User talk:Crouch, Swale

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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a 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 Spiel Chequers 13:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Crouch, Swale hope your doing okay. Was just wondering without seemingly canvassing. Do you think Buckinghamshire has possible grounds for a unitary area article similar to Shropshire? DragonofBatley (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@DragonofBatley: It might do but given this seems to have been discussed I'd suggest discussing this at Talk:Buckinghamshire. Personally I think we need to look at merging Buckinghamshire County Council to Buckinghamshire Council as although they are technically different legal entities they cover/covered the same area, have very similar names and have similar functions, the only difference is the newer also has the district functions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I really don't understand why you have recreated this article. An explanation of what a name means is not an indication of notability. Its just a part of Thornhill, not a separate place or even a civil parish. The reference can be transferred to the Thornhill article which could and should be expanded. What is it notable for? Esemgee (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Esemgee: There has been debate about notability, see the page history, you merged it with the reason "single-line unreferenced referenced stub, not edited for years" and it was restored with a PROD and then redirected again, I then restored it with a ref meaning you're merge reason no longer applied. I'm not sure if it qualifies for a separate article but given the history I'd suggest tagging it with {{Merge to }} and start a discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

My reason was poor, its not notable, its an uncontroversial merge. If you think it's notable say why. Esemgee (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

But another user has already restored it with the reason "A 17 years old stub should not be redirected (removed) without consensus." and I also restored it with a source. That seems to make it controversial enough per WP:MERGEINIT. In terms of notability (1) it has a reliable source discussing its name history and (2) its an OS settlement which may qualify it as legally recognized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The other user wanted to restore it to delete it. A name on a map does not make a place notable. I don't know where you got that idea. I don't think you understand notability. Esemgee (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

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

I've started an article on Leckhampton with Warden Hill, which you might like to elaborate on... in 2011 census it was only called Leckhampton, so I don't know whether it's expanded?

But here's another anomaly: Cheltenham says "The borough contains three civil parishes within its boundaries." (under "Neighbourhoods") but also "Four parishes—Swindon Village, Up Hatherley, Leckhampton and Prestbury—were added to the borough of Cheltenham from the borough of Tewkesbury in 1991." (under "Administrative history") and the L with WH parish council website says "Leckhampton with Warden Hill is one of only five parishes within Cheltenham Borough Council's area".

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

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

@PamD: Thanks for creating it, I have added an infobox etc. It appears per UKBMD to have been renamed in 2019 however there is an Order in 2018 using the longer name but I'm unable to find any other sources for a rename so we'll probably just have to go with 2019 for the rename since as you say the 2011 census uses the shorter name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Why bother adding a ref if it's already dead? You seem to have blindly copied the 2011 census figure, complete with a 2015 access-date, although we know the "neighbourhood statistics" refs are all dead. Surely if you add a ref you check that it works, and fix it if it doesn't? Or perhaps you don't, and the people who turned down your appeal know it. And although I gave you the source, above, you didn't mention that the area of the parish was increased susbtantially, not just a rename.

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

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

@PamD: Yes the ref was moved from the other article with a 2015 access date which seems correct, when moving content from another Wikipedia article I think we would keep the access date for when the content was added to the other article even if the URL is today dead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think we should add any reference without checking, ourself, that it supports the content, and updating to the date we have added it. You are responsible for references you add, and it doesn't make sense to add a reference which you already know doesn't work. Pam D 12:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

You talk about "when moving content from another Wikipedia article", but there are two possible scenarios:

# You copy text and refs from another article and acknowledge this with the proper {{copied }} template on talk page of both articles

# You add material yourself, with a reference which you may have found in another article but which you have verified for yourself.

Remember that we do not consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source, so you cannot just copy chunks of one article, or refs, into another article unless you have verified the content and the sources for yourself. "Access-date" means "date I have seen this material online and confirm that it supports the content I am using it to support". You should not be adding content to an article unless you have seen the source for yourself. Pam D 12:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This would fall under the 1st option and I attributed the content in my edit summary which seems to be enough given the content was minor though I admit I have moved larger amounts of content before and only used edit summaries when I could also have used the template. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it does readers, and your editing reputation, a diservice when you introduce material sourced to a dead link, especially when you know how to find a usable source instead. Copying a useless reference is pointless. Pam D 18:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you explain on why you keep basing almost all of your RMs on pageviews almost solely? Searching also matters and Ngrams too! GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@GabrielPenn4223: Pageviews are the main way of determining if something is primary by usage as it shows how many people read the relevant articles, obviously it doesn't show what terms people use to get there but if you have "Foo (film)" and "Foo (album)" and both get a similar number of views it probably shows they aren't primary by usage. The other things I commonly use are Google (main) which is also useful for usage but can be biased due to location, Images which tends to be less biased but can overly show PTMs (like Lincoln mainly shows Abraham Lincoln for example) and Books which can show long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

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

The article 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) [reply ]

Hi there - thanks for your message about my PROD of Government Colony High School. already at AFD though as a speedy keep but even still should probably go again not PROD. I am new to Wikipedia - so still discovering the best way to do things. Could you please explain your message and what I need to do? (I think you are saying that PROD is not appropriate and I ought to trigger abother AFD process. But I am not sure if that is what you are saying. And I am not sure how to do it). Thanks - Newhaven lad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newhaven lad (talk • contribs) 09:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Newhaven lad: Yes it was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Colony High School so per WP:PRODNOM probably can't use PROD though it was closed as procedural keep its probably best to start a new AFD especially given schools have been controversial to delete anyway. You need to follow WP:AFDHOWTO and use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} to start a new AFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for such a quick reply - very helpful. I will follow your advice. Best wishes Newhaven lad (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I've declined your R3 / replaced with a G4 request, as I don't believe the page qualifies for speedy deletion under either rationale. Capitalization changes at the beginning of words, or disambiguators, are not implausible typos. Regarding the 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) [reply ]

