User talk:Crouch, Swale

Hello, Crouch, Swale, and

• 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

]

This is a Wikipedia user 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi @

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

@

Draft:Plaish Hall. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Hi @

@

Borough of Redditch would be be better candidate for splitting though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

City of Coventry, I'll have a closer look this evening. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@

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)[reply

]

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

talk) 19:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Just curious what you make of it

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

@

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

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)[reply

]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

WP:DABDISPLAY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@

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)[reply

]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I was just tagging redirects (e.g.

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

@

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)[reply

]

Your draft article,

Draft:Isaacs on the Quay

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Isaacs on the Quay

".

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

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

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no unparished areas in Northamptonshire anymore so it should be deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Crouch, Swale, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Crouch, Swale, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings - I noted you likely are much more of a stakeholder in the Blackpool article - I did make many bold and strident changes - and I documented them as such in the audit trail of the edits - I do apologize - all edits made in good faith.

Sadly, the reversion by @DragonofBatley deleted other more conservative edits - the sizing of the images is the most notably visual loss of quality by these wholesale resets.

As with most matters there is always a civil middle ground and sure - I have no interest in edit wars and I was crystal clear that I did think my edits - pushed the 'consensus boundaries' - but no one reacted negatively - until this day. There are sections in the articles talk section and there was arguably some degree of consensus.

I usually only focus on medical and science articles and there is less room for bombast and group think in such articles -

I did actually think the changes others made - size of images - should be reverted - but I am not getting directly involved.

Kind Regards, Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BeingObjective: I think the thing we need to try to encourage DragonofBatley to think about is partial reverts so I'd perhaps suggest what changes should be retained on the talk page. I think the problem was with removing the ceremonial county but it would be better for DragonofBatley to just restore that rather than reverting the entire edit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One might ask - why my interest? - I recall many decades ago vacations in this town - my parents emigrated and now I am old and looking back to the past - too much time/nostalgia perhaps.

I do think this article could be improved upon - I sensed there was a broader initiative by other 'newer' editors - and perhaps should not have made the strident changes - clearly reversion is a click away - so I hope folks do not think I have any agenda - I was a tad shocked that anyone actually noticed - yup - WP Policy naive.

The image sizes, the 2021 census data, removal of CLOP, fewer but more robust citations - I cannot think anyone would be against such changes.

There has to be a middle ground - I did like the read on 'party conventions' - but most of this was not about a seaside town called Blackpool in England.

Many apologies - I certainly will not be directly editing this article again.

BeingObjective (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mangotsfield added. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tag restored, actually it is parished its just the unparished area hasn't been updated. Cheltenham and Gloucester districts are partly unparished but there isn't separate articles so its not really possible to add the category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 18:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly: Thanks, I can see you've done the motion work and I'll do the other cleanup work with notices etc later this evening. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked user, N1TH Music, states in UTRS appeal #81892, that you have agreed to monitor their future edits to ensure there are no further problems such as those seen here. Essentially, you would mentor them if unblocked. Is this accurate? --Yamla (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Yes I'm still happy to do that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll update the UTRS ticket with your confirmation. --Yamla (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And your mentee is now unblocked. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note at TfD, but can you please respond to my concerns and my suggestion at Talk:Republic of Ireland#Ireland naming discussions. If you add that template to the page without gaining consensus first, I will remove it. Scolaire (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crouch been a while. How you doing? Just wondering if you think Cheltenham might qualify for a split for both the borough and town because it contain three civil parishes and might qualify for splitting for one borough and the main settlement? What do you think? DragonofBatley (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley: I would weakly support splitting but I'd say that you should discuss on the talk page before splitting as similar discussions have failed to reach consensus for splitting. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crouch, hope you are keeping well. I see you’re re-adding the Commons cats here, Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century. Can I ask if there’s guidance/policy on this? I’ve not used them in the Welsh Lists I’ve done, since they drew some criticism at FLC. One editor compared them to having a tag saying “More text”! You’ll see it was discussed on the article Talkpage, and the consensus was they were rather “cluttery”, so I’ve deliberately taken them out. Obviously, if there’s a wider consensus to have them, or it’s policy to do so, I wouldn’t want to go against that. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

EH listed building row}}. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

On 27 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cote, West Sussex, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the early 20th century, the town council of Worthing purchased Cote Bottom and pledged that it would be kept in perpetuity as a public amenity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cote, West Sussex. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cote, West Sussex), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's me, N1TH Music, I think it's high time I helped you work on the missing parishes project you've got going, but I forgot where to find the page which has the list of all the missing ones, could you please inform me, thanks. N1TH Music (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@N1TH Music: User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@

Buckinghamshire County Council to Buckinghamshire Council as although they are technically different legal entities they cover/covered the same area, have very similar names and have similar functions, the only difference is the newer also has the district functions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:25, 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]

My reason was poor, its not notable, its an uncontroversial merge. If you think it's notable say why. Esemgee (talk) 13:20, 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]

Hello Crouch, Swale. I'm informing you that per a rough consensus of Arbs, your 2024 restriction appeal has been declined. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:07, 26 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".

Sounds right up your street! Enjoy. PamD 19:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 6 and 7 of this neighbourhood plan mention parish expansion. I leave it to you! PamD 19:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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.

Ah well. I'll get back to the fun of

WP:FEB24. There is now just one article left in the intersection of Category:All articles lacking sources and Category:Mountains and hills of the United Kingdom (down from either 52 or 62, I forget), and that's Axborough, the one I took to AfD. I'd always thought PetScan was something strange and technical but have now discovered how easy it is to run, to get intersections like that. PamD 21:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't forget that the {{URL}} template formats a URL better in an infobox. I've fixed it. PamD 21:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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. PamD 12:29, 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. PamD 12:45, 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. PamD 18:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain on why you keep basing almost all of your RMs on pageviews almost solely? Searching also matters and Ngrams too! GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 23:35, 12 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]

Oh, sorry for being combative, Someone had told me already that primary topic is defined by usage. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@

WP:AFDHOWTO and use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} to start a new AFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for such a quick reply - very helpful. I will follow your advice. Best wishes Newhaven lad (talk) 09:29, 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

@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: It's regarding London (Disambiguation). I also agree with you regarding the examples, it's why I felt it important to mention title case in this context. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:55, 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]

Then start a discussion at

WT:CSD to include it under an existing or new rationale. Until then, it's not eligible for speedy deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:35, 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.

I agree that Paris (Disambiguation) etc is no different to London (Disambiguation), which is why I opposed deletion of the former and oppose deletion of the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: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: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

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect London (Disambiguation) has been listed at

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]

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Yes it was a simple C&P error, thanks for fixing it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, brilliant, thanks! DBaK (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]