User talk:Crouch, Swale/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Crouch, Swale, I've proposed a motion at

@

talk · contribs

)) and I would also want a bot to do this.

The other question is so do with the moves, to start with I don't know what is meant by the point "prolonged arguing over article names", at least in an unacceptable way, the worst I can think of is this where I started a new RM with much the same points after clear consensus against it. The other problematic were a few frivolous requests in late October 2010. Other than that I have had little input let along disruption with moves/discussions on them. I would note that I didn't make any moves in nearly my first 6 months, in 2011 I only moved 1 article which was one I created (Fair Hill, Cumbria) and made 2 RMs, one closed as no consensus (which I would now opposed to) and one which should have been moved without discussion as was clearly correct. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I would also point out that while I have had disagreement with titles on Commons, it has never been suggested that I be restricted there, indeed when I was informed that my moved were unacceptable I immediately changed my behavior. As can be seen I move some myself but others I use the "move" template or and start a CFD for those that are contested. If a topic ban for moves/discussions does happen that another obvious exception would be self revering moves and moving pages that I created.

With the last point about Commons, I am not banned there (as pointed out) but I am not likely to be blocked for violation of TB here however the likelihood is that I will just continue contributing to Commons as the proposed restrictions is near to a full ban. @Nilfanion: are you suggesting that the restrictions should carry over to Commons or that my contributions there would violate the restriction here. This would seem ridiculous as this is a request for unban on EN not an exchange of bans. If I am restricted from moving here then that doesn't apply to Commons contributions.

With the point about "Leaving work to others" I was refering to what would happen if I was only allowed to create/move pages and not edit existing pages. For example hatnotes and other technical edits are often needed when creating/moving pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of tasks you can do within your restrictions, and they are nothing close to a full ban. Substantial improvement to articles is an obvious one, but there's also new page patrol, recent changes patrol, AfD, article assessments... the list goes on.

In the longer run, the community doesn't want you to have any editing restrictions, but it CAN'T give you what you want at this time. Those restrictions will remain until you have actually demonstrated good behaviour on Wikipedia over an extended period. To do that, you need to contribute to a different section of WP. If you get unblocked, and choose to avoid Wikipedia, because you can't do the tasks you want - then you won't demonstrate good behaviour.

My point about Commons is: If you violate your restrictions on WP, get blocked and then carry on with the identical activity on Commons for the duration of the block (of the sort you'd be blocked for on WP), why should the Wikipedia believe you won't carry on with edits that violate your restrictions when your technical block is removed? It wouldn't lead to a Commons block, but that behaviour pattern will make it harder for the Wikipedia community to ever trust you.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd also point out that there is near-zero prospect of the community allowing you creating thousands of stub articles via a bot. Forget that as a goal - its not the way those articles should be created.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

But as I pointed out most articles are fine, there is no need to change them as long as they are correct. Are you really suggesting that other things patrolling is a good idea, sure I have done some of this with "

bad hand

" accounts. But I don't want to start requesting other users work for removal, that I would expect would be disruptive and unproductive. Getting other people's work deleted is certainly not something I want to be doing. Notice the complete lack of deletion related contributions both here and on Commons, on neither projects have a started any deletion discussions.

If I start doing other things I am more likely to get into trouble, as can be seen from my contributions I almost excursively created new pages and once they were referenced there was generally no conflict. When I tried other things such as creating other kinds of pages I got into trouble. When I edited a major page I started having my contributions under scrutiny.

I won't violate my WP restrictions by the likelihood is that because of this I would make most of my contributions on Commons.

How else do you expect to create them when a bot could much more efficiently do this. A request at Wikipedia:Bot requests could be made. I wouldn't be operating the bot, it would be someone else. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Most articles are fine? Hell no!!! Look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/UK geography articles by quality statistics. Of the 22,000 current UK geography articles, only 340 (or 1%!) are GA or better. Compare Burntwood (Stub) to Tavistock (C-class), and consider that Tavistock's rating is still quite low. Burntwood's article is poor and could really benefit from improvement. Participating in AfD is not about solely deleting others work, but can be about retrieving articles that are inadequate but are easily fixable. The same is true of the other tasks I mentioned, you can find something positive and worthwhile in them if you want.

At the moment you would not be able to the same sort of edits (because of your restrictions). That doesn't prevent you doing other edits, and you should be treated no differently to anyone else if you wanted to improve a high-profile article in a completely different field like Donald Trump. I'd encourage you to do so.

As I said, if you want the restrictions to be relaxed on WP you will need to be making meaningful contributions on Wikipedia.

And it shouldn't be a bot creation. They should be created straight away as half-decent articles, with facts specific to each individual ward and proper referencing. That's too complex to do with a bot.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

But at the very least we have articles for them, the point is that many CPs/wards have not article what so ever. Yes I would agree with that about AFD indeed this is the kind of work users do to save them. While I do acknowledge that WP can't have everything, I don't want to start with deletion which could end in a nasty spiral if I start to get into disputes about inclusion. While I have had a problem with some deletion obsessed users I would at least point out that the work regarding deletion has not caused problems (but still disagreements) with say Ilikeeatingwaffles, who regularly removed unacceptable content like here.

In this case I would admit that the fact that I should discuss and careful make contributions to high-profile articles, my edit was not suitable and near unilateral which is perhaps why my edits came under scrutiny, had I discussed or made sure it was suitable this may not have happened.