@Hey man im josh: I think it does qualify as a recently created misnomer. As said on the talk page and RFD redirects from other capitalizations can be helpful if they are part of the title without the qualifier. There is no more reason to have a redirect at London (Disambiguation) than at Paris (Disambiguation), Jupiter (Disambiguation), Mercury (Disambiguation) or Manchester (Disambiguation) or any of the other 220,510 DAB pages. I agree G4 doesn't apply because the redirect wasn't nominated though it was discussed when (at that time) it didn't exist but I think R3 applies and the consensus there supports deleting and yes there hasn't been consensus to create a specific criteria for such redirects but the existing R3 can probably be used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Words utilizing title case as opposed to sentence case do not quality for R3 as they are not implausible. You're welcome to bring this up on at WT:CSD, and I'd be glad to respect the result of a discussion with more experienced admins, but I don't see it fitting under any of our current deletion rationales without an expansion or more details being added to them. Note that this exact redirect (which was created after the discussion took place) was discussed with @Thryduulf at WT:CSD, who also thought that improperly capitalized disambiguators shouldn't be speedily deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not immediately certain which redirect this discussion relates to, but "(Disambiguation)" is a plausible search term so definitely not speediable. I don't advocate creating them as a matter of routine, but if they are created that indicates someone found it useful and as there is no benefit at all to deletion, deleting them is a small net negative to the project. Something like "(DIsambiguation)" on the other hand is not a plausible and would be eligible for R3 (assuming the other requirements of that criterion are met). Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Thryduulf: It's regarding London (Disambiguation). I also agree with you regarding the examples, it's why I felt it important to mention title case in this context. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Thryduulf: I think the discussion Hey man im josh is referring to is this one. As Uanfala noted in the RFD there is no particular reason these should be treated any differently to the other DABs and that miscapitalisations may be useful but even that is applicable to the specific part of the title, "Foo (bar)", and not the generic or technical portion, "Foo (bar)". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Never the less, it doesn't fit the scope of any of our current CSD criterion, so I don't think debating it is particularly relevant here. If you want it included and to be CSD-able, then you need to make a proposal for such. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

(edit conflict) You can certainly argue that, but as I (and many others) disagree it's very clearly not something suitable for speedy deletion. From a reader's perspective there is no difference between using a different capitalisation to the one we have chosen (sometimes arbitrarily) in the "generic" and "technical" portions. The only other argument I recall seeing is that it makes things harder for some tools, but we should always alter our tools to deal with the encyclopaedia as it is rather than alter then encyclopaedia to make life easier for tool authors/maintainers (unless such changes are truly invisible to readers). Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

From a reader's prospective there is nothing different about London (Disambiguation) than Paris (Disambiguation) or Jupiter (Disambiguation). Also searching for "Jupiter (Disambiguation)" with the search box returns the correctly titled DAB page Jupiter (disambiguation). As a reader I find redirects from incorrect capitalizations annoying when they show up in the search suggestions instead of the correct version. From an editor's prospective these redirects are inconvenient. There is no reason to have a small number of redirects that are very unlikely to be useful to our readers due to the incorrect capitalization of Wikipedia qualifiers that the search corrects anyway so I can't see why we need them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Then start a discussion at WT:CSD to include it under an existing or new rationale. Until then, it's not eligible for speedy deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

From a reader perspective I don't care whether I arrive at the page I want directly or via a redirect. I do care that I arrive at a page inviting me to create an article and/or search instead of the page I wanted. Search suggestions are only available for a subset of the ways people look for Wikipedia content, and matching of different capitalisations is available for a different subset. Multiple search suggestions are absolutely trivial (but phab:T24251 is a request for a way to manage these) in comparison as both will take you to the page you want to go to.

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

If you think readers are likely to benefit from "(Disambiguation)" redirects then why don't you start a request to get a bot to create them all? Otherwise WP:PANDORA and WP:OTHERSTUFF are perfectly valid reasons for deletion. There is no reason that I can see that London (Disambiguation) would be useful but every other wouldn't be or don't need to exist. I know you have said something like you aren't interested in getting them created but if you think we should keep some we should do that for all as all DABs are the same and function in the same way so there is no merits to consider that are different about 1 redirect than all the others and Paris (Disambiguation) doesn't exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is almost never relevant - something else (not) existing is not a reason why a given page should (not) exist. WP:PANDORA is even less relevant as it's just WP:OTHERSTUFF with a side helping of WP:CYRSTAL. I also addressed this point in a previous message I don't advocate creating them as a matter of routine, but if they are created that indicates someone found it useful and as there is no benefit at all to deletion, deleting them is a small net negative to the project. So yes, I agree that we should keep all the others that have been created and am arguing exactly that at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 6#Superdome (Stadium). Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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) [reply ]

Hi! Sorry to bother you ... is this just a simple C&P error or similar? Unless I am going mad, or it is another one with the same name, they're nowhere near each other. I have changed it to Rothley but please tell me if I am barking up the wrong tree here! Hope you are well, Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

@Crouch, Swale: I remind you of How to write about parishes#Unparished areas and of this discussion at User:Stortford's talk. In particular, please remember the words:

Unparished areas by definition are not administrative areas and do not have official names. Where abolished urban districts or boroughs within the same modern district adjoin, there is no "unparished area boundary" between them - for example whilst Dorking and Leatherhead were separate urban districts prior to 1974, both now form part of the single wider unparished area of the modern district of Mole Valley.

Care should be taken not to give the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough.

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) [reply ]

@Mertbiol: The consensus was that unparished areas generally shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. Yes there may be no "formal" boundary but I thought the general rule was that such individual unparished areas should normally be mentioned even if they form part of a wider "unparished part" of a modern district. Unfortunately UKBMD has stopped listing the individual unparished areas but it still mentions the towns in the wider unparished areas. I'd note that with Ashtead it appears that it was part of Epsom Rural District from 1894 to 1933 and then Leatherhead Urban District from 1933 to 1974[1]. The parish council was indeed abolished because it appears to have become an urban parish of Leatherhead UD but the parish appears to still have existed until 1974, at the least it appears to have existed in 1951 as there is still census data, see User talk:Stortford#Woking. We could rephrase it to something like "it became part of the unparished area of Leatherhead in Mole Valley" or use a similar format to Skegby#History. Note that "Ashtead" would not be an individual unparished area even though it appears to have been a parish until 1974 since as noted at Talk:Bulkington#Parish we don't normally use the urban parishes to define individual unparished areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Crouch, Swale: No that is not what the consensus was. Again quoting from How to write about parishes#Unparished areas:

Unparished areas by definition are not administrative areas and do not have official names. Where abolished urban districts or boroughs within the same modern district adjoin, there is no "unparished area boundary" between them - for example whilst Dorking and Leatherhead were separate urban districts prior to 1974, both now form part of the single wider unparished area of the modern district of Mole Valley.

Care should be taken not to give the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough.

