Hello, Crouch, Swale, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on
talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our
help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{
helpme}}
" on
your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
Ϣere
SpielChequers 13:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crouch,_Swale. |
Hallo Crouch, you said "I'd also be fine if both users can contact me if they really do need to say something about/to the other.", so perhaps you could explain to DoB how to look for archived pages at the Wayback Machine / Internet Archive. They have today removed as "Dead links" from Great Bridge, West Midlands two files which can be found there: this and that. I'd have pointed it out helpfully on their talk page, but had better not right now. But if they don't know how to find archived files, they risk damaging the encyclopedia by removing other editors' work, or making it seem unsourced. Thanks for any help you can give. Pam D 17:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that DoB understands that "contiguous" means "adjacent to", rather than "part of". There was something else recently, and this edit, as well as introducing a red link (by adding an unnecessary disambiguation: do they ever check their work?), changes the sense of the statement. What do you think?
They've also decided that Grassington is a village not a town, despite the text in the article which says it is a long-established market town although often referred to as a village. It has a Town Hall. I can see no mention of "village" on the parish council website. Most websites call it a town, or market town. I think it's too big a change to make on one editor's opinion: if DoB really thinks he knows better than every editor since August 2010, it would be better discussed on the talk page of the article. (And note that they themself had changed Grassington from village to town a few minutes earlier in another article.) Pam D 19:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Note that the National Park is inconsistent ( village, town), and other sites use town, though admittedly OS calls it a village. I hope someone else will have the page on their watchlist and pick this up ... but I'm losing faith in other people's watchlists, so many awful edits go uncorrected. (Not DoB's, but ones like the Elizabeth Gaskell mess). Pam D 20:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
If edits like those to Bicknacre continue I'll feel tempted to go to ANI to ask for a topic ban on edits involving the {{ convert}} template. This is pure accidental but avoidable damage to the encyclopedia through misunderstanding how the template works and failure to check after an edit that it has produced the intended effect. What can be done? My posting about Whitney-on-Wye, which set off the entire ANI thing, was on exactly this topic, and pointing out how to acheieve the desired "miles-first" effect, but was obviously ignored. CIR. Pam D 07:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale, I don't believe we know each other, but since DragonofBatley said they have worked a lot with you before, and you rose to their defence at AN/I, a bit of a heads up ... I've spent some time fixing up the church article that was highlighted at AN/I by Esemgee, and it was very bad. They'd confused the old church with the 1823 replacement, entirely failed to make incoming links which would have led them to a list of Grade II listed buildings that provides a good referenced summary of the building, and in general made very poor use of the sources they did cite. I have the impression they fill out the infobox but then are stumped as to how to write prose. I looked at their other article creations at the time and it's a small group of very poor stubs on listed churches that desperately need extensive work plus again, integration into the encyclopaedia. (Personal aside: I avoid working on church articles. But it looks as if I have a duty to Wikipedia to fix these up because they are so poor. This is making me quite miserable. End of aside.) Then I saw what PamD has highlighted above, at Bicknacre. After all our attempts to explain how to do what the editor wants to do. I slept on whether to make a boomerang section of the AN/I, also re-raising their personalised responses to criticism. When I got up, I found they've responded to PamD and that made me aware of this talk page section. So, last-ditch ... can you throw any light on the back story here, such as past productive work in collaboration with you as they stated at AN/I, and whether their accusations about Esemgee in the AN/I refer to a previous dust-up? And more importantly, as someone close to them, can you offer them any specific advice that would help them understand what the problems are with their editing and how to avoid them? We've reached the last ditch here, I fear. Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
"I will (and I mean will) check and double check and quadruple check my edits
", and yet their next mainspace edit is
this. it:
How can we help them to improve the encyclopedia rather than leaving a trail of dab links and garbled sentences? Pam D 07:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Crouch, Swale, I recently created a new article for Worcestershire. The City of Worcester. Would you be able to check it out and tell me if it meets Wiki standards for seperation as I found two different population figures for both the main city and district as well as the urban area. [1]. Thanks Crouch. DragonofBatley ( talk) 19:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
This edit uses "compromised" where "comprised" was probably intended, and "composed" would have been correct. As well as linking two village names which are redirects back to this article. Quadruply checked? Pam D 10:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
As this seems to your speciality, perhaps you might advise? Bucks used to have five districts: MK, Aylesbury Vale, etc. First MK left and eventually became a UA. In 2020, all the remaining district councils were wound up and a single Buckinghamshire Council UA created. So here's the question: the word "district" still appears quite a lot in the Buckinghamshire article, typically to refer to the UAs. Is it really worth the effort to clear them out? Is the word significantly problematic? What would make it painful is that we don't have a word (AFAIK) to use for the area administered by a UA, as opposed to the UA itself. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Crouch, Swale,.I am intending to take a break in the future but I'm just curious to discuss with you could the following settlements warrant own district articles?
