User talk:Crouch, Swale

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Crouch, Swale!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Unparished areas

I've created a full list of the unparished areas (with some commentary) here. The talk page may be best place for discussion on specifics - Gloucester is off-topic for Newcastle :)

I intend to use this to re-write the WP article on w:Unparished areas, which is focused exclusively on the historic instead of the current situation first (with a secondary interest in history).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I also (as you probably know) posted a comment on the Gloucester talk page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed. I think the following are in same vein - Category:City of Birmingham, Category:Borough of Blackpool, Category:Borough of Bournemouth, Category:Borough of Cheltenham, Category:Borough of Northampton, Category:City of Oxford, Category:Borough of Slough.

By the way, I've uploaded a map of the Westminster unparished area (to right). I imagine that map, and similar, will be helpful? I will be producing full set of these.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, I will have a closer look. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Villages

Note that Bigbury-on-Sea, Hallsands, Beesands etc are all typically referred to as villages. The fact they are not the namesake of a parish is neither here nor there. (eg http://www.southdevonaonb.org.uk/explore/start-bay/torcross-village). For what its worth, if towns and villages are only ever parish namesakes, then the two trees become redundant to each other.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find evidence that Bigbury-on-Sea is a village, it appears not to have had a church for ages. The others are indeed villages but I removed the towns and villages cat because the parish is also in the towns and villages cat (see COM:OVERCAT) (e.g. Chillington is in Stokenham parish which is also in Category:Towns and villages in Devon). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The definition of a village versus a hamlet is quite difficult, and is necessarily subjective. But, a church does not make a village nor does a village need a church. Bigbury-on-Sea is a village in most common usage. I recall reading that the settlement pattern in the rural areas of Devon (and Cornwall) is somewhat atypical - instead of one nucleated settlement within a parish (the village, there were often several smaller non-nucleated settlements; so instead of a large village with a bunch of hamlets in its hinterland, its not uncommon to get a bunch of small villages.

With regards to OVERCAT , I'd forgotten about that - because its not helpful to follow it in these situations. The parishes and core villages are separate concepts, so by rights should have distinct categories, removing the OVERCAT issue. However, splitting the concepts is a very low priority (as you know there are many, many, files with no localisation).

IMO it is more useful in these cases to ignore OVERCAT. By ignoring OVERCAT, users can find Beesands from the Town/Village cat without knowing its in Stokenham CP. And the negative problems OVERCAT describes would not occur in this instance. Furthermore this matches the ideal end state - where Beesands would be in the Town/Village cat, alongside Stokenham etc. In that end-state, the Stokenham parish cat would not be there, and the town/village cat would not contain thousands of images of fields as it does at present.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The definition of an English hamlet appears to officially be a settlement without a church, which is also not a parish. Yes there is sometimes ambiguity in the definition but as far as I can see, we are supposed to use official definitions, rather than what people simply would classify as a hamlet in everyday usage. If we started using what people merely think then you open the door to complication and disputes as well as being potentially inaccurate.

In regards to OVERCAT, I agree with the point, what you are saying is that both Stokenham and Beesands as villages but because Stokenham is also a civil parish which includes Beesands, it makes it more difficult to find than if it was included in the towns and villages cat. While in the case of Halwell and Moreleigh, it is a parish containing those 2 villages which is uncomplicated to cat. A potential solution I think you are suggesting is to have a Category:Stokenham (parish) cat which contains all the settlements in Stokenham parish including the vilages its self. I personally wouldn't object to splitting the cat, but it might be considered overcategorization, what do you think? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an official definition a word in the English language, and the OED (and certainly not the OALD) does not define the English language in the way the Académie française controls the French language. Certain things are controlled by government - such as city status - but the majority of words are not defined so precisely. Yes that leads to potential for disputes and those are resolved by discussion like what we are having here :)

My viewpoint is the dictionary definition is not the be all and end all. I'm saying Bigbury-on-Sea is a village because its described as such by a wide variety of sources [1] [2] [3] etc. Bigbury-on-Sea is the largest settlement in the parish by some distance. Indeed in contrast, Bigbury itself is much more like a typical hamlet.

Splitting the category is the correct solution to this dilemma. And is not overcategorization in any way shape or form. What it is is a very low value activity, when it would be much more productive to focus on other tasks - like populating all the CP cats that don't even exist yet :)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The most official definition of hamlet does appear to be a place without a church. Yes there may be other variations but it appears that that is the best definition that we can use. Yes reliable sources might well state that some places are villages that don't have a church but in terms of reliable sources they are probably not a good source for the definition of what the places it but will be for other things, see w:Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Define reliable sources.

I don't really understand what your response is to splitting the category, what I think that you are saying is that although it would solve this problem, it would be much better to focus on ensuring everything is populated in a parish category first. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an official definition of a hamlet! Yes, what you are saying may be easiest to apply, but that's not the same as official. And furthermore IMO its incorrect in these cases.