BMD was wrong when it listed "the individual unparished areas" - it has since improved the way that is displays this information (and it no longer supports Skinsmoke's interpretation that you seem determined to cling to - despite being told serveral times that this is wrong). The quote above makes it very clear that there is and was no such thing as the "unparished area of Leatherhead" - there is simply nothing to debate here. It really does seem that you do not understand what an unparished area is and (more importantly) what it is not. Please stop including information about named unparished areas in Wikipedia articles. Mertbiol (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Mertbiol: Although the position of unparished areas being part of a wider district's unparished area was part of the proposal/consensus it doesn't seem like stating that they are part of the modern unparished area's district has ever been used by the proposer, see Special:Diff/1173644621. I don't think it was ever intended for us to simply say that such place is in the unparished area of "Mole Valley". Such a statement is arguably as meaningless as saying Beare Green is in the parished area of Mole Valley as opposed to saying its in the parish of Capel. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Crouch, Swale: This is getting very tedious. You should not write "the unparished area of Leatherhead" and you should not write "the unparished area of Mole Valley". As you have put it, these statements are "meaningless". They are meaningless because unparished areas are not formally defined. They do not exist in their own right. As Stortford has said "unparished areas - they are not things in their own right, but are rather the absence of other things". By trying to give these areas a name, you are making them sound official, when they are not. Mertbiol (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

There was a consensus that unparished areas can still be discussed in articles though the guidance isn't clear about if this is only for the settlements that were districts or other settlements that are/were within them but indeed in Skegby the fact Sutton in Ashfield UD became unparished is discussed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@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) [reply ]

I agree it doesn't support this today but it used to namely when I set up the unparished categories. Unfortunately the Wayback Machine doesn't show it for Surrey Mid Eastern but it does for Gravesend, see here where it does make reference to the individual unparished areas. While I agree that the Local Government Act 1972 didn't explicitly create the unparished area of "Dorking" and the unparished area of "Leatherhead" it did abolish both district and didn't establish successor parishes so essentially as a result these areas are unparished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

A simple "yes" or "no" is all we need. What UK BMD did or didn't say in the past is irrelevant.

So to summarise, you agree that UK BMD does not support the existence of a "Leatherhead unparished area" or the "unparished area of Leatherhead".

Next question. Do you agree that this UK government order of 2009 does not support the existence of a "Leatherhead unparished area" or the "unparished area of Leatherhead"? Yes or no? Mertbiol (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

No, I agree it doesn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Great. We both agree that the Leatherhead Urban District is a pre-1974 district that was abolished under the Local Government Act 1972, so I won't ask you to confirm this. You also agree that the same act did not create named unparished areas corresponding to the pre-1974 districts.

Do you agree that the wording "Care should be taken not to give the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough" in How to write about parishes#Unparished areas means that you should avoid introducing the concept of an "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area". Mertbiol (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with both points.

I'm not sure on this, indeed it suggests we should treat both Dorking and Leatherhead as a single unparished area. As I've noted I don't think that was the intention as the OP doesn't appear to have used this and instead as with Skegby made reference to the pre 1974 district being abolished and no successor parish being established and as such becoming an unparished area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Great, so you agree with both points - and it is wrong to write "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article.

The Skegby article does not explicitly say the "unparished area of Sutton in Ashfield", so it is not directly relevant to the point that I am making here. In my opinion, the wording in the Skegby article is in conflict with How to write about parishes#Unparished areas and should be changed. (Although Stortford made a small edit to this article at the end of last year, he may not have noticed this wording.)

Do you now agree that you must not use the phrases "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article? Yes or no? Mertbiol (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The wording of the Skegby article does arguably conflict with the guidance but I don't think the consensus was not to do this, the consensus was that they don't belong in the lead and that we need to be careful about how we word things. I think rather we may need to reword the guidance, I don't think there was a consensus to remove unparished areas completely from articles just from the leads and to be careful about how we word things. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't want to talk any more about the Skegby article - it's a distraction from the main conversation here. We can return to it later.

Again, yes or no - do you agree that you must not use the phrases "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article? Mertbiol (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

No, I don't think that was intended, just not in the lead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

Yes I agree, as I said the "Dorking" and "Leatherhead" unparished areas resulted from the districts being abolished and no successor parish. I agree the way I wrote it may well give that impression and the way Skegby was changed to avoids this. When I've added the information on former parishes normally I add the population at the most recent census and when the parish was abolished and where it went to. With areas that ended up in unparished areas I tend to just put the individual unparished area but I agree this may suggest it has an official name/boundary so it may be better to state that the urban district the parish was in was abolished and no successor parish was formed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Great. So do you now agree that you must not use the phrases "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article? Mertbiol (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Saying that Leatherhead district had no successor parish and became unparished seems acceptable though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Before we talk about an alternative wording, I need a yes or no answer to the question.

Do you now agree that you must not use the phrases "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in an article? Yes or no? Mertbiol (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

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:

"In 1951 (or whatever the last census available is), the Civil Parish of X had a population of 9876.^{[Vision of Britain]} Y Urban District was abolished in 1974 to become part of the new district/borough of Z. No successor parish was created for the former urban district and Settlement X became part of an unparished area.^{[UK BMD]}"

Are you happy with this proposed wording? If not, what would you change it to? Mertbiol (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the current wording is preferable, it seems like a reasonable compromise to saying its in Sutton in Ashfield unparished area so I'd suggest to leave it as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Again we go back a step. Do you agree that there is no such thing as the "Sutton in Ashfield unparished area"? Yes or no? Mertbiol (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Not an "official" one but one that resulted from the abolition. As noted the person who proposed the changes wrote this so it doesn't appear it was the intention to remove individual unparished areas completely just to be careful about how we word it which the current wording does seem to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The official unparished area is the one we need to be concerned with. We can't invent our own unparished areas or use unoffical definitions. As the guidance says (and we have discussed above) "Care should be taken not to give the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough." Do you agree that we need should use official definitions only as defined by UK government legislation - yes or no. Mertbiol (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The accepted definition for unparished areas does appear to be the pre 1974 UD. I agree we need to be careful about how we word it but stating that a former UD became an unparished area doesn't seem against the guidance. As noted UKBMD did formerly lists such individual unparished areas. I think we need to be careful about how we word things that don't have official definitions but I don't think its prohibited to use such things as long as we be careful about how we word things. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This is just wrong: "The accepted definition for unparished areas does appear to be the pre 1974 UD." This is also wrong: "stating that a former UD became an unparished area doesn't seem against the guidance."

We are beginning to go round in circles here - you are rowing back on the very clear yes/no answers which you gave earlier in this discussion. I think the thing to do now is to ask for Storford 's input into the specific wording on the Skegby article. I will leave a note on his talk page later today and will invite you to join that discussion. In the meantime, I am grateful to you for agreeing that you will not use the wording "unparished area of [pre-1974 district]" or "[pre-1974 district] unparished area" in articles. Mertbiol (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

After allowing a little time to pass, I just need to tidy up a loose end or two from our discussions earlier this weekend. With the input of both Stortford and Rupples , the Skegby article has been improved. We now have a good paragraph that describes the abolition of the relevant civil parish, without diving off into original research. I expect you to use this form of words in articles (adapted as appropriate with no mention of unparished areas whatsoever) going forwards.