Gosport Lincoln Nottingham Derby Southend on Sea Norwich Ipswich Oxford Gloucester And Cheltenham?
Just curious what you make of it
DragonofBatley (
talk) 21:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The new collage at Wakefield strikes me as ugly, with 5 images, one of which occupies half the area. I can't find any guidelines on how to create collages, and this isn't technically covered by the current discussion, which is about infoboxes for ceremonial counties. There is nothing at {{ Infobox UK place}} to suggest that using a collage is a good idea, so no guidance as to how to make one. How can we avoid such clunky collages? Pam D 06:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
multiple image
, see
Milton Keynes for example. That does the collage automagically, allowing control over each component individually. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 11:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Is this place a town or a village? Thanks 92.239.240.153 ( talk) 22:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Withypool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hawkridge.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Great work improving British pub articles. Apologies for the lager, you will just have to imagine a real ale. Edwardx ( talk) 18:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) |
Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Isaacs on the Quay, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 22:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
If an editor, who has previously been told about the helpful gadget which highlights links to dab pages in orange, adds a link to a dab page, is alerted by a bot, and ignores that message, does it mean that they can't work out how to fix it, that they just don't care about the encyclopedia, or that they don't read their talk page? Meanwhile Kirklees still links to Castle Hill. Pam D 07:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I hope to make a start on this later today or tomorrow, using my various book sources. Am I OK to move into article space from Draft:Borough of Brighton when I've done as much as I can, or shall I ping you first? Cheers, Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
And if yamla gets wind of this, he will rest the S.O. clock. I'm trying to be nice, but I have limits. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 20:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you don’t mind the question on your talk.
I was just tagging redirects (e.g. Mid Suffolk District Council) with {{ R with possibilities}}, as it would seem to me that such articles could (and possibly should[?]) become separate from the articles about the geographic area itself at some point. However, I then came across WP:UKDISTRICTS § Local authorities, which seems to suggest (if I’m reading it correctly) that separate articles for the local authorities should actually be avoided. As you’ve done some work in the topic area I’m therefore wondering if you’d mind helping me out with this subject. (Please feel free to disregard the question if you don’t feel comfortable answering.)
All the best, A smart kitten ( talk) 12:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Isaacs on the Quay".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Unparished areas in Northamptonshire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗ plicit 12:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day, Crouch, Swale, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket ( talk) 07:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
Happy First Edit Day, Crouch, Swale, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
Greetings - I noted you likely are much more of a stakeholder in the Blackpool article - I did make many bold and strident changes - and I documented them as such in the audit trail of the edits - I do apologize - all edits made in good faith.
Sadly, the reversion by @ DragonofBatley deleted other more conservative edits - the sizing of the images is the most notably visual loss of quality by these wholesale resets.
As with most matters there is always a civil middle ground and sure - I have no interest in edit wars and I was crystal clear that I did think my edits - pushed the 'consensus boundaries' - but no one reacted negatively - until this day. There are sections in the articles talk section and there was arguably some degree of consensus.
I usually only focus on medical and science articles and there is less room for bombast and group think in such articles -
I did actually think the changes others made - size of images - should be reverted - but I am not getting directly involved.