Location and population could be started with a bot with other content added if needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The point is there are thousands of articles that are not "fine" and desperately need editor's time spent on them. You can choose to spend your time doing that, which will be greatly appreciated - that's a long way from a total ban! You can't create new articles (with the restrictions), and you won't get that ability unless you work on something else. Assuming Arbcom grants your unban request: Pick something you like the sound of and do it. After 6 months of doing that other thing, you will have a good chance to get the restrictions removed. If you choose to do nothing, because you aren't being allowed to do one very specific task, then why should anyone remove those restrictions?

The fact you seem to think that location and population is sufficient for a Wikipedia article on a place, demonstrates why you were blocked in the first place. Feel free to respond to this - but I am not going to respond further, as I feel further discussion between you and me will hinder Arbcom's assessment. @Callanecc: Sorry if the above has gotten too messy.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale: your comments in this thread strongly suggest your only editing interests are the ones you were banned for. There's literally millions of existing articles that you would be able to edit if the account was unblocked with the proposed restrictions. But if you're really only interested in going back to creating new articles then there's not much point in further discussion. I had the earlier impression that you were at least willing to abide by the restrictions, but if this has changed please let us know. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Crouch, Swale, we are at the take it or leave it stage. You want to start writing articles again (and hopefully real articles, not useless little stubs/yeah, that's my personal opinion, but I don't think I'm the only one who has it)? Play along with these restrictions and show us that you deserve to be given a fifth, sixth? opportunity. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I was in no way suggesting that I would not comply with the restrictions but I was saying that to me they are like a full ban. What was suggested in response to this was a small number of articles that are at risk of being merged that WP should obviously have. I think that there was a bit of misunderstanding, the reason I suggested editing existing articles was just to keep them from getting merged/deleted. The restrictions look relatively easy to follow so I shouldn't have any problem with that. I would also point out that I was not suggesting that I have to be the one creating the articles just at least that they are created somehow. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I would also point out that for one you used the word "likely" to be on the 2 restrictions does not imply that it will happen and that doesn't mean that a consensus about what I can and can't create/move can't be agreed on (census-designated places need articles). As I pointed out on Commons I use the move tag if I think there is a reasonable change that someone could disagree while just being bold and moving ones unlikely to be contested. My other concern was that I haven't been banned or even advised of suggested restrictions apart from being more careful/discussing controversial moves at Commons:User talk:Crouch, Swale/Archive 2#Category moves. After that I have not had and warnings about similar moves, as I have discussed similar moves. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Apologies, I'm not really understanding this most recent post. If your account is unblocked with these restrictions, you won't be able to create or move articles at all. It won't be a matter of being able to do so if you can get a local consensus for any specific creation or move, it's an absolute prohibition unless you can convince Arbcom to repeal it at

this noticeboard

. Also, not sure if we've pointed this out before but Commons is outside our jurisdiction. What you're permitted to do there isn't necessarily relevant to what you might be permitted to do here.

All that said, I assume that your earlier answer is that you are willing to abide by the restrictions if allowed to edit again. So again, thanks for clearing that up. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Does that mean I will have to wait at least 6 months or can I appeal sooner?

Yes I am. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, six months of editing with these restrictions, then you can appeal them and request that they be loosened. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Mkdw: @Casliber: @Doug Weller: My question was whether it was worth being unbanned with the restrictions as opposed to remaining sitebanned. As I pointed out is if I am unbanned I would comply with the restrictions. Like Callanecc I don't really understand what the oppose comments are relating to, are they suggesting that they think I would violate the restriction or it is just because I have shown that they are similar to a siteban in my books. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, I have one simple question: What contributions will you want to make to Wikipedia, with the restrictions in place? If the answer is "nothing, because I can't create articles" then I'd say you should stay banned. If its anything else, and you will actually try to contribute positively - fantastic.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

As suggested expansion of small articles and possibly more important topics (but I would need to be careful with those). I will also probably make quite a few technical edits, fixing links to DAB pages on Commons would be useful as I have created quite a few. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Euryalus: @Callanecc: Can I have some clarifications please,