I would note that the consensus is further from your own position than the compromise paragraph that I proposed above — there is a lesson in there for you, but I doubt very much that you will learn it.

I'm sure that you will respond to this message by protesting how you still feel that some of Skinsmoke's ideas are justified. But I am not interested. We have been over this ground several times and I will not be commenting further. I regard this matter as closed.

I recall SilkTork writing to you: "there is a limit to how much time can be given to assist one person before good will and patience starts to wear out... [you give] the impression that your focus is on yourself rather than the project and those others who volunteer here.... You have over the years taken up a deal of my time..." I know exactly how he feels. Mertbiol (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Mertbiol: The discussion and guidance does say "It may be appropriate to mention in a governance section on the pages for those settlements that they are now an unparished area, but this information is best presented alongside discussion on the current administrative arrangements for that settlement. Care should be taken not to give the impression that there is an officially defined unparished area with the name and boundaries of the pre-1974 urban district or borough. As such, it is best not to mention unparished areas in the lead.". Yes stating such a settlement is now in the unparished area of X gives the impression that there is an "official" unparished area but given Stortford made mention of Sutton in Ashfield district having no successor parish and becoming an unparished area. Yes I understand how Stortford put it gives less of the impression of an "official" unparished area than the way I was putting it but as mentioned it doesn't seem there was a consensus/the intention was to not mention them at all. You appear to be saying that they suddenly shouldn't be mentioned despite the guidance apparently saying they can though as mentioned its not clear if that refers to the likes of Sutton-in-Ashfield or other places in the former UD like Skegby. I will however not add anymore mentions of unparished areas until we get consensus on this though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sharlston Hall, 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) 05:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views.
The Education Auditor 06:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent edit to Stressed out. Why do you believe that the lowercase term should redirect to Stressed Out (disambiguation)? Every topic on that dabpage is titled "Stressed Out" with both capital letters. 162 etc. (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@162 etc.: Because there seems to have been concern at the discussions at Talk:Stressed Out about Psychological stress though its only listed in the "See also" it is linked directly in the hatnote at Stressed Out which also suggests it is a plausible target. It seems there is consensus that the song is primary for the upper case version but not for the lower case version. However I'm not sure if "Psychological stress" is really a likely search term even for lower case so it might be worth a RFD which I can start if you want. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't see any reason for Stressed Out and Stressed out to arrive at different articles. Should an RFD be opened, I would be in favour of making the lowercase a primary redirect to the article at Stressed Out as an R from lowercase. At Talk:Stressed Out, the consensus at RM was to make the song the primary topic; I don't see any consensus (or any discussion at all) concerning a different target for Stressed out. 162 etc. (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

9 2600:1003:B13A:6AA9:0:1:3400:CF01 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Sharlston Hall".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Former? It's still on the Cornwall Council map . DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Scrub that, I got confused between St Blazey and St Blaise, they both sound the same in my head! DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

On the Brockhampton disambiguation page, there is a broken link to Brockhampton, Tewkesbury, which was added in your edit of 21 April 2022. It is not obvious what this link should really be.

Can you please do what's necessary to straighten this out? Thanks. Fabrickator (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Fabrickator: Because there is a Brockhampton in the Tewkesbury district as well as one in the Cotswold district, see here. I have corrected the blue link to the locations list. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Crouch, Swale: I know you made a change, but it does not seem to have had any effect on the problem as reported.

Is the point that there's just no article on Brockhampton, Tewkesbury? Is that "Tewkesbury" distinct from the one in Tewkesbury? Fabrickator (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

DAB pages can have red links, see MOS:DABRL. If you think its a problem with the link being red you could create an article on the Tewkesbury one or redirect it to Bishop's Cleeve (and mention it there). There isn't a Brockhampton in the town of Tewkesbury but there is one in the district of Tewkesbury just like the other is in Cotswold district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Eyre, Raasay, 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) 22:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Liverpool 1 (TV series). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. JuniperChill (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Eyre".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Old Custom House, Ipswich, 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) 20:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Carr (architect), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ayton, North Yorkshire.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Both East Ayton and West Ayton mentioned as its in both parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm finding this latest batch odd/irritating. Take Tŷ Mawr, Dingestow. The article is about the group of buildings. Its first line says, "Tŷ Mawr in Dingestow, Monmouthshire is a complex of farm buildings". Why therefore would you pick the gatehouse out? KJP1 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@KJP1: The article target is Ty Mawr, Dingestow not Ty Mawr Gatehouse so it shouldn't link to the more general article yet use more specific title. You could create a redirect from Ty Mawr Gatehouse to Tŷ Mawr, Dingestow and then use the longer title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Where do you get these, rather pointless, ideas from? KJP1 (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:NOPIPE, we don't want to link to less specific titles which display as more specific. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Roll on December, eh. KJP1 (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, Crouch, Swale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Old Custom House".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Could you please take at look at Ollerton and Ollerton and Boughton (parish), as it's classified as a town council with a mayor; I'm unsure how this omission should be reflected on-Wiki. I don't have time to research or enough background, but it would probably be expeditious for someone with your interests. Thanks. 82.13.47.210 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the articles are fine, the parish council may be a town council but describing the parish as a town would be confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

OK, strange, and IMO even stranger not to include mentioning the town council-with-mayor, presumably as not in context to the chosen - considered - content of the articles. I emailed the parish clerk (for want of a better title) probably a year ago - maybe as there was no press coverage - but forgot until today; I don't think there was a reply.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes the town council and mayor should be discussed in the parish article, I was just saying I don't think we should describe the parish as a town. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Please restore this redirect that you deleted out of process and reopen the discussion that was ongoing. G7 does not apply when there are good faith recommendations to do anything other than delete, and there was no case for a SNOW closure as (despite what you might personally think about the outcome after a week) there was no consensus at the time you closed it, and a real prospect of an uninvolved closer determining a different outcome on the strength of the arguments (despite assertions to harm no actual explanation for why it was harmful or evidence of harm had been presented). Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Thryduulf: I've reverted my close but you need to ask Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who deleted it as I didn't delete it, I'm not an admin. I apologise it wasn't a snow case and G7 didn't apply. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you, I've left a message on Jake's talk page. To avoid this sort of mistaken accusation (for which I apologise) in future, consider being explicit about who deleted the page in the closing summary (e.g. "deleted by Thryduulf" rather than "delete"). Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Thryduulf: I did think after I noticed the 2nd keep !vote that maybe I shouldn't have closed it but I thought it may well qualify close to show but I just thought that I'd leave it closed and if someone objected (as you have) I could just revert. I did mention who deleted it namely by saying "The result of the discussion was speedy delete''' per G7 by {{admin|Jake Wartenberg}}" as noted by WP:NACD "If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone with a registered account may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale.". Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