Kind Regards, Dr. BeingObjective ( talk) 18:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Unparished areas in Gloucestershire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The two Ireland page name move discussion restrictions enacted in June 2009 are rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 18:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
The blocked user, N1TH Music, states in UTRS appeal #81892, that you have agreed to monitor their future edits to ensure there are no further problems such as those seen here. Essentially, you would mentor them if unblocked. Is this accurate? -- Yamla ( talk) 18:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your note at TfD, but can you please respond to my concerns and my suggestion at Talk:Republic of Ireland#Ireland naming discussions. If you add that template to the page without gaining consensus first, I will remove it. Scolaire ( talk) 19:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Crouch been a while. How you doing? Just wondering if you think Cheltenham might qualify for a split for both the borough and town because it contain three civil parishes and might qualify for splitting for one borough and the main settlement? What do you think? DragonofBatley ( talk) 17:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Crouch, hope you are keeping well. I see you’re re-adding the Commons cats here, Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century. Can I ask if there’s guidance/policy on this? I’ve not used them in the Welsh Lists I’ve done, since they drew some criticism at FLC. One editor compared them to having a tag saying “More text”! You’ll see it was discussed on the article Talkpage, and the consensus was they were rather “cluttery”, so I’ve deliberately taken them out. Obviously, if there’s a wider consensus to have them, or it’s policy to do so, I wouldn’t want to go against that. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 18:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
On 27 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cote, West Sussex, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the early 20th century, the town council of Worthing purchased Cote Bottom and pledged that it would be kept in perpetuity as a public amenity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cote, West Sussex. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Cote, West Sussex), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Z1720 ( talk) 00:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, it's me, N1TH Music, I think it's high time I helped you work on the missing parishes project you've got going, but I forgot where to find the page which has the list of all the missing ones, could you please inform me, thanks. N1TH Music ( talk) 22:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Crouch, Swale hope your doing okay. Was just wondering without seemingly canvassing. Do you think Buckinghamshire has possible grounds for a unitary area article similar to Shropshire? DragonofBatley ( talk) 19:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you have recreated this article. An explanation of what a name means is not an indication of notability. Its just a part of Thornhill, not a separate place or even a civil parish. The reference can be transferred to the Thornhill article which could and should be expanded. What is it notable for? Esemgee ( talk) 13:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Crouch, Swale. I'm informing you that per a rough consensus of Arbs, your 2024 restriction appeal has been declined. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I've started an article on Leckhampton with Warden Hill, which you might like to elaborate on... in 2011 census it was only called Leckhampton, so I don't know whether it's expanded?
But here's another anomaly: Cheltenham says "The borough contains three civil parishes within its boundaries." (under "Neighbourhoods") but also "Four parishes—Swindon Village, Up Hatherley, Leckhampton and Prestbury—were added to the borough of Cheltenham from the borough of Tewkesbury in 1991." (under "Administrative history") and the L with WH parish council website says "Leckhampton with Warden Hill is one of only five parishes within Cheltenham Borough Council's area".
Sounds right up your street! Enjoy. Pam D 19:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain on why you keep basing almost all of your RMs on pageviews almost solely? Searching also matters and Ngrams too! GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 23:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Winding Wood, Berkshire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Cannot verify that it meets WP:NGEOGRAPHY. Online results mostly concern a vineyard; a cursory search on Google Maps points to a small forest, not a hamlet. Evidence of settlement is just one passing reference in a town council meeting to a "residential burglary", while the county council results either speak of a wood being cleared or a road called Winding Wood. All this is insufficient evidence of human settlement or a notable wood.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
IgnatiusofLondon (