1. the "discussions on geographic naming conventions" shouldn't this be "discussions on naming conventions" instead? is there any need to exclude other topics
2. the last 2 shouldn't exclude userspace, are talk page creations of redirects OK, redirects from subtopics should generally be tagged with Wikiprojects and there may need to be discussion on what should be done with a redirect
3. The page creations, presumably this means no creating pages from redirects but I can restore previously redirected pages (as a page can be merged without discussion even by an unregistered user, not that there will be many as most of the merged pages I agree with
   example
   .
4. Suggest also adding a ban from editing the articles (not talk pages) of vital articles and controversial topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Callanecc: What about the other points, the NC discussions would make sense if it was all pages not just geo articles. Is there any point in having userspace as an exception. What about the proposed addition of vital and controversial articles, considering what happened when I edited London, this one would make sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Think of the restrictions which are part of the motion as the minimum. If you wish, you can hold yourself to higher standards, for example not involving yourself in any naming discussions or not creating any pages of your userspace but you won't be blocked for doing things which yo voluntarily decide to avoid whereas you will be blocked for breaching the restrictions in the the unban motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    • My point is that the other suggestions are probably what I an more likely to have problems with, the current proposals only seem to be things that I am interested in rather than what caused problems, what started all this of was apparently my edit to London. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Your block/ban had nothing to do with London. The edit to London wasn't the problem, your problem edits were around minor places. At most, the edit to London may have brought attention to you, and then people noticed the issues around your other contributions. You don't have a low-profile now, someone subject to active restrictions won't escape community attention for long if something bad happens.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
        • The point of the matter is that it was the opposite kind of contribution to what the problem was, doing something other than my normal activity shouldn't have prevented me from doing that. I agree that the minor places and pointless redirects has nothing to do with that though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC) You suggested that all I am interested in is creating minor place articles but this was the opposite and look what happened. And the block primarily for socking, not settlement creation even if I has had some conflict prior. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Your normal activity was the problem. When you did something else, you may have gotten it wrong. But it wasn't a problem, its was a good faith edit that was poorly executed and could have been improved. Note also, I'd personally consider converting a redirect to a full article as the creation of an article, which is a breach of your restrictions, and therefore likely to lead to a block.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
            • The redirect to article has been clarified, the other point is that it doesn't apply to merged articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
              • Your initial blocks were for the problem edits (around minor article and redirect creation) and that escalated to an indef-ban because of the socking. Your good faith edits to London had nothing to do with that process: So what if it got reverted? That's a normal part of the
                Bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, overturning a community-endorsed merge by converting a redirect "back to" a full article is a bad idea (by not reverting it, the community endorsed it). Even if not it is explicitly forbidden by your restrictions it will bring you very close to the core of your previous problems, and I would consider it gaming the system. @Callanecc: Please can you clarify that situation, otherwise Crouch, Swale is likely to revert edits similar to this one.--Nilfanion (talk
                ) 15:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
                • I was thinking along with this page for example. The one you gave along with Gosling Green for example I am happy with though. However I will re add the categories.Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
                  • Exactly - if you go there (for Wilby) you will cause problems. That was proposed for a merge in December, and implemented in February. The community did not object in the 2 months the {{merge}} tag was present, and did not object in the 10 months since - it doesn't matter that it was an anon who did it - the community has accepted it. Reverting the article back to this state is tantamount to article creation. Don't do it.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
                    • Once I have edited for 6 months without the prior problems will I then be able to make such contributions or is it likely that once I appeal them I will still have restrictions, something is telling me that I still will and that maybe this appeal is pointless? Should I just remain banned, it doesn't look like the community ever want be back to doing what I want to be doing even if I do make positive changes elsewhere. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions,

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Original announcement

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Crouch, Swale ban appeal

This is in response to this diff, I'm putting it in a new section as you are no longer formally banned. Note that these are my personal views, but it is likely that others will agree with them.

1. Your editing restrictions will be in place for at least 6 months, but will remain longer if the community feels relaxing them could cause issues. If you want them removed at 6 months, you will need to have demonstrated significant contributions to Wikipedia.
2. For the next 6 months, the expectation is that you will edit Wikipedia in a different fashion to before. That is something that your restrictions in no way hinder. I will give a couple examples of tasks I think you might like to do, and would be productive:
   1. Improving links to Commons: correcting links after a move on Commons, and adding links when one doesn't already exist
   2. Improving quality of stub articles for village and CPs. This shouldn't be too difficult. If you compare
      SSSIs
      and has both an infobox and a navigational link to related articles. Each of those points is quite easy to add: For instance, the infobox is quite formulaic.
3. To understand what I mean by "significant contributions", consider my suggestions above:
   1. Improvements to Commons links are helpful, but may not be seen as significant. This is because small edits like that don't really demonstrate much understanding of Wikipedia.
   2. Substantive improvement to geographic articles definitely would give you a good track record. That's because if you can make those, it clearly demonstrates you know what a reasonable article about a place in the UK should look like.
   3. Other activities would be taken on their merits, and you should be able to judge for yourself if its a big deal or not
4. Use your activity over the next to develop your understanding of WP, and article writing skills. It sure as hell isn't just one sentence = good. In fact a single-sentence article can be worse than nothing at all.
5. When we get to the end of May, I advise you to create a draft article in your userspace (eg
   User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish). Use that draft to demonstrate what article you would create at South Huish
   if you were allowed to. I can review that for you and give you advice - and there are other people who may be willing to help. But don't even attempt to write that draft or ask for feedback from me to before May. That's because your restrictions will not be removed earlier than the end of June.
6. If you have a good track record of significant contributions, and a good draft article lined up, then when you ask for your restrictions to be reviewed in June - you will have very strong evidence supporting you, so you will have a good chance of getting the restrictions removed. In those circumstances, I would support you fully when you went back to Arbcom.
7. If you do not have either of these things, but are instead making comments like you did in the previous threads, implying you only want to write extremely short articles about barely notable subjects, then that gives very good evidence that your restrictions should be kept. In that case, I would oppose removal of the restrictions.
8. A final note of caution: If you succeed in getting your restrictions removed that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want again, you will be expected to work within WP's policies and guidelines. If you embark on a mass crusade of renaming articles (like you have with Commons categories) or write a ton of single-line stubs, then there is a good chance you will be blocked again.