That population needs a source. Thanks. Pam D 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@PamD: Its from the 2021 census that User:Steinsky added, see Template talk:Infobox UK place#Potential to use Wikidata here to make our lives easier? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Steinsky has not edited the article, as far as I can see, and that talk page discussion does not justify having data in the article with no visible source. Please add a ref. Thanks. Pam D 06:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@PamD: I'll wait for them to reply, yes I realize I probably should not have added data that I could not see myself but hopefully they can show us how to access it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

If you're using the data I imported to Wikidata, you can use {{subst:User:Steinsky/ref census2021}} as a citation. That goes a little further than the suggested ref code I gave in the discussion on the infobox page, in that it names the specific table that the data comes from -- because ONS only publish the data in spreadsheets you have to download, and the Wikidata reference structure doesn't make it easy to add that kind of detail. (I've started going even further and adding the specific GSS code and parish name to my citations, just for added verifiability hand-holding if somebody really wants to download the spreadsheet and jump to the relevant row, but I haven't gotten around to looking up the code to automate doing that yet.) Cheers, Joe D (t) 11:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

But the population needs to have a ref in the article too: the infobox should only be duplicating content already present and sourced in the text, surely? Pam D 11:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Steinsky Thanks for your work on this. It's such a shame that NOMIS no longer provides the all-on-one-page parish data complete with helpful map. OK, looking at it again now, I see and can follow the reference. Another helpful "handholding" might be to remind people that it's (in this case) "Charnwood" that they need to use in selecting the "Geography" in the search, for someone who wants to see just the one parish's data without downloading the whole spreadsheet.

At this level the note about adjusting small numbers to preserve personal info probably kicks in, so I wonder whether we should cite the "9" as "approximately 9"? I see they were in approx 6 households, too: the properties on the site which is about to be (is being?) redeveloped with 3,200 houses. Pam D 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Category:Hatherleigh has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Category:Skelton-in-Cleveland has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

As a parishes geek, can you shed any light on "former civil parish" here, given that the source provided is positively contradictory? Pam D 12:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@PamD: it was abolished in 1932, source added. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! Pam D 23:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Small cat has been deprecated. It is no longer a Wikipedia guideline. The current most related guideline is narrowcat, which says we should not have categories covering topics so narrow that we do not have adequate articles yo create a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I'm Kolano123. I would like to let you know that you left the banned user template on your user page, and it may have to be removed because it is quite misleading. After it is removed, you may convert it to a proper user page about yourself. Remember, do not add inappropriate or suppressible information to it. Doing so can get you blocked or even banned from editing. I know we don't want that, Crouch, Swale. Kolano123 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I removed it a few years ago and then added it back, I will be banned again soon. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Bans are for repeated disruption, and you will not get banned again unless you do more disruption to Wikipedia. Kolano123 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Furthermore, bans do need consensus to be carried out, and there is no current consensus or discussion for it, as the ban discussion closed many years ago. Kolano123 (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I am not sure that making an edit like this is particularly accurate. The article is about the current unparished area in Greater Manchester, not the parish of a former version of Cheshire which existed 1866 to 1894. Not looked at whether you've made any others. Have you got a comment? Rcsprinter123 (chew) 21:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Rcsprinter123: The article deals with both the current unparished area in Greater Manchester and the former parish in Cheshire. If a current unparished area was also a parish (which most were as most urban districts that became unparished areas contained only 1 parish of the same name) which most were then they are put in both the unparished area category and the former parishes category. Also note that the correct county is the area the former parish is now located rather than when it functioned, see Category:Former civil parishes in England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

P.S. I am so sorry for the lateness. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

As parishes geek, could you check the statement that " the parish was abolished and merged with East Barkwith and Wragby."? There seems no sign of Panton in the map of Wragby parish. Thanks. Pam D 08:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@PamD: Most of the former parish went to East Barkwith and the village of Panton is today in East Barkwith but according to the source part went to Wragby (probably a small western part). Its also possible there could have been further boundary changes moving land from East Barkwith to Wragby if it doesn't look like any of the former Panton parish is in the current Wragby parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

You might want to check the preamble of your post about districts, to help people read it. I think "but" might be "about" and "on" might be "or", but leaving it to you in case not. Pam D 06:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@PamD: Thanks fixed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not very aware of the history you have at ArbCom (other than what was recently filed), but you might want to consider contacting admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks if you just want to leave and have a hard time doing so. I'd rather people not leave the project (and whenever I've seen you around, I've had a good impression) but I also realize that Wikipedia can be addicting and I understand if maybe you find it hard to just logout and not log back in. Regardless, I wish you the best in life. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

However, if it's a matter of not feeling you're good enough, please reach out to your friends. I don't know you that well so I'm not the best person to give a pep talk... but if it helps, know that we are not our worst mistakes. My email is open if you want to reach out (although I also understand if you don't want to). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I was going to add the hatnote ... just stopped for a pot of tea! I don't often bother creating infoboxes, so thanks for that too. I saw the comment at Talk:Wragby#Another_Wragby_-_West_Yorkshire and couldn't resist the challenge. Much more of a place, at least historically, than many wards/"suburbs"! Pam D 18:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry to see you go. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Looking for areas to focus on? I've been cleaning up Carlossuarez's Iranian stuff and there's still loads in there. Sri Lanka is also a big mess. FOARP (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@FOARP: I check the geography deletion discussions and proposed deletion but I don't know much about what should and shouldn't be included in terms of abadi etc so I wouldn't know what should be deleted and kept if I was to go through Carlossuarez's articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

You will be missed at RfD. I'll wait to see how the 72 hour block pans out. Jay 💬 16:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Crouch, Swale

I don't begin to understand about Categories. I know if I don't include enough, I get folks telling me to add more. And when I add more, someone comes along and deletes it? (when in my eyes its perfectly valid}.

Already had a link to RNLI lifeboats, which is why I reverted your edit.

So while you may well be correct about Norfolk category - although goodness knows how anyone is supposed to know, you really should make an effort to explain why you are deleting something. AND - if its not valid to have in a Norfolk category, why haven't you then gone through all the other listings in Norfolk category, and amended them too?