talk) 14:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there - thanks for your message about my PROD of Government Colony High School. already at AFD though as a speedy keep but even still should probably go again not PROD. I am new to Wikipedia - so still discovering the best way to do things. Could you please explain your message and what I need to do? (I think you are saying that PROD is not appropriate and I ought to trigger abother AFD process. But I am not sure if that is what you are saying. And I am not sure how to do it). Thanks - Newhaven lad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newhaven lad ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I've declined your R3 / replaced with a G4 request, as I don't believe the page qualifies for speedy deletion under either rationale. Capitalization changes at the beginning of words, or disambiguators, are not implausible typos. Regarding the RfD discussion linked, that's not particularly relevant given that this redirect was not included in that batch. To be clear, that batch of nominations cannot be used as the rationale for pages that were not included in that batch and I agree with @ Jay's reversal of @ JalenFolf changing the speedy deletion tag from the R3 that you applied to a G4. WP:RDAB is an essay and if you want this type of redirect to be eligible for speedy deletion then it needs to be proposed for inclusion under an existing or new criteria. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't advocate creating them as a matter of routine, but if they are created that indicates someone found it useful and as there is no benefit at all to deletion, deleting them is a small net negative to the project.So yes, I agree that we should keep all the others that have been created and am arguing exactly that at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 6#Superdome (Stadium). Thryduulf ( talk) 21:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Eltham".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect London (Disambiguation) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26 § London (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached. Nickps ( talk) 23:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry to bother you ... is this just a simple C&P error or similar? Unless I am going mad, or it is another one with the same name, they're nowhere near each other. I have changed it to Rothley but please tell me if I am barking up the wrong tree here! Hope you are well, Cheers DBaK ( talk) 22:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Crouch, Swale: I remind you of and of this discussion at User:Stortford's talk. In particular, please remember the words:
This issue has been explained several times. Please stop pretending, as you did with your edits at Ashtead and Ashford, Surrey yesterday, that the "unparished area of Leatherhead" and the "unparished area of Staines" exist or have existed. I very strongly suggest that you do not add any more information on unparished areas to the encyclopedia. Mertbiol ( talk) 06:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Crouch, Swale: Let's take this step by step. Firstly, do you agree that UK BMD does not support the existence of a "Leatherhead unparished area" or the "unparished area of Leatherhead"? Yes or no? Mertbiol ( talk) 17:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
OK, so we need to go back a step. You have already agreed that the 1972 act "did not create named unparished areas corresponding to the pre-1974 districts". Do you agree that writing "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article gives "the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough"? Mertbiol ( talk) 19:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Fantastic! Let's think now about
Skegby.
It's good that this article does not explicitly mention the "unparished area of Sutton in Ashfield". This is the final sentence of the relevant paragraph, which says: "No successor parish was created for the former urban district and so it became an unparished area." The problem comes with the second half, which could be read (as you have already noted) that there is or was such a thing as the "unparished area of Sutton in Ashfield", when in fact it should simply indicate that Skegby is not part of a civil parish.
Thinking more broadly now. I would be happy for you to use the following wording in similar articles:
Are you happy with this proposed wording? If not, what would you change it to? Mertbiol ( talk) 10:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Crouch, Swale, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on
talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our
help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{
helpme}}
" on
your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
Ϣere
SpielChequers 13:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crouch,_Swale. |
Hallo Crouch, you said "I'd also be fine if both users can contact me if they really do need to say something about/to the other.", so perhaps you could explain to DoB how to look for archived pages at the Wayback Machine / Internet Archive. They have today removed as "Dead links" from Great Bridge, West Midlands two files which can be found there: this and that. I'd have pointed it out helpfully on their talk page, but had better not right now. But if they don't know how to find archived files, they risk damaging the encyclopedia by removing other editors' work, or making it seem unsourced. Thanks for any help you can give. Pam D 17:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that DoB understands that "contiguous" means "adjacent to", rather than "part of". There was something else recently, and this edit, as well as introducing a red link (by adding an unnecessary disambiguation: do they ever check their work?), changes the sense of the statement. What do you think?