As I mention above I am willing to offer support on this (but I'm not going to waste hours either). If your goals are to just write a ton of extremely short articles, I will NOT support that. If you want to actually improve Wikipedia, by providing substantial information on topics that WP either doesn't cover at all (like South Huish) or covers poorly (like Atherington) that's a very different situation. There are also a ton of other things you can now do which have nothing to do with British geography. Your enthusiasm for wiki projects is fantastic, and if you can convert that energy to fully productive tasks, you will both enjoy yourself more and be greatly appreciated by others.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks I will do so over time, as can be seen my first changes have been error correction (for example the places in Kent). I will try and find the other mistakes I have noticed over time. Unfortunately I didn't keep a record of errors, only those that I remembered, thanks for your advice. With regard to when I am able to rename/create articles, there aren't nearly as many badly named articles here as on Commons so I won't be making nearly as many moves anyway. I am familiure with WP's P&Gs. By the way my work on parish cats is nearly done on Commons, I will focus on creating villages and DAB pages there next. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, Crouch, Swale. It's always nice to welcome editors back to the community. Hope you will do well. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Alex Shih: thanks, I am also still active on Commons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not change "hamlet" to "village" (or vice versa) without reliable sourcing for the change. As I have said repeatedly on Commons, merely spotting a church on a map does NOT make it a village and the reverse (no church = hamlet) is even more dubious. Wikipedia is about reliable sources, not looking at a map and slavish adherence to a dictionary. Compare the following two changes:

• "Foo is a hamlet village<ref name="OS">{{cite web|title=Foo|url=http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/doc/xxxx|website=OS Linked Data|publisher=Ordnance Survey|accessdate=2017-01-08}}</ref>"
• "Foo is a hamlet village"

I don't need to say which is better do I?

Edits like [1] are far more valuable than ones like this, as the first actually adds information.-Nilfanion (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Because its more reliable and simpler to follow what something its, do we need a source every time to say that a pentagon has 5 sides (

WP:COUNTSORT, many sources that say what type of settlement are not suitable as they probably won't know what the difference is. Anyway the edit to Hammer was changing the content I originally

submitted anyway (and not source proving otherwise was there).

The reason for the Preston edit was that it needed an existing article associated with it until I create the former CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

What the dictionary says is NOT sufficient. Realistically with the status of a settlement, you'll be able to find plenty of sources for the "correct" status - just pick one. In short: DO NOT CHANGE because "there is a church". Do change because "this source says so".--Nilfanion (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

And that way you get inaccuracy and edit wars, anyway as I pointed out there wasn't a source for Hammer being a hamlet anyway. This source states Hammer is a village but is that a suitable source to determine that anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on consensus, and while edit wars can always happen, well-sourced changes are unlikely to be reverted. Dubious and unsourced changes, on the other hand - its likely? Drop the dictionary and actually USE reliable sources.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

What would be your view on Hammer (I know it is now merged) then considering the source. Would you regard that to be suitable? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That source for Hammer is probably fine. If you have any doubt about whether a place is village or hamlet (spotting a church in a "hamlet" isn't proof of error, but is reason for doubt): Look for sources calling the place a village and look for sources calling the place a hamlet. Compare the two sets of results and work out correct answer from there.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done, to Spalding, Lincolnshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are you changing links to Shaw and Crompton to a redirect, Shaw, Lancashire, a non-existent article? Until there is an article it appears to be rather pointless. J3Mrs (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Because if it is created, it means people won't have to change them, see

WP:NOTBROKEN, this is one of the purposes of a sub topic redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 12:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't put the cart before the horse. If, and when, the new article is created fix the links at that time. This activity falls into one of two categories:

1. Utterly pointless: Like a change from
   Crompton, Lancashire
2. Detrimental: Converting a valid article link to a red link. We don't have an article about Devonport County Borough at present. While we could have an article on that topic, as it is purely historical its a low priority and is unlikely to be created any time soon. However, it is discussed in Devonport, Plymouth#History. Converting a blue link to that article to the redlink does not help the reader. Instead of getting some basic information, they get nothing.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

With Crompton its unhelpful to "bypass" the redirect generally, the redirect still gets people to where they want anyway. Not saying that I actually think it needs an article but there's no reason to bypass the redirect. With the county borough most settlement articles don't have much info and linking Devonport County Borough gives the impression that the CB has a separate article when it doesn't, this case may be an exception but most settlement don't cover this info. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You are missing the point (on both). Yes, there is no reason the bypass the redirect. But it doesn't need changing, don't waste your time on it.

Converting a somewhat helpful blue link to a red link is NOT helpful. 99% of settlement articles will discuss their history and that will straddle the period of any defunct government units - so they are an adequate target for a link to that defunct unit. I simply used Devonport as an arbitrary example you haven't messed with. The purpose of a link is to be followed not to exist.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd note that with redirects being bypassed I have seen cases where this has been done and it being difficult to correct the links when the article is created, look at Bocking, Essex and how many links go to Braintree or Mansfield Woodhouse Urban District but links go to Mansfield Woodhouse[2]. Yes I agree in some cases it isn't helpful but I provided a blue link here as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"provided a blue link"? Don't you mean removed a blue link?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I was meaning that I changed the original link to the specific (not existent) article Yeovil Municipal Borough, then added "parish of Yeovil created in 1982". I'll follow this in future, provide a blue link if possible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Replacing a blue link with a red link and the same blue link is detrimental in many cases (as repetition leads to bad prose). Its better to just those sort of things alone. And if the settlement article doesn't mention the CB - add that information to the history section!--Nilfanion (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Yeovil I don't see how bad prose, the link to the parish can be followed by readers and the link to the CB in the unparished part shows the missing article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That link is in a table. Tables aren't prose. Most links are in body text, which is prose. Seriously though, improving the target article is a MUCH better solution than converting a blue link to a red link.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The target article can be improved but as we already have articles for some its reasonable to expect others to follow and we don't want links to go to the generic article on the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Would a

