User talk:Crouch, Swale/Archive 3

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.

Thanks for checking all these tiddlers. Gluibuil does exist - just north of Vaila House, but you are right - there is only one. Ben MacDui 10:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm going to take it through FAR. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

OK it does exist [1][2], its just that it doesn't show up using Geograph's search tool. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not named on e.g. Streetmap's OS map at 1:50,000, but is at 1:25,000 in the Wester Sound betwixt Vaila and Mainland. It's one of the complex islands that becomes two at high tides. See also here. Ben MacDui 15:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am about to go through Yell (the last section), I will list the ones that don't appear to exist at all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Last (and first) names aren't PTM's for disambiguation purposes. People are frequently referred to by just a single name, e.g. Washington crossed the Delaware, Paul is dead. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Per

WP:NAMELIST most are, there are lots of people called Washington but only George is mentioned on the main DAB, you can also apply the same logic to the placenames[3] but its just that we don't usually have article on place names. Great Washbourne was once just Washbourne and Washbourne, Devon is a collection of places called Washbourne. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 08:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who is likely to be searched-for by either first or last name should be taken into account accordingly on the corresponding configuration of dab pages, primary topics and redirects. --В²C ☎ 23:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Only if they are likely, most people aren't, when referring to people both in the read world and on WP you introduce them as "Firstname Lastname" and then use only their last name afterwords, everyone knows that and few would search for someone with only their last name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, anyone with a fairly unusual first or last name is likely to be search by that because of the principle of path of least resistance: less typing. For example, if I'm looking for the article on Steve Jobs I'm going to type in "jobs". --В²C ☎ 04:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that and I don't see why many other readers would, I always search for "Firstname, Lastname" if looking for a person,

Job. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 07:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"I don't see why many other readers would..." I just told you why: less typing. Why type "Barack Obama" or "Donald Trump" when "obama" or "trump" is enough? --В²C ☎ 19:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Obama has a clear primary topic, Trump doesn't and Jobs is clearly the article at

Job. By the logic of less typing should Tyne redirect to Newcastle upon Tyne and Wight redirect to Isle of Wight etc. Should we really guess what our readers might be looking for (apart from clear cases like Obama) and prioritize those who are too lazy (or don't know) the full name of a topic? Seems like a can of worms. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 21:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:NAMELIST says. Do you agree with these? Crouch, Swale (talk

) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The Lewis seems right as the explorer's first name is not well known so searches are likely to be just for "Lewis". No opinion on Skye without more research. But underlying all of that is searching for people by first or last name is fairly common and so we should accommodate such when reasonable, which is my main point. --В²C ☎ 21:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: there was a RM last year that I started at Talk:Isle of Lewis#Requested move 18 July 2018 (and there were many previous ones, a textbook Yogurt case) where Meriwether was pointed out but I think the main point is that by usage the TV series had more views and the given name is what most people would expect to find. There was a RM that I also started at Talk:Isle of Skye#Requested move 5 June 2019 where even though the island was moved to "Isle of Skye" the island remained the primary topic. Those supporting retaining the island's primacy cited the page views (which even the redirect "Isle of Skye" got more than Skye Edwards) and long-term significance, and we don't know how often Skye Edwards is referred to as plain "Skye" as opposed to the island. Those supporting the move argued that there was no clear primary topic for plain "Skye". If you do a Google search for Skye what do you get? We should certainly take into account name holders but unless there reasonably known by a single name they are simply part title matches. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Three more grouped civil parishes for your list:

• Broad Hinton and Winterbourne Bassett
• Charlton and Wilsford
• Fyfield and West Overton

All could be deleted, as they add little to the individual parish articles.

Wiltshire has at least 4 more – Berwick Bassett and Winterbourne Monkton; Heytesbury, Imber and Knook; Upper Deverills; Wilcot and Huish with Oare. No articles for these. --Wire723 (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wire723: Thanks, Suffolk has lots of grouped parishes but none of them have articles. They could maybe just be redirected to a "governance" section on the largest CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Crouch, Swale, I'm

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

I know you are disappointed at the outcome of your appeal, but you should not be surprised. There is plenty of good in your activity on Wikipedia and your various edits, such as fixing links to Commons, correcting wikilinks are both valuable and constructive, and are appreciated. Therefore reinstating a full site ban is not helpful, to you or to the project. However Arbcom wants to see evidence of a change of behaviour, which is exactly the same thing I have been seeking from you. And there is very little evidence of that.