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Ojsyork: The 1st edit was a mistake, I agree the article is about a station not a lifeboat its self but in terms of the 2nd edit the article is already in Category:Lifeboat stations in Norfolk so it doesn't need to be in Category:Norfolk, see WP:SUBCAT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Crouch, Swale

Ok, Thankyou.

So not an invalid category, just a duplication on my part!

I suppose I should sort out Brancaster too!

Many thanks for replying

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Crouch, Swale. Thank you for your work on Hadleigh Hamlet. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

A hamlet (still an occupied place) with at least 2 references, although all references are routine listsings. There isn't an easy alternative target to merge the hamlet to (located between Boxford and Kersey), and the article matches the quality of several in Category:Former civil parishes in Suffolk.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm puzzled: why does the lead call it "Hadley Heath"? Pam D 14:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@PamD: Where does it say "Hadley Heath"? Its not a hamlet at least not today (unless its been mixed up with Wicker Street Green) but it was a parish so doesn't need to be merged. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

First 2 words of lead. Pam D 17:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@PamD: Thanks fixed mistake, I used the search box to try to find "Hadley" in the text and couldn't and didn't notice "Heath" instead of "Hamlet". There is a hamlet called Hadleigh Heath in the parish of Polstead but this article is about the former parish in between Boxford and Kersey. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ouch, sorry, I complicated matters by misspelling the first word while querying the second. Sorry about that! Pam D 18:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Crouch, Swale

Sorry, didn't mean to undermine what you did before.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Ojsyork: Thanks for creating the article, all that you did was remove Category:Watchet when you created the article which is an easy mistake since people sometimes probably just start again with a blank page when turning a redirect into an article. I added another category namely Category:Libraries in Somerset as the building is now used as a library. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

At least you haven't rewritten the whole page, like I encounter sometimes!

Will make a note to check redirects when replacing them!

Best wishes

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Ojsyork: Unfortunately some users just revert an entire edit which contains a minor problem instead of fixing the minor problem even when easy to fix, see WP:FIXFIRST. The fact that you're good contribution of creating the article had a minor problem (the category being removed) shouldn't mean that you're whole edit should be reverted instead the minor problem should be fixed which I have done. Don't worry too much if you do remove categories in the future when creating articles on redirects as its easy to fix and content creation should be the priority. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Crouch, Swale

Didn't mean minor stuff like you did, which was quite correct anyway.

I have someone who systematically and deliberately reverts and edits lots of my work, just because he doesn't approve of pretty much anything I create. He will change whatever he can, even changing things that he did in the same style previously, just to make it different, and stamp his mark. But done strategically, leaves its maybe 6 months, so I can't complain of edit waring.

Expect to see edits of Yealm River and Watchet Lifeboat stations sometime in about 6 months!

I never expected someone would be so bloody minded...!!

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Crouch, Swale

Never mind 6 months

24 hours!

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Ojsyork: You might want to point the person who reverts such edits to WP:IMPERFECT, I probably wouldn't use WP:FIXFIRST as it might suggest you are accusing the person of gaming the system. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Crouch, Swale

Thanks for the advice, but we are at a point where discussion is useless.

It doesn't matter what I say to protest, highlight the ridiculousness, it all falls on deaf ears, and it will get changed, be it now, or in six months. He's been amending everything I'd done since I started editing 13 months ago, despite having been here 10 years, and had plenty of time to do it first.

It need someone else to be questioning his actions, as we now have no mutual respect for each other.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Me (DragonofBatley). Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello Crouch, Swale, do I (personally) correctly understand that in case you are not blocked nor unbanned, you will edit as disruptively as possible including affecting other people with violations of the policy against harassment to force people to ban you? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@ToBeFree: Yes I might well do (I don't want to do so but I might if you lot refuse) that therefore can you please propose a motion to site ban me which wouldn't allow appeal for at least 10 years. That would make you're lives easier than having to deal with more appeals or requests and would ensure I can't contribute to Wikipedia, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It's with confusion and sadness that I alert you that I have proposed the community assume your block which would turn it into a community site ban. I know your talk page access has been revoked but if there's a comment you want to make hopefully an admin will transfer it over from UTRS. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Come talk to us at Wikipediocracy-dot-com. There's currently a thread dealing with your situation ("News from Arbcom"), in case your ears are burning. best regards, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't know what's behind your departure, but I'll miss your encyclopedic knowledge of civil parishes. I hope life goes well for you off-wiki. Best wishes. Pam D 06:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Seconding this. I'll miss your friendly and useful advice to other editors, and I find myself totally unable to figure out what caused things to get to this point. I'm not sure whether you're reading here since you can't respond, but in case you are ... (I am on Wikipediocracy too, same nick as here, if Carrite's suggestion above has piqued your interest.) Yngvadottir (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't know the details either, but I hope we see you around again someday. So many long-time and very productive editors getting blocked lately. Either way, it's been a pleasure. ASUKITE 19:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Echoing editor Asukite's words. Always enjoyed your insightful comments in move requests, Crouch,Swale, and will miss them. Come back soon, please. Thank you for all of it! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The article Gamble Hill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Far from WP:NGEOGRAPHY. Google does not turn up much. The few hits I've gotten are for Gamble Hill Drive and a building called Gamble Hill Croft. There's nothing about Gamble Hill as a general area.

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. — Anonymous 01:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

See Talk:Gamble Hill#Objection to Prod of 5 February 2025. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

— Anonymous 03:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't know you particularly well, but I've always respected your comments at RM and thought you were a good editor. Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you're doing well wherever you are now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I was wondering where you have been lately ... and in effect, I discovered one of the most unfortunate WP:SBAs I've ever seen. I hope you some day feel well enough to come back, and hope you are well. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Were you seriously sanctioned for creating too many articles? You are missed. This is a travesty. —В2C ☎ 04:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Hello, Crouch, Swale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Brierfield, New South Wales, 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) 00:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Per the guideline and if I may say so, it is my experience that this editor, Crouch, Swale, was and is one of the finest and wisest editors to work on this project. I ask that his request to be unblocked be granted as soon as possible. Thank you for that! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I do not believe this is necessary, but you may wish to have your unblock request considered by the community. If you like, I can copy this over to WP:AN. Again, I see nothing prohibiting an individual admin from acting here, but if you'd like the community to weigh in, WP:AN may be a better option. I want to strongly emphasize, this is purely optional. Take your time to think it over. Very reasonable people choose to avoid WP:AN when possible. :) --Yamla (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree, given the previous discussion at AN was consensus against a site ban and that was over 8 months ago and that the block was a "normal admin action" rather than a consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I believe you are agreeing to leaving your unblock request here rather than optionally carrying it over to WP:AN. Did I understand correctly? I'm just making sure you have the option, not at all indicating you should take it. Either way, good luck with your unblock request! --Yamla (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Yamla: yes that's correct. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I hope I'm not out of line in saying this, but I think that admins reviewing this request should also take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DragonofBatley (possible bad-hand socking with remarkably similar editing interests). Perhaps coincidence, but it looks to me like the UTRS was filed very soon after that SPI was closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Tryptofish: I have nothing to do with User:TarzanBoy24/User:DragonofBatley/User:The Lonely Lamb although I have interacted with them under the TarzanBoy24 name by adding a deletion notification and many times under the DragonofBatley name. I obviously haven't interacted with them under the Lonely Lamb name as that account was created after I was blocked. Although The Lonely Lamb and DragonofBatley have differences, The Lonely Lamb created parish articles many of which shouldn't have been created as they had the same name as a settlement while The Lonely Lamb didn't create any districts they do have an interest in railways and the same area of Stafforshire. I can't confirm they are the same person but before they were reported/blocked I suspected that might be the case. With regard to TarzanBoy24 their edits were like DragonofBatley in Staffordshire and railways but maybe not like The Lonely Lamb in the Telford and Middlesbrough area, see User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 26#User:RailwayJG where it was suspected DragonofBatley was a sock of TarzanBoy24. I also can't confirm that DragonofBatley and TarzanBoy24 are the same person but I suspect they are. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