Yes it would, an article which contains info on the ward for example, along with information on the history of Shaw specifically. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC) But that's beside the point anyway, one of the points of having a redirect to a subtopic/possibilities ("Since a new page may be created, links to this redirect should not be replaced with a direct link to the target page" is so that links go through it and when it is created we don't have to fix them all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Crompton (ward) or Shaw (ward) would not be in Lancashire and any other info would be duplicated so create it and we'll see. J3Mrs (talk)#

They are in Greater Manchester so would describe the places today, Crompton isn't a ward (or at least isn't today). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I cannot see how converting a useful link to a useless one is an improvement in any way shape or form. Please can you actually add some new information to address these problems, instead of making the existing problem (a lack of information) worse (by preventing readers from finding the little we do have).

I'd be shocked if a

Shaw, Lancashire article would end up being more than a mere content fork of Shaw and Crompton. @J3Mrs: FYI Crouch is under an Arbcom restriction on creating articles.--Nilfanion (talk

) 14:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I will as pointed out usually only create the redlinks when there is a replacement blue link. I would also point out that most of the pages with those links are where people would expect to find info specifically related to the unit and not the settlement anyway.

I could still re create this but I'll wait until later. The restriction was "prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist". Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If you do that I will report to ARCA immediately. The restriction might be poorly phrased but includes ANY redirect.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The wording "where one didn't previously exist" would seem to suggest otherwise but I think it would be simpler to just wait until the restriction is lifted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Nilfanion: do you think that I should revert all my changes where there is not also a blue link with the units. IMO the red links should stay and the same fixes should be done to others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, those reverts would be an improvement. Breaking links is bad. Anytown Urban District is a sub-concept of Anytown, so a link to Anytown is perfectly adequate. A blue link to an adequate target is better than a red link to a notionally perfect target.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

From my watchlist I noticed you have continued to change links to redirects at List of ecclesiastical works by Austin and Paley (1895–1916). Pointless or disruptive? You choose. J3Mrs (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Why did you revert? the links are supposed to go through the redirects, please read

WP:NOTBROKEN and Template:R with possibilities

. Why do you think we shouldn't link to redirects, could you please explain why you think it is a problem. It is not good to have them go directly as it makes less use of the what links here and when the article are created the links will go to the wrong place.

I will fix the links on the various lists in a little while, yes I agree it is sebsible to have follow-able links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to quote guidance try and understand it, and that the spirit of a rule is more important than the letter. In this context, the letter of NOTBROKEN says "do not re-target a useful redirect to avoid it" (It does not say "re-targeting a direct link to a redirect might be better"). The spirit of NOTBROKEN is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". These links aren't broken, so don't waste time fixing them.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The links are not good, 1) what happens when we have articles on these topics 2) if this is the case anyway why complain about me changing to go through, if it is not a problem to go through then why complain about it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Why stop? Because people have asked you to stop. IMO the edits here are completely "pointless", and your time would be much better spent doing something useful. Your failure to stop when multiple editors have asked you to is potentially disruptive.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that I will continue regardless but I have pointed out the reasons based on common sense as to why the redirects should not be linked through. The edits are not pointless but to make better use of the what links here tool and to support the potential new articles, why do we expect people to fix all the links that go to the wrong place when the new article is created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC) And as I pointed out I am going to re add blue links for the historical districts. Nilfanion I think you are bluing problematic with pointless. @J3Mrs: can you please explain why you object to these changes, how do you think it benefits things in contrast to the problems it causes in the future and the reduction of use of the what links here? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please forget about hypotheticals like "if someone creates the article". No-one is going to create these articles anytime soon.

And pointless things can become problematic if people complain about them, multiple times.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That still doesn't matter, they should still be linked correctly.

I have explained why the redirects should be linked through, J3Mrs has yet to explain why they shouldn't. I have accepted your point about red links and will rectify soon, but no reason has been provided to why with redirects, IMO they are somewhat the best of both worlds, we can link through them with a potential article and readers can still follow them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I am much more concerned about your attitude (digging in, insisting you are right, and that therefore you will carry on) than the point of the matter (which is

WP:LAME territory). If someone asks you to stop, please stop and work with them to establish consensus on correct way forward. That will be based on the local decision of all editors involved, not your reading of global guidelines. If you cannot reach agreement, seek broader community input. Don't ignore them and carry on regardless.--Nilfanion (talk

) 21:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that but I have changed my style when you pointed about red links (and as pointed out fix) but J3Mrs hasn't explained why she objects to it and didn't make any further posts here (other than the creation of a "Shaw, Lancashire") until today. I have clearly explained why it detrimental to have them bypassed and doesn't cause problems. Before I continue, should I ask on that on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I doubt if anything anybody says will stop you from doing these pointless things. If these articles are ever created it is not difficult to link them to appropriate articles and they are obscure enough to need only a few links. I presume you are creating them for when you are allowed to create articles but I think most will be stubs or content forks that really should be merged into parent articles. J3Mrs (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@J3Mrs: thanks for the reply. Could you please explain why you don't think the links should go through the redirects (and reply to my points about it being detrimental to have the redirects avoided). I get the impression that it is mainly because you don't want separate articles on them. If this is the case then I will be able to do that anyway but if I don't fix the links then when someone else creates them the links will go to the wrong place. If I do create them (which I don't necessarily intend to), they won't be content forks, see this and this where I have removed content forking. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The links went to the best targets there are, not to ones you think should be created. I can't see anyone being "helped" by the redirect except yourself. When I created an article from a redirect I couldn't work out what to do, so it is only making it easier for the enlightened. Also it looks as though the article was created by someone else. Nilfanion (talk · contribs) has explained at length why this is pointless. By the way I said most not all will be stubs or content forks, and obviously some (many) articles could/should be improved by adding more information rather than creating more for the sake of it. J3Mrs (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Amen to that. If you spend your time adding new information to existing articles, that gives an immediate and substantive benefit to readers. Not a hypothetical chance of a marginal improvement at some point in 10 years time. I'd consider the