You now have the opportunity to take part in RMs, which will give you the chance to show that the the restrictions on moves can be safely removed. If you follow my advice here you should be fine: Don't just link a policy, paraphrase the policy and explain why its appropriate in the specific case.

None of that will make any difference to the restriction on article creation. To quote Callanecc, you will need "clear and substantial evidence" that you "can write meaningful and substantial content on notable topics". If you say that all you want to do is create stubs you are not demonstrating that at all, and therefore the restriction will not be removed.

Stubs are not inherently bad. But if you can't demonstrate the ability to expand articles, not only are you not demonstrating that you can write substantial content you aren't even showing why the subject is notable. Civil parishes are notable. Not because they are civil parishes, but because there is a ton of information available about all of them, from a thousand different sources. The text of the article needs to make the claim to notability plain to anyone.

In

You don't have to work with me, nor do you have to do what I have asked. But if you don't, I can't support you in any meaningful way. I doubt you will get the restriction removed without support from other editors. If you want my help, please let me know.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I was surprised as I had to wait a full 6 months to appeal. However the point might be that I am asking for something that isn't workable, such as the topics that I want to create or the titles that I want to try to get. That might suggest that its more likely to cause problems than its worth.

Yes I will do that, as I pointed out that was simply because I thought you knew about bold v link back to the same page, but you didn't which I apologize for, you have criticized me for too long comments before.

I thought the point is that the stubs should have meaningful content, rather than just 1 sentence.

I don't think there is anything stopping me from asking anyone to move the userspace articles into mainspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

So you won't bother to expand those draft articles (or others) further then?

That last point is not OK - its a circumvention of your restrictions via meatpuppetry. There is a big difference between me volunteering to move them after "approving" the substantial improvement, and you asking someone to do it for you when that improvement is lacking.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I added some more content to South Huish, and I'm not asking anyone to do so. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That was in response to: "I don't think there is anything stopping me from asking anyone to move the userspace articles into mainspace." Yes there is, as that is an attempt to circumvent your restrictions.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not really circumventing, as far as I'm aware the restrictions were only me doing it directly, I thought it was pointed out that I could create pages in the userspace for if others (like you) want to move them. But anyway I wasn't asking you (or anyone else) to do that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

By asking someone else it becomes problematic. Yes this isn't a problem right now, just want to make sure it doesn't become one.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Long-term page protection is regarded as drastic, as it blocks all non-autoconfirmed users. You could go to ANI and ask if a filter is possible. - Donald Albury 12:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

To be quite honest I think a year would be worthwhile as (s)he will probably just add the same statement within days after the protection expires but I trust you're judgement on this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Terrible idea. Please reconsider. --John (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@John: the discussion at Talk:Lewis#Requested move 18 July 2018 was closed and we are fixing the links before the move of Lewis>Isle of Lewis and Lewis (disambiguation)>Lewis is preformed. What part of this is a "terrible idea"? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw. What does it achieve? --John (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

So that users can select what article they want when they search for "Lewis". Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the evidence that these "users" are having a problem with the status quo ante? There is certainly no consensus for the edits you are making. Please stop. --John (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this argument shows users were having problems and the move discussion has already been closed, I'm just helping clear up after it (thus implied consensus for correcting the links), before the move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Droxford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meon Valley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Changed back to how I linked the first time, I didn't realise it was a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Schwede66 is now persistently deleting the disambiguation hatnote at the article above. Since you took part in the recent discussion, recommending disambiguation, you may wish to comment on the mattter on its [4] talkpage. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Bend#Requested move 31 August 2018. It's highly disruptive to make a proposal which you oppose on the outset. You present no argument for it. Some informal comments in favor were made by Yours Truly above your fake proposal, but that's was never intended to be a formal proposal. I started the discussion to see if anyone agreed, and if they did and it looked like there might be consensus, maybe they would start a formal proposal. Someone opposing making the proposal is just disruptive. I suggest you close it. --В²C ☎ 16:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I made the proposal in response to this comment "why is this discussion going on without a template?". See Talk:M2 motorway (Great Britain)#Requested move for another example where this was done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF from nine years ago??? How did you even find that? Anyway, the proper answer to that question was: BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROPOSAL, not to make a bogus one that's not even formed properly. Why you !voted in the first place is also a good question. I, for one, don't have time for this. If you don't close it I'm reporting this disruption. If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. --В²C ☎

17:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I know of that because I track many page creations/moves and I can't really close it anyway as someone has supported moving the DAB and making a different topic primary, see also this. I apologize for making what you didn't want to be a formal discussion formal, but I did it in response to IIO's comment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at

• @Number 57: I'm in the process of doing that. There were so many that I didn't do them in just 1 day. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, no problem. Have you considered using
    WP:AWB to do the tagging? Number 57
    12:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't know enough about it to use it, I have attempted to use similar automated tools with limited success. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
      • @Number 57: Done at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 10#Metropolitan boroughs, I have divided it up and made a note at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 11#Metropolitan boroughs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Hate to be a pain, but you haven't listed all the categories you've tagged as far as I can see. Cheers, Number 57 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
          • As there is so many I will list them in my userspace once we get some more supports. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
            • The categories you've omitted won't be eligible to be renamed if they're not listed at the CfD page though. Number 57 15:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
              • I already noted that I will list them, I'll start that shortly. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
                • @
                  User:Crouch, Swale/CFDs, some of then needed sorting and similar so using AWB would be less helpful. Crouch, Swale (talk
                  ) 14:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cambridgeshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City of Cambridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been going through some RMs, and have moved Broxtowe to Borough of..., as you proposed (unchallenged after 3 weeks). It probably should have a redirect for all the hatnotes, so I'll leave that to you. Kevin McE (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: The base name Broxtowe should become a DAB so there will be no need for the hatnote at all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It becomes a redirect: I misphrased a suggestion that you make it a disambiguation. Kevin McE (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I will fix the links, I will later convert it into a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The primary use of the name Broxtowe is the district, and it should not have been moved without re-opening the discussion. That said, a redirect is what is needed as mentioned by Kevin McE. The hatnote on the district page will send people to the constituency if that's what they want - in line with most constituencies that share their name with something else. Sussexonian (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's evidence of that. The page hits show at least there is no primary topic even if it was called just "Broxtowe". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

If, as you have said "there is no primary topic", then Broxtowe ought to be, as I put to you yesterday afternoon, a disambiguation page, not a redirect to the estate in Nottingham. Kevin McE (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I am allowed to convert it to a DAB page at the moment, as I am restricted on page creation but I will do it when I am no longer. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That does not seem grounds for making it a redirect to something you have acknowledged is not a primary topic. I can't see that it is a creation: no new content, just arrows. I will do it then. Kevin McE (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why, having read my lst message, you would have re-rediected it, but it is now a DAB. Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I just changed it back to the district as that is where is was before. I don't think converting to DAB would have been seen as a problem, but it was pointed out that it includes converting redirects to full pages. I have fixed 7 links for the estate but there are 4 more which I'm not sure which they are fore. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I see you have added a CFR banner to various categories relating to North Somerset but I can't see them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 28 - therefore can't oppose. I presume you are going to do the same for all the other districts of Somerset for consistency? I don't understand the rationale for this proposal.— Rod ^talk 16:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rodw: I haven't finished tagging them yet (there are still more). I would do it for all the districts but at the moment I can't see the others getting consensus. The reason is that the title Category:North Somerset is ambiguous in that it could include the northern part of the county (like the Wells CFD). However we probably don't need separate articles for the northern part of Somerset and the unitary authority but the category should reflect that its only for the UA. I'll ping you again when I have finished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree as there is nowhere else that is described as North Somerset & it is unlike Wells as the addition is the term "district" rather than the county "Somerset" (and unitary authority would surely be the correct term). The same arguments could be made for South Somerset and West Somerset and I would oppose all of them. Please let me know when done with a link to the discussion.— Rod ^talk 17:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:UKDISTRICTS we use "Foo District" for districts that don't have another statue like borough, such as Borough of Bedford, which is also a UA. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 21:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rodw: Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 28#Compass directions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