Incidentally, the Oxford English Dictionary definition is "A group of houses or small village in the country, especially a village without a church". That does not say a lack of a church is a necessary and sufficient condition for a settlement being a hamlet. This also reinforces that this is hardly a big deal - a hamlet is simply a small village - and hamlets in X should be a subcat of towns/villages in X. The OED definition is subjective - as it should be, because the OED follows how a word is used but does not dictate how it should be.

And yes I'm basically saying it ideally should be split, but a huge amount of labour would be required to implement a split - and that labour is better spent elsewhere.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As you say even if there are other definitions, wouldn't (as you said) still be easiest to follow the standared definition for hamlet to avoid complication etc., in w:Necessity and sufficiency#Necessity it would be 1 doesn't have a church, 2 isn't (currently) a separate parish (that is to say it is within another parish or is in an unparished area), 3 is a separate settlement (that is to say not a suburb). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Its easiest to follow it as a starting point, but it should not be treated as an inflexible rule - allowing be exceptions to be considered on a case-by-case basis is better in the long run. That contrasts to the approach needed for cities - Welwyn Garden City is not a city, as it is not on the list of cities (and not because it doesn't have a cathedral).

My point about necessity and sufficiency is its not a sufficient condition for a location to have no church to define it as a hamlet (a single house in the countryside has no church, that doesn't make it a hamlet). Nor is it a necessary condition for a location to have no church to define it as a hamlet (a tiny settlement is not a village simply because it does have a church, but may be a hamlet). For example, Black Rock in Crowan CP (grid ref SW660349) has a methodist chapel - calling it a village is absurd, calling it a hamlet is at least possible.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, we'll go with that unless we have a disagreement. I am not in favor of strict rules when it comes to contributing etc. but I am strongly in favor of making sure everything is factually correct. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The real problems with factual accuracy are at the small end actually. Calling something a village instead of a hamlet (or vice versa) isn't a big deal (a hamlet is a small village). However, calling something a hamlet when it is not a settlement at all is a more serious error and should be avoided.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That can then be discussed when we get to a situation where we disagree (en:WP:BRD). Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor locations

Please be careful with respect to minor locations. Your Wikipedia block does not apply on Commons, but if you repeat the same pattern of behaviour, you will end up getting blocked for the same reasons. In contrast, if you show an changed behaviour here, that could lead to an unblock on Wikipedia.

I am potentially concerned, as some of recent creations on Commons (eg Category:Groton Wood, Category:Edwardstone Woods) are the exact same topics you were involved with at the time of your Wikipedia block.

Remember that the bar for inclusion is lower on Commons, but all the label "Foo" on a map says is "Foo is a thing at/near this point". It does not give any indication what sort of thing Foo is.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat the behavior that got me blocked on Wikipedia but it wasn't about the topics Groton Wood and Edwardstone Woods, as far as I can see, they meet our inclusion guidelines, Edwardstone Woods contains 5 woods which could easily be populated and Groton Wood could have many pictures as it has several footpaths and thus could easily get many more images. If you still don't think they meet our guidelines, we can discuss this. File:Lane towards Groton Wood and Kersey Tye - geograph.org.uk - 1474171.jpg shows Groton Wood in front and thus is suitable for the category.

I would really like to get back on Wikipedia, one of the things that I in particular want to do is make sure that every civil parish has a separate article, originally I was only doing the ones that were on w:List of United Kingdom locations and weren't part of another settlement but now I intend to do them all. I think that it is extremely unfair that I have been given no chance to get back on Wikipedia, as the banning policy#Conduct towards banned editors states "Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban" but Wikipedia is the last place in the world that I would leave with my pride and dignity intact, I have demonstrated in every way that I clearly have a very strong interest in Wikipedia. As you can see I joined Wikipedia in November 2009 but I had wanted to contribute for at least a year before that, I remember in Autumn 2008 (aged 14) that I was with someone from my school and we were watching rugby and the person had looked up what the population of St. Davids was, then I asked them to look up what the population of Round Maple was (presumably they were using Wikipedia) but I knew that this was a bit of a pointless request as it was all too well known to me that Round Maple didn't have a Wikipedia page. Finally in November 2009 in my I.T. lesion I had some spare time so my teacher helped me to create it, when I came back to it and found it formatted, I think that that was one of the best moments in my life. I have indeed struggled with Wikipedia, even though as noted I started over a year after I had wanted to and I find it very frustrating that now I know most of the things that I struggled with but I can't contribute. In my life previously I generally haven't struggled, I was allowed to do things at about the age of 8 that someone who I was speaking to wouldn't let their child do until they were 16. In many other situations my complete lack of pride and dignity has caused many problems, there have been situations where you I have not liked the organization but everyone else has and people have treated me like someone who generally wanted to be there, when I only went because I thought it was my social duty to do so and I got on well with the other people there. An organization that I had made it very clear that I didn't like asked me to write something about myself for their website and I refused to allow them to publish my name, they thought I was being unreasonable, my feeling, I participate in something that I don't want to and I get that in return. As I clearly am interested in Wikipedia, can I please have some help getting back. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

On the specific points - I agree the two woodlands in question easily meet Commons criteria. My message was intended as a friendly reminder, as if you are editing about the same topics again, you risk falling into same traps.