WP:SIZERULE

: If the target article is very short, then why split it? On the other hand, once it is a "large" article, then a split is both justified and sustainable. Expanding the target does more the build the case for a split than fiddling with redirects.

I have just gone through your contribs and thanked you for the sort of edits I'd love to see more of.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

J3Mrs I am not suggesting necessarily that the pages should be created, but is it really beneficial to avoid the redirect just because it may look like it already exists, only if you hover over the link do you see it. Is this really better than the links going to the wrong place in the future? Also if it is helpful to me at least isn't that at least worthwhile, at least if it isn't unhelpful to someone else?

If an article on a different topic

Arkholme then I would usually just link to it and add information that would still be at Arkholme-with-Cawood

even if split. I usually would prefer starting from scratch than "split" them.

Nilfanion do you think that the link structure at List of civil parishes in Devon and List of civil parishes in Nottinghamshire is better, I know that the double links look odd but is seems to be the best of both worlds. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I doubt those links will be helpful to you - unless you demonstrate the capability of writing a quality article. Until you do, your restrictions should remain.

Yuck no. Seaton Urban District looks like a link to Seaton and a link to Urban District. There is zero need to link to the former units unless they have articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you suggest with Devon that I just revert the changes then? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done that one. Apart from the dodgy link creation, your other changes to the civil parish lists are likely to be constructive. A simple revert may not be best approach.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want to improve the Devon list, the best thing would be to make all the sections mirror that for East Devon. That is how the best CP lists (like Somerset) are laid. It also gives a natural way of supporting the redlinks to the old units.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a few modifications, I restored when a blue link was right next to it going to the same target.

Yes, I'll look at that, my main concern will be updating this lists to reflect newly created parished and those abolished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Why change a link from

Drigg and Carleton? I see no point in discussing it but I will continue to point out these problematic edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talk • contribs

)

Sorry, I missed the fact that is is spelled differently there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are trying to justify keeping an article, try to expand it beyond a couple of sentences. If you can find sources, its normally easy enough to write an actual paragraph. Two factoids plus a reference isn't anything CLOSE to good enough.

That's because an article which is one or two sentences long should be merged into an appropriate parent concept. I note Whitton, Suffolk says far more about Castle Hill than Castle Hill does.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the content from Whitton. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• rolls eyes* That's not what I meant and you know it. All you've done there is create a content fork. It would be much better to merge Castle Hill into Whitton and be done with it. I am starting to question if you are even capable of writing an article.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed the content fork by placing the information in the specific article. I have already added the relevant facts which goes towards what you wanted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In this case you have now created a content fork by duplicating the information in 2 articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Castle Hill is a housing estate within the much more interesting locality of Whitton. You didn't actually add any information to Wikipedia by doing that, and by removing the content from Whitton, you made that article worse. If you spread Wikipedia's content into millions of tiny stubs about small places, instead of larger articles about the broader areas, your continuing involvement to this project will be harmful.

If you want to get actual useful support from me, I strongly recommend you do the following:

1. Go find a article on a clearly notable place (like a civil parish), which is no more than 3 sentences.
2. Expand it to be more than 3 paragraphs long.
3. Ping me when that's done.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have already expanded Revelstoke, Devon, Nedging and Theydon Garnon in some sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note my second point: 3 paragraphs. Revelstoke has gone from 3 sentences to one reasonable paragraph. Its still a stub. 3 paragraphs might just be a decent start.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It contains enough useful content, the kind of facts that a basic article should contain. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

An article that short can and SHOULD be merged into its natural parent, when one exists. In contrast, A 3-paragraph article is a worthwhile thing in its own right. That's the key distinction here. The content of Revelstoke could easily be contained by Newton and Noss.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

But it is possible to expand it. Would you say the same thing about Preston, Nebraska which mostly contains census data. Both are officially recognized places (Revelstoke was) so are entitle to stand alone articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

. So what? What I am trying to do is see if you can write a decent length article. If you can, great. If you can, but the quality isn't great - that's where I'll help you. If you can't and all you want to do is write extremely short stubs, and you see nothing wrong with an article of that standard, it will be best to keep your restrictions in place indefinitely.

What really worries me is your behaviour with Whitton and Castle Hill. That seems to suggest that you think it is better to split content into the smallest relevant place. That degrades Wikipedia, and if that is what your involvement will do - a re-ban may be the final outcome.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your key comment "it is possible to expand it". Prove it. Expand it.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't expect that the articles are expanded how, see

WP:TIND

.