CS, In your notification you here [5] you are suggesting I notified only editors who disagreed with the category name change. This isn't true. I notified you and the other three editors who supported the change per the Oct 22 discussion. In looking at the discussions linked from the Oct 22 discussion (a speedy change and the 2014 speedy change) I believe I have notified all involved editors. In your comment on Number 57's page your statement suggested my notifications were one sided. As far as I can tell I've notified all editors who were involved with or linked by the Oct 22 discussion. I don't see where Number 57 or Red Slash were part of the earlier discussions. Would you please provide links to their involvement? You said on their page that Number 57 was the closer of the last discussion but I see Good'olFactory was the closer [[6]]. Also, would you please modify your statement on their page to make it clear they are being notified due to prior involvement, not to balance a pro/con notification. If I didn't notify someone on the other side I would like to know where I missed them as my intent isn't to vote stack. Springee (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: I apologize, my comments did suggest that the notification was a bit lop sided, but it wasn't really (since you did notify the first CFD who supported Cars) but RGloucester (talk · contribs) suggested that you notify them, so I have done so. Red Slash (talk · contribs) was the nom of the 2014 (article) RM and Number 57 (talk · contribs) was the closer of that discussion. Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) opposed to the CFDS in 2014. I have as such modified my comments to reflect this, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Crouch, Swale. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Crouch, Swale. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The article cannot be moved as it does not follow Wikipedia’s Manual of Style and/or Wikipedia’s Naming conventions. HeartGlow30797 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)HeartGlow30797

@HeartGlow30797: Which article are you talking about? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You have repeatedly changed the page of Salford (town) from a town to a city. Salford is a town in the City of Salford. Salford town along with Worsley, Walkden, Eccles, Swinton and Irlam to name a few make up the City of Salford. You have been changing the page for the town of Salford to say it is a city this is incorrect. If you would like to do some research on the topic feel free but as a resident of Ellenbrook in the City of Salford I would think I know what I am talking about. Page for the City of Salford: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Salford Page for the town of Salford: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salford Jimdowney (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jimdowney: I have not repeatedly made that change, I only changed it once! with a cited source, I changed this after discussion at Talk:Leeds#Lead. Most of the other cases where the district has city status, the settlement is also refered to as a city such as Winchester, Canterbury, Preston, Carlisle etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

A few refs from a Google search, though you've probably done that. Tony.

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure if the Bluestone was reliable enough but I have added it anyway with some content. The OS only gives location and the news report doesn't contain any suitable content. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sheep Island should be a good addition, not having a parent island. I will dig deeper. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a motion proposed at an amendment request which concerns you. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal (January 2019)

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I've asked Arbcom to clarify some bits in your recently amended restrictions: nothing is said about whether you may create project pages, categories, templates, etc. Please see

Risga, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation

if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Home Lander (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Crouch, Swale: I renamed. I guess you know. I'm going round changing links. scope_creep^Talk 15:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be it. scope_creep^Talk 15:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm waiting for the links from the templates to update, once that's done we'll be able to see if the're all fixed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

All done other than List of shipwrecks in September 1847#29 September, of which both are in Argyllshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

FYI in future you might want to use a bundled nomination if your rationale is the same for similar move requests. I've

Link to the closure.

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I often do bundle nominations (see Talk:Orkney#Requested move 30 November 2018 and Talk:Ribby-with-Wrea#Requested move 13 January 2019) but some of those were in different parts of the country, nevertheless I agree that a bundled nomination would still have been more appropriate even though some of them had a better case to move than others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

