and page views suggest that the skin complaint is a primary topic, so Blistering should be a primary redirect to blister, with a {{redirect}} hatnote to Blistering (magazine). On the other hand, the mag does have 150 direct incoming links, mostly from citations, and the term will attract bad links either way. A dab is overkill per WP:ONEOTHER. I'm tempted to let sleeping dogs lie. Certes (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: Why not put a RM at Talk:Blistering to redirect "Blistering" to Blister (disambiguation)? There are several other generic uses that could also use the term so why not just have no primary topic? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Certes (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: What about plural redirects like Pixies/Pixies (band), Cars/Cars (film) and Bones/Bones (TV series)? I have fixed several bad links over the years, I also made a start on the district links last night. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

BPAT/Places included some potential plurals such as Cairns but was limited to proper nouns occupying the base name title and excluded redirects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluelink patrol/Works aims to cover cases like Pixies, Cars and Bones, by identifying the opposite problem: articles with certain qualifiers like (film) which have many incoming links and a different topic (or a redirect to one) at the base name. Titles beginning with A-Q have now been fixed and the check lists archived but GoingBatty fixed five bad links to Cars in February 2021 and continues to check new links to all three titles. However, you have highlighted that I omitted (band) from my list of qualifiers (so /Works failed to suggest checking Pixies, though GoingBatty spotted it anyway). It may be worth carrying out a similar exercise with different qualifiers suggested by our experience at BPAT/Places. However, the qualifiers I selected denote topics which typically appear in italics or quotes. Bands etc. would be much harder to distinguish from false positives. Certes (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale & @Certes - I'm behind on my work to check these links. Hopefully I can catch up over the next few weekends. GoingBatty (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You've done more /Works than anyone else and there's no deadline. I should have been doing more myself but have been busy with other tasks which are harder to document and dump on others. Certes (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Certes - Sorry, I meant I was behind on my reviewing the articles on my Backlinks list, which includes Pixies, Cars and Bones. All caught up now. GoingBatty (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You may be interested in this Quarry query which I've re-run today, listing singular-plural pairs which target different pages. It's mainly false positives – Blue and Blues are legitimately distinct topics – but there could be the occasional nugget in there. Certes (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks, I have previously wandered if such a list exists/could be as there is User:RussBot/Plural dab pages/001 that BD2412 has worked on for DABs where a plural could redirect to its singular but far more important is topics where a different topic is at the base name. Indeed per WP:PLURALPT the colour blue is generally not countable so its probably OK for the musical meaning to be at Blues. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Burghfield Common, Berkshire

Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Burghfield Common, Berkshire, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Burghfield Common, Berkshire

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Burghfield Common".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lytham, Lancashire

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lytham".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:St Annes, Lancashire

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "St Annes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Crouch, Swale!

Happy New Year!

Crouch, Swale,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Crouch, Swale!

Happy New Year!

Crouch, Swale,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for amendment closed and archived

The Arbitration Committee has closed and archived Amendment request: Motion: Crouch, Swale (2022) (which you filed). Additionally the closing arbitrator left the following comment:

Request has been denied. Crouch, Swale is advised when making next appeal to: 1) Make a single request to have editing restrictions lifted, and to show evidence that they understand why the restriction are currently in place, and what steps they will take to alleviate these concerns; 2) Draft their appeal in advance and show it to at least one and preferably several experienced users; 3) Consider very carefully all feedback and advice they have and will be given; 4) Be aware that while there exists some understanding of Crouch, Swale's frustration, and some appreciation that they have improved over the years, there is potentially a limit to how many times they can make inappropriate requests, and a future inappropriate request may result in a motion not to their advantage.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Edwardstone Hall

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Edwardstone Hall".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Totton, Hampshire

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Totton".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Waterloo Town Hall

This one's done now, so you can do with it whatever you think is best. Whether it be a dabpage or a redirect. Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@DrVogel: thanks, redirected to DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Balby South (ward)