I moved the content because it was about Castle Hill and not Whitton. Content of that kind should only be in

1 article. In any case Castle Hill isn't really a sub topic of Whitton anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

OK you've answered my question, thank you. You can't write a decent-length article.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with everything Nilfanion has said. An electoral ward is not a place, boundaries change over time. You are not allowed to create articles but you appear to be looking for ways to push the boundaries. I don't think you want to expand articles but appears to be on a mission to eventually have an "article" for every place mentioned on a map. J3Mrs (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not I can right a 3 paragraph article or not isn't relevant. The content at Revelstoke is the kind of content that is expected for a stub. I have added facts to lots of different articles, like this and this anyway, which is the kind of contributions I thought you and others want me to make.

I moved content to an article I created over 7 years ago, that's not pushing any boundaries, anyway you made splits like this, all I was suggesting was to have 1 article for the settlement and 1 for the ward. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• I created that because sections were added to
  WP:UNDUE especially as they will eventually be populated by facts and figures and references similar to another article I created, for the same reason, City Centre (ward). You are prohibited from doing that, I am not. J3Mrs (talk
  ) 12:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The last thing first: There is definite boundary pushing going on, as you've been involved in some G5 deletions recently. If something is G5-tagged, stay way out of it. Even if you think the article is worthwhile.

What I've been trying to do here is assess what we should do about your restrictions. Do you want them to be removed at some point in the future? Unless something in your behaviour changes, I now firmly believe that your restrictions should be extended indefinitely. That is because of three factors:

1. My experience with you on Commons, I know you obsess with minutiae.
2. Your defense of Castle Hill, and other extremely short stubs, when notability is clearly questionable.
3. Your refusal to attempt to write a decent-length article - and not a stub - shows you have no inclination, or maybe even no capaability, to make such improvements.

The combination of those factors makes me certain that if restrictions were removed, you would create "articles" on a legion of places, which may or may not be notable, that are little more than micro-stubs. If so, you should be restricted indefinitely, to stop you from doing that.

On the other hand, if I felt that you would create new articles, of a reasonable standard, I would support removal of the restrictions.

I'd love to see more edits like this, and I'm sure J3Mrs will agree with me on that. You can carry on doing those within your restrictions. But edits like that will not get your restrictions removed, not with the other things going on.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

G5 speedy deletion is on the verge of

WP:NPA and can only be used if uncontroversial, if anyone objects then it can't be used, period. You also pointed about participating in AFD here

. Preventing deletion is similar to what you suggested about AFD "Participating in AfD is not about solely deleting others work, but can be about retrieving articles that are inadequate but are easily fixable".

Yes I do want my restrictions to be removed ASAP. As the time gets closer, we can discuss what topics can be created and what can't. This (but has copyright content) and this contained a large amount of content, but not really suitable content. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't see much chance of your restriction being removed. Perhaps if, as Nilfanion suggests, you can add more to the encyclopedia than stubs on places "referenced" to maps, some of which are little more than addresses, one day you might be able to create articles. I'm not sure that adding infoboxes to stubs makes them any more notable but adding information and reliable sources does. If you don't understand what is suitable then you shouldn't be adding it. J3Mrs (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I added content to Whitley Lower, isn't that the kind of thing you like to see? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Only if you incorporate the information in such a way as to be coherent, not changing a sentence so that the next one doesn't follow. When you add information, it should not just be dumped and left. J3Mrs (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, the different types of parish made the article confusing, you've now fixed it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

J3Mrs, adding information to an article doesn't make it more notable - it just makes a case for notability more obvious. A place is either notable or it isn't. Adding information is really about article quality.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Nonsense, it's the information you provide that establishes notability. Writing coherently is about quality. J3Mrs (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well yes and no. Things can be non-notable even if you can write pages about them. I think my comment is directed at the leap from stub to start, not sub-stub to stub. There's already enough info in a typical stub to establish if its notable. But a stub is still "vulnerable", as if there is an obvious article which could absorb the it as a sub-topic. The sort of articles Crouch likes often do have that parent available.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The amount of content (and quality) actually in the article is generally irrelevant. It must be

affect it. That said if someone mass creates articles, then they can be expected to provide reasonable content and not just flood us with poor quality pages, even if they can be improved. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 20:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That's rich. That's exactly what you want to do (or arrange for a bot-op to do). The minimum standard you should be aiming for is start, not stub.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

G5 = articles written by a banned user. Looking at your recent deleted contributions, that you were defending clear-cut cases. If someone objects, and it was written by a banned user, it can still be deleted.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

CSD is only for uncontroversial deletions, either those that have no practical change (A7, A9, A11, R3) or a so bad that they me be re created with better content (G1-3 and G10-12), G5 and G7 are more dubious. If for example a clearly notable person does not contain the assertion then admins should check the what links here and Google to be sure. If you has an article that read "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946)" is a businessman. Trump was born and raised in

Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania." that would meet A7 even if the subject is actually notable. That said there was loose consensus between I and Tony to delete Wormingford Grove, even though I had been improved drastically from 2011. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 20:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