An arbitrator has proposed a motion on an amendment request to which you are a party. It is being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Crouch, Swale: motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 20:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Seeing your edits on the islands off Pembrokeshire, and understanding your imperative to express their alternative names as "... island" (even though, in some of the cases "holm" means island), I wonder whether the acronym "OS" (or even "Ordnance Survey") will mean anything to anyone outside Britain. Perhaps better just to leave it as the alternative name + ref? Just thinking aloud. Cheers, Tony Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see Verbcatcher is there (Grassholm) already... Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Well even if they aren't at the name on the OS, at least that name should be stated at the top. I doubt that the islands would be large/well known enough that people outside of the UK would be likely to look them up and most people in the UK probably know what OS means (and even if they don't the Ordnance Survey is linked in the citation). If you think that "OS" is inappropriate here I'd be fine with changing it to "Ordnance Survey" or as you say deleting that text altogether (and just having "Skomer or Skomer Island). Since Grassholm and Skomer have been changed like this I'll do that with the others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 22:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Amendment request: Crouch, Swale clarification request

I was just putting in

• Delete -- As far as I can make out from the 3 articles, this was a local amateur club, some of whose players later played professionally elsewhere. I do not think we allow categories for such clubs, but I am not a football expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

When you closed the discussion. Even if there are 3 articles, we do not normally allow categories for the players of amateur clubs, do we? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Peterkingiron: Sorry about that, I've re-opened the discussion you can !vote (I won't add the comment myself to avoid confusing things). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Swale! Too say the least, I was shocked, chagrined and confused. 😅 Quaerens-veritatem 11:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Do you have a ref for the (2001) 26 pop for Tidmington? I had a scoot around and couldn't find it, even at NOMIS. I always like to add refs for everything. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's what Neighbourhood Statistics said but the URL has since rotted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Must be somewhere I suppose... I'll ask Keith D... he usually sorts this stuff out and repoints it. Otherwise there's no source. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	This is for your valuable and selfless contributions in writing articles in Wikipedia. I appreciate your efforts. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 09:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This request has been archived without action at the request of the arbitration committee. GoldenRing (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Did not mean to u do your edit, just remove the wiki link. The place is called Rushbrooke with Rougham, though the locals just say Rougham. The wonders of mobile editing. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@

MOS:SEEALSO both of the entries that I removed from the see also section are already linked in text. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 16:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating

Thanks for creating the page, I was just wondering; Washbrook, Somerset and Washbrook (surname) are linked in the about "section" but seem to be red links right now. Do you intend on creating these later? If there is no article on those to me it seems unnecessary to keep it linked in that way, or is this common practice for geo pages?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Redalert2fan}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Redalert2fan (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC) @

Okay, thanks for the explanation! Redalert2fan (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The link to the Somerset one has now been hidden in the hatnote. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's say I make $50k/year and you make $100k/year. That's twice as much - is that "much more"? Do you really need to make $500k/year, 10x as much, to make "much more" than me? I don't think so. Similarly, I don't think "much more likely to be sought" has to mean it has to be at least ten times as likely to be sought. In truth, $75k/year is "much more" than $50k/year. Similarly, getting 50% more views makes it "much more likely to be sought". 10x, or 1000%, is a ridiculously high bar to mean "much more". Don't you agree? --В²C ☎ 00:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No, with primary topics there should usually be a significant order of magnitude, that's not the same with an uneven amount of money you make. See this for example where the PT gets 1,556 views compared to 6 for the other 2. Similarly for

WP:2DABPRIMARY and where the other uses derive from the main topic etc. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 09:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so you think what "much more" means changes depending on context. I disagree. I think in any context 50% more is "much more", and certainly 50% more qualifies as "much more" in the intended meaning of "much more" at

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I can't think of any context where "more" doesn't become "much more" until we're talking about at least 10 times more. That is, obviously ten pies is much more than one pie, but if you're given a pie slice that is 1/4 of a pie and I have a slice that is 3/8 of a pie, I suspect you'd agree I got "much more" of the pie than you did. But semantics aside, I can't understand why you think the readers only benefit when the difference is that much more. Do you agree that the whole point of disambiguation on WP is to arrange our name space in a way that facilitates readers finding the articles they seek that happen to have ambiguous names efficiently? And if you have an article that is more likely to be sought than all the others combined, then by putting that article at the base name we're arranging the articles efficiently accordingly? If not, why not? --В²C ☎

18:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

These days I actually think that getting the DAB is usually the best idea, with a DAB the reader can easily select the article they want and don't have to load a potentially large page. Even if an article is more likely to be sought than the others combined the significant minority will still be far more inconvenienced than the small majority that have to click through the DAB, which is arguably more efficient. Would you agree that in terms of usage and long-term significance that both

Smiles are easily primary? Crouch, Swale (talk

) 18:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think landing on a dab page is about as much an inconvenience as landing on the wrong article, and we should try our best to minimize how often either happens about the same. I suspect that's the fundamental point about which we differ. If you think landing on a wrong article is much more inconvenient than landing on a dab page, then of course you're going to favor erring on the side of landing people on dab pages. But my view is the goal is landing on the sought article, and landing on any other page is far less desirable. Whether that other page happens to be a dab or another article doesn't matter; the inconvenience is about the same. --В²C ☎ 18:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Depends how used to WP you are (including if you use the internet much at all), if you have a fact connection etc. I would at least note that if there is a direct hatnote then the reader is less inconvenienced than if they have to click on an "other uses" (which I know we both agree on). As Andrewa has noted some readers might not realize they need to click on the hatnote to find other articles and might assume that we don't cover the topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The notion that some readers might not realize and give up accordingly is pure conjecture. At best, a very weak argument. --В²C ☎ 19:15, 31 July 2019 (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) 09:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The link was intentional since it was a comment about the PROD concerning another article that was converted into a DAB because the places didn't exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help with the 3-digit numbers situation! Excited to see how things turn out! Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I created the above article as a quick redirect to Dalserf (the old parish it was part of). However, there is every reason for it to exist as an article in its own right, and after I created it I spotted you had made a very decent draft. Would you like to move that info into the page to 'bring it to life'? Crowsus (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Crowsus: it should probably indeed have a separate article but it should probably be expanded a bit more. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's my intention, but there's no point in me doing it from scratch when what you've drafted is a good starting point. I could just lift the text from the draft and plonk it in, but it's bad form to do so, I'd rather you did it and got the recognition. But if you don't the hassle and would be happy for me to take what's in the draft and add to it under my own name, please let me know. Ta. Crowsus (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Crowsus: You can move it into you're user space if you want or submit it yourself. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Crouch!

Again, thanks so much for your work and help with the 3-digit numbers situation! I was just wondering, as they're next on your User:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB page, whether you were going to be starting an RM for 101 (or for 666). Either would be appreciated! Totally fine if you weren't planning to; someone else could if you want. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Paintspot: I started the 420 one because regardless of the outcome of the RFC that would probably need moving but it might be better to wait until the RFC is closed before starting other less clear cut ones but in any case I'd probably support those moves if they end up at RM now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@

Talk:101 (disambiguation)#Requested move 25 September 2019. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 16:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Paintspot: I wander about starting another RM from User:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB#To do/consider. I guess we could start them at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB to centralize them but that probably would create more problems than its worth so maybe just keep them on the DAB's talk. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Yup, just do whatever you think is best! Might just want to stick with the existing system of requesting the moves on the dab pages' individual talks, I guess. Don't know. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:RMT since they no longer appear to be controversial given the technical issues seem to have been fixed and 411 was moved without discussion. Then again the years might be important enough to have a full discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 13:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Crouch, Swale. You have new messages at Station1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re this, that was a good idea to make the modern village primary. Unfortunately someone else moved it to

Update: Thanks to User:PC78 for reversing the redirect. Looks good to me now. Station1 (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:2DABPRIMARY) and the other use gets less views anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk

) 08:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in getting many of the relevant Shetland villages added to this new category. I just wanted to ask you this directly, rather than going through the official process, as I think it would be a simple change if you agree - should it be "Villages in Mainland, Shetland", rather than "on"? I know this looks a bit weird, and Mainland is a weird name to call an island in the first place, but it is just a name like any other. Changing it to "in" would make it consistent with other pre-existing categories - "Villages in Unst", "Villages in Whalsay", "Villages in Yell, Shetland". What do you think? Griceylipper (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Griceylipper: the issue of "on" v "in" was brought up at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 31#Scottish islands where I proposed moving all similar categories to use "on" but it was closed as no consensus and we agreed that nominating them all to see if they should all use "on" or "in" was a good idea at some point in the near future so I'll see if I can start that discussion tomorrow. It was also discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Category:Skye, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 5#Category:Villages in Mull and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 10#In or on the Isle of Man so it would be worth seeing what to do with all of them. In any case considering the others in Category:Villages in Shetland as you point out use "in" we should probably match them and as a local if you think "in" is more usual then that's good evidence for a change. Indeed "Mainland" is an unusual name for the island and its surprising its not called "Shetland Mainland" since nearly everyone knows of the (Orkney) Mainland so you would have thought that they would have renamed it. On commons the sub categories of Commons:Category:Populated places in the Shetland Islands use "on" but that's because I created them all and used this format. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out for this when it comes up. Griceylipper (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'll ask shortly. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Griceylipper: the discussion is now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islands#RFC "on" v "in" categories. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I will chime in over there. Griceylipper (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind voicing your thoughts on this move discussion since you've participated in many discussions regarding this issue recently? I feel that you would have a number of important things to add. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 19:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - perhaps consider signing or indenting your multiple !votes so it's more obvious they are from you? --В²C ☎ 16:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: thanks, I was wandering if it was clear by didn't think of doing something else but I have now added my name on a bullet and used a double bullet for each !vote, if you have any better ideas please let me know, thanks. Have there been any other similar requests involving pages that involve more than trivial differences that you can think of? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a

• See Talk:Landseer (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 October 2019. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheldon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation

if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

GeneralPoxter (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Crouch, Swale. Thanks for your edit on Pencombe with Grendon Warren, ie 'Tornelaus hundred', which I haven't changed. I think we here have a Wikipedia anomaly that I have brought up on the List of hundreds of England and Wales Talk page, and copied in major contributors to the list and place articles. Be glad of your contribution. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Crouch, Swale. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Crouch, Swale/Archive 3,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Etothepi was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Non-notable place

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:Ryton, North Yorkshire
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
  may be deleted
  .
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

•≈20+π^{(talk to me!)} 17:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Crouch, Swale! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! •≈20+π(talk to me!) 17:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, regarding the year discussions. Does any of that translate into the category names? For example, we got Category:11 BC, but we got Category:11, even-though 11 (number) does not go in it but AD 11 does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:CFDS or does {{year category}} need updating first? Crouch, Swale (talk

) 17:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	I hope you've now found your place on Wikipedia - that you're able to add the content that you wish to add in a manner that is useful to the general reader and acceptable to the community. Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks SilkTork, and to you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Crouch, Swale. There is a motion in response to your ARCA request Here. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hallo, I can't pretend to follow all the past history, and have chipped in as you've seen at ARCA, but could I make a couple of suggestions?

1. Coming here to say the next point, I looked out of curiosity at Milbourne, Northumberland and my reaction on reading it was ""Former civil parish"? OK, till when? What parish is it in nowadays?". I see it was abolished 1955 and included in Ponteland (whose article doesn't didn't say it's a civil parish, though it's in List of civil parishes in Northumberland), but it would be useful to the reader to say so. (It's like when something is mentioned as the "second xxx-est yyy", and my reaction is to wonder what the first is.)
2. But what I was going to say is that there's a huge job waiting to be done out there to rescue all the 2011 census links which still lead to the old dead links instead of to NOMIS - and if the City Population website you used to add a 2018 estimated population to
   WP:RS
   then you could add that one too while you're editing an article, so we have both the latest UK official figure and the more recent estimate, for each parish. Would be a really useful task and presumably one which no-one would object to, if done carefully (and making sure that the text is left grammatical and euphonious, which you didn't do on Aldcliffe-w-S.)

Just an idea, anyway. Good luck. I'll fix Ponteland's census link while I'm there. PamD 19:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that proved to be quite a little time-sink, by the time I'd created various incoming redirects, hatnotes, a dab page, and dabbed some entries in List of United Kingdom locations - see my recent contributions list. Plenty to be done in those areas ... in particular in disambiguating entries in that UK locations list and adding appropriate hatnotes / dab pages / making redirects to useful broader entities etc. PamD 20:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: yes (if known) when the parish was created and abolished should be in the former CP article and the settlements that the current CP contains and any parishes it absorbed should be included.