First, thanks for all the work you do on those English articles. However, a discussion on a project page does not negate WP:GNG. You'd have to bring the subject up as an RFC to gain total community consensus (which I doubt you would achieve). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I think (but am not completely sure) that wards would pass WP:GEOLAND as legally recognized electoral divisions. I doubt they would fall under one of the exceptions like census tracts or sewage districts as they do have administrative roles. This in addition to the discussion a few years ago leads me to believe there is a consensus to keep them. Per WP:NPPREDIRECT it might be better to restore the articles and start a deletion/merge discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You know, you could be right. I wasn't thinking of them as actually having census data. Please feel free to revert. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I'll have a look this evening. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I've restored it with a source for when it was formed. There is also discussion at Talk:Castle Hill, Ipswich, Suffolk#Ward or suburb about if they need separate articles from settlements with the same name. I'd argue that while wards are probably notable similar to what we do with municipalities that if they have the same name as a settlement they should be covered in the settlement so Mexborough (ward) could be merged with Mexborough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've marked it reviewed based on GEOLAND. But your added point is well taken, just because something passes GEOLAND doesn't mean that it should have have its own article. But that's not in the purview of NPP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Blairgowrie, Perth and Kinross

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Blairgowrie".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Bowers Gifford

Hi. I am justrying to improve this page. As you are working on parishes you may want to look at this, as Vision of Britain [2] has a quote from 1870 Gazette which says it was a parish in the district of Billericay, but the article on Bowers Gifford and Billericay Rural District say it wasn't created until 1894.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Davidstewartharvey: It could be Billericay PLU/RegD or from what was just before sanitary districts. I'm not sure. When I've looked at VOB quotes I've generally assumed it was from rural/urban districts but as you point out it predates the creation of rural districts. You could add this information as a quote but probably the most important information is to add the location of the settlement/parish today namely Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet parish, Basildon district, Essex, what happened to the parish when it was abolished namely went to Billericay parish on 1 January 1937 and its most recent census data namely 468 in 1931. To see what units Bowers Gifford (settlement) was part of see units (and click "Units covering this place") and if you go to Bowers Gifford CP's unit and click "Relationships and changes" you can see the units the CP was part of namely Billericay RD from 1894 to 1935 and Billericay UD from 1935 to 1937. From 1937 the parish didn't exist anymore but was still in Billericay UD which was renamed Basildon UD in 1955. In 1974 it became part of Basildon district (and Basildon unparished area) until 2010 when Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet parish was formed

Along the lines of a point I made earlier about the County Borough of Southend on Sea becoming Southend-on-Sea non-metropolitan district with no changes in 1974 we should probably consider merging Basildon Urban District with Borough of Basildon and Thurrock Urban District with Thurrock since as you can see the only changes in 1974 were the movement of part of Thurrock within the designated new town into Basildon which is a minor change (see district 10 and 12). If you look at Brentwood (district 9) you can see that there were entire parishes added to form the new district so that should stay separate from Brentwood Urban District. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale thanks did not know about sanitary districts! [3] from this it looks like what it was, though it could also be the Poor Law Union [4] as both Billericay! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

From this page [5] which has referenced the Essex Records Office, it seems that the Sanitary District and Poor Law were one in the same. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Davidstewartharvey: Another place you could perhaps look at is Shopland which was a parish until 1933 when it was merged with Sutton and Southend on Sea. There was a page online called the Shopland Story by Tony Shopland which has information on the history. I created a draft at Draft:Shopland which I can ask to be restored for you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  To be honest not much happens in Shopland, other than a few cottages and Purdeys Industrial Estate, its a rather non descript hamlet. I think the most interesting thing was its church was damaged by a bomb during the Second World War and was then demolished sometime in the 50s, though its graveyard is still consecrated. Sutton has a more interesting history, and once had its own market. I am going to research its history in the future. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Davidstewartharvey: I'm about to start on Suffolk parishes but after I've done (which shouldn't take long as I kind of roughly did Suffolk) I'll start on Essex so that all such as North Shoebury that didn't have very much info will do so. When I started Suffolk, Essex and Cumbria a few years ago I didn't add info to all article such as those that already contained a bit but now I'm adding all the relevant info such as population at latest census, when abolished and current location. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale I am criticising in the discussion on notability for geography, just think the guidelines needs proper wording to define what is a legal recognised place. In corporate notability and dealing with administrators on that project, most of them recommend mergers with redirects. Just a note, North Shoebury did stop being a parish in 1933, with the remaining acreage not taken by Southend being transferred to Great Wakering parish as per The Municipal Year Book and Public Utilities Directory, 1934.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Davidstewartharvey: Corporates that were abolished completely like Avon County Council do have separate articles and aren't merged with the current council, WP:PLACEOUTCOMES says "Smaller suburbs are generally merged, being listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments)." In which case North Shoebury did once have its own government even if it wasn't a suburb back then. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Eltham, New South Wales

