User talk:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes/Splits

The proposed convention is that generally only split when (1) the settlement or other feature isn't in the CP for example Scotforth (2) the place that the CP is named after isn't a settlement and would not be suitable for a single article Easton Neston (parish), (3) the settlement has and ONS built up area that is different to the CP or (4) other projects make a distinction, Commons is probably not relevant as it should make more distinctions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the banner at Blackford and Compton Pauncefoot. I think these discussions would be better on the talk page of the articles concerned as each case might be different. In this specific example you propose to merge the CP to the one (not both) of the villages (not civil parishes) of Compton Pauncefoot (which should also have the merge banner on it) and Blackford, Somerset. The individual village articles existed first, and have never been challenged for their notability in their own right, the civil parish article was only created because of a red link on List of civil parishes in Somerset. It may be worth noting that in this example the villages are also separate ecclesiastical parishes (see List of ecclesiastical parishes in the Diocese of Bath and Wells). For these reasons I would oppose the merge in this particular case.— Rod ^talk 16:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

If the civil parish contains several villages, as in this case, with their own articles it seems appropriate to keep the civil parish as an over-arching article that covers all of the villages. Also note that Ethe East Riding of Yorkshire is set up using the names per the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and not necessarily the ONS naming of the parishes. Keith D (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rodw: I have started a discussion at Talk:Compton Pauncefoot. The CP is called just "Compton Pauncefoot" WP usually makes no distinction when the settlement and CP have the same name. I'd also note that there are Somerset parishes that need articles for example Staplegrove and The Charltons. There are also former CPs that need articles for example Thurlbear and Dodington, Somerset. Its just we don't have and article for the village and another for the CP when the CP and village have the same name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The council doesn't usually define the name of the CP, just its council for example Kingston upon Hull and Hull City Council. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The common name locally is the one used by the Council and not the one centrally defined per other bodies as per WP:COMMON the use of the name as per their current location is appropriate for these articles and there is no need to merge into a one of the settlements an a name not used locally for these. I think this has been discussed before on several moves that you have tried to make. Keith D (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Just about every other CP has 1 combined article when they have the same name as a settlement, do we need to make an exception for EY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale:, since this conversation seems to have dried up, can the pages being either merged or the tags removed please?--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If Keith D (talk · contribs) doesn't object then I'll do so. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I do object to proposed merges. Please remove the tags as there had been no comments in favour of such actions. The number of moves of various articles is getting rather disruptive if I may say so. Keith D (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you action either way, merge the pages or remove the tags--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed them, they should probably go through WP:PM, there has been noted here and here [1] and [2]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)