G5 is one of the CSD. You might not like it, but it is. Deal with it.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It still does not mandate deletion, why should we delete content based primarily on who created it? who benefited from that? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If a banned user is allowed to continue to create stuff, they will keep coming back and the ban will not be effective. If we stop them, they might go. They are banned for a reason - they caused real harm to the project, and their continuing involvement will do more harm. We want them to go away. That's why.--20:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't change the parish back to 'Roothing', which I have kindly left in as the non-modern style. Check the refs I have offered, including the parish council, Uttlesford etc. Acabashi (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The same of the CP is "Roothing". That's what the OS uses, even though the modern name for the village is most commonly "Roding". Yes the PC and DC use Roding but the CP still appears to be Roothing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As there is variation and confusion over this parish name in the variety of sources historic and modern, where even on some OS maps (which are not the be-all and end-all) the parish, as opposed to the village, can also written as 'Roding' eg:[3][4], I'll change it to include both as legitimate. Even OS can be confused as to even the 'village' name eg:[5][6] I will be heading off to photo that part of the county again when Spring has sprung, and will ask locals of 'High' and 'White' what they see it as - however I suspect they will have their own personal preferences for one or the other, and their views are not reliable for Wikipedia, but will be interesting anyway. I note that you have added lots of Essex (conveniently for me west or central) settlement articles, to some of which I've added a bit of fleshing out. So if you would like me to visit some of them with low Wikimedia photographic profile let me know and I'll aim to include them in this year's photo-tours. Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I've fatted out your Littley Green article a bit... I think it's more than a stub now and doesn't deserve the merge request at the moment. I'll have a look at some of your others as I get the time, using my sloothing lens on my Essex books and discs. I've found that there are few settlement stubs. even hamlets, that can't be developed as properly worthy of their own article. Acabashi (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Acabashi, and I entirely agree with you on this: A hamlet (as opposed to a label on a map) can usually sustain a decent article - as it will often have centuries of history. Just a trawl through the relevant listed buildings can typically get a paragraph's worth of text.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I added info on listed buildings, to many articles in 2010/11[7][8] but I now think that they would be better just covered in a Listed Buildings in X parish see Listed buildings in Culgaith for example.

The village appears to be more commonly known today at "White Roding" but OS does call it "White Roothing or White Roding". However today the parish is "White Roothing". The parish in the past was called White Roding but not today. The PC and DC are not good sources for saying what the parish is called as they tend to use different names, which can change at any time. Most other sources go from the OS (eg census data). For High Roding, the same is the case, the parish is called High Roothing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

White Roding's parish council, who ought to know its

WP:COMMONNAME, uses the phrase "historically known as White Roothing" on its webpage. It is usually called White Roding, I think they should know. J3Mrs (talk

) 08:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That is common, but usually all other sources use the OS name, see User talk:Keith D/Archive 11#Barmston and Fraisthorpe and Talk:Edenham, Grimsthorpe, Elsthorpe and Scottlethorpe#Name ("all sources other than South Kesteven District Council"), I'd do what has been done at Everingham and state that the PC and DC use White Roding. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nilfanion:@J3Mrs:@Keith D:@Crouch, Swale: You don't need to do that... I have already for the moment explained the differences in my White Roding article, this purely as a courtesy to you and to avoid a fruitless entrenchment of positions. This argument over what organization/s define a settlement's civil parish name seems likely to continue to raise its contentious head, so it would be best discussed at WikiProject UK geography, where guideline consistency on this can be worked out for all UK Wikipedia settlements, and applied under consensus vote by all interested, and invited (those in the project page history?), project users. I may have my views but I don't mind which way a guideline goes. Acabashi (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Skinsmoke (talk · contribs) has probably the most detail on this topic. I'd note that the sources to the OS are old maps, which you are describing to be current. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

There should be no need for a concrete guide. It should be obvious, we use the COMMONNAME. We don't follow any source religiously (whether that's OS, the relevant council, the press...). That will vary from case to case. None of those organisations can actually define the name of a place. Its only really things like city status that are defined in that manner. Following a single source blindly leads to bad things.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out nearly all other sources use OS (eg English Heritage, census data, Pastscape). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

{{

fact}}. Stop relying on OS (or any other single source) as a crutch. The important measure is how it is described in prose. That needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. One particular problem in that the councils change the names, but do not follow the formalities correctly and in full. They sincerely believe they have changed the name, but OS won't register it. And no-one cares enough to go around correcting those anomalies.--Nilfanion (talk

) 21:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

EH Pastscape Geonames. In the context of the "civil parish" entry in the infobox I can't see why the other name would be better in prose. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no benefit to having a different name in the infobox to the body text, and one big drawback (reader confusion). Therefore the name in the body text should be that used in the infobox. With cases like this my opinion is the council is probably the best source, unless its clear the council's preferred name is not used by anyone else. And not just because the other sources pre-date the name change (and are therefore irrelevant). I'm not going to bother commenting further here, I can think of more appealing dead horses to deal with...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I was only referring to the infobox parameter for the civil parish, in the top of the infobox it would still be "White Roding". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Still wanting the debateable 'Roothing' as civil parish. This is a wider issue than White Roding. Who decides if OS is right for a civil parish name for US? Who decides what is the civil parish Common Name for US? If the common name, OS (present, older, future) or other sources such as PD and DC (present, older, future) etc., can be variable, and all are, we are in trouble. For the Geography Project it has to be WE who provide a naming priority levels convention by consensus vote through the project page discussion to adjust guidelines. This is getting nowhere as I suspected. Tried my best to be supportive and accommodating. I'm away from this fruitless dead horse too. If this goes to the necessary wider discussion on the Geography Project page, where it deserves to be, I'm probably still in. Acabashi (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. Seeing this edit by you, I took it upon myself to create this stub. Please feel free to update and improve it. TJRC (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TJRC for creating it, PastScape appears to be down but I will have a look later. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)