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 deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

DoB

Hallo Crouch, you said "I'd also be fine if both users can contact me if they really do need to say something about/to the other.", so perhaps you could explain to DoB how to look for archived pages at the Wayback Machine / Internet Archive. They have today removed as "Dead links" from Great Bridge, West Midlands two files which can be found there: this and that. I'd have pointed it out helpfully on their talk page, but had better not right now. But if they don't know how to find archived files, they risk damaging the encyclopedia by removing other editors' work, or making it seem unsourced. Thanks for any help you can give. PamD 17:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@PamD: I've done so. This is something I've pointed out before to another user, see User talk:109.144.23.87. I appreciate you're efforts in fixing problems with their work but if they're really unhappy with you on their talk page then it is probably a good idea to do this. If there are enough problems someone else will probably end up dealing with it, thanks. So yes the fact I've suggested a topic ban isn't necessarily an indication you're done anything wrong but rather to deal with a dispute that has been going on for a while. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder whether it will make any difference. PamD 17:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What's "the 500 threshold" which you mentioned to that IP? PamD 17:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@PamD: City Population seems to use the most recent estimate/census for this meaning that if a BUA had say a population of 512 in the 2020 estimate but only 493 in the 2021 census then when City Population updates to the 2021 census (which happened around November 2022) then it will disappear from City Population but may reappear if it goes over 500 in the 2022 estimate. Also if the definition for defining them changed a few months ago, see the "News" section for the United Kingdom then some may disappear. All that's normally important is that the URL worked at the time the content was added though I'd go further to say it may be fine if someone remembers the content of a URL which stopped working before being added to Wikipedia though this should probably be noted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the context. Thanks. PamD 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that DoB understands that "contiguous" means "adjacent to", rather than "part of". There was something else recently, and this edit, as well as introducing a red link (by adding an unnecessary disambiguation: do they ever check their work?), changes the sense of the statement. What do you think?

They've also decided that Grassington is a village not a town, despite the text in the article which says it is a long-established market town although often referred to as a village. It has a Town Hall. I can see no mention of "village" on the parish council website. Most websites call it a town, or market town. I think it's too big a change to make on one editor's opinion: if DoB really thinks he knows better than every editor since August 2010, it would be better discussed on the talk page of the article. (And note that they themself had changed Grassington from village to town a few minutes earlier in another article.) PamD 19:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Note that the National Park is inconsistent (village, town), and other sites use town, though admittedly OS calls it a village. I hope someone else will have the page on their watchlist and pick this up ... but I'm losing faith in other people's watchlists, so many awful edits go uncorrected. (Not DoB's, but ones like the Elizabeth Gaskell mess). PamD 20:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Found the other dubious "contiguous": here. Were previous editors wrong in saying that Great Bridge is in Tipton, or was DoB wrong in their change? There's no edit summary to explain. PamD 19:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