They've also decided that Grassington is a village not a town, despite the text in the article which says it is a long-established market town although often referred to as a village. It has a Town Hall. I can see no mention of "village" on the parish council website. Most websites call it a town, or market town. I think it's too big a change to make on one editor's opinion: if DoB really thinks he knows better than every editor since August 2010, it would be better discussed on the talk page of the article. (And note that they themself had changed Grassington from village to town a few minutes earlier in another article.) Pam D 19:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Note that the National Park is inconsistent ( village, town), and other sites use town, though admittedly OS calls it a village. I hope someone else will have the page on their watchlist and pick this up ... but I'm losing faith in other people's watchlists, so many awful edits go uncorrected. (Not DoB's, but ones like the Elizabeth Gaskell mess). Pam D 20:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
If edits like those to Bicknacre continue I'll feel tempted to go to ANI to ask for a topic ban on edits involving the {{ convert}} template. This is pure accidental but avoidable damage to the encyclopedia through misunderstanding how the template works and failure to check after an edit that it has produced the intended effect. What can be done? My posting about Whitney-on-Wye, which set off the entire ANI thing, was on exactly this topic, and pointing out how to acheieve the desired "miles-first" effect, but was obviously ignored. CIR. Pam D 07:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale, I don't believe we know each other, but since DragonofBatley said they have worked a lot with you before, and you rose to their defence at AN/I, a bit of a heads up ... I've spent some time fixing up the church article that was highlighted at AN/I by Esemgee, and it was very bad. They'd confused the old church with the 1823 replacement, entirely failed to make incoming links which would have led them to a list of Grade II listed buildings that provides a good referenced summary of the building, and in general made very poor use of the sources they did cite. I have the impression they fill out the infobox but then are stumped as to how to write prose. I looked at their other article creations at the time and it's a small group of very poor stubs on listed churches that desperately need extensive work plus again, integration into the encyclopaedia. (Personal aside: I avoid working on church articles. But it looks as if I have a duty to Wikipedia to fix these up because they are so poor. This is making me quite miserable. End of aside.) Then I saw what PamD has highlighted above, at Bicknacre. After all our attempts to explain how to do what the editor wants to do. I slept on whether to make a boomerang section of the AN/I, also re-raising their personalised responses to criticism. When I got up, I found they've responded to PamD and that made me aware of this talk page section. So, last-ditch ... can you throw any light on the back story here, such as past productive work in collaboration with you as they stated at AN/I, and whether their accusations about Esemgee in the AN/I refer to a previous dust-up? And more importantly, as someone close to them, can you offer them any specific advice that would help them understand what the problems are with their editing and how to avoid them? We've reached the last ditch here, I fear. Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
"I will (and I mean will) check and double check and quadruple check my edits
", and yet their next mainspace edit is
this. it:
How can we help them to improve the encyclopedia rather than leaving a trail of dab links and garbled sentences? Pam D 07:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Crouch, Swale, I recently created a new article for Worcestershire. The City of Worcester. Would you be able to check it out and tell me if it meets Wiki standards for seperation as I found two different population figures for both the main city and district as well as the urban area. [1]. Thanks Crouch. DragonofBatley ( talk) 19:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
This edit uses "compromised" where "comprised" was probably intended, and "composed" would have been correct. As well as linking two village names which are redirects back to this article. Quadruply checked? Pam D 10:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
As this seems to your speciality, perhaps you might advise? Bucks used to have five districts: MK, Aylesbury Vale, etc. First MK left and eventually became a UA. In 2020, all the remaining district councils were wound up and a single Buckinghamshire Council UA created. So here's the question: the word "district" still appears quite a lot in the Buckinghamshire article, typically to refer to the UAs. Is it really worth the effort to clear them out? Is the word significantly problematic? What would make it painful is that we don't have a word (AFAIK) to use for the area administered by a UA, as opposed to the UA itself. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Crouch, Swale,.I am intending to take a break in the future but I'm just curious to discuss with you could the following settlements warrant own district articles?
Gosport Lincoln Nottingham Derby Southend on Sea Norwich Ipswich Oxford Gloucester And Cheltenham?
Just curious what you make of it
DragonofBatley (
talk) 21:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The new collage at Wakefield strikes me as ugly, with 5 images, one of which occupies half the area. I can't find any guidelines on how to create collages, and this isn't technically covered by the current discussion, which is about infoboxes for ceremonial counties. There is nothing at {{ Infobox UK place}} to suggest that using a collage is a good idea, so no guidance as to how to make one. How can we avoid such clunky collages? Pam D 06:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
multiple image
, see
Milton Keynes for example. That does the collage automagically, allowing control over each component individually. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 11:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Is this place a town or a village? Thanks 92.239.240.153 ( talk) 22:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Withypool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hawkridge.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Great work improving British pub articles. Apologies for the lager, you will just have to imagine a real ale. Edwardx ( talk) 18:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) |
Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Isaacs on the Quay, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 22:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
If an editor, who has previously been told about the helpful gadget which highlights links to dab pages in orange, adds a link to a dab page, is alerted by a bot, and ignores that message, does it mean that they can't work out how to fix it, that they just don't care about the encyclopedia, or that they don't read their talk page? Meanwhile Kirklees still links to Castle Hill. Pam D 07:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I hope to make a start on this later today or tomorrow, using my various book sources. Am I OK to move into article space from Draft:Borough of Brighton when I've done as much as I can, or shall I ping you first? Cheers, Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
And if yamla gets wind of this, he will rest the S.O. clock. I'm trying to be nice, but I have limits. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 20:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you don’t mind the question on your talk.