See Special:Diff/1269289263 where I noted this. Something else both TarzanBoy24 and DragonofBatley did but not The Lonely Lamb is frequently blank their talk page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm happy to report Crouch, Swale is Red X Unrelated to that sockfarm. I did find another couple of socks belonging to DragonofBatley which I'll go and document in the SPI. These new socks are also Red X Unrelated to Crouch, Swale, of course. --Yamla (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Yamla: as I said back in January I wasn't aware of any other accounts used after the DragonofBatley/RailwayJG was created in 2020 but indeed User:GuestyKnowsBetter24 has edited after then but obviously I don't keep track of everything. I'm not saying I don't want them back but I think like me they should probably have some time away from the project. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• ToBeFree, do you have any thoughts on an unblock here? Girth Summit _(blether) 03:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  It's been 8 months? Time flies. All good with me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Wikipedia:Standard offer. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  (talk page watcher) I think we could unblock. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Done. --Yamla (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Crouch, Swale, my apologies to you about the sock issue, but I just felt that it needed to be checked, and I'm happy to have been proven wrong. Yamla et al., thanks for your diligence in sorting this out. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• I honestly thought I was seeing things when I saw your signature in a discussion. Well ... WELCOME BACK!!! 😊 Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Hey Crouch, Swale good to see you're back! Rupples (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hallo and welcome back. Thanks for adding the infobox to Sysonby, Leicestershire, but you appended the "alt" description of the image to its caption when moving it into the infobox. I've split it out again. Pam D 23:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ditto and all that, editor Crouch, Swale! Thank you for your decision to return to editing WP, and just keep those warm fuzzies coming! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I didn't think you would be back within a year. For reference, I've taken a break from Wikipedia for the first half of 2025. JuniperChill (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@PamD: thankyou, I wasn't aware it was possible to keep the "alt" in the infobox. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Is that what you’ve come back for? KJP1 (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@KJP1: Are you refering to Skirbeck Quarter? This article was indeed created by a blocked sock but I improved it afterwords (unlike most of the articles created by them this was a parish rather than a nn ward or suburb) and then months later you redirected it to List of electoral wards in Lincolnshire#Boston where is isn't even mentioned as it's not a ward. I assumed this was just a mistake as you had assumed it was a nn ward rather than a former parish? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@KJP1: I would like to thank you for all the hard work on User:Cremastra/DragonofBatley cleanup and most of the redirections I am fine with but it looks like this one was an error. I also helped clean up after the "X (parish)" article created by The Lonely Lamb were deleted per User talk:Rupples#Entries 50 and 60. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

did you not know about the nomis templates?

• {{NOMIS2001|id=00MG004|accessdate=6 October 2025}} =>
  • UK Census (2001). "Local Area Report – (00MG004)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics . Retrieved 6 October 2025.

Same or better than handcrafting for half the work. See also NOMIS2011, NOMIS2021 JMF (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@JMF: Thanks, I was aware of the one for the 2011 census but had assumed that there wasn't one for 2001 but I can now see that there is also one for 2021 as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are more forgiving than I am, then. I'd have assumed the existence of a NOMIS2001 and sworn loudly if it didn't work. Now why isn't there a {{NOMIS1891 }}???!!!

"Progress is made by lazy people looking for easier ways to get things done" — Einstein, allegedly. JMF (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Template:IrelandRMArchive has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you happen to have handy a citation for Old Stratford#History re reversal of the respective fortunes? JMF (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@JMF: Added. In 1948 the parish of "Passenham" was renamed "Deanshanger" and in 1951 Old Stratford was formed from part of "Deanshanger" parish (which included Old Stratford village) meaning that the village of "Passenham" ended up in Old Stratford parish hence being reversed in less than 4 years. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

tyvm. I should vhave thought of VoB.

But now I'm totally confused by https://visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10279586 which says that Deanshanger CP was abolished in 1951 but enlarged in 1956. How was that possible? (I'll look at VoB again tomorrow, it may be in the Old Stratford entry because it certainly doesn't include Deanshanger or Cosgrove now.) JMF (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I really should have waited until morning! Anyway, https://visionofbritain.org.uk/census/table/EW1971COU1_M3?u_id=10211232&show=DB&min_c=1&max_c=6 shows that by 1961, Deanshanger CP was alive and separate. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice (or was it the cat?) JMF (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@JMF: I think VOB isn't always clear on this, see User talk:Stortford#Havant for another example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. I have updated Deanshanger and Old Stratford if you would like to review.

<rant on> At least VoB has some excuse because they are trying to decipher what happened years ago, when entity uniqueness in a database was an unknown concept. The ONS has no such excuse, when it used the name "Milton Keynes" for maybe 3⁄4 of the designated area, 2⁄3 of the urban area. <rant off> JMF (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I saw your change, but I'm not sure. My understanding is that, in this case, since creation of the civil parishes, the UuS CP is the town council. I suspect MapIt is scarfing its data from an unreliable (or old, pre-1960-ish) source. One tell of its inconsistency is that it refers to the Ordnance Survey, whose map disagrees with the OpenStreetMap's designation.