If edits like those to Bicknacre continue I'll feel tempted to go to ANI to ask for a topic ban on edits involving the {{convert}} template. This is pure accidental but avoidable damage to the encyclopedia through misunderstanding how the template works and failure to check after an edit that it has produced the intended effect. What can be done? My posting about Whitney-on-Wye, which set off the entire ANI thing, was on exactly this topic, and pointing out how to acheieve the desired "miles-first" effect, but was obviously ignored. CIR. PamD 07:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, I don't believe we know each other, but since DragonofBatley said they have worked a lot with you before, and you rose to their defence at AN/I, a bit of a heads up ... I've spent some time fixing up the church article that was highlighted at AN/I by Esemgee, and it was very bad. They'd confused the old church with the 1823 replacement, entirely failed to make incoming links which would have led them to a list of Grade II listed buildings that provides a good referenced summary of the building, and in general made very poor use of the sources they did cite. I have the impression they fill out the infobox but then are stumped as to how to write prose. I looked at their other article creations at the time and it's a small group of very poor stubs on listed churches that desperately need extensive work plus again, integration into the encyclopaedia. (Personal aside: I avoid working on church articles. But it looks as if I have a duty to Wikipedia to fix these up because they are so poor. This is making me quite miserable. End of aside.) Then I saw what PamD has highlighted above, at Bicknacre. After all our attempts to explain how to do what the editor wants to do. I slept on whether to make a boomerang section of the AN/I, also re-raising their personalised responses to criticism. When I got up, I found they've responded to PamD and that made me aware of this talk page section. So, last-ditch ... can you throw any light on the back story here, such as past productive work in collaboration with you as they stated at AN/I, and whether their accusations about Esemgee in the AN/I refer to a previous dust-up? And more importantly, as someone close to them, can you offer them any specific advice that would help them understand what the problems are with their editing and how to avoid them? We've reached the last ditch here, I fear. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Yngvadottir, if I may chime in on your comment? I have Crouch, Swale talkpage on my watchlist to mostly discuss geography contributions and so. I wanted to chime in on your comment about Esemgee and my previous dust up with them? Well I can share with you a couple of incidences with them I had and so. I have no idea fully how to add links to them but I will do my best to share them. We clashed on Talk:Skegness over my removal of (outdated information which was years old and written in present tense) but I got a range of assumptions made and was told I was wrong. Quotes like "I agree with Noswall, the statistics should be in the article, it might be unhelpful to DragonofBatley but extremely helpful to others. Size of the settlement is irrelevant. Esemgee (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)", "I am assuming nothing, I am stating a fact. It is you who need to take advice from editors like Noswall59 who have experience of writing good articles not me who needs to be "more on the fence". I think I have corrected your edits before now. Esemgee" and " I am also persona non grata so I now avoid him as I really can't be bothered anymore." Their tone and approach have caused me to clash with them and I rather spend my time talking with editors who can understand me and help me. Not go on a whim to destroy me at every turn and ignore the positives I have bought to this encyclopedia like the City of York, City of Peterborough, Borough of Blackpool, Borough of Middlesbrough, Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area, All Saints' Church, Batley and Jonathan Hellyer among other articles that never existed but they get overlooked for minor faults. All negatives and no positives from any editors but a few. So If I was able to briefly elaborate, hopefully I given you some grounds to see my point of view. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC) DragonofBatley (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, DragonofBatley. That saves some searching. (For reference, go to the history page for whatever talk page or article page you want to reference, click on either "prev" for a particular edit or the time-and-date stamp just to the right of it for the state of the page at a particular time, and copy the URL from your browser address bar. There's a "diff" template, but just copying the URLs woriks just as well. Or (especially if you can't use that method because you are on a mobile interface) go to either the talk page or its archive, as appropriate, then make a Wikilink adding the section title after "#". Like here, you would link to this section by [[User talk:Crouch, Swale#DoB]]). Unfortunately, that earlier church article proves my point. It remains poorly formatted, with the footnote numbers appearing in the ref section instead of in the text, despite your having created it in December 2020. It's a Grade I listed building (!) - mentioned nowhere in the text. Your version didn't even include the National Heritage listing as a reference, from which I learn it's 15th-century with 13th-century bits. Other than "Built in 1485", our article doesn't say a single thing about the building in its text, and the infobox describes it simply as Gothic Revival. At least it's linked at the 2 lists of Grade I listed buildings in West Yorks. I appreciate your creating missing articles. But didn't you use "preview" to see how they displayed on the page? Why didn't you use the sources to describe the buildings in the body of the article? Why didn't you look for the official listing page, in this case at least? These things I do not understand. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"I will (and I mean will) check and double check and quadruple check my edits", and yet their next mainspace edit is this. it:

• Links to a disambiguation page (Great Northern Railway): so sad because there is a wonderful gadget which makes it easy to stop yourself from doing this, to which I alerted them just recently. They have chosen not to use that useful tool, trusting their own careful editing to avoid making this basic mistake.
• Creates a broken sentence: "The station site has since been demolished and in the 1990's."
• Slightly more subjectively: Adds some strange wording - "since" when? How can a "site" be demolished?

How can we help them to improve the encyclopedia rather than leaving a trail of dab links and garbled sentences? PamD 07:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• @PamD, DragonofBatley, and Yngvadottir: Sorry I've been away for a few days, I've checked the above articles and it looks like the problems listed above have been fixed though I did also make some formatting fixes with Norcot to remove common nouns not part of the names. Crouch, Swale (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that; turns out to have been changed by Chris j wood in 2015! The AN/I section was closed and has now been archived, but I still have concerns. (And have 2 volumes of Pevsner on the way by interlibrary loan so I can fix the churches. ) I've noted a few others tweaking and fixing after DragonofBatley's edits. And I want to assure you that by posting here, I'm not implying any responsibility on your part at all. I guessed right, you have a life off-wiki Yngvadottir (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Letting you know that I've been working on fixing up the articles on those poor churches. Unfortunately the revised version of the Buildings of England West Riding book split it into North and South right between Morley and Batley, and so while I have the Leeds/Bradford volume sitting beside me on interlibrary loan, I can't get access to the Sheffield volume either on Google Books or in the flesh, and given his repetitive vocabulary I was lucky to see a snippet of the description of All Saints', Batley in the 1959 unified volume. And the Historic England page has no information. The editors of Listed buildings in Batley appear to have full access to Pevsner and likely much else besides, so I probably just have to hope one or more of them work on improving the Batley churches. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: You could perhaps move content from the listed buildings article to the articles on the individual churches with attribution like what I did with Draft:Plaish Hall. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Too much risk of perpetuating misunderstandings and other inaccuracies. As it is, I did lean a bit on the summary at All Saints' (including for key words to crack the snippet view), but the 1485 estimate, the 13th-century elements, and the 19th-century renovation are unsourced. I'm assuming good faith that they're there in Pevsner, but it's not uncommon for people to misread or misinterpret his heavily abbreviated listings (or for Pevsner to have something wrong; he attributes the east end of St Augustine's Church, Rugeley simply to "Pearson", and only lists one Pearson, who'd died by then; other sources specify his son). I looked for alternative sources but couldn't find any, which for a Grade I building is sad. Anyway, as I say, I really don't like to work on churches, so I mostly hope the collective further fixes these. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

City of Worcester article checks

Hi @Crouch, Swale, I recently created a new article for Worcestershire. The City of Worcester. Would you be able to check it out and tell me if it meets Wiki standards for seperation as I found two different population figures for both the main city and district as well as the urban area. [6]. Thanks Crouch. DragonofBatley (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: Thanks, it does have similar boundaries to the settlement but it does contain 2 parishes and it did experience significant boundary changes in 1974 so yes I'd say splitting is marginally a good idea. Probably Redditch/Borough of Redditch would be be better candidate for splitting though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: Thanks for creating City of Coventry, I'll have a closer look this evening. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Careless editing continuing