I was just tagging redirects (e.g. Mid Suffolk District Council) with {{ R with possibilities}}, as it would seem to me that such articles could (and possibly should[?]) become separate from the articles about the geographic area itself at some point. However, I then came across WP:UKDISTRICTS § Local authorities, which seems to suggest (if I’m reading it correctly) that separate articles for the local authorities should actually be avoided. As you’ve done some work in the topic area I’m therefore wondering if you’d mind helping me out with this subject. (Please feel free to disregard the question if you don’t feel comfortable answering.)
All the best, A smart kitten ( talk) 12:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Isaacs on the Quay".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Unparished areas in Northamptonshire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗ plicit 12:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day, Crouch, Swale, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket ( talk) 07:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
Happy First Edit Day, Crouch, Swale, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
Greetings - I noted you likely are much more of a stakeholder in the Blackpool article - I did make many bold and strident changes - and I documented them as such in the audit trail of the edits - I do apologize - all edits made in good faith.
Sadly, the reversion by @ DragonofBatley deleted other more conservative edits - the sizing of the images is the most notably visual loss of quality by these wholesale resets.
As with most matters there is always a civil middle ground and sure - I have no interest in edit wars and I was crystal clear that I did think my edits - pushed the 'consensus boundaries' - but no one reacted negatively - until this day. There are sections in the articles talk section and there was arguably some degree of consensus.
I usually only focus on medical and science articles and there is less room for bombast and group think in such articles -
I did actually think the changes others made - size of images - should be reverted - but I am not getting directly involved.
Kind Regards, Dr. BeingObjective ( talk) 18:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Unparished areas in Gloucestershire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The two Ireland page name move discussion restrictions enacted in June 2009 are rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 18:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
The blocked user, N1TH Music, states in UTRS appeal #81892, that you have agreed to monitor their future edits to ensure there are no further problems such as those seen here. Essentially, you would mentor them if unblocked. Is this accurate? -- Yamla ( talk) 18:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your note at TfD, but can you please respond to my concerns and my suggestion at Talk:Republic of Ireland#Ireland naming discussions. If you add that template to the page without gaining consensus first, I will remove it. Scolaire ( talk) 19:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Crouch been a while. How you doing? Just wondering if you think Cheltenham might qualify for a split for both the borough and town because it contain three civil parishes and might qualify for splitting for one borough and the main settlement? What do you think? DragonofBatley ( talk) 17:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Crouch, hope you are keeping well. I see you’re re-adding the Commons cats here, Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century. Can I ask if there’s guidance/policy on this? I’ve not used them in the Welsh Lists I’ve done, since they drew some criticism at FLC. One editor compared them to having a tag saying “More text”! You’ll see it was discussed on the article Talkpage, and the consensus was they were rather “cluttery”, so I’ve deliberately taken them out. Obviously, if there’s a wider consensus to have them, or it’s policy to do so, I wouldn’t want to go against that. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 18:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
On 27 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cote, West Sussex, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the early 20th century, the town council of Worthing purchased Cote Bottom and pledged that it would be kept in perpetuity as a public amenity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cote, West Sussex. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Cote, West Sussex), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Z1720 ( talk) 00:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, it's me, N1TH Music, I think it's high time I helped you work on the missing parishes project you've got going, but I forgot where to find the page which has the list of all the missing ones, could you please inform me, thanks. N1TH Music ( talk) 22:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Crouch, Swale hope your doing okay. Was just wondering without seemingly canvassing. Do you think Buckinghamshire has possible grounds for a unitary area article similar to Shropshire? DragonofBatley ( talk) 19:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you have recreated this article. An explanation of what a name means is not an indication of notability. Its just a part of Thornhill, not a separate place or even a civil parish. The reference can be transferred to the Thornhill article which could and should be expanded. What is it notable for? Esemgee ( talk) 13:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Crouch, Swale. I'm informing you that per a rough consensus of Arbs, your 2024 restriction appeal has been declined. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I've started an article on Leckhampton with Warden Hill, which you might like to elaborate on... in 2011 census it was only called Leckhampton, so I don't know whether it's expanded?