Still, is there an authoritative list, at the national or county level, of civil parishes? From this archive, near the bottom, we see a definition of the CP that references an apparently reliable book. Interestingly, List of civil parishes in Worcestershire does hyphenate the parish name but not the town name, but its sourcing is unclear. I think the hand-generated reference numbers are stale. David Brooks (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC) ETA: Oh, I just saw this 2003 listing from the ONS (last link on the page). It looks like hyphens were standard then. David Brooks (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@DavidBrooks: Indeed the parish's council doesn't use the hyphens, it's quite normal for settlement, parish and parish council to have differences in hyphens etc and note that A Vision of Britain nearly always omits hyphens. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Fancy fixing the Radley and Upton CP red link (via Edge Hill, Warwickshire)? JMF (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@JMF: I will write that article at some point. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Evening Crouch, Swale

I see you've created a page for Little Stambridge. I agree it's notable enough to have a page and thank you for creating it. If I can make a few (hopefully constructive) suggestions for you to consider when creating such articles though.

The lead, and particularly the first sentence, should start in the present - if the place name is in use today, what is the place now? In the case of Little Stambridge, I'd say it's now best described as a hamlet in the parish of Stambridge. I'd leave what it was in the past for further down the lead, not the opening sentence, or in a history section of the main body. In other cases where the old parish name isn't used any more, then perhaps it would be better to say "X was formerly a parish in the county of Y. It was abolished in [year] and its area absorbed into Z" or something along those lines.

I understand that your particular interest is in the civil parishes, but for somewhere like Little Stambridge that was an ancient parish long before the civil / ecclesiastical split that crystalised in the 19th century, it seems odd to focus solely on the civil definition. Including the qualifier "civil" gives the impression that it wasn't any other kind of parish, which isn't true. For the early history, calling it a civil parish is an anachronism.

I see you've also done extensive work adding the last available population figure for former civil parishes. I'd recommend that these old population figures need context, and shouldn't be in the lead. I don't know if you saw the short discussion at Talk:Basildon#Is the 1931 population necessary notable enough for the introduction? Neither of the contributors there twigged that the reason you'd added it was because it was the last census before Basildon ceased to be a civil parish in 1937. I have started moving such old population figures to be alongside a discussion of the administrative history where the abolition of the parish is mentioned, so that the reason for quoting that year's population can be made clear, as I think you've noticed.

Hope those make sense and can be taken as helpful suggestions. Thanks. Stortford (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Stortford: As far as former parishes go where it is clear that there is still a settlement or at least a named place on current maps such as Fenrother (which I wrote years ago and more recently published to mainspace) where even though it's not an OS settlement (hence it's a category 3 parish at User:Crouch, Swale/Northumberland/Exists) I have still used "is a hamlet in the civil parish of Tritlington and West Chevington" rather than "is a hamlet and forme civil parish, now in the parish of Tritlington and West Chevington" which I know you mentioned a few years ago you didn't think was appropriate, I personally don't think this is particularly bad when your dealing with minor rural places as long as all of the former parish (at the time it was abolished) is now in the parish the settlement is in but it sometimes happens that at the time the parish was abolished some land goes to another parish or some land in the former parish later ends up in a different parish so this could cause problems however I've followed what you have asked and not used "former parish" in the lead. I don't know why I added the 1931 population for Basildon to the lead?! looking back I added in back in 2021 and moved it out of the lead in November 2025. I think it's silly to add and old population figure for a parish for a town that has got much bigger. I have been following what you appear to have preferred recently namely to say "At the 1931 census (the last before the abolition of the parish), Little Stambridge had a population of 194". I am currrently going through my former parishes lists and I have been moving older population figures and "former civil parish" out of leads for some articles. Turning back to the article Little Stambridge although some sources do indeed describe it as a hamlet the name "Little Stambridge" doesn't appear on modern OS maps so I'm not sure it would be accurate to describe it as such but I don't object to doing so as sources do describe it as a hamlet and it does seem like the group of buildings around Little Stambridge Hall (of which 3 in addition to Little Stambridge Hall are listed). As far as some former civil parishes go like Tonge with Haulgh (a category 4 parish so unlike Little Stambridge probably doesn't have presumed notability but the article seems fine) where there was never a settlement it might be worth considering using {{infobox historic subdivision }} rather than {{Infobox UK place }} but Little Stambridge was a village and there is still a clear enough centre point. As far as EPs v CPs go I'm not sure this is that much different for former parishes than current parishes as most current CPs that are named after settlements such as Canewdon are also ecclesiastical parishes and yet we don't even mention this so I'm not sure why this would be significantly different for former CPs at least for those where the EP was also abolished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

And another thing I'd note is that when it comes down to times when things get abolished or change etc, when it is the subject of the article like Little Stambridge being abolished and we're in the history (or governance etc) sections (as opposed to the lead) I do include a citation for the parish being abolished and note the date as well but when it comes down to other changes like a parish being moved from a district (or county) to a different one or a former parish later ending up in a different district, parish or county I generally just put the year and I also don't add a source for a move of a former parish because it would be expected that the change in 1974 from Rochford Rural District to Rochford non-metropolitan district would be sourced at Rochford Rural District and Rochford District but not at Little Stambridge or even Stambridge. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. I've now had a go at expanding Little Stambridge. See what you think.

On your point about parishes which are split between multiple neighbours on their abolition, I would say that once an administrative area is abolished, its former boundaries cease to have any particular relevance. We should note what happened to the parish on its abolition, but I don't think it's necessary to then track each bit of the former parish since then in order to tell its story - you end up tying yourself in confusing knots and can give the impression that (for example) some modern housing estates built long after the abolition of the old parish are still somehow claimed by the former parish the land was once in. Stortford (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Stortford: Thanks but I'm a bit unsure about you removing the 1974 changes to non-metropolitan Rochford and Essex. Even though these aren't directly related to Little Stambridge, given it was a parish this might still be relevant. However we would not normally mention former districts in the lead except maybe for newly abolished ones, clearly for example which Isle of Wight district Ryde was in (Medina) would be an interest to very few so should clearly not be in the lead. With regards to former parishes I agree that most former parish boundaries cease to have much relevance after the parish is abolished, former parishes that were single parishes in urban districts that became unparished areas such as Winchester or became single unparished area districts such as Alverstoke and Gosport unparished area might be different but given as discussed that (1) unparished areas don't appear to be legally recorgized and even if they are they don't themselves function as administrative divisions and (2) as also previously discussed unparished areas are normally defined by the former urban districts rather than by former urban parishes. As far as mentioning about what parish a former parish later ended up in, I think this is relevant to a former parish artice and if known should be added. Consider a former district like Mildenhall Rural District where as well as mentioning about being abolished to form Forest Heath it also notes that in 2019 the area ended up being West Suffolk. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

OK - I've put a mention of the 1974 changes back in. Stortford (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]