This edit uses "compromised" where "comprised" was probably intended, and "composed" would have been correct. As well as linking two village names which are redirects back to this article. Quadruply checked? PamD 10:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@PamD: It looks like those 2 issues have been fixed by you, the 1st is a small grammatical error which can easily be fixed and just moved on with unless the same grammatical error is happening frequently in which case it can be pointed out what the correct grammar is. The 2nd is a very minor problem, normally with parishes named "X and Y" we have articles on "X" and "Y" and I've made similar links only to check after linking and discover the title redirects back to the linked page and then removed the link. Is everything else fine? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course I've fixed that rubbish, having spotted it. The rest of the article was quite a shambles, including longstanding duplicated nonsense by an IP! And it had links to the old census database, so I've fixed that. (And emailed the clerk to the parish council about a typo on their website while I was at it). Now the census data would be a really constructive project for someone: to go through the dead links to 2011 census and fix by using NOMIS2011. There are thousands. (Do we know whether ONS or NOMIS ever plan to provide the equivalent parish-level data for 2021, so that we can then embark on the project of updating every parish/settlement with some brand new NOMIS2021 template?)

The difference between "compromised" and "comprised" is not a "small grammatical error" but either carelessness or a bad spellchecker, and shows lack of checking (or, if checked and thought OK, then ignorance). The difference between "comprised" and "composed" is ignorance: there's an editor (User:Giraffedata) who is dedicated to chasing up and correcting abuse of "comprised", but they wouldn't have spotted this one because of the typo. On the links, as you say, you check after linking. Someone else obviously doesn't: why not? (There's a useful gadget I've got installed which colours links to show their status, so that those two leapt out at me as green shaded which shows a circular link: would be useful for other editors to install this too.) PamD 11:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Districts of Buckinghamshire?

As this seems to your speciality, perhaps you might advise? Bucks used to have five districts: MK, Aylesbury Vale, etc. First MK left and eventually became a UA. In 2020, all the remaining district councils were wound up and a single Buckinghamshire Council UA created. So here's the question: the word "district" still appears quite a lot in the Buckinghamshire article, typically to refer to the UAs. Is it really worth the effort to clear them out? Is the word significantly problematic? What would make it painful is that we don't have a word (AFAIK) to use for the area administered by a UA, as opposed to the UA itself. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I think the usage of the word "district" if fine though "unitary authority area" or "unitary district" may be better for clarity. Normally in the lead I use something like "Tring is a town and civil parish in the Buckinghamshire district, in the ceremonial county of Buckinghamshire, England" but indeed "unitary authority area" or "unitary district" may be better or perhaps (especially given we don't have Buckinghamshire (district) to just omit the unitary district and just say "Tring is a town and civil parish in the county of Buckinghamshire, England". So yes I don't think the word "district" is problematic, legally a unitary authority area is a non-metropolitan county as well as being a non-metropolitan district but I think most people who know/care about the difference between Buckinghamshire, the ceremonial county and Buckinghamshire, the unitary district will call the former a county and the latter a district. Per WP:UKNOWGOV even if we do use the word district for the unitary district we should include "ceremonial county" not just "county" for example "West Thurrock is a village and former civil parish in the Thurrock district, in the ceremonial county of Essex, England" rather than "West Tilbury is a village and former civil parish in the Thurrock district, in the county of Essex, England" which wouldn't make clear its only in the ceremonial county not administrative county and that Thurrock is an administrative county. For the likes of say Maldon we would say "Maldon is a town and civil parish in the Maldon district, in the county of Essex, England" not "Maldon is a town and civil parish in the Maldon district, in the ceremonial county of Essex, England" since that would suggest Maldon district was a unitary district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Tyvm, that's helpful. I can leave it alone with a clear conscience.