But here's another anomaly: Cheltenham says "The borough contains three civil parishes within its boundaries." (under "Neighbourhoods") but also "Four parishes—Swindon Village, Up Hatherley, Leckhampton and Prestbury—were added to the borough of Cheltenham from the borough of Tewkesbury in 1991." (under "Administrative history") and the L with WH parish council website says "Leckhampton with Warden Hill is one of only five parishes within Cheltenham Borough Council's area".
Sounds right up your street! Enjoy. Pam D 19:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain on why you keep basing almost all of your RMs on pageviews almost solely? Searching also matters and Ngrams too! GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 23:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Winding Wood, Berkshire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Cannot verify that it meets WP:NGEOGRAPHY. Online results mostly concern a vineyard; a cursory search on Google Maps points to a small forest, not a hamlet. Evidence of settlement is just one passing reference in a town council meeting to a "residential burglary", while the county council results either speak of a wood being cleared or a road called Winding Wood. All this is insufficient evidence of human settlement or a notable wood.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
IgnatiusofLondon (
talk) 14:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there - thanks for your message about my PROD of Government Colony High School. already at AFD though as a speedy keep but even still should probably go again not PROD. I am new to Wikipedia - so still discovering the best way to do things. Could you please explain your message and what I need to do? (I think you are saying that PROD is not appropriate and I ought to trigger abother AFD process. But I am not sure if that is what you are saying. And I am not sure how to do it). Thanks - Newhaven lad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newhaven lad ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I've declined your R3 / replaced with a G4 request, as I don't believe the page qualifies for speedy deletion under either rationale. Capitalization changes at the beginning of words, or disambiguators, are not implausible typos. Regarding the RfD discussion linked, that's not particularly relevant given that this redirect was not included in that batch. To be clear, that batch of nominations cannot be used as the rationale for pages that were not included in that batch and I agree with @ Jay's reversal of @ JalenFolf changing the speedy deletion tag from the R3 that you applied to a G4. WP:RDAB is an essay and if you want this type of redirect to be eligible for speedy deletion then it needs to be proposed for inclusion under an existing or new criteria. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't advocate creating them as a matter of routine, but if they are created that indicates someone found it useful and as there is no benefit at all to deletion, deleting them is a small net negative to the project.So yes, I agree that we should keep all the others that have been created and am arguing exactly that at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 6#Superdome (Stadium). Thryduulf ( talk) 21:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Eltham".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect London (Disambiguation) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26 § London (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached. Nickps ( talk) 23:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry to bother you ... is this just a simple C&P error or similar? Unless I am going mad, or it is another one with the same name, they're nowhere near each other. I have changed it to Rothley but please tell me if I am barking up the wrong tree here! Hope you are well, Cheers DBaK ( talk) 22:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Crouch, Swale: I remind you of and of this discussion at User:Stortford's talk. In particular, please remember the words:
This issue has been explained several times. Please stop pretending, as you did with your edits at Ashtead and Ashford, Surrey yesterday, that the "unparished area of Leatherhead" and the "unparished area of Staines" exist or have existed. I very strongly suggest that you do not add any more information on unparished areas to the encyclopedia. Mertbiol ( talk) 06:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Crouch, Swale: Let's take this step by step. Firstly, do you agree that UK BMD does not support the existence of a "Leatherhead unparished area" or the "unparished area of Leatherhead"? Yes or no? Mertbiol ( talk) 17:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
OK, so we need to go back a step. You have already agreed that the 1972 act "did not create named unparished areas corresponding to the pre-1974 districts". Do you agree that writing "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article gives "the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough"? Mertbiol ( talk) 19:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Fantastic! Let's think now about
Skegby.
It's good that this article does not explicitly mention the "unparished area of Sutton in Ashfield". This is the final sentence of the relevant paragraph, which says: "No successor parish was created for the former urban district and so it became an unparished area." The problem comes with the second half, which could be read (as you have already noted) that there is or was such a thing as the "unparished area of Sutton in Ashfield", when in fact it should simply indicate that Skegby is not part of a civil parish.
Thinking more broadly now. I would be happy for you to use the following wording in similar articles:
Are you happy with this proposed wording? If not, what would you change it to? Mertbiol ( talk) 10:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)