As for Wikipedia, I will review the circumstances surrounding your ban when I have the chance. I strongly suggest for now, that you continue to demonstrate "good behaviour" on Commons. For instance, productively engaging in discussion about issues (like we have done) and following core Wikipedia policy such as w:WP:RS when appropriate (such as in Category descriptions). I cannot say what else you will need to do at this time. I am extremely busy at present, so will not have time to investigate more thoroughly at this time.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou I will continue to do so. I will be careful in what I create and try to make sure that it meets our inclusion guidelines here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Whitton edition

The redirection you have made is wrong. It is a vandalism. I have corrected it, but you had cancelled it. Can you explain it, please? Wieralee (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I redirected it to the dab page as there are 3 cats called Whitton in Suffolk (which I have now added to the dab page, apologies) they are the parish in Mid Suffolk, the area of Ipswich and the ward in Waveney. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think you should make another disambiguation page there:

{{disambig}} Category:Whitton in Sulfolk may refer to the following places: Category:Whitton, Mid Suffolk [[:Category:Whitton, ???]] [[:Category:Whitton, ???]] See also: Category:Whitton

Wieralee (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There is probably no need to have separate dab pages, the main dab is probably sufficient, I will clarify the counties on the main dab. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Districts of West Sussex

Not a typo, more a minimal sortcode to speed processing, however slightly; but you've kinda subverted that by "correcting" it. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I was just by chance using Category:Districts of West Sussex as a template to copy-paste from and I thought it was my typo! Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Districts of England by name

The whole point of this category is it is a flat list containing every English district, in an alphabetical order. Removing districts because they are in a district in county cat defeats the object of a by name category.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought the idea of that cat was for districts that can't be placed in any county level cats like Northumberland (because the district covers the same area as the county). Ones that can be put in county level shouldn't just be in that cat? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No its a parallel tree. They should be placed in the by-name category and the by-county tree. Look at how other by-name categories are handled, such as Category:Pubs in the United Kingdom by name. The English ones should all be in a sub-cat Category:Pubs in England by county.

The by-name category is not helpful unless it contains 100% of the districts.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I will cat-a lot the other ones that I removed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

Can I ask why you reverted my edits? Huyton With Roby does not exist, so it does not merit being on the page. Whilst "Aintree Village" does not exist as a district, it is Aintree. Have no Idea why you just reverted the changes / corrections I made but please don't do it again.Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Aintree Village" is a civil parish containing the village "Aintree", Huyton with Roby is a former parish containing those places, if you don't think that Huyton with Roby should exist, you should ask Skinsmoke. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What the f. Nonsense. Aintree is a place and the village is within it. Hutyon with Roby is a former Urban District. This is completely irrelevent about "parishes". They all are within a borough either Sefton or Knowsley and therefore their previous existance or "parish" status does not have any bearing.Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, please don't defer to another user if you are making the change. In addition, it is not my opinion "if you don't think that Huyton with Roby should exist", it does NOT exist, FACTBabydoll9799 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I know "Aintree Village" is confusing but that's the name of the parish, see Category:Easington Village for example, possibly it could be merged though. If you don't think "Huyton with Roby" should exist then you should ask Skinsmoke (talk · contribs) who created it, Skinsmoke will tell you why it was created and what place it has. In my opinion it should maybe be kept, yes it doesn't exist now but it did exist in the past. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The past is something that needs to be boxes off but you cannot change pages just on a whim. Huyton With Roby is historical like a number of other historical urban districts in the region. Aintree Village does not exist as it is still Aintree.Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is generally nothing wrong with having cats for historical topics (like for example Category:Historic counties of England) but as I said you should ask Skinsmoke who will explain why it should exist. Aintree Village does exist see here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually that is just Aintree, not Aintree Village. Just because a page says "Aintree Village" does not mean it exists as a separate entity. Please stop trying to justify something that is not so. The place is Aintree. Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The civil parish is called Aintree Village, which includes the village called Aintree, see also Google Maps. I agree that it could possibly be merged though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The civil parish may officially be called "Aintree Village", but it is synonymous with the village "Aintree" - and common name please. Category:Aintree should be categorised as a CP, and Category:Aintree Village should redirect there. The same will go for other "X Village" and "X Town" civil parishes with a geography - the two topics should only be split if the parish is significantly different from the settlement.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

districts of (county)

Can I ask what this is about? You are making many changes not just in Merseyside. This is for something that you are changed to districts of when they are not actually districts they are metropolitan boroughs of the county, I don't see why you are making this change. Would appreciate if you'd stop reverting what I am correcting. Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Metropolitan boroughs are a subcategory of districts, which is why they are also in Category:Metropolitan boroughs of England as well as their county cat. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer me. You are changing on many places to "districts of". They are not districts they are boroughs that make up the county. The districts themselves are featured within the borough so why confuse the matter? This was previously noted as "Merseyside" which you are changing to "Districts of Merseyside". Why change? It is incorrect and misleading. Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)