I disagree though on the ceremonial county though. This is because the only Buckinghamshire that has legal existence is the ceremonial county and it is just irritating to readers to add a redundant qualification. The only time qualification is required is when, well, it is required: Slough is a town in Berkshire; before boundary changes in 1899 [or whatever] it was in [[Buckinghamshire (historic)|]]

To illustrate, let's start with an easy one: Ampthill is a town in Bedfordshire, in the Mid-Bedfordshire district/UA. Easy because when Bedfordshire was divided, none of the parts retained the name. Nevertheless, Ampthill is unambiguously in Bedfordshire. Equally, Olney is a town in Buckinghamshire, in the City of Milton Keynes UA. And Tring is a town in Buckinghamshire, in the Buckinghamshire Council UA. The apparent repetition in the last case is an irritation but that's life. Local loyalties are complicated: I doubt that there are many people who say that they are from Middlesex rather than London but I wouldn't be so sure about Surrey and Essex. This is not about putting (arbitrarily defined) historic counties on a pedestal, just the geographic equivalent of WP:COMMONNAME. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions for further splits?

Hi @Crouch, Swale,.I am intending to take a break in the future but I'm just curious to discuss with you could the following settlements warrant own district articles?

Gosport Lincoln Nottingham Derby Southend on Sea Norwich Ipswich Oxford Gloucester And Cheltenham?

Just curious what you make of it

DragonofBatley (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: Derby, Lincoln, Norwich and Nottingham have similar boundaries, are unparished and didn't have any major changes in 1974 so I'd probably stay away from then at least for now. Ipswich is similar but County Borough of Ipswich exists which should probably be moved to Borough of Ipswich as the district survived the 1974 changes. Gosport didn't have changes in 1974 and doesn't have parishes but does cover a significantly larger area than the settlement so I'd consider splitting.

Cheltenham, Gloucester, Oxford and Southend-on-Sea are partly parished, Cheltenham had boundary changes in 1974 but the other 3 didn't though they do now contain parishes, Gloucester because of a later boundary change and Oxford got 3 from boundary chages and 1 from the existing area. Juts like Ipswich with Southend the County Borough of Southend on Sea wasn't abolished so should probably be moved back to City of Southend-on-Sea at some point.

In terms of splits let's look at User:Crouch, Swale/District split where we can see 3 cases that probably at least should be seriously considered, namely Redditch, Gosport and Newcastle upon Tyne so let's look at splitting those ones first.

So what I would suggest is (1) go to the talk pages of Redditch, Gosport and Newcastle upon Tyne and post you're plans to split (or tag the articles with {{split|Article 1|date=July 2023}}) and wait 2 weeks to see if there are any objections or otherwise if there is a consensus and then split. The previous problems is you sometimes don't appear to understand the criteria we use for splitting/merging and you don't discuss on the talk page. If you discuss the 3 I have suggested you should have less problems with them being reverted or otherwise complained about, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Collages

The new collage at Wakefield strikes me as ugly, with 5 images, one of which occupies half the area. I can't find any guidelines on how to create collages, and this isn't technically covered by the current discussion, which is about infoboxes for ceremonial counties. There is nothing at {{Infobox UK place}} to suggest that using a collage is a good idea, so no guidance as to how to make one. How can we avoid such clunky collages? PamD 06:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@PamD: There is WP:MONTAGE, if its excessive we could just have 1 image instead of 5 but indeed perhaps further discussion is needed on this for the project in general as it would likely apply to all topics not just UK places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@PamD:, the other way is to use multiple image, see Milton Keynes for example. That does the collage automagically, allowing control over each component individually. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Made a change, agree the photos were ugly but this one has more vibrant colours. Think the skyline is the only drawback but the rest is really vibrant and light. Anyway I have done best I can to make them less clunky portrait and landscape but not gonna lie. Might change the cathedral photo as it is quite small and lacks quality DragonofBatley (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley:, the image selection for infoboxes can be very sensitive and taste is highly subjective. I strongly advise that you propose changes at the articles' talk pages first. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll do so now, made my changes just now before seeing your ping. So I will tag the relevant editors to the discussion. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Wendover

Is this place a town or a village? Thanks 92.239.240.153 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Withypool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hawkridge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Great work improving British pub articles. Apologies for the lager, you will just have to imagine a real ale. Edwardx (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Edwardx: Thanks, I've done a lot of work on Commons with pubs in the last few months. That said I don't drink alcohol so an imaginary ale will be fine. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I stopped some years ago. Was in a pub on Sunday for the London wiki meet-up, and had coffee. Edwardx (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Isaacs on the Quay

Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Isaacs on the Quay, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Links to dab pages

If an editor, who has previously been told about the helpful gadget which highlights links to dab pages in orange, adds a link to a dab page, is alerted by a bot, and ignores that message, does it mean that they can't work out how to fix it, that they just don't care about the encyclopedia, or that they don't read their talk page? Meanwhile Kirklees still links to Castle Hill. PamD 07:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've fixed this "quadruple checked" link, as I care enough about the encyclopedia. But I'm genuinely puzzled here. Editors should check al links they create. Then, the gadget means that if you even skim quickly through the edit you see the link in orange - though perhaps not on mobile. Thirdly, the talk page alert should have inspired a quick tidy-up. PamD 07:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hope @Crouch, Swale doesn't mind me chipping in here - seems is a nice, friendly editor! Links to DABs are a common mistake when one first starts editing. Received a few of the the Talk page DAB messages at first but fairly quickly learnt to check each Wikilink immediately after publishing and corrected any incorrect links post-haste. Now I normally check each link before publishing and a second time after publishing just in case an error slips through. Thanks to the very helpful message @PamD put on another editor's Talk page I now have the "orange" alerts activated as a further safeguard - this also identifies such errors while reading an article, allowing correction to be made. Rupples (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@PamD and Rupples: Its now possible so see links they added here. While it would be good for editors to avoid creating disambiguation links keep in mind that per the Wikipedia:Editing policy things don't have to be perfect. That said due to the orange links and the fact its tagged "Disambiguation links added" in the page history it should be easy to avoid adding disambiguation links. @DragonofBatley: Have you installed the orange links? see WP:DABDISPLAY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry, didn't know this was about me until now. Bit shocked I was being discussed without being tagged in. What orange links? I've gone back and fixed red links where possible or left them unlinked. Sorry Crouch, wasn't aware I was being discussed in all honesty. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: If you follow the instructions at WP:DABDISPLAY for changing you're preferences to show disambiguation links as orange so that when you pres "show preview" you can see if there are disambiguation links before you save changes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Borough of Brighton

I hope to make a start on this later today or tomorrow, using my various book sources. Am I OK to move into article space from Draft:Borough of Brighton when I've done as much as I can, or shall I ping you first? Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hassocks5489: You can just do it, you don't need to ask me first, I've done what I can with it so once you're done just move it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Music

And if yamla gets wind of this, he will rest the S.O. clock. I'm trying to be nice, but I have limits. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding council redirects

Hi, I hope you don’t mind the question on your talk.

I was just tagging redirects (e.g. Mid Suffolk District Council) with {{R with possibilities}}, as it would seem to me that such articles could (and possibly should[?]) become separate from the articles about the geographic area itself at some point. However, I then came across WP:UKDISTRICTS § Local authorities, which seems to suggest (if I’m reading it correctly) that separate articles for the local authorities should actually be avoided. As you’ve done some work in the topic area I’m therefore wondering if you’d mind helping me out with this subject. (Please feel free to disregard the question if you don’t feel comfortable answering.)

All the best, A smart kitten (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@A smart kitten: Yes they can be tagged with R with possibilities but when it comes down to district councils I'd generally avoid creating separate articles unless there is a need in terms of article size etc. Generally its best to cover the district an its council in 1 place. There is a major exception to this, when like Eastbourne a district is covered in a settlement or similar then an article like Eastbourne Borough Council should exist. When it comes to county councils like Essex County Council separate articles should exist. For London borough, metropolitan and unitary district councils I'd generally say they don't need separate articles but most exist. When parish councils if like Shrewsbury Town Council the place is large an article on the council may be appropriate but if like Elstree and Borehamwood Town Council its only the name of a parish similar to district councils generally we don't need separate articles on the council. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Isaacs on the Quay

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Isaacs on the Quay".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)