I added the 2018 estimate manually because I thought the statement that there were "no available census figures" wasn't really correct due to City Population's figures. Note also that it does give the population for the 2011 census (and 2001) which is the area that the CP covers now. As far as adding it to the (many) other articles, that's one of my tasks on User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks. What should probably be done is either a semi automatic script adds the figures (and if appropriate) deletes the old stuff from the infoboxes. Alternatively we could create a template like {{United Kingdom statistics year}} for all parishes or (if possible) simply transclude from City Population (or another source). Having the figures added by a semi automated script or bot would reduce the risk of human error (meaning readers could trust what we have) and reduce maintenance for us. In 2015-17 there was a user (User:Bob Henshaw) who updated/added population figures and other location data but unfortunately they also introduced a large amount of errors (that might not yet have been fixed) see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive950#User:Bob Henshaw introducing errors en masse. Thanks for you're support. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 21:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Re

@Station1: thanks, I was going to do that but I forgot. A Google search does appear to show the apostrophe after the s as primarily referring to the Sheffield one but there are a few cases when that form is for another. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The

Thought you might have been interested in this having done so much productive work for the UK. Thanks for the Jura template!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: thanks, yes I do quite often expand stubs by adding population date to former parishes. Many of the settlements and surrounding islands are red links here but they have categories at Commons:Category:Villages on Jura, Scotland and Commons:Category:Islets adjacent to Jura which could maybe have articles here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's still missing articles, aside from so much which needs improving! I may work on some of those over the next week!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Given your AfD comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester you may also want to post your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester. Djflem (talk) 17:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol
  is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the
  click me!)
  20:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• That's not something I could probably do now, sorry. I did this many years ago but given that I can't create new articles its unlikely I should be doing this anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sutton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little Sutton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you really think that a redirect to

If you don't like the idea of Weston, Somerset as a PT, I would be happy with Weston, Somerset as a dab page.--Mhockey (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd note that the Newport case was primarily because a better qualifier was rejected (I still think

WP:INCDAB we generally don't create create separate DAB pages for qualified terms. Maybe this should go to RFD? Crouch, Swale (talk

) 08:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything in WP:INCDAB which suggests that we should not create separate dab pages for qualified terms. There are plenty of examples of incompletely disambiguated terms which are themselves dab pages.

WP:INCDAB suggests redirect to lists in some cases, but this sometimes produces results which are next to useless as a means of finding the right article. Some examples of how not to do it:

Newton, Lancashire. Examples which work (i.e actually help you find the right article): Newton, Wisconsin and Weston, Wisconsin. It also works to redirect to a section of a long dab page, e.g. John Smith (cricketer), but if you start creating sections on a dab page only to create a target for a redirect, you create another set of problems. Do you split Weston#United Kingdom

into subsectiions for each county, or only for counties with more than one Weston? If the latter, how do you order the entries? If you use an anchor, you may also have to reorder.

So for all these reasons, it seems to me that where the ambiguous term is common (Weston), creating a separate dab page for the incompletely disambiguated term (Weston, Somerset), is the best way to guide users quickly to the right article. That should be the overriding consideration. And I don't think it matters if articles are listed on more than one dab page.--Mhockey (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

INCDAB says "Usually, a qualified title that is still ambiguous has no primary topic, and therefore should redirect to (my emphasis) the disambiguation page (or to a section of it)". It seems quite odd to end up creating PDAB DAB pages with items because there too few to have a separate section on the base name DAB. I have attempted to use {{anchor}} to redirect to a part of the DAB but it doesn't appear to work.

If its possible to redirect to a part of a DAB page without using headers then that would probably work best. Having items on 2 different DAB pages makes maintenance more difficult just as with content forking in article space. Surely this has come up before, maybe I should raise this at

WT:D? Crouch, Swale (talk

) 18:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a wider discussion would be useful.--Mhockey (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Will so soon, I agree someone searching for "Weston, Somerset" should get taken to a place listing the Somerset ones specifically. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)